CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter includes the related information and studies on the topics that are beneficial

in dealing with the research problem.

RELATED LITERATURE

Total Productive Maintenance

It can be considered as the medical science of machines. Total Productive

Maintenance (TPM) is a maintenance program which involves a newly defined concept

for maintaining plants and equipment. The goal of the TPM program is to markedly

increase production while, at the same time, increasing employee morale and job

satisfaction. The father of TPM, Nakajima who has given the original approach of its

application, defined TPM as productive maintenance carried out by all employees

through small group activities and can be viewed as equipment maintenance performed

on a company-wide basis (Bamber, 2012). TPM is thus a method for bringing about

change. It is a set of standard activities that can lead to improved management of plant

assets when properly performed by individuals and teams (Robinson and Ginder, 2010).

TPM is an aggressive strategy focuses on actually improving the function and

design of the production equipment. The TPM aims to increase the

availability/effectiveness of existing equipment in a given situation, through the effort of

minimizing input (improving and maintaining equipment at optimal level to reduce its

life cycle cost) and the investment in human resources which results in better hardware
utilization (Schippers, 2011). McKone et al, (1999) discussed TPM provides a

comprehensive company-wide approach to maintenance management, which can be

divided into long-term and short term elements.

FACTORS AFFECTING SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF TPM

TPM exists in the manufacturing organizations, although the complexity of

implementing it may vary dramatically from industry to industry and company to

company. In fact, there is no single right method for implementing TPM. However, TPM

implementation depends mainly on some specific factors, for instance, a continuous flow

manufacturing facility which is a fully automated facility, would likely get more benefits

from implementing TPM system than a manufacturing process composed of simple hand-

work operations (Hamacher, 1996).

Moreover, the type of industry, service activities, method of production, and equipment

conditions differ substantially from firm to firm, and accordingly, these factors must be

taken into account when implementing TPM. Furthermore, skill and age of the employee,

complexity and age of the equipment, the culture of the organisation and the existing

maintenance program are very important factors as well (Wireman, 2004).

ELEMENTS OF A TOTAL PRODUCTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

According to Operational Excellence Consulting: Empowering Sustainable Change

leaded by JIPM-certified TPM Instructors (2016), a comprehensive and effective total

productive maintenance program shall include:

 1. A deployment diagram that will show how the system perform its repairing and

overall inspection of the machine and show the configuration of run time

processing nodes and the components that live on them.

2. The eight pillar implementation plan that substantial increase labor productivity

through controlled maintenance, reduction in maintenance costs, and reduced

production stoppages and downtimes. The eight pillars that comprise an

implementation plan of TPM including: autonomous maintenance, focused

maintenance, planned maintenance, quality maintenance, education and training,

office TPM, and Safety, Health and Environment. (Japan Institute of Plant

Maintenance (JIPM))

3. An organized model or software for monitoring overall equipment effectiveness

which considered as the gold standard for measuring manufacturing productivity,

also the overall goal of implementing total productive maintenance is to improve

overall equipment effectiveness.

4. Comprehensive Maintenance Plan (CMP) which offers the tools to plan and

schedule maintenance. It is also a tool designed to maintain a computer database

for an organization’s maintenance operations.

5. Preventive and breakdown maintenance checklists or checksheets that can be used

for documentation and implementation of TPM program that includes

maintenance equipment summary report, mechanical parts usage report

maintenance record check sheet.

OVERALL EQUIPMENT EFFECTIVENESS (OEE)

 According to the study conducted by Abubaker Shagluf; A. P. and Longstaff S.

Fletche entitled “Maintenance Strategies to Reduce Downtime Due to Machine Positional

Errors” the result of TPM activities is made evident by measuring the Overall Equipment

Effectiveness (OEE). Nakajima identified the input factors as man, machine and

material and the outputs comprised of production (P), quality (Q), cost (C), delivery

(D), safety, health and environment (S), and morale (M). TPM strives to improve

OEE by maximizing output while minimizing input, i.e. the life cycle cost . More

clearly, TPM strives to maximize (PQCDSM) by maintaining ideal operation

conditions and running equipment effectively. A machine, equipment or instrument

that often breaks down, experiences speed losses, produced rejects or non-conformance

parts is not operating effectively.

To achieve OEE, TPM focuses on eliminating the six major equipment loss

elements “six big losses” breakdown due to equipment failures; setup and

unnecessary adjustments; idling and minor stops; reduced speed; start-up rejects; and

production rejects.
 According to (Suzuki, 2013) that the overall effectiveness of the equipment is a

comprehensive scale that determines the relative productivity of equipment as compared

to the theoretical productivity performance. Moreover, the overall effectiveness of the

equipment is used as an indicator of the status of equipment in general, and identification

of development needs of the three indicators, namely, availability, performance and

quality. The measurement of OEE is combining all the factors that affect the equipment

operation including the factors of time, speed, and quality. In addition, OEE is a metric

for the assessment of equipment effectiveness and identifying which machine

performance is worst and, therefore, indicates where to focus TPM activities.

AVAILABILITY

The available time can be defined as the time of production to operate the

equipment minus the other planned downtime like breaks, meetings etc. The down time

can be defined as the actual time for which the equipment is down for repairs or

changeovers. This time is also sometimes known as the breakdown time. The output of

this formula gives the true availability of the equipment. This value is used also in the

overall equipment effectiveness formula to measure the effectiveness of the equipment.

The availability is calculated as the required available time minus the downtime and then

divided by the required available time. This can be written in the form of formula as

(Almeanazel, 2010 and Afefy, 2012):

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒−𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

Availability = X 100%
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒

PERFORMANCE EFFICIENCY
 The performance efficiency can be defined as the ideal or design cycle time to

produce the item multiplied by the output of the equipment and then divided by the

operating time. This will give the performance efficiency rate of the equipment. The

formula to calculate the performance rate can be expressed as (Gomaa, 2003):

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡

PE = X 100%
𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡

QUALITY RATE

The quality rate can be expressed as the process quantity minus the volume or

number of defective quantity then divided by processed quantity. The quality rate can be

expressed in a formula as (Chana et al., 2005):

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦−𝑅𝑒𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦

Quality rate = X 100%
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦

Where, the quality defects mean the amount of products which are below the quality

standards i.e. the rejected items after the production process. This formula is very helpful

to calculate the quality problems in the production process (Mobley, 2002)

According to Agustiady and Cudney (2015) from their book entitled “Total

Productive Maintenance: Strategies and Implementation Guide” that the overall

equipment effectiveness (OEE) is an indicator of the overall health of equipment and is

the most commonly used measure of equipment performance. It is the measure of the

percent of the time a piece of equipment is producing a quality product (Cudney et al.,

2013). Accordingly, it provides organizations with a barometer of how well capital assets

are being used. In addition, it provides data on the impact of equipment-related losses.

OEE can dramatically affect plant productivity since it breaks down the losses into clear
categories. This also helps Lean teams target appropriate improvement activities. As you

start your TPM implementation, it is important to focus on most critical equipment first.

Organizations should measure OEE for three main reasons:

1. To prioritize improvement projects and reflect results.

2. To combine utilization, operation, and quality aspects of equipment

3. To measure changes in capacity, productivity, and quality

OEE measures the effect of six big losses, which are (Cudney, 2009):

1. Breakdowns

2. Set up and adjustments

3. Minor Stoppages

4. Minor Stoppages

5. Quality factors

6. Rework
OEE is based on three OEE factors:

 Availability

 Performance

 Quality

OEE = Availability X Performance X Quality

The calculations are as follows for each of the three main factors:

Availability = Operating Time/Planned Production Maintenance

Performance = Ideal Cycle Time/(Operating time/Total Pieces)

Ideal cycle time is defined as the minimum amount of cycle time a process can occur in optimal

circumstances.

Performance can also be calculated as the following since the run rate is considered equivalent to

cycle time:

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

Performance cannot exceed 100% in order for OEE’s calculation to be effective.

Quality = Good pieces/Total number of pieces

Other factors are:

Planned Production Time = Shift length – Breaks

Operating Time = Planned Production Time – Downtime

Good Pieces = Total Pieces – Rejected Pieces

The goal of TPM is rarely 100% because this would not allow time for planned maintenance

or potentially lead to overproduction. Typical targets for OEE levels are 85% (commonly

considered world class); however depending on your process, a target of 50% may be acceptable.

Further, the use of OEE is more about understanding the measurement and why your process is

achieving its OEE level.

 The overall goal of TPM is to raise the overall equipment effectiveness (Shirose,

1989;Huanget al., 2002; Juric et al., 2006). OEE is calculated by obtaining the product of

availability of the equipment, performance efficiency of the process and rate of quality products

(Dalet al., 2000; Ljungberg, 1998:

RELIABILITY

According to the study of Kostina (2015) entitled “Reliability Management of

Manufacturing Processes in Machinery Enterprises” stating that process reliability is the capacity

of equipment or processes to operate without failure. The business issues of reliability are

prevention and control of failures to reduce costs for improving customer satisfaction. The

process reliability is a method for identifying the problems, which have significant cost reduction

opportunities for improvements. When the complexity of systems increases, their reliability

suffers from deterioration. At the same time, more severe requirements are set to the system

reliability. A non-sufficient reliability of a system results in:

• Increased operating costs of machines,

• Increased breakdown time of machines;

• Unacceptable rate of malfunctions to occur.

Production starts with the decision to produce and continues until the finished product is

complete. Reliability plays a significant role in the overall performance of a manufacturing

system. Any undesired stop in this duration can be defined as a failure of a production system.

Although many studies have examined reliability of individual components of a production

system such as machines and humans, studies on reliability of a production system as a whole

are limited in the literature. In terms of effective production planning and control, it is essential
to compute the reliability of a production system especially if a company has high costs caused

by unmet due dates (Görkemli & Ulusoy, 2010).

According to Agustiady and Cudney (2015) from their book entitled “Total Productive

Maintenance: Strategies and Implementation Guide” that the purpose of preventive maintenance

is to improve equipment reliability. Reliability is used to qualitatively define and quantitatively

predict the baseline reliability of each piece of equipment. Reliability is the measure of the

likelihood that a piece of equipment will operate without a failure or breakdown for a state

period of time (time t) under specific conditions.

Reliability is a probability. It is a measure of likelihood or level of certainty. Therefore

reliability is always between 0 and 1. The most common definition of equipment reliability is the

relative frequency of breakdowns. The reliability of a piece of equipment at time t, denoted as

R(t), is the probability the equipment will not breakdown before time t given a set of defined

conditions. It is given by R(t) = P(T>t) where T is a continuous random variable that denotes

time to failure, and t is some specific time.

There are two other common reliability measures for equipment, which include mean time to

repair (MTTR) and the mean time between failures (MTBF).

Mean time to repair is calculated as:

MTTR = (Total downtime for Repair)/(Number of failures)

For exponential lives, mean time to repair is the inverse of the failure (breakdown) rate:

MTTR = 1/(Failure Rate) or 1/λ

where the failure (breakdown) rate, λ, is estimated from historical equipment failure data:

λ = (Number of breakdowns)/(Total number of hours of equipment running time)

MTBF is used to describe repairable equipment with constant failure rates:

MTBF = (Operating time)/(Number of failures)

h(t)

Break in Useful Life Wear Out

Figure 2.1. System Life Cycle

The break-in period represents the breakdowns typically due to poor material or bad

workmanship, useful life period is where the chance or accidental breakdowns occur and the

wear out period is when the parts of equipment start wearing out due to fatigue and aging.

According to the book entitled “Systems Engineering and Analysis” by Blanchard et.al.

(2011), reliability may be defined simply as the probability that a system or product will

accomplish its designated mission in a satisfactory manner or, specifically, the probability that

the entity will perform in a satisfactory manner for a given period when used under specified

operating conditions.

In measuring of reliability, the evaluation of any system or product in terms of reliability

is based on the precisely defined reliability concepts and measures. The reliability function, also

known as the survival function, is determined from the probability that the system (or product)

will be successful for at least some specified time t. The reliability function, R(t), is defined as

R(t) = e-t/M = e-ƛt

Where ƛ is the instantaneous failure rate and M the MTBF. The rate at which failures occur in a

specified time interval is called the failure rate for that interval. The failure rate per hour is

expressed as:

𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠
ƛ = 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠

ISHIKAWA DIAGRAM

From the study of Niemenin Henry (2016) entitled “Improving maintenance in high-

volume manufacturing. Case Study: Ball Beverage Packaging Europe states that especially, in

the analyzing phase of the DMAIC roadmap, different methods for finding root causes are

essential. Root cause is defined as condition which is allowing d effect to happen, when this
particular cause or condition is fixed then the problem is eradicated permanently. Five why

technique will lead eventually in the real root cause after asking five times why. The idea behind

five why is to go behind the symptoms and identify source of the problem. Brainstorming

activities with improvement teams and all relevant persons are keys to evaluate every possible

option and cause for the problem. Cause-and-effect diagram is one popular way in problem

solving process. Cause-and-effect diagram (Figure 13) is visual tool also called as fishbone

diagram or Ishikawa diagram. There is horizontal line which ends to problem under

investigation. From the main line there are several branches, possible causes listed. The diagram

identifies most likely causes where improvement team selects the most obvious cause and focus

on that and further data collection. (Evans & Lindsay, 2015)

According to https://www.moresteam.com/toolbox/fishbone-diagram.cfm Fishbone

Diagrams (also known as Ishikawa Diagrams) are can be used to answer the following questions

that commonly arise in problem solving: What are the potential root causes of a problem? What

category of process inputs represents the greatest source of variability in the process output?

Dr. Kaoru Ishikawa developed the "Fishbone Diagram" at the University of Tokyo in

1943. Hence the Fishbone Diagram is frequently referred to as an "Ishikawa Diagram". Another

name for this diagram is the "Cause & Effect" or CE diagram. As illustrated below, a completed

Fishbone diagram includes a central "spine" and several branches reminiscent of a fish skeleton.

This diagram is used in process improvement methods to identify all of the contributing root

causes likely to be causing a problem. The Fishbone chart is an initial step in the screening

process. After identifying potential root cause(s), further testing will be necessary to confirm the

true root cause(s). This methodology can be used on any type of problem, and can be tailored by

the user to fit the circumstances.

 Using the Ishikawa approach to identifying the root cause(s) of a problem provides

several benefits to process improvement teams:

 Constructing a Fishbone Diagram is straightforward and easy to learn.

 The Fishbone Diagram can incorporate metrics but is primarily a visual tool for

organizing critical thinking.

 By Involving the workforce in problem resolution the preparation of the fishbone

diagram provides an education to the whole team.

 Using the Ishikawa method to explore root causes and record them helps organize the

discussion to stay focused on the current issues.

 It promotes "System Thinking" through visual linkages.

 It also helps prioritize further analysis and corrective actions.

FAILURE MODE EFFECTS AND ANALYSIS

Process Failure Mode Effect Analysis -PFMEA is the basis of process reliability research

in manufacturing. With the development of equipment reliability designing in our country, the

reliability problem in producing process has become a weak aspect in improving reliability of

equipment. In the design process, PFMEA is the important basic technology of improving

equipment productive reliability. The PFMEA technique evaluates the potential failure of a

product or process and its effects, identifies what actions could be taken to eliminate or minimize

the failure from occurring and documents the whole procedure. It is used from the initial

planning stages of designing and processing a product through to the end of its life. K.G.

Johnson , M.K. Khanb (2003) described a study made into the application of PFMEA in a

sample of suppliers to an automotive manufacturing company in the UK. The objectives of

the research were to study the concerns and inhibitors that PFMEA users have, establish how the

effectiveness could be determined, and evaluate PFMEA use as a problem prevention technique

and to recommend best practice. The research methodology included the use of interviews,
workshops and questionnaires involving 150 quality approved suppliers. Conclusions were

drawn to show that the PFMEA technique has its limitations, caused by a number of issues.

Recommendations for overcoming these limitations of the PFMEA process are presented.

George Pantazopoulos and George Tsinopoulos (2005) introduced the use of this

technique in a critical process in the metal forming industry. Risk reassessment and further

preventive action planning could lead to effective risk minimization. The application of a FMEA

reveals the hidden process weaknesses, leading to the quantification of failure related

indicators/failure risks and the creation of a prioritization matrix for further improvement

actions. A FMEA is applied to the brass disk annealing process with the goal of optimizing

the operational performance by decreasing the RPN and increasing the process capability.

In order to facilitate the application of a FMEA, the failures are divided into two main

categories: Failures allocated to the energy supplied system, Failures allocated to the method

affected by human factors. Sheng -Hsien (Gary) Teng (1995) developed an approach to

integrate FMEA, product design, and process control to one complete closed loop to

establish an overall quality control plan. First discussed the FMEA procedure, then, the

procedure will be separated into two domains –the product design domain and the process

control domain. Design FMEA and process FMEA will be demonstrated, and the

integration among design, control, and reliability analysis for a product illustrated. Robert

B. Stone (2004) developed the function-failure design method (FFDM), has been to allow

designers to perform failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) during conceptual design

& explored two approaches to populating a knowledge base with actual failure occurrence

information from Bell 206 helicopters. The FFDM can offer substantial improvements to the

design process since it enhances failure analysis thus giving it the ability to reduce the

number of necessary redesigns. P C Teoh (2004) proposed `knowledge fragment’ reasoning

concept. FMEA is introduced in the conceptual design stage so as to minimize the risks

of costly failure. The method enables new knowledge to be formed using the limited

available information in the conceptual design stage. A prototype has been created to

evaluate the proposed method. Two design cases and three process cases for two-way radio

design and manufacture have been evaluated using the prototype software. The case studies

show that the method is able to provide reliable results with limited information. Kyoung-

Won Noh (2010) proposed module-based failure propagation (MFP) model based on the function

behavior state scheme. The MFP model consists of function decomposition tree model,
configuration flow graph model, function rule, and failure rule. This study describes how to

build the MFP model and introduces how to carry out FMEA with the proposed MFP

model. To show the benefit of the proposed MFP model, a FMEA case study on a car air purifier

is performed. Zaifang Zhang and Xuening Chu (2010) proposed a design for supporting

conceptual design of product and maintenance (P&M). The approach uses an improved

quality function deployment (QFD) tool to translate customer requirements into concept

specifications. An information exchange mechanism is developed to exploit the

interrelationships between P&M. In the mechanism, a failure mode and effects analysis

(FMEA) tool is used to identify and analyze failure modes and their effects on the product

concept. Then maintenance concepts are generated based on the results of QFD and FMEA. The

proposed approach is applied in a conceptual design case of a horizontal directional drilling

machine with its maintenance.

RELATED STUDIES

Number of Breakdowns

The number of breakdowns in each of the machines in the company has an increasing

rate and according to Tsang and Chan (2012) in their case study involving the implementation of

TPM in a machining factory located in China “In the year 2012, this factory started

implementing TPM as maintenance system rather than breakdown and preventative maintenance

which comprised of 15 implementation steps which included the 12 steps enumerated by

Nakajima (Bohoris et al, 2012). In order to implement TPM, changes in the organizations and

maintenance department’s hierarchy were made in the factory. TPM implementation effects were

measured after a period of 36 months and the factory experienced reduction in the number of

machine breakdowns from 175 to around 60”. Also as stated from the thesis by Mikhedkar

(2015) entitled “A Study of Total Productive Maintenance and it’s Impact on Organization’s

Performance for Nashik Zone Industry”, that TPM is a change management approach in

maintenance that seems to decrease the unexpected machine breakdowns, increase production

efficiency, he also state that TPM among all the types of maintenance systems; breakdown,

preventive, corrective and predictive maintenance has a concept of zero loss that means

increasing the effectiveness of equipment the same as improving the equipment performance and
prevent the unexpected machine breakdowns that would lessen the cost in repairing the

machines.

Ishikawa Diagram

According to the study conducted by (Khan & Hossain, 2015) “The productivity of a

yarn manufacturing factory is affected by several factors including stoppage time losses, spindle

speed, waste extraction percentage (Khan & Hossain, 2015). So, the reduction of stoppage time

is necessary to increase the productivity of ring frame in the textile processing factory under

discussion. The efficiency and productivity of a spinning mill reduced due to unwanted stoppage

of machinery. So it is necessary to reduce unwanted stoppage of machine or equipment for

nonstop production to meet the demand. The stoppage is categorized as major six losses which

are used to calculate overall equipment efficiency (Dal, Tugwell, & Greatbanks, 2000). The six

big losses are equipment failure or breakdown losses, setup or adjustment losses, idling and

minor stoppage losses, reduced speed losses, yield losses, and quality defects or rework losses

(Masud, Khaled, Jannat, Khan, & Sajedul, 2007). Pareto chart and cause-and-effect diagram are

important tools to identify the significant losses and reduction in stoppage time losses.

The application of Pareto chart and cause-and-effect diagrams are found in a variety of

industries. These are simple tools yet interesting and have real life applications. Paul and Azeem

(2009) applied Pareto chart and cause-effect analysis for identifying and analyzing defects of a

pharmaceutical product. They found that Capping, edge-chipping, and broken tablets have been

found as the vital problems for producing defective products. Ahmed and Ahmad (2011) studied

on minimization of defects in lamp production process by the application of Pareto analysis and

cause-and-effect diagram. Using Pareto analysis they analyzed the defects and found major and

minor contributors to those defects. Then applied cause-effect diagrams for each defect and

found the main factor. They suggested that cause and effect diagram is very useful in indicating

the appearance of abnormalities of the process in the form of excessive variations of process

parameters. James, Mathew, and Mathew (2013) conducted a case study on a male contraceptive

manufacturing industry. The rejection rate for one month was collected. They identified critical

defects, using a cause-and-effect diagram. A modification in the dipping process and a model for

the electric infrared heater were introduced as a solution for reducing the critical defects. Kiran et

al. (2013) applied root cause analysis for reducing breakdowns in a male contraceptive

manufacturing industry. They analyzed the breakdown occurred during production by Pareto
chart. A root cause analysis was conducted to find out the root cause of breakdowns and some

other parallel improvement opportunities were also identified. Joshi and Kadam (2014) studied

minimization of defects in the manual metal casting process. Pareto principle and cause-effect

diagram were used to identify and evaluate different defects and causes for these defects. Finally,

it was found that operations were done with some negligence and carelessness. They suggested

that reduction of all defects might be more that 70% after implementation of the remedy of

automation. Baishya and Dutta (2015) analyzed the downtime of machines in a production line

of a fast moving consumer good (FMCG) company. They identified downtime losses, factors

concerning of losses and cost associated with them by Pareto analysis. A cause and effect

diagram was also used to find out the root causes of those factors. Finally, some suggestions

were provided along with training program for operators and autonomous maintenance, the two

pillars for total productive maintenance (TPM). Das and Gopinadhan (2016) presented a study in

a textile spinning and weaving mill. The actual production was lower than target production.

Using Pareto analysis they were identified the actors that were responsible for production losses.

They used DMAIC technique for productivity increase and why-why analysis to identify the root

causes. They identified power failure and worker absenteeism as the major causes for loss of

productivity. By implementing their suggestions, the utilization of spindles was increased by 4%.

From the literature, it is clear that Pareto analysis and cause and effect diagram are essential tools

to analyze and identify the defects in a manufacturing or process industry. A successful

application of them reduces unwanted stoppage time losses and increases the availability of

machine for a long period of time, thereby increases productivity. Pareto analysis and cause-and-

effect diagram are regarded as two basic tools of total quality management (Patyal & Maddulety,

2015).

Total Productive Maintenance and Reliability

The study of Dibyojyoti Deka & Dr.Thuleswar Nath (2015) entitled “Breakdown and

Reliability Analysis in a Process Industry” states that equipment breakdown has always

contributed towards machine downtime. Industrial Engineers have always tried to reduce

downtime and increase the availability of machineries. TPM plays a vital role in achieving it.

Wakjira, MelesseWorkneh. et al. (2012) has been able to reduce downtime and increase the OEE

of existing machineries by TPM implementation in boiler plant in an Ethiopian malt

manufacturing unit. Through TPM, Gupta, Amit Kumar. et al. (2012) has been instrumental in
increasing the availability of existing machinery hence reducing the need for further capital

investment. The forth pillar of TPM, planned maintenance addresses the problem of equipment

breakdown. Preventive maintenance checklists as prepared by M, Manoj., et al (2014) helped

increase availability, MTBF and reduce MTTR significantly. Also, the number of machine

breakdowns were reduced after implementation in this case. Parameters like reliability, MTTR

and MTBF are also important factors that define Equipment breakdown and help to understand

equipment better.

Increasing Productivity through TPM Implementation

According to the study of Papari Das and Thuleswar Nath (2015) entitled “Root Cause

Analysis of the Major Equipment Breakdown Problems of the Tube Section of a FMCG

Company as an Approach to Improve OEE” that one of the most important ways to increase

productivity is to increase the OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness) of the machines or

equipment. OEE can be improved with the continuous implementation of TPM (Total Productive

maintenance). In spite of producing for 24 hours-2 shifts, 12 hours each and even after the

implementation of TPM since last few years, the OEE of the various manufacturing lines of the

company is far below the world class OEE i.e. 85%. The reason for this low level of OEE are the

sudden unwanted stoppages of production due to which the machines are not utilized effectively,

hence the efficiency is affected. The major reasons for these unwanted stoppages are equipment

breakdowns even though the company has been implementing TPM in all areas possible.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

•Equipment Performace in terms of Overall Equipment Effectiveness and

Reliability
•Cost Performance in terms of Maintenance Costs
INPUT

•Bar Charts
•Ishikawa Diagram
PROCESS •Failure Mode Effects and Analysis

•Total Productive Maintenance Program

OUTPUT

Figure 2.1. Conceptual Framework

Figure 2.1 shows the existing maintenance program of First Laguna Electric Cooperative

(FLECO) in terms of equipment performance in terms of overall equipment effectiveness and

reliability and cost performance in terms of maintenance costs including labor and material costs

that will serve as an input for the research. The researchers used Ishikawa Diagram and Failure

Mode Effects and Analysis in order for them to analyze the current maintenance program. The

output of this research will be the total productive maintenance program for First Laguna Electric

Cooperative (FLECO) in Brgy. Lewin, Lumban, Quezon.