July - AMMJ
July - AMMJ July - AMMJ
Total Productive Maintenance - 20 Years On In The UK Roy Davis MCP Consulting and Training UK It is now a little over 20 years since TPM made its debut in the UK and this article takes the opportunity to look back at the original introduction of TPM to the western world and in particular UK industry and to try and assess how it has progressed, evolved, succeeded and failed during the period. Background The significant event that bought Total Productive Maintenance to the notice of industrialist and academics within the UK was the publication of Seiichi Nakajima’s book ‘Introduction to TPM’ that was translated into English and published by Productivity Press in 1988. Although the concepts of TPM had been developed in Japan from as early as 1971, the publication of Nakajima’s book was the first that people within the UK had heard about TPM. In fact, the book was not published in Japan until 1984. The emergence of TPM coincided with the major influx of Japanese manufacturing philosophies and approaches of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s that threatened to spark a revolution in the way in which manufacturing businesses were configured and operated. The introduction of Just in Time, Kan Ban, Total Quality, Cellular Manufacturing, Single Piece Flow, Poka Yoke Devices, Single Minute Exchange of Die and problem solving tools such as Taguchi Design of Experiments, Ishikawa Diagrams, Quality Function Deployment, etc. were at the time quite overwhelming for us Westerners especially as were also at the time grappling with the requirements of Statistical Process Control and the move from quality control to quality assurance. For all of us involved in change management within our factories, this was a very challenging but exciting period. My first glimpse of TPM was a brochure advertising a training course that was to be provided by the publishers of Nakajima’s book at a venue in Manchester which I decided to attend as my brief at the time was to ‘improve the way in which we go about maintenance’ for the multi-national manufacturing company for which I worked at that time. I attended the course and although the presenters did not appear to be experienced TPM implementers, the explanation of the basic principles and philosophy behind TPM made me realise that this was something very different from the rest of the maintenance approaches and techniques that I had hitherto studied. My interest in TPM gradually increased, particularly as I became project manager of a major DTI sponsored maintenance improvements project (Maintenance Systems for Modern Manufacturing Businesses) and I was fortunate enough to attend what I believe was one of the first TPM based study tours of Japan which took place in 1991 and included attendance at the TPM World Congress in Tokyo which had been organised by the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM). Through listening to the papers presented (many of which were not actually related to TPM but other maintenance approaches) and especially visiting demonstrator sites in and around Tokyo and Kyoto, & discussion with my fellow industrialists taking part in the tour, our understanding of TPM began to gel. Once we had returned to the UK, myself and a number of my fellow travellers, worked within our own organisations to try and introduce and establish TPM within our factories. A ‘TPM Club’ was set up under the auspices of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and a committee was formed which included ‘TPM minded’ people from across a wide range of industry, training and consultancy organisations. Visits were arranged to UK and European sites that were starting to implement TPM and seminars were organised, some featuring prominent Japanese speakers who were associated with the (JIPM) including Professor Yamashina The Five Pillars of TPM It is important to remind ourselves of the basic principles and philosophy of TPM which is as relevant now as it was 20 years ago and is encapsulated by the original ‘Five Pillars of TPM’ i.e. • Maximize Overall Equipment Effectiveness (it is implied that we are measuring OEE) • Establish a thorough system of preventive maintenance for the equipment’s entire life span • Implement TPM by involving all departments (e.g. Engineering, Operations, maintenance) Measure and Maximise OEE The 5 Pillars of TPM Establish a system of PM New Systems and Procedures Involve all Departments Involve all Employees Promote TPM Through SGA Cultural Change: Involvement, Motivation, Behaviour Minimum 3 years implementation Vol 24 No 3
AMMJ TPM - 20 Years On In The UK 47 • Involve every single employee, from top management to workers on the floor • Promote TPM through motivation management: autonomous small group activities (1) The original book suggested a 3 year programme for TPM implementation. Where are we Now? The UK TPM Time Line A glance at the list of the JIPM, TPM prize winners for the last 2 years seems to indicate that there are very few examples of UK companies that have implemented and sustained a comprehensive TPM programme (with the notable exception of Tetrapak and Unilever). The situation may be slightly distorted by the fact that JIPM awards are usually only awarded to companies that have used their consultancy services either directly or via one of their approved partners. This does however, bear out my own perception that although TPM was extremely popular in the early to mid 1990’s, very few UK organisations had the determination or support to introduce and then sustain a long term TPM programme. There have been some positive influences as a result of UK industry’s exposure to TPM over the years though, for example: 1980’s 1990’s 2000’s 2010’s TPM Awareness & Awakening of Interest TPM development, pilot applications TPM becomes very popular, many companies try to implement Some successes, many failures, TPM becomes less popular • Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is now used an important Key performance Indicator (KPI) by many manufacturing businesses • The use of OEE (whether it is calculated correctly or not) has provided more focus on the major losses encountered within manufacturing areas • Small group activity involving production operators and maintenance personnel has increased and although they are not always referred to as autonomous TPM teams, in many cases, that is exactly what they are • There is much more emphasis on workplace organisation and cleanliness in many companies who run 5S or CAN DO (2) activities and carry out regular shop floor based audits and improvement activities • The recording and analysis of downtime information (usually as a part of the OEE measurements) has helped companies to identify the contribution to operational performance that good maintenance practice can make. • Some Operator Asset Care programmes do encapsulate many of the good principles of Autonomous Maintenance, especially when they are not just seen as a means of moving Technician jobs to operators but also as a means of engaging Production Operators in continuous improvement activities and developing ownership of their facilities • TPM is a familiar acronym these days, most people working within manufacturing have heard of TPM, although I would question whether many really understand its core philosophy and principles. Conclusion Returning to the original 5 pillars of TPM it is true to say that the first two that are related to OEE and PM systems have been the least difficult to implement and that is why many manufacturing businesses have embraced these pillars. The other three pillars relate to people issues including involvement, motivation, changing behaviour and overall culture change are much more difficult and take longer to implement. That is why TPM programmes take many years to bring about change and so it should not be surprising that these have not been either attempted or if attempted, sustained in many companies as in general, Senior and Middle managers do not have the will, the longer term vision or the determination to make TPM succeed. References: 1. An Introduction to TPM, Total Productive Maintenance. Seiichi Nakajima – Productivity Press 2. Productivity Improvements Through TPM. Roy Davis – Prentice Hall OEE, 5S’s, OAC, SGA very common, Total TPM system very rare Roy Davis, MCP Consulting and Training rdavis@mcpeurope.com (First Published in the M&E Magazine Vol10 No6) Vol 24 No 3
- Page 3 and 4: LogbooksOnline Web-based logbooks a
- Page 5 and 6: AMMJ Contents July 2011 Issue Vol 2
- Page 7 and 8: info@infratherm.com.au Introducing
- Page 9 and 10: Reliability Week has been run since
- Page 11 and 12: AMMJ SCADA With Wireless Instrument
- Page 13 and 14: AMMJ Lubrication Reliability 13 Ala
- Page 15 and 16: Adver.indd 2 6/10/2011 4:57:13 PM A
- Page 17 and 18: Maintenance 2011 Seminars Download
- Page 19 and 20: AMMJ Maintenance Planning Is Too Ha
- Page 21 and 22: AMMJ Maintenance Planning Is Too Ha
- Page 23 and 24: Vol 24 No 3 AMMJ 23 2011 CM Equipme
- Page 25 and 26: Take a vibration expert along NEW F
- Page 27 and 28: Vol 24 No 3 AMMJ 27 2011 CM Equipme
- Page 29 and 30: Vol 24 No 3 AMMJ 29 2011 CM Equipme
- Page 31 and 32: AMMJ Maintenance Decision Support P
- Page 33 and 34: AMMJ Maintenance Decision Support P
- Page 35 and 36: AMMJ Maintenance Decision Support P
- Page 37 and 38: Simple Solutions to Big Problems St
- Page 39 and 40: AMMJ Effective Thickness of Corrode
- Page 41 and 42: Frequency, (%) Effective Thickness
- Page 43 and 44: Effective Thickness of Corroded Ste
- Page 45: AMMJ 45 [8] M. Matsumoto, Y. Shirai
- Page 49 and 50: • Features a valuable practical
- Page 51 and 52: 51 MAINTENANCE STRATEGY SERIES Terr
- Page 53 and 54: MAINTENANCE BOOKS - ORDER FORM Pric
- Page 55 and 56: Maintenance News 55 1-Million Pound
- Page 57 and 58: Maintenance News 57 LogbooksOnline
- Page 59 and 60: Maintenance News 59 the process, va
- Page 61 and 62: Seminar 1 Duration - 1 Day The Why,
- Page 63 and 64: Len Bradshaw - Seminars 1 & 2 Len B
<strong>AMMJ</strong><br />
TPM - 20 Years On In The UK 47<br />
• Involve every single employee, from top management to workers on the floor<br />
• Promote TPM through motivation management: autonomous small group activities (1)<br />
The original book suggested a 3 year programme for TPM implementation.<br />
Where are we Now?<br />
The UK TPM Time Line<br />
A glance at the list of the JIPM, TPM prize winners<br />
for the last 2 years seems to indicate that there<br />
are very few examples of UK companies that have<br />
implemented and sustained a comprehensive<br />
TPM programme (with the notable exception of<br />
Tetrapak and Unilever). The situation may be<br />
slightly distorted by the fact that JIPM awards<br />
are usually only awarded to companies that have<br />
used their consultancy services either directly<br />
or via one of their approved partners. This<br />
does however, bear out my own perception that<br />
although TPM was extremely popular in the early<br />
to mid 1990’s, very few UK organisations had the<br />
determination or support to introduce and then<br />
sustain a long term TPM programme.<br />
There have been some positive influences as a<br />
result of UK industry’s exposure to TPM over the<br />
years though, for example:<br />
1980’s 1990’s 2000’s<br />
2010’s<br />
TPM Awareness &<br />
Awakening of Interest<br />
TPM development,<br />
pilot applications<br />
TPM becomes very<br />
popular, many companies<br />
try to implement<br />
Some successes, many<br />
failures, TPM becomes<br />
less popular<br />
• Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is now used an important Key performance Indicator (KPI)<br />
by many manufacturing businesses<br />
• The use of OEE (whether it is calculated correctly or not) has provided more focus on the major<br />
losses encountered within manufacturing areas<br />
• Small group activity involving production operators and maintenance personnel has increased and<br />
although they are not always referred to as autonomous TPM teams, in many cases, that is exactly<br />
what they are<br />
• There is much more emphasis on workplace organisation and cleanliness in many companies<br />
who run 5S or CAN DO (2) activities and carry out regular shop floor based audits and improvement<br />
activities<br />
• The recording and analysis of downtime information (usually as a part of the OEE measurements)<br />
has helped companies to identify the contribution to operational performance that good maintenance<br />
practice can make.<br />
• Some Operator Asset Care programmes do encapsulate many of the good principles of Autonomous<br />
Maintenance, especially when they are not just seen as a means of moving Technician jobs to<br />
operators but also as a means of engaging Production Operators in continuous improvement<br />
activities and developing ownership of their facilities<br />
• TPM is a familiar acronym these days, most people working within manufacturing have heard of<br />
TPM, although I would question whether many really understand its core philosophy and principles.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Returning to the original 5 pillars of TPM it is true to say that the first two that are related to OEE and PM systems<br />
have been the least difficult to implement and that is why many manufacturing businesses have embraced these<br />
pillars.<br />
The other three pillars relate to people issues including involvement, motivation, changing behaviour and overall<br />
culture change are much more difficult and take longer to implement. That is why TPM programmes take many<br />
years to bring about change and so it should not be surprising that these have not been either attempted or if<br />
attempted, sustained in many companies as in general, Senior and Middle managers do not have the will, the longer<br />
term vision or the determination to make TPM succeed.<br />
References:<br />
1. An Introduction to TPM, Total Productive Maintenance. Seiichi Nakajima – Productivity Press<br />
2. Productivity Improvements Through TPM. Roy Davis – Prentice Hall<br />
OEE, 5S’s, OAC, SGA very<br />
common, Total TPM system<br />
very rare<br />
Roy Davis, MCP Consulting and Training rdavis@mcpeurope.com<br />
(First Published in the M&E Magazine Vol10 No6)<br />
Vol 24 No 3