Integrating Total Productive Maintenance & Total Quality


Download Integrating Total Productive Maintenance & Total Quality


Preview text

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

INTEGRATING TOTAL PRODUCTIVE MAINTENANCE & TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT: CASE STUDY IN PAVEMENT BLOCK
INDUSTRY

Kwadwo Appiah Boateng1, Matthew Amissah2, Owusu Sekyere Boateng3
1 Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Sunyani Polytechnic, Sunyani, Ghana [email protected]
2 Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Eng. Mngt, University of Old Dominion, USA [email protected]
3 Engineer, Planning Department, Goldfields Ghana Limited, Tarkwa, Ghana [email protected]

Abstract
In this modern age of manufacturing, dynamism in manufacturing calls for lower cost of production, faster delivery, higher quality and customer satisfaction. Therefore the need for instituting various appropriate techniques and strategies to streamline manufacturing processes has become paramount for managers. Bearing in mind this priority demands, techniques such as Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Total Quality Management (TQM), Just-In-Time Manufacturing (JIT) and Synchronous Manufacturing have gained popularity in the recent past. TPM as maintenance strategy is a comprehensive strategy, hence integrating it with TQM makes the approach more versatile and flexible. The objectives of both TPM and TQM are both geared towards enhancing the availability and the presentation of equipment continuously as a means of achieving the maximum effective performance, as well as ensuring that producing quality products become a hallmark. This paper seeks to evaluate the significance of implementing total productive maintenance (TPM) in a total quality management (TQM) environment in the maintenance function of manufacturing. The study establishes that integrating TPM and TQM strategically over a period of time can contribute to significant increases in the Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) of machines thereby contributing towards realistic gains in productivity and manufacturing performance enhancements.

Keywords: Total Productive Maintenance, Total Quality Management, Overall Equipment Effectiveness, Availability, and Performance Rate --------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. INTRODUCTION
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is a world class maintenance strategy that involves every member of an organization working cohesively in tandem to increase equipment effectiveness. Successful implementation of TPM relies on shared responsibility, natural work groups and full employee participation [1].
[2], known as the father of TPM, defines TPM as an innovative and systematic approach of maintenance that eliminates breakdowns by promoting autonomous maintenance by workers through their everyday activities [3, 4].
1.1 Elements of Total Productive Maintenance
TPM is characterized by elements such as:  Maximization of the Overall Equipment Effectiveness  Development of a reliable and maintainable productive
maintenance  Creation of an enabling environment that involves all
departments of an organization

 The involvement of all employees of an organization form senior management to the lower ranks
 The promotion of TPM through small group activity and practice of autonomous maintenance [5].
Total Productive Maintenance implementation is geared towards ensuring that maintenance function and production are brought together with a comprehensive combination of sound reasonable practices, mutual team work and continuous improvement [6].
TPM is seen as a new application of TQM which has an aim to equip operators to develop their machinery for work by sensitizing the operators to develop ownership of their respective machines so that the culture of problem diagnostic and continuous improvement would be brought to bear and reflect in their day to day activities [7].
According to [8] the conceptual structure of TPM is founded on eight pillars namely: 1) Autonomous maintenance 2) Focused Improvement (Improve OEE) 3) Office TPM

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 05 Issue: 04 | Apr-2016, Available @ http://ijret.esatjournals.org

295

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

4) Education and training 5) Future equipment design 6) Planned maintenance 7) Safety, health and environment 8) Quality maintenance

1.4 Total Quality Management
1.41 Quality Defined
As the world continues to grow older in years and matures in all angles so does perceptions and the way people accept quality. Therefore it is very difficult to give a universal definition for quality [13].

Quality more often than not signifies the degree of excellence of a result be it a product or a service. The British brand “Rolls Royce” is known for its quality in all circles due to its acceptance by customers, hence customers cannot be left out in the definition of quality since invariably customers assess quality.

According to [14] quality can therefore be simply defined as meeting customer requirements and satisfaction.

Fig.1.1: Eight pillar structure of TPM [9]

1.42 Quality Management
“Total Quality Management” is an approach to improving competiveness, effectiveness and flexibility of a whole organization. It is an essential way of planning, organizing and understanding each activity and depends on each individual at each level” [14].

1.3 Overall Equipment Effectiveness
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) a principal metric of TPM ties the big six losses namely; equipment failure, reduced speed, setup and adjustment, small stops, production reject and start up rejects to measurables namely; availability, performance and quality. When we know the big six losses and the primary events contributing to the losses we can identify ways to monitor and correct them as a means of managing our assets [10]
Availability Equipment availability refers to the amount of process time available for production. Equipment availability is affected by both unscheduled and scheduled downtime. Scheduled downtime such as set up and adjustment time as well as unscheduled downtime such as breakdowns reduces the available process time. In a well-functioning system the unplanned downtime is minimized whilst the planned downtime is optimized [1].
Performance Rate The performance rate of equipment is typically optimized by operating equipment at its highest speed for the possible stipulated time therefore increasing the product through put tremendously. Performance rate is reduced by idle time and time lost due to minor stoppages [11]. Quality Rate Quality rate identifies the actual quality products with respect to the total quantity of products produced. Efforts geared towards improving quality rate are necessary to be linked to critical requirements since products that are defective leads to a reduction in the quality rate [12]

Total Quality Management is human centered and its main aim or objective is to continuously increase in satisfying customers at a continual real low cost. Total Quality Management should be viewed as a total system approach (not as an isolated program) and as a substantive part of a high level strategy. Total Quality works horizontally across all fundamental departments and functions, incorporates within each and every employee from high rank Chief Executive Officers to low rank Company Cleaners; stretches forward and backwards to include customer and supply chains [13].
1.43 Contributions of quality philosophers
Many quality philosophers have made their voices heard such as Genichi Taguchi, A.V. Feigenbaum and Kaoru Ishikawa but the most significant and important spearheading voices are:  W. Edwards Deming  Joseph Juran  Philip B. Crosby
Dr. W. Edwards Deming (1900-1993) Deming views variation as the chief under miner of achieving quality in an organization. Deming believed in facts and not speculation by people.
As a means of reducing variation Deming employed a never ending cycle of product service design, manufacture, test and sales followed by market surveys, redesign and improvement.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 05 Issue: 04 | Apr-2016, Available @ http://ijret.esatjournals.org

296

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

He emphasized and reiterated that higher quality gives higher production which eventually leads to long term competitive strength. Deming philosophy places emphasis on top management spearheading continuous improvement in product and service quality by reducing variability and uncertainty in design, manufacturing and services processes [13].
Deming philosophy underwent a series of changes and modifications. His profound knowledge system consists of four (4) interrelated parts namely; 1. Application for system 2. Understanding of variation 3. Theory of knowledge 4. Psychology
Dr. Joseph Juran (1904-2008) Juran proposed a definition for quality as; “fitness for use”. His philosophy focused on three major quality processes, called Quality trilogy: 1. Quality Planning: Process of preparing to meet quality
goals. 2. Quality control: The process of meeting quality goals
during operations. 3. Quality improvement: process of breaking through
exceptional unknown levels of performance.
Dr. Philip Crosby (1926-2001) Crosby emphasizes a prevention rather than after-the-event inspection. He stressed on getting things right the first time. He came up with significant and important practices such as management responsibility for quality, employee recognition, management participation and cost prevention.
1.5 Chapter Conclusion
From the literature reviewed, it was identified that maintenance and quality management are very crucial success determinant factors for most manufacturing companies. Total productive Maintenance has been identified as a comprehensive approach that brings continuous improvement. [15]and has been established fundamental to quality management philosophies such as Total Quality Management [16].
It can be inferred from the literature reviewed that the two strategies TPM and TQM are geared towards continuous improvements in production.
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1 Case Study at Cymain Block Industry
The study was conducted at Cymain Block Industry and the values chosen are meant for justifying the research initiatives only. The company adapted TPM and TQM

practices since 10th November, 2010. Prior to their introduction, five selected machines were monitored and their respective Overall Equipment Effectiveness calculated. The same assessment was done six months after the introduction of TPM and TQM practices in their production set up.

2.1 Assessing Production Machines by Using OEE Calculation
The OEE of five pavement block machines LANG CC1, BURGER AG5, STR XL4, FODA JH3 and HINK XJ were calculated at a shift length of 16 hours for 5days. Microsoft spreadsheet was used as the standard format for the OEE calculation. Parameters such as shift length, down time, break time, ideal run rate, total and rejected pieces for each machine were fed to the programmed spreadsheet. The resulting Performance, Quality, Availability and Overall Equipment Effectiveness would be generated.

OEE is calculated by finding the product of the percentage availability, performance rate and the quality rate. Mathematically;

Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) = Availability x

Performance Rate x Quality Rate

Written as OEE = A x P x Q

Where

A = Availability

P = Performance

Q = Quality

Availability: This is a measure of the probability that an equipment will remain functional [13]. It is the fraction of the planned production time that the operation is available to operate and is mathematically expressed as:

Availability = Operating Time / Planned Production Time

Performance: This parameter takes into account speed losses (factors that cause the process to operate at less than the maximum possible speed when running). It is mathematically expressed as:

Performance = [Total Pieces / Operating Time Rate] / Ideal Time Rate Quality: Quality has a lot of definitions. It can be defined as the degree of conformance to set standards [13]. Quality rate is an expression of the ratio of good pieces to the total number of pieces produced [17]. It is mathematically expressed as:

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 05 Issue: 04 | Apr-2016, Available @ http://ijret.esatjournals.org

297

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

Quality = Good Pieces/Total Pieces

FORMAT FOR CALCULATING THE OEE FOR CYMAIN LTD MACHINES

From: 17/10/10 To: 21/10/10

Parameters for Calculating OEE

Machines

CC1

AG5

XL4

JH3

XJ

Shift Length

4800

4800

4800

4800

4800

Break

450

450

450

450

450

Planned Production Time= (Shift Length-Break)

4350

4350

4350

4350

4350

Downtime

680

720

800

400

840

Operating Time= (Planned Production Time-Downtime)

3670

3630

3550

3950

3510

Total Pieces

25000 28020 24950 27180 25538

Rejected Pieces

200

560

340

180

714

Ideal Run Rate

13

12.5

13.2

11.4

12

Good Pieces= (Total Pieces-Rejected Pieces)

24800 27460 24610 27000 24824

Availability= (Operating Time/Planned Production Time)

0.843678 0.834482 0.816092 0.908046 0.806896

Performance= (Total Pieces/Operating Time Rate)/Ideal Rate 0.523

0.617

0.532

0.603

0.606

Quality= Good Pieces/Total Pieces

0.992

0.980

0.986

0.993

0.972

OEE= Availability x Performance X Quality

0.438

0.505

0.428

0.544

0.475

OEE (%)

43.85

50.50

42.85

54.44

47.55

Entered Values Generated Values Generated OEE Values

Six months after the implementation of TPM and TQM the same machines were assessed to calculate the OEE accordingly.

FORMAT FOR CALCULATING THE OEE FOR CYMAIN LTD MACHINES

From: 11/04/11 To: 15/04/11 Parameters for Calculating OEE

Machines

CC1

AG5

Shift Length

4800

4800

Break

450

450

Planned Production Time= (Shift Length-Break)

4350

4350

XL4 4800 450 4350

JH3 4800 450 4350

XJ 4800 450 4350

Downtime

115

150

200

180

110

Operating Time= (Planned Production Time-Downtime)

4235

4200

4150

4170

4240

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 05 Issue: 04 | Apr-2016, Available @ http://ijret.esatjournals.org

298

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

Total Pieces

27020 28116 27050 27880 27112

Rejected Pieces

50

105

112

82

72

Ideal Run Rate

8.4

9.6

8.2

9.6

8.2

Good Pieces= (Total Pieces-Rejected Pieces)

26970 28011 26938 27792 27040

Availability= (Operating Time/Planned Production Time)

0.973123 0.965342 0.940802 0.958013 0.974710

Performance= (Total Pieces/Operating Time Rate)/Ideal Rate 0.759

0.697

0.794

0.696

0.779

Quality= Good Pieces/Total Pieces

0.998

0.996

0.996

0.997

0.997

OEE= Availability x Performance X Quality
OEE (%)
Entered Values Generated Values Generated OEE Values
CONCLUSION
A pavement block industry has been studied and analyzed before and after the introduction of TPM & TQM principles into the production line. It can be seen that the OEE of the machines showed significant rises after the six months; which is an indication of increases in machine availability, decrease in rework, rejection and increase in rate of performance. This reiterates the fact that both quality standard and preventive maintenance programme when well integrated can benefit an organization in its strive to achieve quality and productivity tremendously.
REFERENCES
[1]. Johnson, P. and Lesshammer, M. (1999) Evaluation and Improvement of Manufacturing Performance Measurement Systems: The role of OEE. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 19(1) Pp 55-77
[2]. Nakajima, S. (1992) Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) Development Program, Productivity Press, M A. Cambridge.
[3]. Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. (1993) Quality Planning and Analysis, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[4]. Bhadury, B. (2000). “Management of productivity through TPM”. Productivity, Volume 41, No. 2. pp. 240-51.

0.737

0.670

0.755

0.665

0.755

73.7

67.0

75.5

66.5

75.5

[5]. Tywoniak, S., Rosqvist, T., Mardiasmo, O., & Kivits,

R. (2008) Towards the Integrated Perspective on fleet

Asset Management: Engineering and Governance Considerations. Proceedings of 3rd World Congress on

Engineering Asset Management and Intelligent

Systems

[6]. Cooke, F.L. (2000). “Implementing TPM in plant

maintenance:

some

organizational

barriers”.International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management. Vol. 17. No. 9, pp. 1003-16.

[7]. Chowdhury, C. (1995). “NITIE and HINDALCO give

a new dimension to TPM”. Udyog Pragati.Vol. 22, No.

1, pp. 5-11.

[8]. Dale, B.G., and Ireland, F. (2001) A study of Total

Productive Maintenance Implementation, Journal of

Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.

183-192

[9]. Ahuja, I. P. S. and Khamba, J. S., (2007). “An

evaluation of TPM implementation initiatives in an

Indian manufacturing enterprise”. Journal of Quality in

maintenance Engineering. Vol: 13, Issue 4.

[10].Ljungberg, O. (1998), “Measurement of overall

equipment effectiveness as a basis for TPM activities”,

International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 495-507.

[11].Waeyenbergh, G. and Pintelon, L. (2002) A

Framework for Maintenance Concept Development:

International Journal of Production Economics. Pp 299-

313.

[12].Tsuchiya, S., (1992). Quality Maintenance: Zero

Defects Through Equipment Management. Productivity

Press, Cambridge, MA.

[13].Evans, R. J. & Lindsay, M. W., (2005). The Management and control of Quality 6th Edition. United

States of America: Copyright by South Western [14].Oakland, J.S. (1993) Total Quality Management 2nd

Edition. Nichols Publications Co

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 05 Issue: 04 | Apr-2016, Available @ http://ijret.esatjournals.org

299

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

[15].Johnston, R., Chambers, S., Harland, C. Harrison, A.

and Slack, N. (1997) Cases in Operation Management.

2nd Edition. Pitman Publishing, London.

[16].Swanson, L. (2003) An Information-Processing Model

of Maintenance Management. International Journal of

Production Economics. 83(1), Pp 45-64.

[17].Vorne (2008) Calculating Overall Equipment

Efficiency. Vorne Industries Inc., Illinois.

[OnlineArticle:

<

http://www.oee.com/calculating_oee.html >]

BIOGRAPHIES
 K. Appiah Boateng obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering from KNUST and Master’s degree in Engineering Management from the University of Sunderland, U.K. He currently lectures at the Sunyani Polytechnic, Ghana.
 M. Amissah obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from KNUST and Master’s degree in Engineering Management from the University of Old Dominion, U.S.A. He currently pursuing his Doctoral degree in the same University and is a Graduate Research Assistant at the Department of Engineering and Systems Management
 O. Sekyere Boateng obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Mining Engineering from UMAT and He currently works as a Planning Engineer in Goldfields Ghana Ltd

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Volume: 05 Issue: 04 | Apr-2016, Available @ http://ijret.esatjournals.org

300

Preparing to load PDF file. please wait...

0 of 0
100%
Integrating Total Productive Maintenance & Total Quality