TOTAL PRODUCTIVE MAINTENANCE IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

IN MALAYSIA

JONATHAN WEE JIAN MENG

A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of

Master of Engineering (Industrial Engineering)

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

MAY 2011

iii

Specially dedicated to my beloved parents, siblings

and always cherished friends

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like thank God, on which my help and strength comes from.

Truly none of this researched would have been possible without His grace and mercy. I

had so many mentors over the course of this research for whom I am eternally grateful.

One of them is my supervisor, Professor Dr. Noordin Mohd Yusof who has provided

much guidance, knowledge and advice during the course of this project. My appreciation

also goes to Mr. Andy Wee from Global Foundries Singapore and Mr. Song Pui Tong,

TPM coordinator of Wafer Fab, National Semiconductor who had reviewed and provided

expert opinion on my survey questionnaire.

I would also like to thank my parents, Mr. Wee Seng Tee and Mdm. Lucy Lim for

being my pillar of support and encouragement in times of need and despair. I will always

be grateful to them for teaching me to be the person God made me to be.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my course mates and friends for their

advice and contributions along the course of my research.

v

ABSTRACT

Large number of framework of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

elements/strategies have been proposed by different authors in TPM literature. However,

most of them are based on studies done in countries such as Japan, Italy, USA, China and

India. Thus, this study aims to evaluate TPM elements/strategies emphasis and their

contribution towards manufacturing performance in electrical and electronic industry in

Malaysia. A survey methodology is used where questionnaires are sent to 240 companies

in electrical and electronic industry in Malaysia with the resulting response rate of 12.5 %

which is comparable with other studies. The TPM element most emphasized on in

Malaysian electrical and electronic industry is planned maintenance management while

the least emphasized element is on top management leadership. Using statistical tools, the

correlation between TPM elements emphasis and manufacturing performance dimension

has been calculated. The study reveals that the TPM elements – top management

leadership, planned maintenance management, focused improvement, autonomous

maintenance and education and training have significant contribution towards

manufacturing performance such as lower cost, higher quality, strong delivery and

increased productivity. The five TPM elements could be used as a guideline for

companies wanting to implement TPM as well as evidence to convince management of

the importance of TPM towards the organization. Besides that, there are also no

significant differences found of TPM element practices between electrical and electronic

industry while only some elements are significant when comparing small and medium

industry (SME) and large companies. In addition, the longer the TPM implementation

time period, the more improvements are seen in manufacturing performance.

vi

ABSTRAK

Terdapat banyak panduan tentang elemen atau strategi Total Productive

Maintenance (TPM) yang telah dicadangkan oleh penulis berlainan dalam bidang

literatur TPM. Namun begitu, kebanyakannya adalah hasil kajian yang dijalankan di

negara- negara seperti Jepun, Itali, USA, China dan India. Oleh sebab itu, kajian ini

bertujuan untuk mengkaji elemen atau strategi TPM dan sumbangan mereka terhadap

prestasi syarikat pembuatan Malaysia dalam bidang elektrik and elektronik. Soal selidik

digunakan sebagai methodologi kajian ini and ia dihantar kepada sejumlah 240 syarikat

dalam bidang elektrik and elektronik di Malaysia. Kadar sambutan adalah 12.5 % yang

setaraf dengan kadar sambutan kajian lain. Elemen TPM yang paling banyak diamalkan

oleh syarikat di Malaysia ialah planned maintenance management dan yang paling

kurang diberi tumpuan ialah top management leadership. Hubungan di antara elemen

TPM dengan pencapaian sesebuah organisasi dikaji dengan mengunakan kaedah statistik.

Kajian mendapati bahawa elemen TPM seperti top management leadership, planned

maintenance management, focused improvement, autonomous maintenance dan

education and training telah menyumbang secara kritikal terhadap pencapaian sesebuah

organisasi terutama dalam menurunkan kos, qualiti yang tinggi, penghantaran produk

yang cepat dan tepat, dan peningkatan produktiviti. Lima elemen TPM tersebut boleh

digunakan sebagai panduan kepada syarikat yang ingin mengamalkan TPM dan juga

sebagai bukti kepada pihak atasan tentang sumbangan TPM kepada syarikat tersebut.

Selain itu, tidak ada perbezaan dari segi elemen TPM yang diamalkan di antara industri

elektrik dan elektronik dan hanya sesetengah elemen yang berbeza apabila dibandingkan

antara industri kecil dan sederhana dengan industri yang besar. Tambahan pula, lebih

lama TPM diamalkan, lebih jelas peningkatan dalam pencapaian syarikat tersebut.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xi

LIST OF APPENDICES xii

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Problem Statement 2

1.3 Objective 4

1.4 Scope 4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Total Productive Maintenance History & Definition 5

2.2 TPM Basic Concepts 10

2.2.1 Pillars of TPM 11

2.2.2 Tools of TPM 15

viii

2.2.3 Overall Equipment Effectiveness 17

2.3 TPM Implementation Steps 21

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Procedure 26

3.2 TPM Model 29

3.2.1 Total Productive Maintenance Strategies

/ Elements 30

3.2.2 Manufacturing Performance Dimensions 37

3.3 Reliability and Validity of Questionnaire Survey 39

4 SURVEY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction 40

4.2 General Profile of the Respondent 41

4.2.1 Size of the Company 41

4.2.2 Type of Industry 42

4.2.3 Number of Years of TPM Implementation 43

4.3 Reliability Test 44

4.4 Validity Test 45

4.5 Level of Emphasis of TPM Elements/Strategies 46

4.6 Evaluating of TPM Element Emphasis and their

contribution towards Manufacturing Performance 48

4.6.1 Relationship between Factors 48

4.6.2 Discussion on Relationship between TPM

Element Emphasis and Manufacturing

Performance 49

4.7 Test of Significant between Differences of Mean 52

4.7.1 Differences of TPM Element Practices between

Electrical and Electronic Industry 52

ix

4.7.2 Differences of TPM Element Practices between

SMEs and Large Companies 53

4.8 Effect of TPM Implementation Time Period on

Manufacturing Performance Dimension 55

4.9 Summary 57

5 CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction 59

5.2 Conclusion 59

5.3 Limitations 61

5.4 Future Works 61

REFERENCES 62

APPENDICES 72 - 93

x

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 TPM development in Japan 6

2.2 Details on the 8 TPM pillars 12

2.3 Key activities for effective 5S implementation at the

workplace 13

2.4 Sixteen major losses impeding manufacturing performance 18

2.5 Twelve step TPM implementation methodology 20

4.1 Breakdown of respondent in terms of their size of industry 41

4.2 Breakdown of respondent based on types of industry 42

4.3 Internal consistency test results 44

4.4 Validity test with principal component analysis and KMO

Test 46

4.5 The mean of TPM elements/strategies 46

4.6 Pearson’s correlation between various TPM elements and

manufacturing performance dimension 48

4.7 t test results between electrical and electronic industry 53

4.8 Results of comparison of TPM element practices between

SMEs and large companies 54

4.9 Classification of responses based on TPM implementation

time period 55

4.10 Results of manufacturing performance dimension over

TPM implementation time period 56

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO TITLE PAGE

2.1 Eight pillars of TPM implementation 11

2.2 TPM Pillars (Yeomans and Millington Model) 13

2.3 TPM Pillars (Steinbacher and Steinbacher Model) 14

2.4 Calculation of OEE based on six major production losses 18

2.5 TPM rollout plan (Productivity, 1999) 23

3.1 Methodology used for this study 28

3.2 TPM Model 29

4.1 Number of years of TPM implementation 43

4.2 TPM relationship model 51

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Sample of letter and TPM questionnaire survey 72

B Sample of SPSS data 82

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

In today’s competitive and mature economic environment, many manufacturing

plants worldwide faces many challenges to achieve world-class manufacturing standards

in operations. In addition, market forces are demanding more emphasis on

customization, quick delivery and superb quality (Raouf and Ben-Daya, 1995). Thus, the

competitive power of a typical manufacturing company increasingly depends on the

speeds of obtaining market information and of creating advanced production engineering

to develop new attractive products and to establish an appropriate production process,

the production lead times and the speed of distribution. These pressures demand

excellent maintenance practices in such a way that machines and processes are available

whenever needed and able to produce the desired products with the required quality

level (Yamashita, 1994). Reliable equipment, operating at the lowest possible cost is

also an essential enabler of profits (Williamson, 2006). Modern manufacturing has to

possess both efficient and effective maintenance in to order to be successful. One

approach to improve the performance of maintenance activities is to implement a total

productive maintenance (TPM) system. In fact, the only proven work culture that

promotes and sustains reliable equipment at lower costs is through Total Productive

Maintenance (Williamson, 2006). TPM is also considered to be an effective strategic

improvement initiative for improving quality in maintenance engineering activities

(Ollila and Malmipuro, 1999).

2

The successful implementation of TPM in a manufacturing enterprise depends on

approach or strategies that management use during the implementation stage. A well

drawn TPM implementation plan not only improves equipment efficiency and

effectiveness but also brings appreciable improvement in other areas such as reduction

of manufacturing cycle time, size of inventory, customer complaints and creates

cohesive small group autonomous teams and increase the skill and confidence of the

individual (Shamsuddin et al., 2005).

Implementing TPM is a strategic decision that the management has to make

which can be assisted by utilizing a form of framework. A framework can act as a guide

and provides a structured approach to achieve certain objectives (Mishra et al., 2008).

1.2 Problem Statement

There are a large number of frameworks which has been proposed by authors and

consultants in the literature of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). However, most of

them are based on studies done in countries such as Japan, Italy, USA, China and India.

TPM methods and techniques were first successfully implemented in Japan and later

followed and adapted in other countries of the world. For example, Bamber et al. (1999)

has discussed about the factors affecting successful TPM implementation and describe

the same using a case study of a medium-scale manufacturing industry in the UK. In

India, the use of complimentary and proven strategies of TPM has contributed towards

achieving core competence of the organization in a competitive environment (Ahuja et

al., 2004). Tsang and Chan (2000) had studied the implementation of TPM in China

through a case study approach. Ireland and Dale (2001) also discussed about TPM

implementation in three industries – a rubber product industry, a packaging company

and a motorized vehicle manufacturer.

3

Despite following a structured approach in developing the framework, each

country has their own emphasis on TPM elements or strategies. In other words, the

environmental-country factor explains a significant portion of variation in TPM

implementation. For example, Kathleen et al. (1999) had found that the three countries

that were surveyed, Japan, USA and India have different emphasis on TPM

implementation. Italy placed less priority on autonomous maintenance and cross training

compared to the USA and Japan. On the other hand, Japan has similar emphasis on

housekeeping and training with USA but has a higher level of operator involvement and

discipline planning compare to the USA. These country differences could be because of

cultural differences that support or hinder TPM implementation and other measures that

differ from country to country.

Due to the lack of comprehensive studies on TPM strategies or elements in

Malaysia, this study aims to find a suitable operational strategy or TPM elements

emphasis for the Malaysian manufacturing industry specifically in the electrical and

electronic industry. Besides that, analysis will be done to see the effect of these TPM

initiatives towards the core competencies or benefits to the manufacturing organization.

There is limited information available regarding the contributions of TPM strategies in

Malaysia. The ones done such as Shamsuddin et al. (2004) and One et al. (2006) are

more of a case study implementation and shows only the extent of TPM implementation

in the respective industries. Besides that, difference of TPM strategies or elements

practices between electrical and electronic industry, as well as between small medium

industry (SME) and large companies will also be explored. The effect of TPM

implementation time period on manufacturing performance will also be covered as well.

4

1.3 Objective

The objective of this study is to evaluate the TPM elements or strategies

emphasis in manufacturing industry specifically electrical and electronic

industries in Malaysia and their contribution towards manufacturing performance.

1.4 Scope

1. Intensive literature review will be done on existing TPM strategies

frameworks and questionnaires built based on it.

2. Random sampling conducted on the electrical and electronic industries in

Malaysia.

3. Using statistical tools to find correlation of respective TPM elements/

strategies emphasis towards different aspects of company performance.

4. Test of significance will be performed to study differences of TPM elements

practices between electrical and electronic industry as well as between SMEs

and large companies.

5. Effect of TPM implementation time period on manufacturing performance

will also be covered.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Total Production Maintenance History and Definitions

The Japanese develop the concept of TPM based on Preventive Maintenance

concepts and methodology. This concept was first introduced by Nippon Denso Co. Ltd

of Japan, a supplier of Toyota Motor Company, Japan in 1971 (Nakajima, 1989).

Nakajima (1989) highlighted how the research group, the Japan Institute of Plant

Engineers (JIPE) (now known as Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance, JIPM) was form

after a mission to the USA to study plant maintenance. JIPE then started to work closely

with Nippon Denso on the issue of PM and the change of roles of the operators to allow

them to carry out routine maintenance led to the beginning of TPM.

Early TPM implementation in Japan was primarily within the automotive

industry, particularly within Toyota and their associated component suppliers (Robinson

and Ginder, 1995). However, not many Japanese companies initiated TPM in the

beginning and earlier TPM implementation was met with limited success (Tajiri and

Gotoh, 1992). This all changed in the 1970’s when Japan faced a worsening economic

climate and adoption of TPM began to accelerate as a means to improve manufacturing

productivity (Ireland and Dale, 2001). Structured and phased implementation processes

such as those developed by Nakajima (1989) provided standardized and repeatable

methodology for TPM. Table 2.1 shows an overview of TPM development in Japan

(Nakajima, 1989).

6

Table 2.1: TPM development in Japan

TPM represents a radical change in the way maintenance is being look at. It is a

methodology and philosophy of strategic equipment management focused on the goal of

building product quality by maximizing equipment effectiveness. Originally introduced

as a set of practices and methodologies focused on manufacturing equipment

performance improvement, TPM has matured into a comprehensive equipment-centric

effort to optimize manufacturing productivity (Ahuja and Pankaj, 2009). The goal of

TPM or also known as Total Productive Manufacturing is to continuously improve all

operational conditions of a production system by stimulating daily awareness of all

employees (Nakajima, 1989). It is not something that is only implemented and

contributed by top level management. Rather it involves from the very top of the

Era 1950's 1960's 1970's

Emerging

concepts

Preventive Maintenance –

Establishing scheduled

maintenance functions

Productive Maintenance

(PM) – Recognizing the

importance of equipment

reliability, maintenance

Total Productive

Maintenance (TPM) –

Achieving PM efficiency

through a comprehensive

Supporting

theories

- Preventive

Maintenance (PM)

1951

- Productive

Maintenance (PM)

1954

- Maintainability

Improvement (MI)

1957

- Maintenance

Prevention (MP) 1960

- Reliability Engineering

1962

- Maintainability

Engineering 1962

- Engineering

Economics

- Behavioral Science

- Management by

Innovation and

Creation (MIC)

- Performance Analysis

and Control (PAC)

- Systems Engineering

- Ecology

- Terotechnology

- Maintenance

Logistics

Significant

historical

events

1951 – Toa Nenryo

Kogyo 1st Japanese

company to adopt PM

1953 – 20 Japanese

companies form a PM

research group which

later became JIPM

1958 – American George

Smith visits Japan to

promote PM

1960 – Japan hosts the first

international

maintenance convention

1962 – Japan Productivity

Association sends an envoy to the U.S.

to study

equipment engineering

1963 – Japan attends the

International Convention

on Equipment Maintenance in London

1964 – the first PM prize is awarded to

Nippondenso in Japan

1969 – Japan Institute of

Plant Engineers (JIPE)

established, later to

become Japan Institute of

Plant Maintenance (JIPM)

1970 – the annual

International Convention

on Equipment

Maintenance held in

Japan

1973 – the United

Nations Industrial

Development

Organization sponsors a

Maintenance Repair

Symposium in Japan

7

organization till the shop level workers. An effective TPM implementation program

provides for a philosophy based upon the empowerment and encouragement of

personnel from all areas in the organization (Davis and Wilmott, 1999). TPM is a system

or culture that takes advantage of abilities and skills of all individuals in an organization

(Patterson et al., 1996).

Two different approaches towards the definition of TPM can be found from the

Japanese approach represented by Nakajima (1989), Tajiri and Gotoh (1992) and

Shirose (1996) while the Western approach is represented by Willmott (1994), Wireman

(1991) and Hartmann (1992) although there are significant commonality within the two

(Bamber et al., 1999). The differences in the Japanese and Western approach to defining

TPM are subtle, with commonality highlighted more than significant variation. The

Japanese approach emphasizes the role of teamwork, small group activities and the

participation of all employees in the TPM process to accomplish equipment

improvement objectives. The Western approach focuses on the equipment while

understanding that operator involvement and participation in the TPM effort is required.

While very similar, the Japanese approach seems to be more people and process focused

while the Western definition approaches first from equipment improvement objectives,

“which moves the emphasis away from both maintenance and teamwork and towards

equipment management and utilization with operator participation” (Bamber et al.,

1999).

Williamson (2006) observed that to tap into the powerful capabilities and

simplicity of TPM, it is important to understand what TPM is and what it is not. Total

Productive Maintenance is an organization-wide equipment improvement strategy, and

isn’t just a maintenance improvement program; a data-based equipment improvement

strategy focused on a specific business case for improvement and not just a program to

be implemented; a systematic focus on eliminating the major equipment-related losses

and not a program to clean and paint machines; a strategy that demands the involvement

of anyone who contributes to a problem (engineers, procurement, maintenance,

operations, process technicians, quality, storeroom, vendors/manufacturers, trainers,

8

hourly and management) and not merely involving operators in “autonomous

maintenance”. Next, TPM is a systematic use of proven “TPM tools” to eliminate

specific problem and not just tools to implement in the workplace in the hopes that they

will be put to good use. It is a culture change (evolution) led by top management with

very clear business expectations and not to be led by the maintenance or plant

engineering organizations. It is also the only proven work culture that promotes and

sustains reliable equipment at lower costs and not just one of many options for

improving equipment reliability and/or cutting costs

According to Shingo (2007), TPM has these 5 basic precepts. Firstly, to built a

profitable operation by making production more economical through the elimination of

accidents, quality defects in products and breakdowns of machines. Next, practice

prevention rather than cure through initiatives such as maintenance prevention,

preventive maintenance and corrective maintenance. TPM also has to involve everyone

in the organization and practices participatory management. It uses hands on or shop

floor approach by bringing the equipment into its ideal state, introduce extensive visual

control and create clean, uncluttered and well organized workplaces. Lastly, TPM aims

to create a virtuous circle of workplace expertise by developing a self sustaining,

continuously evolving culture of self directed workplace management.

TPM promotes the overlap of small groups, integrating organizational and small

group improvement activity as discussed by Nakajima (Winter et.al., 1984). Integrating

small group activities into the organizational structure is part of TPM implementation.

The small group goals should coincide with company goals and the maturity of small

activities can be evaluated. Top management must inspire the small group activities

(Nakajima, 1989). Kogyo (1991) presents TPM as a combination of American

maintenance practices with Japanese quality control concepts and small group activities

to revolutionize plant maintenance. It is an innovative system for equipment

maintenance that optimizes effectiveness, eliminates breakdowns and promotes

autonomous operator maintenance through day-to-day activities. The emergence of TPM

is intended to bring both production and maintenance functions together by a

9

combination of good working practices, team working and continuous improvement

(Cooke, 2000).

Besides that, TPM also complements other world-class manufacturing strategies

such as Total Quality Management (TQM), Just-in-Time Manufacturing (JIT), Total

Employee Involvement (TEI), Continuous Performance Improvement (CPI) and many

others. For example, in order to be strong enough in manufacturing one has to have good

brains which require Total Quality Management (TQM), but one also needs to have

strong muscles or, in order words, strong manufacturing capabilities which require Total

Productive Maintenance (TPM). Moreover, one has to have a good nervous system to

connect the brain with the muscles which means Just-in-Time production (JIT)

(Yamashita, 1994).

Companies practicing TPM invariably achieve startling results, particularly in

reducing equipment breakdowns, minimizing idling and minor stoppages, lessening

quality defects and claims, boasting productivity, trimming labor and cost, shrinking

inventory, cutting accidents and promoting employee involvement (Suzuki, 1994).

Japanese firms that won the JIPM PM prize between 1984 and 1986 also demonstrated

similar improvements such as equipment failures reduced from 1,000 per month to 20

per month, quality defects reduced from 1.0% to 0.1%, warranty claims reduced by

25%, maintenance costs reduced by 30%, WIP decreased by 50% and productivity

improved by 50% (Patterson and Fredendall, 1996). TPM plays an important role in

contemporary manufacturing by helping to increase machine uptime and product quality.

It entails TPM in the implementation of effective corrective, preventive, predictive, and

autonomous maintenance programs, setup time reduction, tool management, visual

management and housekeeping, and spare parts inventory control. TPM implementation

impacts material handling, storage alternatives, to move and store tools, PM materials,

testing equipment, spare parts and even impacts workstation layout, too (Tompkins et

al., 1996).

10

In addition, TPM implementation can also lead to realization of intangible

benefits in the form of improved image of the organization, leading to the possibility of

increased orders. After the introduction of autonomous maintenance activity, operators

take care of machines without being ordered to. With the achievement of zero

breakdown, accident and defects, operators get new confidence in their own abilities and

the organization also realize the importance of employee contributions towards the

realization of manufacturing performance (Dossenbach, 2006). Ames (2003) observed

that the intangible benefits of TPM implementation in semiconductor operations

included increased management involvement in day-to-day activities, higher level of

shop floor employee involvement (team activities) in improvement activity and greater

employee empowerment.

2.2 TPM Basic Concepts

TPM seeks to maximize equipment effectiveness throughout the lifetime of the

equipment. It strives to maintain the equipment in optimum condition in order to prevent

unexpected breakdown, speed losses and quality defects occurring from process

activities. Thus the three ultimate goals of TPM are zero defects, zero accident and zero

breakdowns (Nakajima, 1989; Willmott, 1994). Among the principles embraced by TPM

to achieve these goals are total employee involvement, autonomous maintenance by

operators, small group activities to improve equipment reliability, maintainability and

productivity and continuous improvement (kaizen) (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008). Maier et

al. (1998) on the other hand, considers preventive maintenance, teamwork shop floor

employee competencies, measurement and information availability work environment,

work documentation and extent of operator involvement in maintenance activities as

factors reflecting TPM implementation. Although according to Wireman (1991), there is

no single right method for the implementation of a TPM program and there has been a

complexity and divergence of TPM programs adopted throughout the industry as stated

by Bamber, et al., (1999), it is clear that a structured implementation process is an

11

identified success factor and a key element of TPM programs. These basic practices or

programs of TPM are often called “pillars” of TPM.

2.2.1 Pillars of TPM

The entire edifice of TPM is built and stands on eight pillars (Sangameshwran

and Jagannathan, 2002) which are focused improvement; autonomous maintenance;

planned maintenance; training and education; early-phase management; quality

maintenance; office TPM; and safety, health, and environment. TPM paves way for

excellent planning, organizing, monitoring and controlling practices through its unique

eight pillar methodology. These eight pillar implementation plan which is proposed by

JIPM results in an increased in labor productivity through controlled maintenance,

reduction in maintenance costs and reduced production stoppages and downtimes (Ahuja

and Khamba, 2007). The eight pillars of TPM are shown in Figure 2.1. Shingo (2007)

also described in detail the eight pillars of TPM on their respective goals and

responsibility which is depicted in Table 2.2.

Figure 2.1: Eight pillars of TPM implementation

Early Management

13

Most organizations have since closely followed the JIPM recommended eight

pillars of TPM and the various TPM consultants that adherently follow this are such as

TPM Club India, Imants BVBA Consulting and Services, Australian Die Casting

Association, Advanced Productive Solutions, Promaint Inc. and Shekhar Jitkar (Mishra

et al., 2008). For example, the Australian Die Casting Association (ADCA) has

developed a framework which is adopted by a company named Nissan Casting in

Australia. This framework has eight pillars which are similar to that of the JIPM

framework but the names of many of the major pillars of JIPM are changed to avoid

confusion caused by the literal Japanese translation (Luxford, 1998). Similarly, Imants

BVBA consulting and services also proposed eight pillars that involve the cooperation

of the equipment and process support personnel, equipment operator and equipment

supplier. They must work together to eliminate equipment breakdowns, reduced

scheduled downtime and maximize utilization, throughput and quality (Imants BVVA

Consulting and Services, 2004).

However, some TPM consultants and practitioners have simplified the Nakajima

model by eliminating some pillars. One of them is Yeomans and Millington (1997) who

has developed their model based on the theory of classic Japanese TPM approach, which

is built on five strategic pillars. Figure 2.2 shows their five pillar model that map to five

of Nakajima’s pillars (Yeomans and Millington, 1997).

Figure 2.2: TPM Pillars (Yeomans and Millington Model)

14

A similar simplified model is shown in Figure 2.3 (Steinbacher and Steinbacher,

1993). This framework model also comprises of five pillars. This is the model followed

by Western countries and the authors have emphasized on training and education as an

integral element of their pillars rather than a stand-alone pillar as in the Nakajima model

(Steinbacher and Steinbacher, 1993).

Figure 2.3: TPM Pillars (Steinbacher and Steinbacher Model)

Other models which have only few pillars that differ from the JIPM model and

pillars that cover only the basic definition of TPM like Strategic Work Systems, Society

for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals and Society of Manufacturing Engineers

(Mishra et al., 2008). For example, Strategic Work Systems, Inc. is a consultancy firm

which emphasizes that TPM is an equipment and process improvement strategy that

links many of the elements of a good maintenance programme to achieve higher levels

of equipment effectiveness. In addition to the five key elements or pillars of TPM it also

includes a sixth element – teamwork, focused on common goals including equipment

reliability (Williamson, 2000).

However, there are also a few models that are totally different from JIPM such as

Aramis Management System, Volvo Cars Gent, the Centre for TPM Australasia and

Phillips 66. One example is the implementation of TPM at Volvo Cars Gent (VCG)

which is based upon 13 committees or development pillars. Some of the unique pillars in

15

this framework are: customer-ordered production, early product management, logistics,

supplier support and integration in society (Volvo Cars Gent, 1998).

2.2.2 Tools of TPM

A variety of tools are often used to help the deployment of activities through

TPM programs based on these pillars. Among the tools used by TPM to analyze and

solve equipment and process related problems are Pareto Analysis, Statistical Process

Control (SPC – control charts, etc), problem solving techniques like brainstorming,

cause and effect diagrams and 5M Approach, visual control like OPLs, Poka-Yoke

Systems, Autonomous Maintenance, Continuous Improvement, 5S, Setup Time

Reduction, Waste Minimization, Bottleneck Analysis, Recognition and Reward Program

and Simulation (Jostes and Helms, 1994).

One of the tools mentioned is 5S which is based on a Japanese approach to

establishing and maintaining an organized and effective workplace. It is often used

during plant cleaning activities and is a systematic method to organize, order, clean, and

standardize a workplace and keep it that way (Productivity, 1999). The elements of 5S

include Seiri (Organization), Sieton (Orderliness), Seiso (Cleaning), Seiketsu

(Cleanliness) and. Shitsuke (Discipline) (Willmott 1994). Table 2.3 shows the key

activities to be deployed for effective 5S implementation at workplace.

Another important visual control tool that is used in autonomous maintenance is

One Point Lesson (OPL). An OPL is a 5 to 10 minute self-study lesson which is visual

in nature that is drawn up by team members and covers a single aspect of equipment or

machine structure, functioning, or method of inspection (JIPM, 1997). One-point lessons

are one of the most powerful tools for transferring skills. The teaching technique helps

people learn a specific skill or concept in a short period of time through the extensive

use of visual images. The skill being taught is typically presented, demonstrated,

16

discussed, reinforced, practiced, and documented in thirty minutes or less. Single-point

lessons are especially effective in transferring the technical skills required for a

production operator to assume minor maintenance responsibilities (Robinson and

Ginder, 1995).

Table 2.3: Key activities for effective 5S implementation at the workplace (Ahuja and

Khamba, 2008)

Team activities in TPM are usually conducted by teams known as small group

activity (SGA). A small group is any cross-functional work team charged with working

together to improve plant performance by solving problems and managing specific plant

areas, machines, or processes (Robinson and Ginder, 1995). TPM SGA’s do not operate

independently, but rather perform TPM activity consistent with the overall TPM plan.

Although these teams can perform autonomously, they do so under the existing

organization framework (Suzuki, 1994).

Japanese nomenclature English 5S English 5C Features

Seir Sort Clear Sort out un necessary items from the

workplace and discard them

Seiton Set in order Configure Arrange necessary items in good order so

that they can be easily picked up for use

Seiso Shine Clean and check Clean the workplace completely to make

it free from dust, dirt and clutter

Seiketsu Standardize Conformity Maintain high standard of house keeping

and workplace organization

Shitsuke Sustain Custom and practice Train and motivate people to follow good

housekeeping disciplines autonomously

17

2.2.3 Overall Equipment Effectiveness

Performance of a productive system is measured using a core quantitative metric

called OEE or Overall Equipment Effectiveness. OEE is often used as the core metric of

measuring TPM implementation program (Shirose, 1989). OEE methodology

incorporates metrics from all equipment manufacturing guidelines into a measuring

system that helps manufacturing and operations teams improve equipment performance

and therefore reduce equipment cost of ownership (Ravishankar et al., 1992).

Nakajima (1988) stated that OEE is an effective way of analyzing the efficiency

of a single machine or an integrated manufacturing system. It is a function of

availability, performance rate and quality rate which are actually measures of equipment

losses. Nakajima (1988) defines the losses into six major categories which are

breakdown losses, setup and adjustment losses, idling and minor stoppage losses, defect

and rework losses, speed losses and start-up losses. Based on the above losses, OEE is

calculated by obtaining the product of availability of equipment, performance efficiency

of the process and rate of quality products as shown below (Dal et al., 2000). The

calculation of OEE by considering the impact of the six major losses on the production

system is also indicated in Figure 2.4 (McKellen, 2005).

OEE = Availability (A) x Performance efficiency (P) x Quality Rate (Q)

where:

�������� ���� ��� �� ��� = ������� ��� − �������

������� ��� × 100

18

Loading time is the planned time available per day (or month) for production operations

and downtime is the total time during which the system is no operating because of

equipment failures, setup/adjustment requirement etc.

��� �����!� � �!���!� ��� = ���!�""�� ����� × !�! � ���

#������� ��� × 100

Processed amount refers to the number of items processed per day (or month) and

operating time is the difference between loading time and downtime.

$�� �� %�� �$� = ���!�""�� ����� × �� �! �����

���!�""�� ����� × 100

Defect amount represents the number of items rejected due to quality defects of one type

or another and requires rework or become scrapped.

Figure 2.4: Calculation of OEE based on six major production losses

19

However, the definition of effectiveness losses is not consistent among the

Japanese authors. Nakajima (1988) originally defined six ‘Big Equipment Losses’ which

was mentioned previously and was used to calculate OEE. Suzuki (1994) suggests

‘Eight Major Plant Losses’ (Shutdown, Production Adjustment, Equipment Failure,

Process Failure, Normal Production Loss, Abnormal Production Loss, Quality Defects,

and Reprocessing). Shirose (1989) on the other hand expanded the number of losses to

sixteen to include human effectiveness losses such as Management Losses, Motion

Losses, and Arrangement Losses, Loss due to Lack of Automated Systems, and

Monitoring and Adjustment Losses. Table 2.4 describes the various losses in context of

manufacturing organizations.

Using OEE metrics and establishing a disciplined reporting system help an

organization to focus on parameters critical to its success (Ahuja and Khamba, 2007).

However, OEE from the definition of TPM does not take into account all factors that

reduced capacity utilization such as planned downtime, lack of labor, lack or material

input, etc (Lungberg, 1998). Dal et al., (2000) also describe that OEE level of setting

differs from one industry to another. OEE is more suitable for high volume process-

based manufacturing where capacity utilization is of high priority and stoppages are

expensive in terms of lost capacity.

Anyhow, OEE offers a measurement tool to evaluate equipment corrective action

methods and ensure permanent productivity improvement. A comparison between

expected and current OEE measure can provide a platform on which manufacturing

organizations to continuously improve their manufacturing systems (Wang, 2006).

However, OEE requires a wider classification of losses for better understanding of

machine utilization. Tailor made OEE for different industries are also required due to

differences in levels of OEE measurement in each industry (Chan et al., 2005).

20

Table 2.4: Sixteen major losses impeding manufacturing performance (Ahuja and

Khamba, 2008)

Seven major losses that impede overall equipment efficiency

1 Breakdown/failure loss Losses due to failure. Types of failure include sporadic function-stopping

failures and function-reducing failures in which the function of the equipment

drops below normal levels

2 Set-up and adjustment loss Stoppage losses that accompany set-up changeovers. These losses are caused

by changes in operating condition. Equipment changeovers require a period of

shutdown so that the tools can be exchanged

3 Reduced speed loss Losses due to actual operating speed failing below the designed speed of the

equipment

4 Idling and minor stoppages loss Losses that occur when the equipment temporarily stops or idles due to sensor

actuation or jamming of the work. The equipment will operate normally

through simple measures (removal of work and resetting)

5 Defect and rework loss Volume/time losses due to defect and rework (disposal defects), financial

losses due to product downgrading and time losses required to repair defective

products to turn them into excellent products

6 Start-up loss When starting production, the losses that arise until the equipment start-up,

running-in and production-processing conditions stabilize

7 Tool changover loss Stoppage losses caused by changing the cutting blades due to breakage or

caused by changing the cutting blades when the service life of the grinding

stone, cutter or bite has been reached

Losses that impede equipment loading time

8 Planned shutdown loss Losses that arise from planned equipment stoppages at the production planning

level in order to perform periodic inspection and statutory inspection

Five major losses that impede worler efficiency

9 Distribution/logistic loss Losses ocurring due to inability to automate, e.g. automated loading/unloading

leading to manpower reduction not implemented

10 Line organization loss These are waiting time losses involving multi-process and multi-stand

operators and line-balance losses in conveyor work

11 Measurement and adjustment loss Work losses from frequent measurement and adjustment in order to prevent the

occurrence and outflow of quality defects

12 Management loss Waiting losses that are caused by management such as waiting for materials,

waiting for tools, waiting for instructions, waiting for repair of breakdowns, etc

13 Motion-related loss Losses due to violation of motion economy, losses that occur as a result of skill

differences and walking losses attributed to an inefficient layout

Three malor losses that impede efficient use of production resources

14 Yield loss Material losses due to differences in weight of the input materials and weight

of the quality products

15 Consumables (jig, tool, die) loss Financial losses (expenses incurred in production, regrinding, renitriding, etc.)

which occur with production or repairs of dies, jigs and tools due to aging

beyond service life or breakage

16 Energy loss Losses due to ineffective utilization of input energy (electricity, gas, fuel, oil,

etc.) in processing

21

2.3 TPM Implementation Steps

Following the process and fully completing all the requirements of a step or

process before going on to the next one is a key to a successful TPM effort (Ames,

2003). A driving consideration for this structured approach is the fact that successful

TPM implementation takes three to five years, (Nakajima, 1988; Ames, 2003) with an

average of three and a half years from introduction to achievement of TPM Prize

winning results (Wang and Lee, 2001). For the most part, participants talked about TPM

as a long-term process, not a quick fix for today’s problems (Horner, 1996).

However, care must taken when applying cook-book style TPM in organizations

which has its own problems due to variability factors such as highly variable skills

associated with the workforce under different situations, age differences of the

workgroups, varied complexities of the production systems and equipments, altogether

different organization cultures, objectives policies and environments and the differences

in prevailing status of maintenance competencies (Wireman, 2004).

There were many approaches in implementing TPM from various researches and

consultants but most organizations follow a strict JIPM-TPM implementation process by

following Nakajima’s TPM model. Nakajima first developed the classic twelve-step

TPM implementation process that has been the foundation for TPM implementation

since 1984 (Nakajima, 1989). These twelve steps support the basic development

activities, which constitute the minimal requirements for development of TPM (Ahuja

and Khamba, 2008). Table 2.5 shows the various step involve in TPM implementation

methodology.

Numerous TPM practitioners have suggested their own version of a TPM

implementation process. However, most are a variation or simplification of the

Nakajima model. For example, Productivity, Inc. proposes a TPM rollout plan that

22

incorporates and expands on the Nakajima TPM implementation process as shown in

Figure 2.5 (Productivity, 1999).

Table 2.5: Twelve step TPM implementation methodology

Phase of implementation TPM implementation steps Activities involved

Stage preparation Declaration by top management

decision to introduce TPM

Launch education and campaign to

introduce TPM

Declare in TPM in-house seminar

Carried in organization magazine

Managers: trained in seminar/camp at

each level

General employees: seminar meetings

using slides

Create organizations to promote

TPM

Committees and sub-commitees

Establish basic TPM policies and

goals

Benchmarks and targets evolved

Prediction of effects

Formulate master plan for TPM

development

Develop step-by-step TPM

implementation plan

Framework of srategies to be adopted

over time

Hold TPM kick-off Invite suppliers, related companies,

affiliated companies

TPM implementation Establishment of a system for

improving the efficiency of

production system

Pursuit of improvement of efficiency in

production department

Improve effectiveness of each

piece of equipment

Project team activities and small group

activities (SGA) at production centers

Develop an autonomous

maintenance (AM) program

Step system, diagnosis, qualification

certification

Develop a scheduled maintenance

program for the maintenance

department

Improve maintenance, periodic

maintenance, predictive maintenance

Conduct training to improve

operation and maintenance skills

Group education of leaders and training

members

Develop initial equipment

management program level

Development of easy to manufacture

products and easy to operate production

equipment

Establish quality maintenance

organization

Setting conditions without defectives and

its maintenance and control

Establish systems to improve

efficiency of admistration and

other indirect departments

Support for production, improving

efficiency of related sectors

Establish systems to control safety,

health and environment

Creation of systems for zero accidents

and zero pollution cases

Stabilization Perfect TPM implementation Sustaining maintenance improvement

efforts

Challenging higher targets

Applying for TPM awards

Preliminary

implementation

23

Figure 2.5: TPM rollout plan

Hartmann also provides another TPM implementation process that simplifies the

Nakajima implementation model (Hartmann, 1992).

Phase I – Improve equipment to its highest required level of performance and

availability (Focused Improvement):

24

• Determine existing equipment performance and availability – current OEE;

• Determine equipment condition;

• Determine current maintenance performed on equipment;

• Analyze equipment losses;

• Develop and rank equipment improvement needs and opportunities;

• Develop setup and changeover improvement needs and opportunities;

• Execute improvement opportunities as planned and scheduled activity;

• Check results and continue with improvement as required.

Phase II – Maintain equipment at its highest required level of performance and

availability (Autonomous Maintenance, Planned Maintenance and Quality

Maintenance):

• Develop planned maintenance, cleaning and lubrication requirements for each

machine;

• Develop planned maintenance, cleaning and lubrication procedures;

• Develop inspection procedures for each machine;

• Develop planned maintenance, lubrication, cleaning and inspection systems,

including all forms and controls;

• Develop planned maintenance manuals;

• Execute planned maintenance, cleaning and lubrication as planned and scheduled

activities;

• Check results and apply corrections to system as required.

Phase III – Establish procedures to purchase new equipment and develop new processes

with a defined level of high performance and low life cycle cost (Maintenance

Prevention, Quality Maintenance):

• Develop engineering specifications;

• Get feedback from production operations based on current equipment

experience;

25

• Get feedback from maintenance operations based on current equipment

experience;

• Eliminate past problems in new equipment and process technology design;

• Design in diagnostic capabilities with new equipment and processes;

• Start training on new equipment and processes early (prior to deployment);

• Accept and deploy new equipment and processes only it they meet or exceed

engineering specifications.

Besides that, Carannante et al. (1996) have proposed the development of the

eight step approach to the implementation of TPM involving system, measurement,

autonomous maintenance, housekeeping, continuous improvement, culture, training and

plant design. Bamber et al. (1999) have also suggested a six step TPM implementation

approach to help companies that require a renewed emphasis or vitality to an already

implemented but floundering TPM program, and emphasis upon creating a steering

organization; understanding the current situation; understanding the restraining forces

and the driving forces with production associates; developing and implementing plan

including milestone and measures of performance; implementation of the TPM plan;

review the implementation of the plan; and amend activities or milestones as necessary.

The TPM implementation process, at the highest level then, is simply

initialization, implementation, and institutionalization (Steinbacher and Steinbacher,

1993). Nevertheless, from the literature review, it has been observed, although there are

numerous models and methodologies that have been suggested by practitioners and

researches, organization worldwide are faced with stiff challenge of working out right

sequence of initiatives for effectively deploying TPM practices successfully, in the most

effective manner. Thus, it is important to study the right emphasis of TPM

implementation strategies or elements and its correlation with manufacturing

performance dimensions.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Procedure

Annually, the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM) gives out awards for

companies all around the world that have special achievement in TPM. Four out of the

five companies in Malaysia that have actually won an award for TPM from 1998 till

2009 are electrical and electronic manufacturers. Thus, this is one of the criteria that the

Electrical and Electronic Industries in Malaysia is set as the population to achieve the

objective of this study. This industry has also today attained world class capabilities and

is the largest contributor to the country manufacturing output, employment and exports

(MIDA, 2004). Besides that, electrical and electronic companies has always emphasize

on cleanliness in plant which is in line with TPM’s goals and 5S housekeeping

principles.

Previous literature done on electrical and electronic industries in Malaysia

encompasses more of case study of TPM implementation such as Shamsuddin et al.

(2005) who did a case presentation of TPM implementation in a large semiconductor

manufacturing company. Other, include Madi (2006) and Eng and Sha’ri (2003) did a

survey on quality improvement and Total Quality Management (TQM) of electrical and

electronic industries in Malaysia. However, there were none done to find suitable

operational strategy or TPM initiatives for the Malaysian manufacturing industry

specifically on the electrical and electronic industry which this paper will later

27

accomplish. Kathleen et al., (1999) found that the type of industry studied (Electronic,

Machinery and Automobile) did not provide a significant factor in terms of TPM

implementation or industry may not specifically represent factors that are important in

influencing the use of TPM. Mishra et al. (2008) states that TPM frameworks tend to be

generic in nature because the consultants who developed these frameworks will then be

providing maintenance consultancy to be applied uniformly across different types of

industries. Thus, this paper seeks to find out if this is true and that is there really no

difference of TPM strategies practices between electrical and electronic industry.

Besides that, the differences of TPM strategies practices between small medium industry

(SME) and large companies will also be explored as well.

An intensive literature review has been carried out and a questionnaire survey

was developed from this review. They are then validated through peer review from the

supervisor, academicians, consultants and practitioners from the industry. Before

sending out of questionnaires, it will be pre-tested on a representative sample from the

industry in order to ensure it is relevant to the objective of the study. For example,

earlier pilot survey runs were commented by experts to be too long which would

discourage respondents from answering the survey. Therefore, efforts were made to

reduce further the length of the survey. The TPM questionnaires (Appendix A) were

then sent to a sample of 240 companies randomly selected from the Directory of the

Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) which is a subset of over 1240 electrical

and electronic companies in Malaysia (MIDA, 2004). Better response from survey

participants could perhaps be expected from world class companies or Japanese-owned

plant (Chin et al., 2000). This could include companies in Malaysia that have previously

won TPM awards for excellence from the year 1998 till present. Figure 3.1 shows the

methodology used for this project.

28

Figure 3.1: Methodology used for this study

Identification of problem

& defining objective and

scope of study

Intensive literature review

Identifying important

elements of TPM &

forming of model

Questionnaires developed

& target population

identified

Questionnaires pre-testing

and validation

Finalization of

questionnaires and

sending out to participant

Data collection, analyses

of data and analyses of

results

Evaluating of TPM strategies/element emphasis in

Malaysia and their contribution towards manufacturing

performance

29

3.2 TPM Model

This section will identify the components of the elements or strategies of TPM

and manufacturing performance dimension. Each component will be studied in detail

together with the theory that supports it. The relationship between these TPM elements

and manufacturing performance will be analysed to develop an understanding of

contribution of TPM implementation element emphasis on manufacturing performance

dimension. Figure 3.2 shows the proposed model for evaluating the relationship between

TPM elements/strategies and manufacturing performance.

Figure 3.2: TPM Model

1. Top Management Leadership, B1

(Tsang & Chan, 2000; Patterson,

1996; Bamber et al., 1999)

2. Planned Maintenance

Management,B2.1 (Kathleen, et

al., 2001) & Focused

Improvement, B2.2

3. Autonomous Maintenance, B3.1

& Training Approach, B3.2

(Tsang & Chan, 2000;

Shamsuddin et al., 2005)

C1. Cost

C2. Quality

C3. Delivery

C4. Productivity

(Nakajima, 1989;

Skinner, 1969;

Schroeder, 1993)

TPM

Elements/Strategies

Manufacturing

performance

dimension

30

3.2.1 Total Productive Maintenance Elements/Strategies

According to Bamber et al. (1999), there is a complexity and divergence of TPM

programs adopted throughout history. In Japan, early TPM programs follows a strict

implementation process by Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM) which led to

many plants winning TPM awards (Nakajima, 1988). From then on, many literatures can

be found on TPM framework model such as Kathleen et al. (2001) who have

investigated the relationship between TPM and manufacturing performance through

structural equation modeling and Ireland and Dale (2001) who has elaborate implication

of TPM in various manufacturing organization. TPM Club India has also produced

frameworks of TPM elements which only differ in naming from Nakajima’s framework

(TPM Club India, 2003). Wiremen (1999), on the other hand, places importance on

maintenance prevention in his framework and also emphasis on training to improve the

skills of the people involved in TPM.

From this exhaustive literature review, five important TPM elements or strategies

have been derive in this present study. These five elements play a significant role in

contributing towards manufacturing performance of an organization and are listed as

follows:

1) Top management leadership (B1)

2) Planned maintenance management (B2.1) and focused improvement (B2.2)

3) Autonomous maintenance (B3.1) and training approach (B3.2)

The five TPM elements are core elements that are also found in Nakajima’s eight

pillars of TPM (Nakajima, 1989) but more closely resembles Yeomans and Millington

(1997)’s five strategic pillars; the only difference is the replacement of maintenance

prevention element (more focus towards design activities during planning and

constructing of new equipments and many companies lack the data to pursue this goal

(Wiremen, 1991)) with the top management leadership element.

31

Top management commitment and leadership (B1) are crucial to the success of

effective TPM implementation. Senior management must show its commitment to TPM

by devoting time and allocating resources to create and sustain the required cultural

change and also to educate its employees (Tsang and Chan, 2000). Tsang and Chan

(2000) also mentioned that the pursuit of sustainable TPM requires a change of

employees’ attitude and values, which takes time to accomplish. Thus, through planning

and preparation by management are required for successful implementation of TPM

(Lycke, 2000). Besides that, top management must also be supportive, understanding

and committed towards various kind of TPM activities in order to successfully

implement TPM (Patterson, 1996). Bamber et al. (1999) wrote that the major obstacle in

implementing TPM in UK was the lack of top management commitment to follow

through which resulted in many organizations to struggle when attempting to

implementing TPM.

Ames (2003) went even further and states that the major issue to successful TPM

implementation is manager participation, not just support or commitment, but being

fully involved in determining strategy, learning the process by doing, coaching others,

and assessing progress. According to him, the top-level managers set the high level TPM

policies and objectives, create the TPM Promotion Office, and sponsor the TPM

Steering Committee. They must also assign the resources to make TPM successful. That

success relies, in part, in assigning top performers to roles within the TPM Promotions

Office (Ames, 2003). Top management plays the crucial role in TPM implementation of

leading the paradigm shift. The type of change called for in TPM is especially difficult

because in many respects it pervades the fundamental nature of the company’s work

culture. It reaches through and affects the entire organization (Society of Manufacturing

Engineers, 1995). In short, leadership, leading the organization to a “vision” using a

defined business strategy and tactical directions through all levels to the plant floor,

makes TPM work (Williamson, 2006).

32

The ability of an organization to perform basic maintenance activities or planned

maintenance (B2.1) effectively in an organized and efficient way determines the success

of implementing TPM programs (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008). Planned maintenance

management aims to make the equipment reliable with zero failures and quality defects

and to do so efficiently, at a minimum cost (Shingo, 2007). It consists of maintenance

practices and approaches like preventive maintenance (PM), time-based maintenance

(TBM), condition-based maintenance (CBM) and corrective maintenance (CM).

Preventive maintenance is a kind of physical check up on the equipment to prevent

equipment breakdown and prolonged equipment service. PM comprises of maintenance

activities that are undertaken after a specified period of time of machine used (Herbaty,

1990). During this phase, the maintenance function is established and time based

maintenance (TBM) activities are generally accepted (Pai, 1997). The preventive work

undertaken may include equipment lubrication, cleaning, parts replacement, tightening,

and adjustment. The production equipment may also be inspected for signs of

deterioration during preventive maintenance work (Telang, 1998).

Condition-Based Maintenance is a form of preventive maintenance that is

scheduled by actual variation or degradation that is measured on the equipment.

Examples of monitored equipment parameters include vibration analysis, ultrasonic

inspection, wear particle analysis, infrared thermograph, video imaging, water quality

analysis, motor-condition analysis, jigs/fixtures/test gauges, and continuous condition

monitoring (Leflar, 2001). Corrective maintenance is introduced in 1957 on which the

concept to prevent equipment failures is further expanded to be applied to the

improvement of equipment so that the equipment failure can be eliminated (improving

the reliability) and the equipment can be easily maintained (improving equipment

maintainability) (Steinbacher and Steinbacher, 1993). The primary difference between

corrective and preventive maintenance is that a problem must exist before corrective

actions are taken. The purpose of corrective maintenance is improving equipment

reliability, maintainability, and safety; design weaknesses (material, shapes); existing

equipment undergoes structural reform; to reduce deterioration and failures, and to aim

at maintenance-free equipment (Higgins et al., 1995).

33

Planned maintenance (B2.1) typically requires discipline planning process for

maintenance task, good information tracking systems to capture data for problem

solving and schedule compliance as an indicator of the health of the planned

maintenance management system (Kathleen et al., 2001). The key to effective Planned

Maintenance is to have a PM plan for every tool. The PM plan is based on the history

and analysis of failure modes to determine preventive practices. The PM plan consists of

five elements which are as follows (Leflar, 1999):

1. A set of checklists for PM execution.

2. A schedule for every PM cycle.

3. Specification for every PM cycle.

4. Procedure for every checklist item.

5. Maintenance and parts logs (equipment maintenance history) for every machine.

Focused improvement (B2.2) complements this by using why-why and P-M

analyses to eliminate losses and improve equipment reliability (Shingo, 2007). Focused

improvement includes all activities that maximize the overall effectiveness of

equipment, processes, and plants through uncompromising elimination of losses and

improvement of performance (Suzuki, 1994). The driving concept of Focused

Improvement is Zero Losses. Maximizing equipment effectiveness requires the complete

elimination of failures, defects and other negative phenomena – in other words, the

wastes and losses incurred in equipment operation (Nakajima, 1989). Focused

Improvement has been, and still is, the primary methodology for productivity

improvement in the fabrication process and the key metric for Focused Improvement is

Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)1 (Thomas 2003). Focused Improvement

includes three basic improvement activities. First, the equipment is restored to its

optimal condition. Then equipment productivity loss modes (causal factors) are

determined and eliminated. The learning that takes place during restoration and loss

1 OEE basic concept and calculation has been discussed previously in literature review

34

elimination then provide the TPM program a definition of optimal equipment condition

that will be maintained (and improved) through the life of the equipment (Suehiro,

1987).

Autonomous maintenance (AM) goals are to develop equipment competent

operators and also to empower operators to look after their own equipment (Shingo,

2007). TPM through AM (B3.1) enables operator to learn more on their equipment

function, identify common problems and how to prevent them through early detection

and treating of abnormal conditions (Kathleen et al., 2001). TPM also embraces

empowerment to production operators, establishing a sense of ownership in their daily

operating equipment. This sense of ownership is an important factor that underpins TPM

to its continual success with every operator being responsible to ensure their machine is

clean and maintained (Tsang and Chan, 2000). AM enables operators to perform basic

maintenance task such as housekeeping task which includes cleaning and inspection,

lubrication, precision check and other light maintenance task. It can be broken down into

five S’s – seiri (organization), seiton (tidiness), seiso (sweeping), seiketsu (sanitizing)

and shitsuke (self-discipline) (Nakijima, 1988).

TPM accomplished maximization of equipment effectiveness through total

employee involvement and incorporate the use of Autonomous Maintenance in small

group activities to improve on equipment reliability, maintainability and productivity

(Chen, 1997). Autonomous Maintenance involves the participation of each and every

operator, each maintaining his own equipment and conducting activities to keep it in the

proper condition and running correctly. It is the most basic of the eight pillars of TPM. If

autonomous maintenance activities are insufficient, the expected results will not

materialize even if the other pillars of TPM are upheld (Komatsu, 1999).

There are typically seven steps in AM program where promotion to the next

steps require certain criteria to be met and audits for confirmation. Before all that, there

is the initial or preparation stage where operators find out for themselves that bad things

35

happen as a result of forced deterioration of equipment. This preparatory step is

designed to make operators think about the causes of forced deterioration and

understand the reason for them to embark on autonomous maintenance program (Shingo,

2008). The first step is the initial cleaning step which aims to completely eradicate dust

and dirt from the main body of the equipment and its surrounding to prevent forced

deterioration as well as detect and rectify latent minor equipment defects through the

cleaning process. This is a crucial step at which ‘cleaning is inspection’ concept is put

into practice. It is not a matter of just making the equipment clean on the surface but

through the process of cleaning exposes abnormalities such as leak, loose fastening or

damaged parts (Shingo, 2008).

In step two, ways are found to combat sources of dirt, leaks and so on, and

improve accessibility to areas that are hard to clean, lubricate, tighten or inspect. This is

a crucial process that nurtures the seeds of improvement, as operators find ways to

improve the situation on their own initiative. It allows them to derive real pleasure from

the process of improvement and the results attained and to share a sense of achievement

with their supervisors and fellow team members (Shingo, 2008). Step three is also

known as provisional AM standards where operators use their experience in Steps 1 and

2 to clarify their ideal conditions for their equipment. Besides that, standards are devised

for the actions necessary to sustain those conditions (Suzuki, 1994).

While Steps 1 to 3 focuses on detecting abnormalities using the five senses, step

four (General Inspection) takes this even further. It aims to give operators a thorough

understanding of the functions and structure of their equipment and develop their ability

to perform routine maintenance backed by relevant logic and knowledge (JIPM, 1997).

Next, step five aims to sustain and further raise the levels of reliability, maintainability

and quality thus achieved. This entails reviewing the provisional standards for cleaning,

checking and lubrication developed so far, with the aim of working them up into a

definitive set of efficient and comprehensive standard (Shingo, 2008). The aim of step

six, in addition to consolidating what has been done so far, is to expand the operator’s

role to cover the equipment’s surroundings as well as the equipment itself, continue to

36

drive down losses closer to zero and put the finishing touches to the teams’ ability to

manage their own work (JIPM, 1997).

The last step seven (Full Self-Management), will consolidate all the activities

undertaken in Steps 1 to 6. By this stage, the operators should have gained real

confidence about the changes they have made in the equipment and the workplace and

their own self development and understand the positive results these changes have

produced (Shingo, 2008). The aim of step seven is to keep on encouraging them to see

improvement as an endless process in which they can and must take initiative. It should

be used as an opportunity to reinforce the sense of participation and solidarity that their

team activities will have developed and allow them to go on exercising their creativity

and build up stronger emotional bonds with their colleagues and a solid sense of

commitment to their workplace and the work they do there (JIPM, 1997). Operators

would no longer rely on external inputs but be totally autonomous and independent,

drawing on their own resources to drive their actions and fully capable of making the

required contribution to the company’s policy and objectives on their own (Shingo,

2008).

The final TPM element that would be covered is Education and training (B3.2)

which involves not only transforming organization culture and redefining of roles but

also skills and technical upgrade for everyone in operation, maintenance and support

group (Tsang and Chan, 2000) According to Tsang and Chan (2000), training should be

provided even before TPM is implemented on the shop floor. Training and educational

issues has become one of the critical factors to establish successful TPM implementation,

where proper education begins as early as during TPM introduction and initial

preparation stage (Blanchard, 1997). Training and education provide the necessary skill,

knowledge and the ability to make it happen (Saylor, 1992). Wiremen (1991) also

emphasized on training to improve the skills of the people involved in TPM and have

classified it into two major components. One is soft skill training, such as how to work

as teams, diversity training and communication skills. The second is technical training,

37

which ensures that the employees have the technical knowledge to make improvements

to the equipments (Wiremen, 1991).

In order to evaluate the extent of TPM implementation elements in electrical and

electronic industries in Malaysia, a five point Likert scale will be used in this study

(Rating mechanism: 1 – no emphasis at all, 2 – very little emphasis, 3- some emphasis, 4

– reasonable emphasis, 5 – extensive emphasis).

3.2.2 Manufacturing Performance Dimensions

The success of a TPM implementation program does not only depend on a

formal implementation of various TPM initiatives in the organization but also requires

ensuring the laid out programs are moving in the right direction and the quantifiable

benefits and results can be derived as a result of the implementation of TPM (Ahuja and

Khamba, 2008). Shingo (2007) said that people’s attitude and behavior (regarding TPM)

will not change until they see the results and benefits of TPM implementation. When

people’s thinking change, defects and breakdowns starts to be seen as something to be

ashamed of and when people’s behavior change, they strive to make improvements and

manage their work more carefully (Shingo, 2007).

Shamsuddin et al. (2005) states in his paper that the results of TPM

implementation towards an organization can be in terms of intangible gains like

customer impression and working environment and tangible gains which may cover a

host of business functions in an organization. Nakajima (1998) also listed six categories

of achievements arising from strategic TPM programs such as productivity, quality, cost,

delivery, safety and morale. Suzuki (1994) too cited in his paper the PQCDSM

(Productivity, Quality, Cost, Delivery, Safety, and Morale) improvements for early TPM

implementers in Japan. A common theme in operational strategy research like TPM for

example is describing the manufactures choice of emphasis among key capabilities or in

38

short manufacturing performance (Ward et al., 1995). In this paper, the four basic

dimensions of plant manufacturing performance that are going to be studied are as

follows (Skinner, 1969; Schroeder, 1993; Ward et al., 1995):

1) Cost (C1)

2) Quality (C2)

3) Delivery (C3)

4) Productivity (C4)

Cost is indicated by manufacturing cost like unit costs, material and overhead

cost and also inventory cost. Manufacturing cost is measured by the manufacturing cost

of goods sold as a percentage of sales. The measurement of inventory cost include

inventory turnover ratio where a high turnover ratio indicates a low cost position.

Quality is measured as a percentage of good products that are produced according to

specification. Manufacturing quality priority can also be measured by degree of

emphasis on activities to reduce defect rates, improve vendor quality, improve product

performance and reliability, or activities related to achieving an international quality

standard, ISO 9000. Delivery performance measures include emphasis on activities

intended to increase either delivery reliability or delivery speed or percentage of orders

delivered on time. Finally, productivity measures include improved machine efficiency,

availability and reliability; reducing inputs such as capital and material while increasing

output of finished goods produced.

In order to evaluate the manufacturing performance dimensions accrued as a

result of effective emphasis of TPM implementation, a five point Likert scale will be

used in this study (Rating mechanism: 1 – no correlation at all, 2 – nominal impact, 3-

some impact, 4 – reasonable impact, 5 – extensive impact/correlation).

39

3.3 Reliability and Validity of Questionnaire Survey

Reliability of a survey is very important because they are measurements that

imply trustworthiness in any research investigation. According to Litwin (1995),

reliability is a measure of how reproducible the survey instrument’s data. The various

categories of TPM strategies and elements and manufacturing performance dimensions

will be evaluated to ascertain the reliability of the input and output data collected

through the questionnaires using reliability test known as Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.

Cronbach’s coefficient alpha measures the internal consistent reliability among a group

of items combined to form a single scale. It ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values

indicating higher level of internal consistency. A Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.7 is

considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1978) and a value of 0.60 is considered satisfying for a

relatively new measurement instrument (Sakakibara et al., 1997). Validity is a scale on

which a survey is able to measure the underlying concepts it is designed to research on.

The validity of the factors for each TPM elements will be tested using confirmatory

factor analysis approach (Bagozzi, 1980). Besides that, principal component analysis

will also be performed and items that do not load into a single factor will be eliminated

and analysis re-performed. The Eigen value of each factor is considered satisfactory if

they are greater than 1.0 and acceptable if they are greater than 0.5 (Nunnally, 1978).

CHAPTER 4

SURVEY RESULTS & DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results collected from the survey which were sent to a

sample of 240 companies randomly selected from the Directory of the Federation of

Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) which is a subset of over 1240 electrical and

electronic companies in Malaysia (MIDA, 2004). Respondent for each of these

companies comprises of directors, general managers (GM), TPM coordinators, quality

managers, engineers or personnel assigned by the company to be most suitable to answer

the survey questionnaires. Although initial response rate was not encouraging, efforts

were made to increase response by sending follow up emails and personally calling up

the relevant personnel in respective companies. As a result, the final response rate is

12.5 % based on 30 valid responses. This is considered reasonable because of similar

response rate of surveys done in Malaysia such as Jusoh et al. (2008) and Ahmad and

Hassan (2003) which obtain 12.3% and 11.5% respectively. Besides that, Eng and Shari

(2003) also had a response rate around 24.2% for their study in Malaysia. The responses

were then analyses using SPSS (PASW) Version 18 statistical package and are tabulated

in the following pages.

41

4.2 General Profile of the Respondent

4.2.1 Size of the Company

The first aspect analyzed is the general profile of the respondent. One of the

important information is the breakdown of respondent based on the size of the

companies which is shown in Table 4.1. This is important because the differences in

TPM strategies emphasis between small and medium industry and large industry in

Malaysia will be studied later. A large portion (76.7 %) of the respondent is from large

size companies which comprises of more than 150 employees. Large companies

typically cover two categories from 151 to 1000 employees which is about 20 % while

companies with more than 1000 employees is 56.7 %. Next, 13.3 % of the respondent

comprises of medium size companies having 51 to 150 employees while small

companies with less than 50 employees constituted about 10 % total. Thus, small

medium industries or also known as SMEs represents about 23.3 % of total percentage

of respondents while the remaining 76.7 % being large industries.

Table 4.1: Breakdown of respondent in terms of their size of industry

Size of company

(No of employees)

No of

respondent

Percent

(%)

Percent

(%)

Small (50 or less) 3 10.0

Medium (51 to 150) 4 13.3

Large (151 to 1000) 6 20.0

Large (More than 1000) 17 56.7

Total 30 100.0 100.0

76.7

23.3

42

4.2.2 Type of Industry

The second aspect is the type of industry which in this study comprises of two

types; electrical and electronic industry. The types of industry can basically be

categories based on the products they manufacture. For example, an electronic industry

can be divided into two subcategories; Consumer Electronics which manufacture

colour television receivers, audio visual products such as digital versatile disc (DVD)

players/recorders, home theatre systems, blu-ray, mini disc, electronics games consoles

and digital cameras (MIDA, 2004). The sector is represented by many renowned

Japanese and Korean companies, which have contributed significantly towards the rapid

growth of the sector (MIDA, 2004). Next subcategory is Electronic Components which

consists of semiconductor devices, passive components, printed circuits and other

electronic components such as media, substrates and connectors (MIDA, 2004).

On the other hand, the electrical industry manufactures products such as

household electrical appliances, wire and cables and electrical industrial equipment. The

major electrical products produced in our country are household appliances such as air-

conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners and other electrical

appliances (MIDA, 2004). Table 4.2 shows the breakdown of respondent based on the

type of industry. 63.3 % of the respondents were from the electronics industry while

36.7 % were from the electrical industry.

Table 4.2: Breakdown of respondent based on types of industry

Industry Frequency Percent

(%)

Electronics 19 63.3

Electrical 11 36.7

Total 30 100.0

43

4.2.3 Number of Years of TPM Implementation

An important criterion in determining the state of Total Productive Maintenance

(TPM) in Malaysian companies is through the number of years of TPM implementation.

It also indicates the experience and maturity of the companies in TPM application

(Figure 4.1). 16.7 % of the total respondents have never implemented TPM before while

10 % have implemented TPM before but there have been a relapse due to various

reasons. Besides that, 30 % of total respondents are in the introductory phase of TPM

with less than 3 years of implementation while 6.7 % are in the stabilization phase of

TPM between 3 to 5 years of implementation. A large portion (36.7 %) of the

respondents has long experiences with TPM and this beckons well for the future of TPM

in Malaysian companies. This is reflected in the number of years of TPM

implementation with many companies having more than 5 years of TPM implementation.

Figure 4.1: Number of years of TPM implementation

16.710.0

30.0

6.7

36.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

None TPM

implemented

previously but

there's been a

relapsed

Less than 3

years

3 to 5 years More than 5

years

Percent (%)

Years of TPM Implementation

44

4.3 Reliability Test

Reliability analysis or also known as internal consistency was performed to

access the reliability of the measurements (nine constructs) depicting the degree to

which they indicate a common latent (unobserved) construct. It relates to the extent to

which an experiment, test or any measuring procedure yields the same results on

repeated trials (Cramer, 1998). Cronbach’s Alpha (α) is commonly used for this purpose,

where values of alpha range from between 0 and 1.0, with higher values indicating

higher reliability. Thus, Cronbach’s Alpha values for the various categories of TPM

elements/strategies and manufacturing performance dimension were calculated to

ascertain the reliability of the input and output data collected from the survey

questionnaire.

The alpha values range from 0.777 to 0.962 as shown in Table 4.3, which

indicates an internal consistency with the alpha value of more than 0.70, so no items

were dropped from each variable. These also indicate the significantly high reliability of

data for various inputs and output categories and are a reliable measure of construct.

Table 4.3: Internal consistency test results

Factor TPM elements / strategisNo. of

items

Cronbach's

α value

B1 Top management leadership 7 0.957

B2.1 Planned maintenance management 6 0.937

B2.2 Focussed improvement 5 0.934

B3.1 Autonomous maintenance 7 0.945

B3.2 Education and training 5 0.777

Manufacturing performance

dimension

C1 Cost 3 0.935

C2 Quality 4 0.921

C3 Delivery 3 0.93

C4 Productivity 4 0.962

45

4.4 Validity Test

Construct validity is used to measure that the factor or items in question are

really able to measure the underlying construct that it is designed to measure. For this

study, the validity of the factors for each TPM elements will be tested using

confirmatory factor analysis approach (Bagozzi, 1980). Factor analysis is used for

structure detection which purpose is to examine underlying (or latent) relationship

between the variables. The factor analysis test used is the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure

of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) which is a statistic that indicates the proportion of

variance in the variables that might be caused by underlying factors and for construct

validity. For KMO test, high values (close to 1.0) generally indicate that a factor analysis

may be useful with the data. If the value is less than 0.50, the results of the factor

analysis probably won't be very useful. Kaiser (1974) also recommends either to collect

more data or to exclude certain variables if the value is below 0.5. For this study, the

KMO values for each factors range from 0.705 to 0.886 as seen in Table 4.4 which were

considered satisfactory.

Besides that, principal component analysis was also performed and items that do

not load into a single factor will be eliminated and analysis re-performed. As stated

previously, the Eigen value of each factor loading is considered satisfactory if they are

greater than 1.0 and acceptable if they are greater than 0.5 (Nunnally, 1978). All factor

loadings greater than 0.5 is also acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). As shown in Table 4.4, all

the factor’s Eigen values were more than 1.0 while the lowest factor loading for all

factors is 0.682 which is higher than the minimum acceptable value of 0.5. Thus, both

analyses done confirm that the survey instrument has construct validity.

46

Table 4.4: Validity test with principal component analysis and KMO test

Factor TPM elements / strategies Eigen

value

Items

deleted

Factor

loading

KMO

value

B1 Top management leadership 5.383 None 0.746 - 0.957 0.847

B2.1 Planned maintenance

management

4.262 None 0.682 - 0.949 0.746

B2.2 Focussed improvement 3.968 None 0.790 - 0.947 0.752

B3.1 Autonomous maintenance 5.349 None 0.788 - 0.931 0.886

B3.2 Education and training 3.174 None 0.821 - 0.962 0.705

Manufacturing performance

dimension

C1 Cost 2.435 None 0.830 - 0.968 0.762

C2 Quality 2.544 None 0.729 - 0.838 0.736

C3 Delivery 2.681 None 0.905 - 0.973 0.768

C4 Productivity 3.628 None 0.946 - 0.972 0.797

4.5 Level of Emphasis of TPM Elements/Strategies

After initial studying the background of the respondents and also performing

analyses on the reliability of the results, the next part analyses the level of emphasis of

TPM elements or strategies, which is the core of this survey. To further understand this,

a summary of the mean values for each TPM elements was calculated as shown in Table

4.5, where the higher the value indicating a higher level of emphasis.

Table 4.5: The mean of TPM elements/strategies

Factor TPM elements / strategisOverall

meanStd Dev Rank

B1 Top management leadership 2.962 1.205 5

B2.1 Planned maintenance management 3.577 0.968 1

B2.2 Focussed improvement 3.507 1.263 2

B3.1 Autonomous maintenance 3.448 1.157 3

B3.2 Education and training 3.187 1.184 4

Average Mean 3.336

47

The mean score for each TPM elements ranges from 2.962 and 3.577 and the

variability of each construct is almost similar with one another. From the table, the TPM

element which is placed most emphasis on by manufacturing companies in Malaysia is

planned maintenance management with the highest overall mean value of 3.577 while

the least emphasize is top management leadership with mean value of 2.962. This is

consistent with case studies done by Sim and Shari (2003), Shamsuddin et al. (2004) and

Cheng (2005) which shows that companies in Malaysia have at least a basic traditional

planned maintenance schedule and activities. Furthermore, the ability of an organization

to conduct basic maintenance activities effectively in an organized and efficient way will

determine the success of a TPM implementation program (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008).

TPM implementation requires a long term commitment to achieve the benefits of

improved equipment effectiveness (Sim and Shari, 2003). The pursuit of sustainable

TPM requires a change of employees’ attitude which takes time to accomplish (Tsang

and Chan, 2000). This could explain the lower emphasis of top management leadership

in Malaysian companies who could perhaps been expecting instant and companywide

gains after implementing TPM. This could also account for the 10 percent of the

respondent who had actually implemented TPM previously but there has been a relapsed

in implementation.

Besides that, some of the respondent also placed emphasis on other TPM element

not part of the five construct such as Safety, Health and Environment (SHE). This author

believes that elements like SHE comes with the implementation of the five TPM

elements covered in the survey. For example, Shingo (2007) states that during step 1 of

autonomous maintenance (B3.1), safety problems are identified together with other

problems. Planned maintenance aims to eliminate unexpected breakdown which

indirectly improves safety because equipment problems often lead to accidents, which

are often due to operator’s lack of experience in dealing with abnormalities or carrying

non-routine tasks (Shingo, 2007). Overall, the respondent companies places “moderate

to intensive” emphasis on the TPM elements/strategies with an average overall mean of

3.336

48

4.6 Evaluating of TPM Element Emphasis and their Contribution towards

Manufacturing Performance

4.6.1 Relationship between Factors

Based on the responses from the manufacturing industry in Malaysia, an

assessment has been made of the relationship between various TPM element emphases

and their contribution towards different manufacturing performance dimension. To show

this relationship, the bivariate correlation procedure is used to compute the Pearson’s

correlation coefficient between various TPM element emphasis and manufacturing

performance dimension as shown in Table 4.6. It is useful to determine the strength and

direction of association between two scale variables. In this case, Pearson correlation is

worked out to define significant TPM element contributing towards realisation of

different manufacturing performance. Only pairs that are statistically significant at 1

percent level of significance are considered to have strong association with one another.

Table 4.6: Pearson’s correlation between various TPM elements and manufacturing

performance dimension

C1 C2 C3 C4

B1 0.691** 0.492** 0.302 0.483**

B2.1 0.482** 0.740** 0.408 0.678**

B2.2 0.393 0.769** 0.474** 0.727**

B3.1 0.707** 0.440 0.32 0.372

B3.2 0.648** 0.643** 0.559** 0.619**

Note: **Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Where:

B1: Top management leadership C1: Cost

B2.1: Planned maintenance management C2: Quality

B2.2: Focussed improvement C3: Delivery

B3.1: Autonomous maintenance C4: Productivity

B3.2: Education and training

49

4.6.2 Discussion on Relationship between TPM Element Emphasis and

Manufacturing Performance

The Pearson’s correlation results show that there exist significant association

between various TPM elements and their contribution towards manufacturing

performance. Top management leadership, commitment, organization structure and

motivational initiatives (B1) is essential towards contributing to manufacturing

performance of an organization in terms of overall cost saving (C1), high quality of its

products (C2) and even increased productivity of the plant (C4). Top Management plays

a crucial role in supporting the necessary techniques and providing advice and guidance

in altering processes (Bosman, 2000). Thus, only commitment by top management can

ensure the success of TPM implementation which will lead the organization to reap the

benefits that come with it.

Next, the results also show similar pattern with planned maintenance

management (B2.1) having significant contribution towards improving manufacturing

performance by lowering cost (C1), high levels of quality (C2) and increased

productivity (C4). The objective of Planned Maintenance is to establish and maintain

optimal equipment and process conditions (Suzuki, 1994). As defined by JIPM, devising

a planned maintenance system means raising output (no failures, no defects) which

reduces product cost, as well as improve quality of product and increasing plant

availability (machine availability) which indirectly affects productivity also.

Focussed Improvement (B2.2) on the other hand, shows significant relationship

with improving quality (C2), strong delivery performance (C3) and high level of

productivity (C4). This is due to the objective of Focussed Improvement which is Zero

Losses. Maximizing equipment effectiveness requires the complete elimination of

failures, defects, and other negative phenomena – in other words, the wastes and losses

incurred in equipment operation (Nakajima, 1989). Education and training (B3.2) also

shows significant impact on all four manufacturing performance dimension in terms of

50

cost (C1), quality (C2), delivery (C3) and productivity (C4). The objective of Training

and Education is to create and sustain skilled operators able to effectively execute the

practices and methodologies established within the other TPM pillars (Leflar, 2003). It

also enables the upgrading and expanding of employees’ technical, problem solving and

team working skills (Tsang and Chang, 2003). Only by improving the workforce in the

organization, would we see improvement in manufacturing performance of the

organization. Training and Education focuses on establishing appropriate and effective

training methods, creating the infrastructure for training, and proliferating the learning

and knowledge of the other TPM pillars. Training and Education may be the most

critical of all TPM pillars for sustaining the TPM program in the long-term. A test of

TPM success is to look at organizational learning, TPM is about continual learning

(Leflar, 2003).

However, the TPM element Autonomous Maintenance (B3.1) shows only one

significant contribution towards manufacturing performance which is cost (C1). This is

to be expected because the benefits of autonomous maintenance are more intangible then

tangible. Suzuki (1994) defines some of the intangible results due to autonomous

maintenance which include self-management of shop-floor workers, improved

confidence of production workers, clean up of production and administrative areas, and

improved company image for customers. Autonomous maintenance also brings a higher

level of shop floor employee involvement (team activities) in improvement activity, and

greater employee empowerment (Ames, 2003). For example, it is hard to access the

tangible value of 5S activity (an autonomous maintenance tool) even though it is a

valuable and critical part of TPM process. This is because the activities are not centred

on results, but rather they emphasize people’s behavioural patterns, such as the

elimination of unnecessary items from the work environment or the cleaning and

neatening of equipment. Consequently, the activities are of a kind that makes

quantitative assessment of their effectiveness difficult (Takahashi and Osada, 1990).

51

Results have shown the each of the five TPM elements have strong association

with the improvement of manufacturing performance such as lower costs, higher quality

levels, faster delivery and increased productivity as shown in Figure 4.2. Some element

like autonomous maintenance shows more intangible rather than tangible benefits which

is also important to the organization as a whole. Thus, all of the five TPM elements have

to be emphasize on and not neglected in order to reap the benefits of a successful TPM

implementation program. Since implementing TPM is a strategic decision and mistakes

cannot afford to be made by managers, these five elements can act as a guideline for

organization wanting to implement TPM in their organization. This will ensure that all

important areas are covered and there is a standard structured implementation process

during the TPM implementation phase. At the same time, the improvement of

manufacturing performance or the benefits of TPM implementation must be recognised

by the organization (Robinson and Ginder, 1995; Cooke, 2000). According to Robinson

and Ginder (1995), for TPM to be successful, “the improvement process must be

recognized as benefiting both the company and the worker” It is important to identify

the critical elements of TPM and their impact on manufacturing performance because

many companies fail to invest in maintenance programs because they manage

maintenance by a budget and fail to see the strategic implication of a strong maintenance

program (Kathleen et al., 1999). Thus, this study could act as evidence to convince

management the importance of TPM implementation towards the organization.

Figure 4.2: TPM relationship model

B1. Top management leadership

B2.1 Planned maintenance

management

B2.2 Focused Improvement

B3.1 Autonomous maintenance

B3.2 Education and training

TPM Elements/Strategies

Manufacturing

Performance

C1 Cost

C2 Quality

C3 Delivery

C4 Productivity

52

4.7 Test of Significant between Differences of Mean

4.7.1 Differences of TPM Element Practices between Electrical and Electronic

Industry

The first significant test is done to find out if there are any significant differences

of TPM elements practices between electrical and electronic industry. This is analyses

using a comparison t test to compare the mean between the samples. The first

hypotheses are as follows:

H0: µ electrical = µ electronic; i.e. there is no significant difference of each TPM

element emphasis between electrical and electronic industry

H1: µ electrical ≠ µ electronic; i.e. there is significant difference of each TPM element

emphasis between electrical and electronic industry

The null hypothesis assumes the two sets of scores (electrical and electronic) are

samples from the same population and therefore the two samples do not differ

significantly from each other because the sampling was random. However, the

alternative hypothesis states that the two sets of score do differ significantly.

The results of the t test can be seen in Table 4.7 which shows the p value for all

TPM elements were more than 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at

0.05 significant level; indicating that there is no significant differences of TPM element

practices between electrical and electronic industry. This consistent with the study done

by Kathleen et al., (1999) that the type of industry studied (Electronic, Machinery and

Automobile) did not provide a significant factor in the use of TPM practices. While the

country factor provides some explanation for differences in TPM implementation, there

is insufficient evidence to link the adoption of TPM to specific industries (Kathleen et

al., 1999). This means that these TPM elements are generic in nature and can be adopted

53

across different types of industries. Mishra et al. (2008) also mentioned that TPM

frameworks are assume to be generic in nature so that consultants that developed these

frameworks will be able to provide maintenance consultancy to different types of

industries in different parts of the world.

Table 4.7: t test results between electrical and electronic industry

Factor TPM elements / strategies µ electrical µ electronic p value Results

B1 Top management leadership 2.818 3.046 0.627 Not Sig.

B2.1 Planned maintenance management 3.425 3.667 0.457 Not Sig.

B2.2 Focussed improvement 3.236 3.663 0.325 Not Sig.

B3.1 Autonomous maintenance 3.208 3.587 0.326 Not Sig.

B3.2 Education and training 2.909 3.347 0.186 Not Sig.

4.7.2 Differences of TPM Element Practices between SMEs and Large Companies

The second statistical test of significance aims to compare whether there are

significant differences of TPM element practices between SMEs and large companies

using the same comparison t test. The second hypotheses are as follows:

H0: μ SME = μ Large; i.e. there is no significant difference between SME practices (on each

TPM elements) and those of large companies

H1: μ SME ≠ μ Large: i.e. there is significant difference between SME practices (on each

TPM elements) and those of large companies

The null hypothesis assumes that the mean scores of SME and large companies

do not differ significantly from each other while the alternative hypothesis states the

opposite. From the results shown in Table 4.8, the null hypothesis at significant level of

54

0.05 cannot be rejected for key factors like planned maintenance management, focussed

improvement and autonomous maintenance while there is evidence to reject the null

hypothesis for factors like top management leadership and education and training. Thus,

there are significant differences between SME practices and those of large company in

TPM elements such as top management leadership and also education and training.

However, in areas like planned maintenance management, focussed improvement and

autonomous maintenance there is no difference in practice between SME and large

companies.

Table 4.8: Results of comparison of TPM element practices between SMEs and large

companies

Factor TPM elements / strategies µ SME µ Large p value Results

B1 Top management leadership 2.226 3.124 0.005 Sig.

B2.1 Planned maintenance management 3.380 3.639 0.487 Not Sig.

B2.2 Focussed improvement 2.829 3.713 0.067 Not Sig.

B3.1 Autonomous maintenance 3.041 3.572 0.225 Not Sig.

B3.2 Education and training 2.457 3.409 0.008 Sig.

TPM elements such as top management leadership and education and training

shows more advances in large companies compare to SMEs because of their larger

resources and manpower. Besides that, SMEs have a shortage of necessary learned

manpower (Nwankwo, 2000) and also run under very constrained funding (Gustafsson

et al., 2001). Other limitation of SMEs include lack of managerial knowledge and thus

lack of clear vision of what training is really required, lack of resources or facilities in

carrying out an effective training program or maintaining a training wing in the

organization, difficult to afford absence of employees from the workplace for training

as there is a poor scope for substitution and lack of space within the organization and

shortage of funds to be allocated for adequate training (Shamsuddin et al., 2004).

55

The results are also similar to the study done by Kathleen et al. (1999) where

overall, some of the organizational factors (size of company) were not significant and

some were in terms of explaining differences in TPM implementation. Those results

suggest that the state of organization’s resources may not limit a company’s ability to

implement TPM and small plants as well as large plant can implement TPM (Kathleen et

al., 1999). As Shiba et al. (1993) suggest, the real issue is not on the organizational

factor but whether or not the workforce is open to making changes that are required by

TPM.

4.8 Effect of TPM Implementation Time Period on Manufacturing Performance

Dimension

In order to study the effect of the time period of TPM implementation on the

manufacturing performance of the organization, the responses obtained from the survey

is divide into three categories pending on the experience each organization obtain on

TPM over a time period as shown in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9: Classification of responses based on TPM implementation time period

Categories Time period of TPM implementation Number of

response

(N)

Phase 1 Companies in this category consist of those who

have not implemented TPM and also companies

that have previously implemented TPM before

but there's has been a relapse due to various

reasons.

8

Phase 2 Less than three years of TPM implementation.

Introductory phase

9

Phase 3 Comprises of those companies who have

implemented TPM between three to five years

(Stabilization phase) and also those more than

five years (Maturity phase)

13

56

Next, the average mean and standard deviations of various manufacturing

performance dimension obtained due to effective implementation of TPM elements is

shown in Table 4.10. From the table, it is observed that the average mean value for

manufacturing performance dimension in Phase 2 is higher than those obtain in Phase 1

while the mean value for manufacturing performance dimension in Phase 3 is higher

than those in Phase 2. This means that the longer the organization implements TPM, the

more obvious the benefits in manufacturing performance can be seen. Improvement in

manufacturing performance can be seen when TPM is implemented and also over a

longer period of TPM implementation.

Table 4.10: Results of manufacturing performance dimension over TPM

implementation time period.

This is agreed upon by Robinson and Ginder (1995) who stated that TPM is a

long-term strategic initiative rather than a short-term tactical fix. It will fail if a ‘program

of the month’ mentality exists. The study done by Ahuja and Khamba (2008) also

revealed that TPM implementation program does not yield overnight success but takes

appropriate planning and focussed plan assisted by top management through

organizational cultural improvement, over a considerable period of time (usually three to

five years) to realize significant results from holistic TPM implementation program. For

the most part, participants talked about TPM as a long-term process, not a quick fix for

today’s problems. This seems to be an important attitude to hold, because results are not

immediate or even quick. To see the full benefits of TPM, it appears that organizations

Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev

C1 Cost 2.792 1.301 3.556 1.182 3.821 1.245

C2 Quality 3.438 0.863 4.167 0.823 4.269 0.854

C3 Delivery 3.500 0.927 2.963 1.171 3.410 1.151

C4 Productivity 3.625 0.937 3.722 0.982 4.231 0.941

Average mean 3.339 3.602 3.933

Manufacturing

Performance

Dimension

Factor

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

N = 8 N = 9 N = 13

57

need to make a continued commitment to the possibilities and philosophy espoused by

TPM methodology (Horner, 1996). TPM is not a short term fix, but a long, never-ending

journey to best in class factory performance through: on-going management

commitment, increased employee responsibilities, and continuous improvement to

achieve goals of TPM (Max International Engineering Group, 2004).

4.9 Summary

Basically, this chapter has covered the results and discussion of the survey; its

objective to evaluate TPM element/strategies emphasis and their contribution towards

manufacturing performance in electrical and electronic industry in Malaysia. The

reliability and validity of the survey has been confirmed with internal consistency test

using Cronbach alpha coefficient and factor analysis approach respectively. Majority of

the survey respondent were from large companies while there were slightly more

electronic companies compare to electric companies.

A large portion (36.6 %) of the companies have practise TPM more than five

years and are considered in the maturity stage. The TPM element which is most practise

or emphasis on by manufacturing companies in Malaysia is planned maintenance

management with a mean of 3.577 while the least emphasis on is top management

leadership with a mean 2.962. In comparison, a study by Kathleen et al., (1999) shows

that Japan has very strong emphasis in autonomous practices especially operator

involvement and planned maintenance compare to United States. On the other hand,

Italy has the weakest autonomous practices among the three nations.

Bivariate correlation procedure performed also showed that various TPM

element emphasis have significant contribution towards the manufacturing performance

of the organization. Thus, the five elements of top management, planned maintenance,

58

focused improvement; autonomous maintenance as well as education and training can

act like a benchmark for organizations that are planning to implement TPM. There is no

difference in TPM element practices between electrical and electronic companies while

only some of the TPM elements practices were found significantly different between

SMEs and large companies. Companies which practices TPM longer is also found to

show more improvements in their manufacturing performance.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS

5.1 Introduction

The last chapter presents the conclusion of the entire research and provides

the limitation faced during this study as well as potential areas for future works that

could be undertaken to contribute to the knowledge of total productive maintenance

in manufacturing industry in Malaysia.

5.2 Conclusions

This present study has presented the results of the survey conducted on

Malaysian electrical and electronic industry which purpose is to evaluate TPM

elements/strategies emphasis and their contribution towards various manufacturing

performance dimensions. From the results and discussion, the TPM element practice

that has been given the most emphasis is planned maintenance management while

the least emphasis on is top management leadership. Overall, all TPM elements score

between moderately to intensively in terms of implementation. Comparisons with

other studies also show that different countries have their own emphasis on TPM

elements.

This study has investigated the contribution of TPM elements/strategies

emphasis towards manufacturing performance dimensions in electrical and electronic

industry in Malaysia. For this purpose, five TPM elements and four manufacturing

60

performance dimensions have been categories after exhaustive literature review in

this research. The empirical evidence has also been presented to support relationship

between various TPM elements and manufacturing performance. Findings show that

these TPM elements are quite important to manufacturing organization in term of

lowering cost, better quality products, strong delivery and increased productive

levels. One of the elements, autonomous maintenance though show more intangible

benefits towards the organization such as improve working environment, skill

increase of manpower and higher level of employee involvement. Thus, it can be

concluded that all five TPM elements which are top management leadership, planned

maintenance management, focussed improvement, autonomous maintenance and

education and training are equally important and need to be placed equal emphasis in

order to achieve the benefits in manufacturing performance. These elements can be a

sound platform or benchmark for organization that have plans to implement TPM in

their plant. In this way, nothing is left out and there would be a structured approach

in TPM implementation which is essential for a successful TPM implementation

program.

Besides that, this study also found that there is no difference of TPM

elements practices between electrical and electronic industry in Malaysia. Therefore,

these TPM elements are generic in nature and could be applied uniformly to different

types of industries. However, there are significant difference of some TPM elements

practices between SMEs and large companies in areas such as top management

leadership and education and training but no differences in other areas like planned

maintenance, focussed improvement and autonomous maintenance. This might

suggest that resources may not limit TPM implementation and small and large

companies could implement TPM. In addition, TPM implementation must be

deployed for a longer period of time between 3 to 5 years and more to see increased

improvement in manufacturing performance in the organization.

61

5.3 Limitations

One of the limitations of a survey based study is the response from the survey

population. Although the response rate is comparable with some other studies, a

larger response is preferable to increase the accuracy and creditability of the survey.

This could perhaps be improve if there is an organization in Malaysia that caters to

TPM such as in India where there is a TPM club that consists about 300 odd

organizations. Better responses could be achieve through distribution through this

channel rather than randomly sending surveys to companies listed in FMM directory

who might not be compile to respond to the survey. A gift pack with items such as

pens, notebook could perhaps also encourage better responses among companies.

5.4 Future Works

Since this paper has already demonstrate the significant relationship of TPM

elements/strategies emphasis and their contribution towards manufacturing

performance, future works could focus on the relationship between TPM and other

continuous improvement programs like lean manufacturing, Total Quality

Management (TQM), Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Employee

Involvement (EI) in manufacturing industry in Malaysia. For example, research that

identifies unique practices of lean manufacturing, TQM, RCM and EI and test their

relationship with another in support towards TPM implementation. The use of

automation in data collection and analysis, process control and management and

visual control in regards to TPM implementation could also be studied.

Besides that, the adoptability of the five TPM elements derive from this study

in an actual case study scenario could be conducted in order to view the results first

hand and also to improve further the implementation plan.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S.M., and Hassan, M. (2003). Survey and case investigations on application of

quality management tools and techniques in SMIs. International Journal of

Quality & Reliability Management. 20 (7), 795-826.

Ahuja, I.P.S., Singh, T.P., Sushil and Wadood, A. (2004). Total productive maintenance

implementation at Tata Steel for achieving core competitiveness. Productivity.

45(3), 426-6.

Ahuja, I.P.S. and Khamba, J.S. (2007). An evaluation of TPM initiatives in Indian

industry for enhance manufacturing performance. Journal in Quality in

Maintenance Engineering. 13 (4), 338-52.

Ahuja, I.P.S. and Khamba, J.S. (2008). Justification of total productive maintenance in

Indian manufacturing industry for achieving core competitiveness. Journal in

Manufacturing Technology Management, 19 (5), 645-669.

Ahuja, I.P.S. and Pankaj Kumar. (2009). A case study of total productive maintenance

implementation at precision tube mills. Journal of Quality in Maintenance. 15 (3),

241-258.

Ames, V. A. (2003). TPM Interview. T. Pomorski. Austin, Tx.

Bamber, C.J., Sharp, J.M., and Hides, M.T. (1999). Factors affecting successful

implementation of Total Productive Maintenance: a UK manufacturing case study

perspective. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 5(3), 162-181.

Bargozi, R. P. (1980). Casual Models in Marketing. Wiley, New York, NY.

63

Blanchard, B. S. (1997). An enhanced approach for implementing total productive

maintenance in a manufacturing environment. Journal of Quality in Maintenance

Engineering. 3 (2), 13-16.

Bosman, H. (2000). TPM Activities Toward Winning the World Class Award. JIPM

TPM 16: 4-7.

Carannante, T., Haigh, R. H., and Morris, D. S. (1996). Implementing total productive

maintenance: a comparative study of the UK and Japanese foundry industries.

Total Quality Management and Business Excellence. 88 (11), 1-34.

Chen, F. (1997). Issue in the continuous improvement process for preventive

maintenance: observations from Honda, Nippondenso and Toyota. Production and

Inventory Management Journal. 38 (4), 13-16.

Cheng, Choon Ho .(2005). Proposal for TPM in a process industry. Call No. TS192 C43

2005, Skudai: University Technology Malaysia.

Chin, K.S., Poon, G.K.K., and Pun, K.F. (2000). The critical maintenance issues of ISO

9000 system: Hong Kong manufacturing industries’ perspective. Work Study. 49

(3), 89-96.

Cooke, F. L. (2000). Implementing TPM in plant maintenance: some organizational

barriers. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management. 17 (9),

1003-16.

Cramer, D. (1998). Fundamental Statistics for Social Research. London: Routledge.

Dal, B., Tugwell, P., and Greatbanks, R. (2000). Overall equipment effectiveness as a

measure for operational improvement: a practical analysis. International Journal

of Operations & Production Management. 20 (12), 1488-502.

64

Davis, R. and Willmott, P. (1999). Total Productive Maintenance. Oxford: Alden Press.

Dossenbach, T. (2006). Implementing total productive maintenance. Wood and Wood

Products. 111(2), 29-32.

F. T. S. Chan., H. C. W. Lau., R. W. L. Ip, H. K. Chan., and S. Kong. (2005).

Implementation of total productive maintenance: A case study. Int. J. Production

Economics. 95, 71-94.

Gustafsson, R., Klefsjo, B., Berggren, E. and Granfors-Wellemets, U. (2001).

Experiences from implementing ISO 9000 in small enterprises – a study of

Swedish organization. The Quality Magazine. 13 (4), 232-46.

Hartmann, E. (1992). Successfully Installing TPM in a Non-Japanese Plant. Pittsburgh,

PA: TPM Press, Inc.

Herbaty, F. (1990). Handbook of Maintenance Management: Cost Effective Practices.

(2nd ed). Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publication.

Higgins, L. R., Brautigam, D. P., and Mobley, R. K. (1995). Maintenance Engineering

Handbook. (5th ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Horner, M. (1996). Analysis of Total Productive Manufacturing Teams in

Semiconductor Manufacturing Organization. Denton, TX: University of North

Texas.

Imants BVBA Consulting and Services. (2004). The TPM (Total Productive

Maintenance) guide. Available at: http://www.managementsupport.com/tpm.htm

Ireland, F., and Dale, B.G. (2001). A study of total productive maintenance

implementation. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 7 (3), 183-191.

65

Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM). (1997). Autonomous Maintenance for

Operators. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Jostes, R. S. and Helms, M. M. (1994). Total productive maintenance and its link to total

quality management. Work Study. 43 (7), 18-20.

Jusoh, A., R. Z., Yusoff and S., Mohtar. (2008). Determining TQM practices in

university R&D activities using factor analysis: Research experience of Malaysian

universities. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 11 (1), 36-54.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 39, 31-36.

Kathleen, E. Mc. K., Roger G.S and Krity O.C. (1999). Total productive maintenance: a

contextual view. Journal of Operation Management. 17, 123-144.

Kathleen, E. Mc. K., Roger G.S and Krity O.C. (2001). The impact of total productive

maintenance practices on manufacturing performance. Journal of Operation

Management. 19, 39-58.

Kogyo, Nikkan. (1991). Total Productivity Maintenance: The factory management

notebook series. Productivity Press.

Komatsu, M. (1999). What is Autonomous Maintenance. JIPM TPM. 12, 2-7.

Leflar, J. (1999). TPM at Hewlett-Packard. 10th Total Productive Maintenance

Conference, Las Vegas, NV: Productivity, Inc.

Leflar, J. (2001). Practical TPM. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Leflar, J. (2003). TPM Interview. Fort Collins, CO: T. Pomorski.

66

Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Lungberg, O. (1998). Measurement of overall equipment effectiveness as a basic for

TPM activities. International Journal of Operations and Production Management.

18 (5), 495-507.

Luxford, G. (1998). Measurement of overall equipment effectiveness as a basic for TPM

activities. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 18

(5), 495-507.

Lycke, L. (2000). Team development when implementing TPM. Total Quality

Management. 14 (2), 205-13.

Maier, F. H., Milling, P. M. and Hasenpusch, J. (1998). Total Productive Maintenance:

An International Analysis of Implementation and Performance.

Max International Group. (2004). Total productive maintenance. Available online at:

http://www.maxieg.com/operational6.htm

MIDA. (2004). Business opportunities in Malaysia’s electronic industry, Published by

the Electronics Industry Division and ICT & Electrical Industries Division,

Website: http://www.mida.gov.my

Mishra, R.P., Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2008). A SWOT analysis of total productive

maintenance frameworks. Int. J. Management Practice. 3 (1), 51-81.

Muhammad Madi Abdullah. (2006). An empirical study of critical soft factors for

quality improvement in the electrical and electronics firms in Malaysia. JSB. 11

(3), 203-215.

67

McKellen, C. (2005). Total productive maintenance. MWP. 149 (4), 18.

Nakajima, Seiichi. (1989). Introduction to TPM. Cambridge, Mass.: Productivity Press.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nwankwo, S. (2000). Quality assurance in small organizations: myths and realities.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 17 (1), 82-99.

One, Y.S., Muhamad, J., T. Ramayah. (2006). Implementing Total Preventive

Maintenance in Malaysian Manufacturing Organization: An Operational Study,

Strategic Maintenance Management: Current Practices. Bandyopadhyay, P. K.

(Eds), (pp. 196 – 208). Ahmedabad, India: ICFAI University Press.

Ollila, A. and Malmipuro, M. (1999). Maintenance has a role in Quality. The TQM

Magazine, 11 (1), 17-21.

Pai, K. G. (1997). Maintenance Management. Maintenance Journal. October-December.

8-12.

Patterson, J. W., Kennedy, W. J and Fredendall, L. D. (1996). Total productive

maintenance is not for this company. Production and Inventory Management

Journal. 36 (2), 61-64.

Productivity, I. (1999). 5S for TPM - Supporting and Maintaining Total Productive

Maintenance: Participant Guide. Portland, OR: Productivity, Inc.

Productivity, Inc. (1999). New 5-Phase Plan Developed for TPM Success. TPM Report

1(5), 3-5

68

Quek Eng Eng and Sha’ri Mohd Yusof. (2003). A survey of TQM practices in the

Malaysian electrical and electronic industry. Journal of Total Quality

Management. 14 (1), 63-67.

Raouf, A. and Ben-Daya, M. (1995). Total maintenance management: a systematic

approach. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 1 (1), 6-14.

Ravishanker, G, Burczak, C. and Vore, R.D. (1992). Competitive manufacturing through

total productive maintenance. Semiconductor Manufacturing Science Symposium,

ISMSS, IEEE/SEMI International, 15-16 June, 85-9.

Robinson, C. J. and A. P. Ginder. (1995). Implementing TPM: The North American

Experience. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Sakakibara S. (1997). Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., and Morris, W. T., The Impact of

Just-in-time Manufacturing and Its Infrastructure on Manufacturing Performance.

Management Science. 43, 1246-1257.

Sangameshwran, P and Jagannathan, R. (2002). Eight Pillars of TPM. Indian

Management. 1, 3-67.

Saylor, J.H. (1992). TQM Field Manuals, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schroeder, R. G. (1993). Operation management, Decision Making in the Operation

Function (4th edn.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shamsuddin A., Masjuki, Hj.H, and Zahari, T. (2004). State of implementation of TPM

in SMIs: a survey study in Malaysia. Journal of Quality in Maintenance

Engineering. 10 (2), 93-106.

69

Shamsuddin, A., Hassan, M.H. and Taha, Z. (2005). TPM can go beyond maintenance:

expert from a case implementation. Journal of Quality in Maintenance

Engineering. 11 (1), 19-42.

Shiba, S., Graham, A., Walden, D. (1993). A New American TQM: Four Practical

Revolutions in Management. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.

Shingo Nakamura. (2007). TPM in semiconductor plants. JIPM-Solutions.

Shirose, K. (1989). TPM for Operator. Portland, OR: Productive Press.

Shirose, K., Ed. (1996). TPM-Total Productive Maintenance: New Implementation

Program in Fabrication and Assembly Industries Tokyo, Japan, Japan Institute of

Plant Maintenance.

Sim, H.K and Shari Mohd Yusof. (2003). Development of TPM implementation plan in

switchgear and engineering company. International Conference on Mechanical

Engineering (ICME2003). Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Skinner, W. (1969). Manufacturing – missing link in corporate strategy. Harvard

Business Review. 47 (3), 136-145.

Society of Manufacturing Engineers. (1995). Total Productive Maintenance in America.

Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.

Steinbacher, H. R. and N. L. Steinbacher. (1993). TPM for America: What It Is and Why

You Need It. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.

Suehiro, K. (1987). Eliminating Minor Stoppages on Automated Lines. Portland, OR,

Suzuki, T. (1994). TPM in Process Industries. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

70

Takahashi, Y. and T. Osada. (1990). TPM: Total Productive Maintenance. Tokyo: Asian

Productivity Organization.

Tajiri, M. and F. Gotoh. (1992). TPM Implementation - A Japanese Approach. New

York: McGraw Hill.

Telang, A. D. (1998). Preventive maintenance. In Vijaykumar, K. (Ed.) Proceeding of

the National Conference on Maintenance and Condition Monitoring, February 14

(pp. 160-73). Government Engineering College, Thissur, India, Institution of

Engineers, Cochin Local Centre.

Thomas, P. (2003). TPM/Productivity Improvement at Advanced Micro Devices Fab 25.

Austin, TX: Advanced Micro Devices.

Tsang, A.H.C. and Chan, P.K. (2000). TPM implementation in China: a case study.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 17 (2), 144-157.

Tompkins, White, Bozer, et al. (1996). Facilities Planning. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

TPM Club India. (2003). The TPM 8 pillars. Available online at: www.tpmclubindia.org

Volvo Cars Gent. (1998) TPM pillars. Available online at: http://www.volvocarsgent.be/

content_en/g/g2.htm.

Wang, F.K. (2006). Evaluating the efficiency of implementing total productive

maintenance. Total Quality Management & Business excellence. 17 (5), 655-67.

Wang, F. K., and Lee, W. (2001). Learning curve analysis in total productive

maintenance. Omega International Journal of Management Science. 29 (6), 491-9.

71

Ward, P.T., Duray, R., Leong, G.K., Sum, C.C. (1995). Business environment,

operations strategy and performance: an empirical study of Singapore

manufacturers. Journal of Operations Management. 13, 99–115.

Willmott, P. (1994). Total Productive Maintenance: The Western Way. Oxford,

England: Butterworth- Heinemann, LTD.

Williamson, R.M. (2000). The basic pillars of Total Productive Maintenance.

Maintenance Technology. 10. Available online at: www.mt-online.com/current/10-

00view.cfm

Williamson, Robert, M. (2006). Total Productive Maintenance: What It Is and What It Is

Not. Inc. Columbus, NC 28722: Strategic Work Systems.

Winter, John L. & Richard S. Zakrzewski. (1984). Maintenance Management for

Quality Production. Society of Manufacturing Engineers

Wireman, T. (1991). Total Productive Maintenance - An American Approach. New

York: Industrial Press.

Yamashina, H. (1994). Human factors in AMT maintenance. Salverdy, G. and

Karwowski, W. (Eds). Design of Work and Development of Personnel in Advance

Manufacturing. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Yamashina, H. (2000). Challenge to world-class manufacturing. International Journal of

Quality & Reliability Management. 17 (2), 132-143.

Yeomans, M. and Millington, P. (1997). Getting maintenance into TPM. Manufacturing

Engineer. 76 (4), 170–173.

Sample of letter and TPM questionnaire survey

Total Productive Maintenance in manufacturing industry in

Introduction

The questionnaire survey purpose is to

emphasis in manufacturing industry in Malaysia and their contribution towards

manufacturing performance

Malaysia that have plans of implementing Total Productive Maintenanc

understand which TPM strategies or elements that are significant or should be

emphasize on. Besides that, contribution of these TPM strategies on various aspect of

manufacturing performance can be studied and provide justification for management

of companies to implement TPM.

We seek your participation in completing this questionnaire based on your

truthful opinions and experience. There is no right or wrong answers in this

questionnaire. All information provided is strictly confidential and will on

for the purpose of this academic research.

This questionnaire consists of

according to the given instructions. We look forward to receiving your response on

this questionnaire as soon as possible. You

will certainly contribute towards the advancement and success of this study.

We sincerely thank for your valuable time and effort in completing this

questionnaire. If you have further enquiries, please do not hes

contact details below

Best regards,

Jonathan Wee Jian Meng Project Supervisor:

M. Eng. Industrial Engineering student Professor Dr Noordin Mohd Yusof

Faculty of Mechanical

University Technology Malaysia

Johor-Malaysia

Email: jonwi2@yahoo.com

Tel: 012-2349091 Tel: 019

APPENDIX A

Sample of letter and TPM questionnaire survey

Total Productive Maintenance in manufacturing industry in

Malaysia

The questionnaire survey purpose is to evaluate TPM strategies or elements

emphasis in manufacturing industry in Malaysia and their contribution towards

manufacturing performance. We hope that through this survey, companies in

Malaysia that have plans of implementing Total Productive Maintenanc

understand which TPM strategies or elements that are significant or should be

emphasize on. Besides that, contribution of these TPM strategies on various aspect of

manufacturing performance can be studied and provide justification for management

companies to implement TPM.

We seek your participation in completing this questionnaire based on your

truthful opinions and experience. There is no right or wrong answers in this

questionnaire. All information provided is strictly confidential and will on

for the purpose of this academic research.

This questionnaire consists of 3 sections of which all need to be answered

according to the given instructions. We look forward to receiving your response on

this questionnaire as soon as possible. Your inputs will be greatly appreciated as it

will certainly contribute towards the advancement and success of this study.

We sincerely thank for your valuable time and effort in completing this

questionnaire. If you have further enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact me via

Jonathan Wee Jian Meng Project Supervisor:

M. Eng. Industrial Engineering student Professor Dr Noordin Mohd Yusof

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

University Technology Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Johor

jonwi2@yahoo.com Email: noordin@fkm.utm.my

2349091 Tel: 019-7787467

Sample of letter and TPM questionnaire survey

Total Productive Maintenance in manufacturing industry in

evaluate TPM strategies or elements

emphasis in manufacturing industry in Malaysia and their contribution towards

. We hope that through this survey, companies in

Malaysia that have plans of implementing Total Productive Maintenance will

understand which TPM strategies or elements that are significant or should be

emphasize on. Besides that, contribution of these TPM strategies on various aspect of

manufacturing performance can be studied and provide justification for management

We seek your participation in completing this questionnaire based on your

truthful opinions and experience. There is no right or wrong answers in this

questionnaire. All information provided is strictly confidential and will only be used

of which all need to be answered

according to the given instructions. We look forward to receiving your response on

r inputs will be greatly appreciated as it

will certainly contribute towards the advancement and success of this study.

We sincerely thank for your valuable time and effort in completing this

itate to contact me via

Jonathan Wee Jian Meng Project Supervisor:

M. Eng. Industrial Engineering student Professor Dr Noordin Mohd Yusof

Engineering Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Email: noordin@fkm.utm.my

7787467

73

Please check “x” the appropriate box to indicate your agreement/ level of agreement

with each question, as well as write down your opinion or comment accordingly

Section A – General Information

1. How many people are employed by your company?

50 or less

51 to 150

151 to 1000

More than 1000

2. What are the products types manufactured?

Consumer Electronics: (DVD) players/recorders, home theatre

systems, blu ray, mini disc, electronics games consoles and digital

cameras, etc

Electronic Components: semiconductor devices, passive

components, printed circuits, substrates, connectors, etc

Electrical: household appliances such as air-conditioners,

refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners and other electrical

appliances

Supporting Industries: plastic moulded parts, metal stamped,

precision machined parts, plating, mould, tools, die, etc

Others: ____________________________________________

3. How many years of TPM implementation?

less than 3 years (Introductory Stage)

3 to 5 years (Stabilization Phase)

More than 5 years (Maturity Stage)

TPM has never been implemented yet

TPM was implemented previously but there has been a relapsed due

to various reasons.

4. Your position in the company: ___________________

5. Email address (optional): ________________________

74

Section B – Various TPM strategies/ elements

Five point rating scale (1 – no emphasis at all, 2 - very little emphasis, 3 – some

emphasis, 4 – reasonable emphasis, 5 – extensive emphasis)

Please rank your company emphasis in the various TPM strategies or elements listed

below.

B1. Top Management Leadership

No Extensive

Emphasis Emphasis

1 2 3 4 5

a. Top management communication to all

employees that TPM is

an integral part of

company policy

b. Senior management devotes time and

allocates resources for

TPM purpose

c. Demonstration of TPM master plan (goals,

action plan) by top

management

d. Existence of structured TPM organization (team

leader, members, etc)

e. Existence of well planned and structured

maintenance

organization

f. Involvement of production or

maintenance people in

equipment selection

decision

g. Motivation of rewards and awards through TPM

achievements by

management

75

B2.1. Planned Maintenance (PM) Management

No Extensive

Emphasis Emphasis

1 2 3 4 5

a. Availability of effective PM program covering

plant equipment in the

organization

b. Discipline planning in maintenance activities

where portion of a day or

shift reserved for

maintenance

c. Use PM check sheets specifying PM work for

each equipment

d. Monitoring and analyses of machine failure and

taking action to prevent

reoccurrence

e. Maintenance or PM schedule being followed

consistent on time

f. Availability of maintenance inventory

when needed

76

B2.2. Focussed Improvement

No Extensive

Emphasis Emphasis

1 2 3 4 5

a. Mechanism for recording maintenance

performance metrics

(OEE, mean time to

repair-MTTR, mean time

between failure-MTBF,

etc)

b. Maintaining basic equipment condition and

return back to optimum

condition

c. Maintenance aims to eliminate even minor

defects of equipment

d. Information on productivity is readily

available to employees

e. Use of Pareto charts, 5 why analysis, fishbone

diagram, FMEA, etc to

analyse and eliminate

productivity losses

77

B3.1. Autonomous Maintenance

No Extensive

Emphasis Emphasis

1 2 3 4 5

a. Implementation of 5S initiatives in the

organization

b. The plant emphasizes putting all tools and

fixtures in their place

c. Deployment of cleaning, lubrication, tightening

standard

d. Using of small group activity or problem

solving teams to help

improve manufacturing

processes in plant

e. Tackling of hard to clean/inspect/access

situations of machines in

plant

f. Demonstration of ownership of machines

by production operators

g. Deployment of visual control like gauge/meter,

kanban system, TPM

activity board, labels, etc

78

B3.2. Education and Training

No Extensive

Emphasis Emphasis

1 2 3 4 5

a. TPM training conducted for all employees

covering the overview of

TPM concept, redefined

roles of operators &

maintenance people,

expected benefits, etc

b. Production operators are trained to perform

routine PM task, setting

of machine, etc

c. Employees receive training to perform

multiple task

d. At this plant, employees only learn how to do one

job/task R

e. Exist staff development program that focus on

upgrading employees

technical, problem

solving, team working

skills, etc

6. Does your company place emphasis on TPM strategies or elements other than

the ones listed previously? If yes, please describe them in the column below

(for example, health, safety and environment, early management, etc)

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

79

Section C – Contribution of TPM strategies/element emphasis towards

manufacturing performance

Five point rating scale (1 – no correlation at all, 2 – nominal impact, 3- some impact,

4 – reasonable impact, 5 – extensive impact/correlation)

Please rank the contribution of TPM strategies/element emphasis towards different

aspect of your company performance. The higher the rating, the more significant the

impact/correlation

C1. Cost

No Extensive

Correlation Correlation

1 2 3 4 5

a. Reduction of operating cost through these TPM

strategies

implementation

b. Reduction in energy consumption (e.g.

electricity bill) and

overhead expenditure

c. Reduction in additional investment in

purchasing new

machine/parts

C2. Quality

No Extensive

Correlation Correlation

1 2 3 4 5

a. Reduction of percentage of internal scrap and

rework in operations

b. Improved customer order compliance and

conformance to

specification

c. Reduction of customer’s returns due to defects

d. Improve overall manufacturing quality

and less variation in

processes

80

C3. Delivery

No Extensive

Correlation Correlation

1 2 3 4 5

a. Achieving dependable deliveries by having

high percentage of

products delivered on

time

b. Achieving faster deliveries by averaging

low lead times between

receipt of order till

shipment

c. Reduction in cycle time to develop new product

C4. Productivity

No Extensive

Correlation Correlation

1 2 3 4 5

a. Improvement in equipment availability

and reliability

b. Reduction in setup times and unplanned downtime

c. Improvement in overall equipment effectiveness

(OEE)

d. Improve control over production schedule

81

7. Please provide any comments or suggestion that might help us in our study.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION!

82

APPENDIX B

Sample of SPSS Data

Reliability test using Cronbach’s alpha

Examples of some of the TPM element factors:

Top management leadership, B1

NEW FILE.

DATASET NAME DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT.

RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=VAR00001 VAR00002 VAR00003 VAR00004 VAR00005 VAR00006

VAR00007

/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL

/MODEL=ALPHA.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.957 7

Planned maintenance management, B2.1

RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=VAR00008 VAR00009 VAR00010 VAR00011 VAR00012 VAR00013

/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL

/MODEL=ALPHA.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.937 6

83

Example for one of the factors in validity testing using KMO test and principal

component analysis

Top management leadership, B1

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .847

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 256.723

df 21

Sig. .000

Model Summary

Dimension

Cronbach's

Alpha

Variance Accounted For

Total

(Eigenvalue) % of Variance

dimension0

1 .950 5.383 76.906

2 .174 1.177 16.817

Total .989a 6.561 93.722

a. Total Cronbach's Alpha is based on the total Eigenvalue.

Component Loadings

Dimension

1 2

VAR00001 .894 -.418

VAR00002 .892 -.429

VAR00003 .931 -.299

VAR00004 .957 -.124

VAR00005 .746 .625

VAR00006 .848 .386

VAR00007 .854 .418

Variable Principal Normalization.

84

Bivariate correlation procedure is used to compute the Pearson’s correlation

coefficient between TPM elements and manufacturing performance dimension.

Examples of the five TPM elements correlation with manufacturing performance in

quality is shown below:

Correlations

Between Top management leadership (B1) and Cost (C1)

[DataSet1]

C:\Users\Jon\Documents\SPSSInc\PASWStatistics18\TPMdata.sav

Correlations

B1 C1

B1 Pearson Correlation 1 .691**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

C1 Pearson Correlation .691** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Between Planned maintenance management (B2.1) and Quality (C1)

[DataSet1]

C:\Users\Jon\Documents\SPSSInc\PASWStatistics18\TPMdata.sav

Correlations

C2 B2.1

C2 Pearson Correlation 1 .740**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

B2.1 Pearson Correlation .740** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

85

Between Focused Improvement (B2.2) and Quality (C1)

[DataSet1]

C:\Users\Jon\Documents\SPSSInc\PASWStatistics18\TPMdata.sav

Correlations

B2.2 C1

B2.2 Pearson Correlation 1 .393*

Sig. (2-tailed) .032

N 30 30

C1 Pearson Correlation .393* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .032

N 30 30

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Between Autonomous Maintenance (B3.1) and Quality (C1)

[DataSet1]

C:\Users\Jon\Documents\SPSSInc\PASWStatistics18\TPMdata.sav

Correlations

C1 B3.1

C1 Pearson Correlation 1 .707**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

B3.1 Pearson Correlation .707** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

86

Between Education and Training (B3.2) and Quality (C1)

[DataSet1]

C:\Users\Jon\Documents\SPSSInc\PASWStatistics18\TPMdata.sav

Correlations

C1 B3.2

C1 Pearson Correlation 1 .648**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

B3.2 Pearson Correlation .648** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

87

Differences between TPM element practices between electrical and electronic

industry

TPM element (Top management leadership, B1)

Group Statistics

1=Electronic, 2=Electric N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

B1

dimension1

1.00 19 3.0458 1.24891 .28652

2.00 11 2.8182 1.16964 .35266

Independent Samples Test

B1

Equal variances

assumed

Equal variances

not assumed

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F .028

Sig. .869

t-test for Equality of

Means

t .492 .501

df 28 22.188

Sig. (2-tailed) .627 .621

Mean Difference .22761 .22761

Std. Error Difference .46267 .45438

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Lower -.72013 -.71426

Upper 1.17534 1.16947

Planned maintenance management, B2.1

Group Statistics

1=Electronic, 2=Electric N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

B2.1

dimension1

1.00 19 3.6674 .82754 .18985

2.00 11 3.4245 .88642 .26727

88

Independent Samples Test

B2.1

Equal

variances

assumed

Equal

variances not

assumed

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F .046

Sig. .831

t-test for Equality of

Means

t .755 .741

df 28 19.832

Sig. (2-tailed) .457 .468

Mean Difference .24282 .24282

Std. Error Difference .32167 .32783

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower -.41609 -.44140

Upper .90174 .92704

Focussed Improvement, B2.2

Group Statistics

1=Electronic, 2=Electric N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

B2.2

dimension1

1.00 19 3.6632 1.01992 .23399

2.00 11 3.2364 1.28940 .38877

Independent Samples Test

B2.2

Equal

variances

assumed

Equal

variances not

assumed

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F 1.475

Sig. .235

t-test for Equality of

Means

t 1.003 .941

df 28 17.296

Sig. (2-tailed) .325 .360

Mean Difference .42679 .42679

Std. Error Difference .42570 .45375

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower -.44521 -.52929

Upper 1.29880 1.38288

89

Autonomous Maintenance, B3.1

Group Statistics

1=Electronic, 2=Electric N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

B3.1

dimension1

1.00 19 3.5868 .99095 .22734

2.00 11 3.2082 1.01359 .30561

Independent Samples Test

B3.1

Equal

variances

assumed

Equal

variances not

assumed

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F .228

Sig. .637

t-test for Equality of

Means

t 1.000 .994

df 28 20.622

Sig. (2-tailed) .326 .332

Mean Difference .37866 .37866

Std. Error Difference .37852 .38089

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower -.39671 -.41434

Upper 1.15403 1.17166

Education and Training, B3.2

Group Statistics

1=Electronic, 2=Electric N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

B3.2

dimension1

1.00 19 3.3474 .84811 .19457

2.00 11 2.9091 .86424 .26058

90

Independent Samples Test

B3.2

Equal

variances

assumed

Equal

variances not

assumed

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F .000

Sig. .985

t-test for Equality of

Means

t 1.355 1.348

df 28 20.687

Sig. (2-tailed) .186 .192

Mean Difference .43828 .43828

Std. Error Difference .32352 .32521

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower -.22442 -.23865

Upper 1.10097 1.11520

Differences between TPM element practices between SMEs and large companies

Top management leadership, B1

Group Statistics

1=SME, 2=Large N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

B1

dimension1

1.00 7 2.2257 .32893 .12432

2.00 23 3.1243 1.28175 .26726

Independent Samples Test

B1

Equal

variances

assumed

Equal

variances not

assumed

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F 12.908

Sig. .001

t-test for Equality of

Means

t -1.816 -3.049

df 28 27.781

Sig. (2-tailed) .080 .005

Mean Difference -.89863 -.89863

Std. Error Difference .49482 .29476

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower -1.91223 -1.50265

Upper .11496 -.29462

91

Planned maintenance management, B2.1

Group Statistics

1=SME, 2=Large N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

B2.1

dimension1

1.00 7 3.3800 .57773 .21836

2.00 23 3.6387 .91038 .18983

Independent Samples Test

B2.1

Equal

variances

assumed

Equal

variances not

assumed

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F 1.738

Sig. .198

t-test for Equality of

Means

t -.705 -.894

df 28 16.003

Sig. (2-tailed) .487 .385

Mean Difference -.25870 -.25870

Std. Error Difference .36697 .28934

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower -1.01040 -.87205

Upper .49301 .35466

Focussed Improvement, B2.2

Group Statistics

1=SME, 2=Large N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

B2.2

dimension1

1.00 7 2.8286 1.21342 .45863

2.00 23 3.7130 1.03542 .21590

92

Independent Samples Test

B2.2

Equal

variances

assumed

Equal

variances not

assumed

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F .786

Sig. .383

t-test for Equality of

Means

t -1.904 -1.745

df 28 8.836

Sig. (2-tailed) .067 .116

Mean Difference -.88447 -.88447

Std. Error Difference .46449 .50691

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower -1.83594 -2.03443

Upper .06700 .26549

Autonomous Maintenance, B3.1

Group Statistics

1=SME, 2=Large N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

B3.1

dimension1

1.00 7 3.0414 .82576 .31211

2.00 23 3.5717 1.03017 .21481

Independent Samples Test

B3.1

Equal

variances

assumed

Equal

variances not

assumed

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F .481

Sig. .494

t-test for Equality of

Means

t -1.241 -1.400

df 28 12.279

Sig. (2-tailed) .225 .186

Mean Difference -.53031 -.53031

Std. Error Difference .42732 .37888

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower -1.40563 -1.35375

Upper .34501 .29313

93

Education and training

Group Statistics

1=SME, 2=Large N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

B3.2

dimension1

1.00 7 2.4571 .53807 .20337

2.00 23 3.4087 .83007 .17308

Independent Samples Test

B3.2

Equal

variances

assumed

Equal

variances not

assumed

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F 3.815

Sig. .061

t-test for Equality of

Means

t -2.838 -3.563

df 28 15.606

Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .003

Mean Difference -.95155 -.95155

Std. Error Difference .33531 .26705

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower -1.63841 -1.51884

Upper -.26469 -.38426