Overall Weighting Equipment Effectiveness
R. Wudhikarn
College of Arts, Media and Technology, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
(o_un277@hotmail.com)
Abstract This research is designed to improve the
original Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE). The OEE
is the process, in which acquired to specify an equivalent
weight setting of every single element, even though; each
concerning losses are totally different. Hence, the study
proposes a simpler weight setting method, so called the
Rank-Order Centroid (ROC), to identify dissimilarity in
weighting each OEE element. The ROC methodology is
easier to determine the weight than the existing weighted
OEE method, which is based on an analytical hierarchy
process. This newly calculating methodology is the Overall
Weighting Equipment Effectiveness (OWEE). It is presented
and also implemented in a fiber cement roof manufacturer.
The result granted from OWEE, however, is different from
those of the original OEE and of the existing weighted OEE.
Keywords Overall equipment effectiveness, Total
preventive maintenance, Rank order centroid,
Normalization, Analytical hierarchy process
I. INTRODUCTION
Several business companies are now facing an intense
competitive condition. It has pushed these companies to
enhance their production availability, performance
efficiency and also product quality, in order to take
advantage over their contenders. The high demand, also,
plays role in stimulating firms to increase their production
capacity. In order to do so, most of labors are being
replaced by automatic machines. They are believed to
have higher reliability, faster production rate, more
precision and contain lower operating cost than human, in
general. This condition would be possible, if and only if;
these equipments are able to perform with a higher
effectiveness and efficiency. These excellent
performances, however, also required an appropriate
management system for monitoring its function. Total
Preventive Maintenance (TPM) is one of those broadly
applied management systems, as it is employed to
strengthen the manufacturing performance and to achieve
the world-class performance [1]. Still, these management
systems require an appropriate information system to
evaluate their operating performances. The information
gathered from these operating machines is mandatory for
sustaining the organizations. One of the TPMs
achievements is to enhance the equipment efficiency. The
calculation is made by using Overall Equipment
Effectiveness.
The OEE method is based on three main elements of
performance consisting availability, performance
efficiency and qualitative aspect. The OEE is not only
defined as an operational measure, but also employed as
978-1-4244-8503-1/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE
an indicator of the process improvement activities within
a manufacturing environment [2]. Therefore, several
studies [3 - 5] have implemented the OEE and,
accordingly, major improving outcomes can be
determined. However, the OEE has some flaws;
especially, the weighting of each element is equivalent,
whilst, their losses are totally different. For example, a
quality rate is composed of qualitative losses but
availability rate associates with the time collapsed.
Therefore, many studies, including this study, have
attempted to improve this weakness.
This study proposes to improve weaknesses of the
OEE by developing an existing calculating methodology.
The theoretical concept of the OEE measurement is, also,
taking into consideration, thence the problems and the
development of the OEE are examined and discussed with
the regarding literatures. Later, the proposed methodology
is presented, a case study application is, then, analyzed
and, finally, the potential of the new calculating method is
explored. This methodology has aimed to rectify the
weight setting of the OEEs elements.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Overall Equipment Effectiveness
In 1988, Nakajima [6] proposed the OEE as a tool for
assessing the success to his proposed TPM philosophy.
According to Nakajima, the OEE is based on three main
aspects; each element concerns with different losses (see
Table I).
TABLE I
PERFORMANCE ASPECTS OF OEE AND RELATING LOSSES
Performance aspects Relating losses
1. Availability Rate - Equipment failure/breakdown losses
- Set-up and adjustment losses
2. Performance Efficiency - Idling and minor stoppage losses
- Reduced speed losses
3. Quality Rate - Defect and rework losses
- Start-up losses
From the Table I, these losses are defined as the six big
losses and their definitions are described as follows:
1) Equipment failure/breakdown losses: These
losses are categorized due to time losses (reduced
productivity), and quantity losses (occurrence of defective
products), which are related to sporadic/chronic failures.
The sporadic failures happen when the changes occur in
23
 Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM
some conditions (jigs/tools, work method, and
equipments state). These require a mean of measurement
to revert them back to their original conditions. The
chronic failures occur when there are some hidden defects
in the operating equipments. They are uncorrectable, even
if various countermeasures are exploited.
2) Set-up and adjustment losses: These represent the
time losses in between the endings of the production and
the time losses due to adjusting of equipments to meet the
requirement of a new item production. A setting up means
a series of operations from the removal of jigs and
fixtures to the end of production, clearing up and
cleaning, until the preparation of jigs2tools and the
necessary metal fixtures for the next product, plus their
attachment, adjustment, trial processing, readjustment,
measurement, production, and ,finally, the ability to
produce excellent products.
These first two losses are considered as the time
losses, which are significant for calculating the
availability rate of the equipment.
3) Idling and minor stoppage losses: These losses
take place when the production is interrupted by a
temporarily malfunction or when a machine is idling. For
instance, the idling and minor stoppages caused by the
malfunctioning of conveyors and blockages of material in
a pipe.
4) Reduced speed losses: These losses are according
to the delay in equipment speed. To specify; (i) the actual
speed is slower than the design speed; (ii) the design
speed is slower than the present technological standards
or the desirable condition.
These third and fourth losses are the speed losses,
which determine the performance efficiency of the
equipment.
5) Defect and rework losses: These include the
volume and time losses due to defect and rework (disposal
defects), financial losses due to a product downgrading,
and repairing time losses for defective products.
6) Start-up losses: Start-up losses are time and
volume losses. For instance, (i) Start-up after periodic
repair; (ii) Start-up after suspension (long-time stoppage);
(iii) Start-up after holidays and (iv) Start-up after breaks
These last two losses are regarded as the quality
losses. They affect the quality rate of the equipment
directly.
Normally, the OEE is calculated using these six big
losses. These losses are the functions of Availability Rate
(A), Performance Efficiency (P) and Quality Rate (Q)
which can be determined as in the following equation:
(1)
, where the loading time is the planned time available per
time period (day, month, etc.) for production operations,
and the operating time is calculated from the loading time
subtracted by the time of equipment failures, set-up and
adjustment requirements, exchange of dies and other
fixtures and etc. The availability, in this case, is defined as
24
a ratio between the actual operating time and the loading
time.
(2)
The net operating time is the time durable, in which the
equipments are processing at a standard production rate.
To calculate the net operating time, the performance time
losses are subtracted from the operating time. The
performance time losses consist of normal production
losses (production rate reduction due to start-up,
shutdown, and changeover) and abnormal production
losses (production rate reductions due to abnormalities).
On the other hand, the net operating time is the processed
amount multiplied with the actual cycle time. Where the
processed amount refers to the number of items processed
per time period (day, month or etc.), and the operating.
(3)
The defect amount represents the number of items
rejected due to quality defects, and requires a rework or,
otherwise, would become scrapped.
Combining (1) to (3), the OEE for the given
equipment operation is computed using:
OEE = A x P x Q (4)
As presented, the OEE depends on the availability rate,
the performance efficiency and the quality rate. Therefore,
the OEE is in direct proportion to all these three elements.
Rising in the availability rate reduces buffer inventories
needed to protect a downstream production from breaking
down and, at the same time, increases its effective
capacity. The reduced buffer inventories lead to a
decreasing in lead times, since the jobs are not waiting as
long as in the queues. This capability of shortening the
lead-times improves the firms competitive position; in
terms of delivery and flexibility, since it is easier to
deliver multiple products or variations of products in a
shorter lead time. The reduction needed for the buffer
inventory minimizes the inventory costs directly and,
later, results in increasing of the effective capacity. This
allows more throughputs and lowers the cost per unit. An
escalating in the performance efficiency, also, lowers the
needs for the buffer inventories, together with enhances
the effective capacity. This reinforces the benefits gained
from an increasing in equipment availability. An
upgrading in the rate of quality products can be implied
that there is less scrap and rework, which is not only
reduces the costs, but also yields a higher rate of quality
[7, 8].
Although the OEE seems to be a complete
performance measurement indicator, still, it requires a
proper modification. For instance, an existing research
had showed the difference in element weights of the OEE
[9]. The conclusion of this study was; the traditional
means of evaluating the maintenance management
 Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM
systems could not yield higher capital productivity.
Factors relating to the OEE are not equally important in
these aspects; however, the different in weights should be
taken into account. Furthermore, there is another research
[10] engaged with the calculating method, which
proposed; how to calculate an increasing in profits or a
decreasing in costs from an increasing percentage of the
OEE. Hence, all the outcomes are presented in term of the
monetary unit allowing easier ranking of the problem
priorities. These studies have put efforts on improving the
OEEs weaknesses to prevent a wrong decision making.
They are, however, inappropriately developed, thus, a
new indicator has been proposed [11]. This modified
method is called an overall equipment cost loss
indicator. These last two mentioned methods,
nevertheless, require the operating information
accompanied with the financial information, which put
these indicators into a complicated shop floor. As a
conclusion, the OEE or the weighted OEE is more
suitable for the operational process.
B. Weighting of the OEE
The traditional OEE specifies the weighting of each
element equivalently. This designation, still, is
inappropriate. These elementary losses are totally
different, as the availability rate is regarded to the time
losses, the performance efficiency concerns with the
speed losses and the quality rate is defined as the quality
losses. So Raouf [9] had proposed a modified OEE. This
methodology assigns weights to all the elements using the
analytical hierarchy process. Assuming that has a
weight of , has a weight of and has a weight of
, where 0 1 and 1. In this case, the
weighted OEE can be calculated as
(5)
The numerical example between the original OEE and the
weighted OEE are represented in Table II.
TABLE II
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE OF OEE AND WEIGHTED OEE
Original Weighted
M/C A P Q performance.
OEE OEE
No.1 89.0% 81.4% 98.0% 71.0% 90.9%
No.2 91.2% 79.7% 98.1% 71.3% 90.8%
Weight 0.20 0.30 0.50 - -
The Table II depicts a different weight setting for each
single element. However, the first problematic machine
exhibited a contradiction between the original OEE
contrasts and the modified OEE, since, the weighted OEE
specified the highest vital at the quality rate element. This
method, on the other hand, has proved to be more
25
reasonable than the original OEE, as its loss in each
element is different. Though, the weight setting should
not be equivalent. Applying of the analytical hierarchy
process with the simple weight setting is considered to be
more complicated for the decision makers; hence, this
research proposes another alternation of the simplifying
appropriate weighting method.
C. Rank-order centroid (ROC)
The Rank-order centroid (ROC) is proposed by Edwards
and Barron [12]. This technique transforms the swing
ranks into the swing weights. Moreover, the ROC weights
define the best alternative 75 up to 90% of the time based
upon a set of the true swing weights elicited some other
way accurately. The calculating formula of the ROC is
defined as in (6)
(6)
Where is the rank of the th objective, is the total
number of the objectives, and is the normalized
approximate ratio scale weight of the ith objective.
The ROC method is, also, applied in this research and
the weighting factors for each element are determined by
interviewing a top manager who has a total authority of
the company management.
D. Normalization
In general, normalization refers to the comparison of
the overall size of category indicators with the reference
information [13]. Its main purpose is to resolve the issue
of the unit differences. As a result, the normalization aims
at obtaining a set of comparable scales, which allow inter-
attribute as well as intra-attribute comparisons [14]. As
mentioned, the units and ranges of the time losses, the
speed losses and the quality losses are different and, in
order to make a comparison, these dissimilarities should
be extinguished. The calculating formulas of , and
are the ones taking responsible for that, or, to say, to
change into a normalized form. These comparative values
are used in accompanied with the correlative weight for
calculating a summarization of the overall equipment
III. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
As stated prior, this research main goal is to find the way
to improve the OEE method. To do so, the newly
calculating method combined the traditional OEE
approach with the weighted OEE approaches is proposed.
First, the OEE elements are still computed as in the
original calculation, following (1), (2) and (3)
for , and respectively. Then, the weight of each
element is specified by using the ROC method as
 Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM

illustrated in (6). Afterward, the overall weighting
equipment effectiveness (OWEE) is calculated utilized
the following formula.
OWEE
The weighting and the OEEs element data from the Table
III and the Table IV were, then, employed to calculate the
traditional OEE and the OWEE. Moreover, Raoufs OEE
was also exploited as a comparison mean for both
(7) methods. The outcomes are exhibited in Table V.

, where; is the weight of the availability rate element, TABLE V

is the weight of the performance efficiency element NUMERICAL RESULTS FROM THREE METHODS
and is the weight of the quality rate element.
The OWEE can be simply applied to any company Machine Original OEE Raoufs OEE OWEE
already implementing the OEE. Anyway, firstly, the ST1 74.29% 95.14% 93.85%
weight must be identified by an authorized person. ST4 73.80% 94.57% 93.32%

ST5 73.82% 94.02% 92.89%

IV. OWEE MODEL APPLICATION CC3 75.75% 94.97% 93.81%

CC4 76.91% 94.62% 93.65%

In this section, the application of the OWEE model
previously discussed is exemplified through a case study.
In this newly improved calculation method, the
production data such as the processed products, the good
products, the loading time, the operating time, and etc. are
collected, as the weight setting is mandatory. In this case
study, a managing director was interviewed for
prioritizing the availability rate, the performance
efficiency and the quality rate element. The outcome of
the order of magnitude is demonstrated in the quality rate,
the performance efficiency and the availability rate
respectively. Then, the prioritized orders were applied for
calculating weight by using the ROC method resulting in
Table III.
TABLE III
WEIGHT SETTING BY ROC METHOD
Element Ranking Numerical calculation
CC5 77.17% 95.08% 94.01%
V. DISCUSSION
From the Table V, the results from those three
different methods have been calculated and the outcomes
are presented in percentage. The machine ST4 shows the
lowest traditional OEE, even though; for the other
remaining methods, the machine ST5 comprised a lower
score. This irrelevant outcome, however, is expected, as
the OEE normally identifies an equivalent weight in each
single element, on the other hand, both of the modified
methods do not. Therefore, the original OEE possibly
gives a different result from other weighting methods.
Later, the problematic machine can be ranked by
alternatively using the original OEE, the Raoufs OEE
and the OWEE. The results are displayed in Table VI.
Weight

A 3 13 3 0.11 TABLE VI
MACHINE PRIORITY BY ALTERNATIVE METHODS
P 2 12 13 3 0.28

Q 1 1 12 13 3 0.61 *Ranking by
Machine
Original OEE Raoufs OEE OWEE

The OEE element data of the selected company, a fiber ST1 3 6 5

cement roof manufacturer, between June and December ST4 1 2 2
2009 are depicted as illustrated in Table IV. ST5 2 1 1

CC3 4 4 4
TABLE IV
OVERALL EQUIPMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF MACHINES CC4 6 3 3

CC5 5 5 6
Machine A P Q * Less number means high priority to improve

ST1 88.98% 84.21% 99.15%

From the Table VI, the problematic machines ranked by
ST4 91.58% 81.27% 99.16% the OWEE method are almost similar to the Raoufs OEE.
ST5 92.41% 81.26% 98.31% The OWEEs outcome is mostly dissimilar from the
OEEs, yet, only in the fourth order. Anyway, it shows
CC3 92.03% 83.12% 99.03%
slightly differences from those of Raoufs OEE in the fifth
CC4 93.19% 84.14% 98.09% and the sixth order. From the newly proposed method, the
CC5 93.52% 83.36% 98.99%
machine ST5 is the first improved machine relating to the
Raoufs OEE. This similarity is the result of the and the

26
 Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM

elements, which contain the lowest performance. The
, however, is the highest weight element, due to its
lowest score. For the differences between the OWEE and
the original OEE, the ST4 is identified as the first
problematic machine for the OEE traditional method. As
the OWEE identified the highest weight setting on the ,
then the overall result mostly depends on this element.
As for the flaws of this study, this numerical case
study contains only a few sets of machines and, plus, the
performance results are also nearly similar. For a better
alternative of the further developed study; it is suggested
to have more machines and also a vast variation in
capability. Still, at this moment, there is no completely
optimal method for every circumstance. The methodology
is highly depending on, which is the most appropriated
mean to specify a problem. Finally and importantly,
everything is depending on the decision maker, solely.
VI. CONCLUSION
The performance measurement for operating a
machine, together with an appropriate decision from an
authorized manager, is crucial for sustaining a business
organization. Therefore, it is mandatory to establish a
proper mean of measurement. In addition, accuracy in the
performance measurement is essential to improve and is
the key to success in a business goal. One of the most
important and widely used metrics of performance in the
manufacturing is the OEE, especially, for firms already
applying the TPM.
The original OEE method does not appropriately
prioritize the problematic equipments. It specifies an
equivalent weight in each element, then, the weighted
OEE method is presented and the analytical hierarchy
process has been applied for setting the weight. This
methodology is, however, complicated for a decision
maker, especially, those who have not priory became
accustomed to this method. To avoid these conflicts, this
research has proposed a simpler mean of weighting
method and, at the same time, provides a summarized
calculation, known as the OWEE. Finally, the
implemented case study is also discussed. It is proved that
the prioritized problematic machine demonstrates
differences from the original OEE and the Raoufs OEE.
[4] M. Lesshammar, Evaluation and improvement of
manufacturing performance measurement systems the
role of OEE, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 55-78, (1999).
[5] R. Wudhikarn and W. Manopiniwes, Autonomous
maintenance using total productive maintenance approach:
A case study of synthetic wood plank factory, Technology
Innovation & Industrial Management Conference,
TIIM2010, Pattaya, Thailand, in press.
[6] S. Nakajima, Introduction to TPM, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA., 1988.
[7] M. Lesshammar, Evaluation and improvement of
manufacturing performance measurement systems the
role of OEE, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 55-78, (1999).
[8] L.D. Frendall, J.W. Patterson and W.J. Kneedy,
Maintenance modeling its strategic impact, Journal of
Managerial Issues, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 440-448, 1997.
[9] A. Raouf, Improving capital productivity through
maintenance, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 4452, 1994.
[10] O. Kwon and H. Lee, Calculation methodology for
contributive managerial effect by OEE as a result of TPM
activities, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering,
vol. 10, no. 4, pp.263-272, 2004.
[11] R. Wudhikarn, C. Smithikul and W. Manopiniwes,
Developing overall equipment cost loss indicator, in
Proc. 6th Conf. of Digital Enterprise Technology,
DET2009, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, pp. 557-567.
[12] F.H. Barron and B.E. Barrett, Decision quality using
ranked attribute weights, Management Science, vol. 42,
no. 11, pp. 15151523, 1996.
[13] J. Guine, Handbook in Life Cycle Assessment,
Operational Guide to the ISO Standars, Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht, 2002.
[14] C.L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple attribute decision
making: Methods and applications: a state-of-the-art
survey, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1981.

REFERENCES

[1] K.E. McKone, R.G. Schroeder and K.O. Cua, The impact
of total productive maintenance practices on manufacturing
performance, Journal of Operations Management, vol. 19,
no. 1, pp. 3958, 2001.
[2] B. Dal, P. Tugwell and R. Greatbanks, Overall equipment
effectiveness as a measure of operational improvement,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 14881520, 2000.
[3] D. Kotze, Consistency, accuracy lead to maximum OEE
benefits, TPM Newsletter, vol. 4, no. 2, 1993.

27