A Total Productive Maintenance Implementation in

a Manufacturing Company Operating in Insulation

Sector in Turkey

Mehmet Emin Baysal, Mehmet Onur Sümbül, Erdem Ekicioğlu

Industrial Engineering Department
Selçuk University
Konya, Turkey

Abstract— In this study, to calculate Overall Resource • The existing OEE factors are not sufficient for
Effectiveness (ORE), planned downtime, facility downtime, setup assessment of losses individually in a manufacturing system.
and adjustments, material shortages, manpower absence,
operator performance losses are found out after observing 4 This paper pertains to the implementation of Overall
expanded polystyrene (EPS) machines for 23 days, in 3 shifts a Resource Effectiveness, which is a newly developed
day. In the light of this data readiness, facility availability, mold effectiveness measurement methodology based on OEE and
changeover efficiency, material availability, manpower avoids the mistakes described above, and TPM to a company
availability, performance efficiency, quality rate values are found that operates in insulation sector originally in Turkey. The rest
and ORE values for each machine are calculated. Results showed of the paper is organized as follows:
an undeniable need to implement TPM, and suggestions followed.
• The second part presents the literature review
Keywords—overall resource effectiveness, overall equipment • The third part presents the implementation
effectiveness, total productive maintenance
• The fourth part presents the results
I. INTRODUCTION • The fifth and final part presents conclusions and
In the increasingly competitive business environment of the evaluations
globalizing world, it is essential for the survival of any firm to
be adaptive, price competitive, responsive, and proactive and to
have the capability to deliver world class products according to
diverse customer requirements. These challenges force
companies to implement various lean tools to meet the needs of
the ever-changing market demand. A great number of
companies find that in spite of huge improvements in
productivity, there is still a bigger and better potential to utilize
machine tools and reach better productivity goals. One of the
main methods to meet these challenges is Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM).
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is a quantitative
metric provided in the concept of TPM for measuring the
effectiveness of equipment or production line. However, as
stated by Eswaramurthi and Mohanram [1], in OEE,
• The classification losses includes all the downtime
events into one category and leads to the factor of availability,
hampering the identification of losses in in stratified manner
and not taking planned downtime into account leads to
excessively long planned activities
• There is no separate metric or method to monitor the
losses due to non-availability of manpower and material
(components, sub-assemblies and WIP), which are also
extremely important for effectiveness of a manufacturing
system

978-1-4673-6601-4/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

 II. LITERATURE REVIEW According to Eti, Ogaji and Probert [4], remarkable
improvements occurred in the maintenance management of
Key factors for successful Total Productive Maintenance physical assets and productive systems, so that less wastages
(TPM) implementation were provided in the article of Park of energy and resources occurred. The study explored the
and Han [2]. In the article, the impact of TPM on ways in which Nigerian manufacturing industries could
competitiveness was studied. The objective of the research implement TPM as a strategy and culture for improving its
was said to provide a checklist of factors that contribute to performance and suggested self-auditing and bench-marking
successful TPM implementation. It was asserted that having as desirable prerequisites before TPM implementation. The
identified the patterns of success in the implementation of necessary steps to apply TPM concepts successfully to plant-
TPM, an important question is “What factors contribute to maintenance activities were compiled. Contributory factors to
success in its implementation ?”. The result of information a production system’s performance were figured and for
generated at the study was intended to assist top managers, reducing speed losses and improving quality of end-product an
business managers, maintenance managers, maintenance action plan and an approach figuration was put forth.
technicians, employees, and team leaders to achieve a true
understanding of how to implement TPM. The four phases of According to F.T.S. Chan, Lau, Ip, H.K. Chan, Kong [5], in
TPM program, which are preparation, preliminary the semiconductor industry competition increased
implementation, TPM implementation, and stabilization, were dramatically and therefore a company should introduce a
examined. A checklist of factors that are considered necessary quality system to improve and increase both quality and
to company preparation for the successful implementation of productivity continuously. They discussed and analyzed the
TPM was framed. It was mentioned that people - operators, practical aspects within and beyond basic TPM theory,
maintenance technicians, engineers, designers, and planners – difficulties in the adoption of TPM and the problems
must work as a team to maximize Overall Equipment encountered during the implementation through a case study
Effectiveness (OEE) and recommendations were given in a of implementing TPM in an electronics manufacturing
nutshell. TPM’s contribution to cost, delivery, agility and company. Also, after the implementation of TPM model
quality dimensions were addressed, and, as key factors in machine, both tangible and intangible benefits were shown to
TPM implementation, cultural change, commitment and be obtained for equipment and employees respectively. The
support, coordination, communication, and cooperation were critical success factors for achieving TPM were included
discussed with 5 companies. The main contribution of this based on practical results gained from the study.
study is implementation of TPM with ORE for the first time in
Turkey in a company operating in insulation sector. In the paper by Thun [6], the dynamic implications of TPM
were analyzed. Different influences of maintenance
In a case study, Sun, Yam and Wai-Keung [3] recorded a prevention and preventive maintenance on the OEE were
pilot implementation and evaluation of TPM in the advanced evaluated as the central performance measure in a system
manufacturing environment of a Hong Kong Manufacturing dynamics model. Simulations were run with different
company. It was said that due to the hesitation of the scenarios and based on that, it was inferred that it seems to be
personnel of the company that TPM is a Japanese method and useful to understand the functioning and interaction of the
won’t be appropriate for people of Hong Kong, they decided different facets of Total Productive Maintenance. It was
to have a pilot test in an advanced model machine. For the suggested that about the existing interdependencies within the
selection of this machine, they listed the criteria as process maintenance system, managers could learn how to deal with a
bottlenecks, one-off machines (machines unique in the plant), comprehensive maintenance approach like the one
and low availability or a low mean time between failures. To investigated.
calculate the real values of mean time between failures and
mean time between assists, computer integrated In the study by Wang [7], Data Envelopment Analysis
manufacturing was used. Mean unit between assists was (DEA) was used to evaluate the efficiency score for when the
assessed on a weekly scale. It is said that it demonstrated that utility function considers its many attributes and a prediction
it is possible to implement TPM in a Hong Kong company and model by the multiple regression method was obtained that
its success made production personnel believe that TPM really could be used to obtain the expected efficiency score for
works. In conclusion they listed 6 aspects that contributed to checking the performance of implementing TPM. Data was
the success. obtained from 53 factories with a TPM award between 1996-
1999. It was suggested that the regression equation could be
used to obtain the expected efficiency score for checking the
performance of implementing TPM.
 Ahuja and Kumar [8] investigated the contributions of
successful TPM initiatives to competitive manufacturing. The
study revealed the exploits of Indian entrepreneurs with TPM
practices and highlighted the contributions of TPM in
realizing the overall organizational goals and objectives. The
study revealed that strategic TPM initiatives can significantly
contribute towards the improvement of manufacturing
performance in the organization, leading to the realization of
core competencies for meeting global challenges.

In a cross sectional study focusing on manufacturing

companies in Malaysia, Lazim and Ramayah [9] examined
the extent of TPM practices and studied the relationship of
TPM practices to manufacturing performance using measures
taken from various sources. For instance, the TPM team was
adopted and adapted from Brah and Chong [10]; TPM strategy
items were adapted from Eti, Ogaji and Probert [4] and Brah
and Chong [10]; and autonomous maintenance, measured by
eight items, and planned maintenance, measured by five items,
were adapted from Mckone et al. [11] and Brah and Chong
[10].

According to Jeon, Kim and Lee [12], although overall

equipment effectiveness was widely used as a performance
measure of TPM activities, it is a measure of TPM
effectiveness, and it is also required to measure the
performance of TPM implementation in terms of efficiency.
The study measured the efficiency of TPM implementation
using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) with consideration
of the overall process of TPM implementation.

Eswaramurthi and Mohanram [1] developed a method by

modifying Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) to evaluate
Overall Resource Effectiveness (ORE) by including the
factors known as readiness, changeover efficiency, availability
of material and availability of manpower that adresses various
kinds of losses associated with manufacturing system, which
can be targeted for initiating improvements.

III. IMPLEMENTATION
Pakpen Plastic Pipe and Construction Material Ind. Trd.
Inc. that operates in insulation sector is chosen for
implementation of ORE calculation and machine effectiveness
measurements.
To make ORE calculation, expanded polystyrene (EPS)
machines in Konya are selected. By examining the results of 4
molding machines, reasons of the productivity differences are
investigated and ways to improve them are explored. Obtained
data is shown in Table 1 below.
 TABLE 1. CALCULATION OF ORE VALUES

1 TOTAL TIME 480 min LOSSES 201 min OVERALL RESOURCE 58,2%
2 Planned Production Time 420 min a Planned Downtime 60 min EFFECTIVENESS
Readiness – R(2/1) 87,5%
a1 Planned Idle Time
a2 Cleaning and Maintenance 20 min
a3 Meeting
a4 Audit
a5 Training
a6 R&D Study
a7 Production Trial
a8 Process Trial
a9 Lunch Break 30 min
a 10 Tea Break 10 min
3 Loading Time (2-b) 420 min b Facility Downtime 0 min Facility Availability - Af (3/2) 100,0%
b1 Mechanic Downtime
b2 Power Downtime
b3 Accessory Downtime
b4 Mold Problems
b5 Equipment Problems
4 Operation Time (3-c) 420 min c Setup and Adjustments 0 min Mold Changeover Efficiency - C (4/3) 100,0%
c1 Mold Changeover
c2 Equipment Changeover
c3 Adjustments
5 Running Time (4-d) 420 min d Raw Material Losses 0 min Material Availability - Am (5/4) 100,0%
d1 Power Cut
d2 Water Shortage
d3 Raw Material Unavailability
6 Actual Running Time (5-e) 420 min e Manpower Losses 0 min Manpower Availability - Amp (6/5) 100,0%
e1 Pauses Due to Work Permits
e2 Pauses Due to Reports (Sick etc.)
e3 Pauses Due to Work Accidents
e4 Pauses Due to Absences Without Excuses
e5 Pauses Due to Job Leaves
e6 Pauses Due to Discussions
7 Earned Time ( ) 280 min f Operator Performance Losses 141 min Performance Efficiency - P (7/6) 66,5%
f1 Number Produced (1st item) 78 items
f2 Cycle Time (1st item) (sec) 215,00
f3 Number Produced (2nd item)
f4 Cycle Time (2nd item) (sec)
f5 Number Produced (3rd item)
f6 Cycle Time (3rd item) (sec)
8 Number of Produced Items (g1 + g2) 78 items g Number of Produced Items (f1 + f3 + f5) 78 items Quality Rate - Q (g1/8) 100,0%
g1 Number of Accepted Items 78 items
g2 Number of Rejected Items
(g 1 + g 2 = f 1 + f 3 + f 5 ) ( AUDIT )

planned downtime, facility downtime, setup and adjustments,

material shortages, manpower absence, operator performance
For 23 days, in 3 shifts a day, 4 EPS machines are losses are found out. Planned production time is obtained by
observed. To calculate Overall Resource Effectiveness (ORE),
subtracting planned downtime(planned idle time, cleaning and reports(sick etc.), pauses due to work accidents, pauses due to
maintenance, meeting, audit, training, R&D study, production absences without excuses, pauses due to job leaves, pauses due
trial, process trial, lunch break, tea break) from the 480 minutes to discussions) from running time. Earned time is obtained by
shift. Loading time is obtained by subtracting facilities subtracting operator performance losses from actual running
downtime (mechanic downtime, power downtime, accessory time.
downtime, mold problems, equipment problems) from planned
production time. Operation time is obtained by subtracting In the light of this data, to be able to calculate ORE,
setup and adjustments (mold changeover, equipment readiness, facility availability, mold changeover efficiency,
changeover, adjustment after changeover) from loading time. material availability, manpower availability, performance
Running time is obtained by subtracting material shortages efficiency, quality rate values are found.
(power cut, water shortage, raw material unavailability) from
operating time. Actual running time is obtained by subtracting IV. RESULTS
manpower absence(pauses due to work permits, pauses due to ORE values of each machine are given in Table 2-5.

TABLE 2. VALUES OF THE FIRST EPS MACHINE

TOTAL TIME 33120 ORE 38,05481

Planned Downtime 28760 Readiness - R (2/1) 0,868357
Facility Downtime 26200 Facility Availability - Af (3/2) 0,910987
Setup and Adjustments 26070 Mold Changeover Efficiency - C (4/3) 0,995038
Raw Material Losses 26069 Material Availability - Am (5/4) 0,999962
Manpower Losses 25969 Manpower Availability - Amp (6/5) 0,996164
Operator Performance Losses 12632,17 Performance Availability - P (7/6) 0,486433
Number of Produced Items (f 1 + f3 + f 5) 3112 Quality Rate - Q (g1/8) 0,997751
Number of Accepted Items 3105

TABLE 3. VALUES OF THE SECOND EPS MACHINE

TOTAL TIME 33120 ORE 47,93072

Planned Downtime 29940 Readiness - R (2/1) 0,903986
Facility Downtime 29433 Facility Availability - Af (3/2) 0,983066
Setup and Adjustments 29433 Mold Changeover Efficiency - C (4/3) 1
Raw Material Losses 29343 Material Availability - Am (5/4) 0,996942
Manpower Losses 29343 Manpower Availability - Amp (6/5) 1
Operator Performance Losses 16071,25 Performance Availability - P (7/6) 0,547703
Number of Produced Items (f 1 + f3 + f 5) 10055 Quality Rate - Q (g1/8) 0,987767
Number of Accepted Items 9932

TABLE 4. VALUES OF THE THIRD EPS MACHINE

TOTAL TIME 33120 ORE 52,0793

Planned Downtime 29790 Readiness - R (2/1) 0,899457
Facility Downtime 29585 Facility Availability - Af (3/2) 0,993118
Setup and Adjustments 29585 Mold Changeover Efficiency - C (4/3) 1
Raw Material Losses 29495 Material Availability - Am (5/4) 0,996958
Manpower Losses 29495 Manpower Availability - Amp (6/5) 1
Operator Performance Losses 17329,75 Performance Availability - P (7/6) 0,587549
Number of Produced Items (f 1 + f3 + f 5) 11541 Quality Rate - Q (g1/8) 0,995321
Number of Accepted Items 11487
 TABLE 5. VALUES OF THE FOURTH EPS MACHINE

TOTAL TIME 33120 ORE 52,0793

Planned Downtime 29790 Readiness - R (2/1) 0,899457
Facility Downtime 29585 Facility Availability - Af (3/2) 0,993118
Setup and Adjustments 29585 Mold Changeover Efficiency - C (4/3) 1
Raw Material Losses 29495 Material Availability - Am (5/4) 0,996958
Manpower Losses 29495 Manpower Availability - Amp (6/5) 1
Operator Performance Losses 17329,75 Performance Availability - P (7/6) 0,587549
Number of Produced Items (f 1 + f3 + f 5) 11541 Quality Rate - Q (g1/8) 0,995321
Number of Accepted Items 11487

TABLE 6. VALUES OF THE FIFTH EPS MACHINE

TOTAL TIME 33120 ORE 27,92773

Planned Downtime 29660 Readiness - R (2/1) 0,895531
Facility Downtime 26920 Facility Availability - Af (3/2) 0,90762
Setup and Adjustments 26830 Mold Changeover Efficiency - C (4/3) 0,996657
Raw Material Losses 26829 Material Availability - Am (5/4) 0,999963
Manpower Losses 26749 Manpower Availability - Amp (6/5) 0,997018
Operator Performance Losses 9257,75 Performance Availability - P (7/6) 0,346097
Number of Produced Items (f 1 + f3 + f 5) 2290 Quality Rate - Q (g1/8) 0,999127
Number of Accepted Items 2288

ORE value is accepted as 85% in international standarts. As In this study, machine efficiencies are measured on the
ORE values obtained from the four machines are lower than chosen machines of a manufacturing company, and the
85%, it is necessary to exploit TPM. Adoption and utilization resulting ORE values are compared to the international standart
of TPM by all operating units is also important. After an of ORE. Machines with low efficiencies are detected and how
investigation it is found that production impeded due to lunch they can be improved with TPM is shown. The TPM process
and tea breaks and therefore productivity decreased. Under the explained in this study will help various unnecessary and
scope of improvement activities, production’s continuity can preventable costs be prevented with less mistakes, less
be secured by using workers in rotation in lunch and tea breakdowns, and less accidents with the implementation of the
breaks. It is also found that some days due to breakdowns of steps and the fulfillment of the necessities of the autonom
power, mechanic and etc., production ceased a whole shift or maintenance. TPM also includes the philosophy of continuous
day. In this regard the problem can be solved by giving the improvement. Therefore, reduction of costs can be ensured and
workers an education of autonom maintenance. competitive chances of especially manufacturing companies in
the globalizing world can be increased. It is obvious that all
V. CONCLUSIONS AND EVALUATIONS manufacturing companies shall start this kind of work inside
their constitutions. The importance of machine efficiencies, as
Machines and equipment used are consistently comprising measured in this study, and the contributions of the
more advanced technologies, and depending on this, companies improvements that’ll be done in the light of TPM and
require a more effective approach of maintenance than according to the evaluation of the results is very big. As
traditional maintenance activities. “Total Productive pointed in the studies done in the literature, unit costs decrease
Maintenance” is therefore very important. “Total Productive through the decreases in expenses achieved as a consequence
Maintenance” is a company-wide machine and equipment of the increases in efficiencies and effectiveness, and
maintenance management system that organizes all personnel improvements done through appropriately applied TPM works,
and that can support all production operations. especially in companies acting in manufacturing industries; and
Total Productive Maintenance is an efficient asset therefore this brings a very important advantage to the
management system that has full support of company’s top companies in all sectors with intense competition.
management, that performs activities with all personnel, In the light of this study, companies acting in a
especially the operator level personnel and the groups of manufacturing industry can make a comparison of
improvement that are formed, and that compasses all of the effectiveness performance with the applied method in their
company. In Total Productive Maintenance approach, autonom chosen instance of manufacturing units to save up in items
maintenance activities that are performed by operators that worth big values cost-wise under their constitutions. With the
actively work in manufacturing is one of the most important implementation of TPM according to the results they will
elements of the system.
obtain, chosen manufacturing units can be ensured to be more [5] F.T.S. Chan, H.C.W. Lau, R.W.L. Ip, H.K. Chan, S. Kong,
effective. “Implementation of total productive maintenance:A case study,” Int. J.
Production Economics 95 (2005) 71–94
[6] J.-H. Thun, “Maintaining preventive maintenance and maintenance
prevention: analysing the dynamic implications of total productive
maintenance,” Syst. Dyn. Rev. 22, 163-179, (2006)
REFERENCES [7] F.-K. Wang (2006) Evaluating the efficiency of implementing total
productive maintenance, Total Quality Management & Business
[1] K.G. Eswaramurthi, P.V. Mohanram, “Improvement of manufacturing Excellence, 17:5, 655-667
performance measurement system and evaluation of overall resource [8] I.P.S. Ahuja, P. Kumar, “A case study of total productive maintenance
effectiveness,” American Journal of Applied Sciences, 10 (2):, 131-138, implementation at precision tube mills,” Journal of Quality in
2013. Maintenance Engineering Vol. 15 No. 3, 2009 pp. 241-258
[2] K.S. Park, S.W. Han, “TPM—Total productive maintenance: Impact on [9] H.M. Lazim, T. Ramayah, “Maintenance strategy in Malaysian
competitiveness and a framework for successful implementation,” manufacturing companies: a total productive maintenance (TPM)
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 11 (4) 321–338 approach,” Business Strategy Series Vol. 11 No. 6 2010, pp. 387-396
(2001) [10] S.A. Brah, W.-K. Chong, “Relationship between total productive
[3] H. Sun, R. Yam, N. Wai-Keung, “The implementation and evaluation of maintenance and performance,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 15 June 2004, vol. 42,
total productive maintenance (TPM)—an action case study in a Hong no. 12, 2383–2401
Kong manufacturing company,” Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2003) 22: [11] K.E. Mckone, R.G. Schroeder, “Total productive maintenance: a
224–228 contextual view,” Journal of Operations Management Volume 17, Issue
[4] M.C. Eti, S.O.T. Ogaji, S.D. Probert, “Implementing total productive 2, January 1999, Pages 123–144
maintenance in Nigerian manufacturing industries,” Applied Energy 79 [12] J. Jeon, C. Kim, H. Lee, “Measuring efficiency of total productive
(2004) 385–401 maintenance (TPM): a three-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA)
approach,” Total Quality Management Vol. 22, No. 8, August 2011,
911–924