Factors affecting successful implementation of total productive

maintenance. A UK manufacturing case study perspective

C.J. Bamber,; Sharp, J M

; Hides, M T. Journal of Quality in

Maintenance Engineering

5.3

(1999): 162-181.

Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers by selecting the Enter button
Hide highlighting

Abstract (summary)
TranslateAbstract

This paper outlines research carried out by the Aeronautical, Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering Department at Salford University aimed at discovering the factors affecting the
successful implementation oftotal productive maintenance (TPM). This research has led to the
development of a generic model indicating factors affecting the successful implementation of TPM.
The validity of the generic model has been tested in a UK manufacturing small- to medium-size
enterprise (SME) and the case study research findings further triangulated through a review of
documented case study evidence. This research has also led to the development of
recommendations to improve the TPM development and implementation program of the case study
organisation. Further development of the research has resulted in a step-wise program or generic
roadmap for UK SMEs which is proposed as a tool for the implementation or rejuvenation of an
organization's TPM program.

Full Text

TranslateFull text
Turn on search term navigation
C.J. Bamber,: University of Salford, UK
J.M. Sharp: University of Salford, UK
M.T. Hides: University of Salford, UK
Introduction
Traditionally, maintenance has been considered as a support function, non-productive and not a
core function adding little value to the business. However, it has been noticed, particularly over the
last 15 years, that UK manufacturing industries have used many differing approaches to
improving maintenance effectiveness. Accordingly, the Department of Trade and Industry in the UK
recognises that maintenance of assets and machines is an essential part of the operation's function
and an effective maintenance strategy can significantly contribute through adding value to the
production activities. Hence, maintenance should be seen as a world-class principle for
manufacturers (DTI, 1988). Manufacturing organisations striving for world class performance have
shown that the contribution of an effective maintenance strategy can be significant in providing
competitive advantage through its total productive maintenance (TPM) program (Willmott, 1994).
Furthermore, TPM is considered by many writers to be an indispensable contribution to lean

production (Womack and Jones, 1996) supporting just-in-time (JIT) manufacture (Ohno, 1988)
and total quality management (TQM) (Dale, 1994) and has been shown as an essential pillar
alongside JIT and TQM to companies seeking world class manufacturing status (Schonberger, 1987;
Cheng and Podolsky, 1996). Additionally, Sharp and Kutuoguoglu (1997) have shown an
effective maintenance activity can make a significant contribution to company profitability through
increased production efficiency, plant, availability and reliability. Therefore, as TPM aims to provide
an effective and efficient maintenance strategy in a manufacturing industry this makes it a key
value adding business activity.
Defining TPM
Bamber (1998) presents a comprehensive review of TPM literature from which he has identified two
main approaches to defining TPM, described as the Japanese approach and the Western approach.
A summary of these approaches is presented below.
The Japanese approach to defining TPM
The Japanese approach to TPM is promoted by the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM) and
in particular advocated by the vice chairman of the JIPM, Siiechi Nakajima. Many devotees of the
Japanese style TPM, such as Tajiri and Gotoh (1992) and Shirose (1992) regard Nakajima as the
father of TPM and they recognise that a full definition contains the following five points:
(1) It aims at getting the most efficient use of equipment (i.e. overall efficiency).
(2) It establishes a total (company-wide) PM system encompassing maintenance prevention,
preventivemaintenance, and improvement related maintenance.
(3) It requires the participation of equipment designers, equipment operators,
and maintenance department workers.
(4) It involves every employee from top management down.
(5) It promotes and implements PM based on autonomous, small group activities.
Notwithstanding that a complete definition of TPM must include the five point definition, Nakajima
(1988) attempts to summarise an entire philosophy in succinctly defining TPM as: "Productive
maintenance involvingtotal participation in addition to maximising equipment effectiveness and
establishing a thorough system of PM", where PM is a comprehensive planned maintenance system.
The Western approach to defining TPM

In the UK, TPM has been pioneered by Edward Willmott, managing director of Willmott Consulting
Group. He has managed large scale studies of maintenance practice in the UK and written
extensively on TPM for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI, 1988). Willmott (1997)
acknowledges the five point definition that is at the heart of the Japanese approach to TPM and
consequently accepts this as being an accurate and true reflection of the main principles; however
he provides a definition that is more suited to Western manufacturing and suggests:"TPM seeks to
engender a company-wide approach towards achieving a standard of performance in
manufacturing, in terms of the overall effectiveness of equipment, machines and processes, which
is truly world class."
Similarly, Edward Hartmann, president of the International TPM Institute Inc., who is recognised by
Nakajima as the father of TPM in the USA, also provides a definition that is suggested as being
more readily adopted by Western companies. Hartmann (1992) states:"Total productive
maintenance permanently improves the overall effectiveness of equipment with the active
involvement of operators."
Another US advocate of TPM, Wireman (1991) suggests that TPM is maintenance that involves all
employees in the organisation and accordingly includes everyone from top management to the line
employee and indicates:"... it encompasses all departments including, maintenance, operations,
facilities, design engineering, project engineering, instruction engineering, inventory and stores,
purchasing, accounting finances, plant /site management."
The American Society of Manufacturing Engineers (ASME) provide a short definition from the Tool
and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook devoted to continuous improvement techniques from
Bakerjan (1994) simply stating:"TPM is a management technique that involves everyone in a plant
or facility in equipment or asset utilisation."
A more detailed definition includes a focus on improvement in a wider context and Rhyne (1990)
considers TPM as:"... a partnership between the maintenance and production organisations to
improve product quality, reduce waste, reduce manufacturing cost, increase equipment availability,
and improve the company's overall state of maintenance."
Discussion on the definitions of TPM
In each of the terms presented by Hartmann (1992), Willmott (1997) and Bakerjan (1994) it is
suggested that compared to the other views presented the fundamental difference within these
three definitions is the omission of and the emphasis away from the word maintenance and the
general tendency toward equipment. In particular, Hartmann and Willmott focus on equipment in
terms of an overall effectiveness perspective and Bakerjan similarly focuses on equipment from a
utilisation perspective.

Interestingly, the Hartmann (1992) definition not only places the emphasis on "overall
effectiveness of equipment", but also on the "active involvement of operators" instead of "every
single employee" or "all employees" as with the definitions presented by the Japanese writers,
Naylor (1996), Dale (1994) and Perry (1993). Hartmann's emphasis on active involvement of
operators is not seen in the definitions of TPM from Willmott (1997) and Wireman (1991) but could
be argued as being inferred in the meanings presented by Dale (1994), Perry (1993), Naylor
(1996) and Nakajima (1989) and Shirose (1992).
Within the definitions presented by the Japanese advocates of TPM, that is Nakajima (1989),
Shirose (1992), Tajiri and Gotoh (1992) and of course the JIPM, there is a clear and specific
mention of small group activities and this is mirrored in the description of TPM from operations and
quality management experts Perry (1993), Naylor (1996), and Dale (1994) who refer to either
small group activities or team work. This is in contrast to the definitions presented by Hartmann
(1992), Wireman (1991), Willmott (1997), Bakerjan (1994) and Rhyne (1990) that each provides
statements that do not directly include a specific focus on teamwork or small group activities.
The common thread defining TPM
There is a "common thread" that runs through the many definitions of TPM which can be illustrated
as a company-wide approach to plant, equipment or asset care that involves the active
participation of more than just the maintenance department working on maintaining and improving
the overall equipment effectiveness. Despite this common thread the literature reviewed indicates
two main approaches to defining TPM which are considered as the Western definition and the
Japanese definition. The focus of approach in defining the Japanese style TPM is suggested as
including an emphasis on the use of teamwork or small group activities working on a system
of productive maintenance, while the Western style definitions tend toward placing the emphasis on
overall effectiveness of equipment through active participation of equipment operators, which
moves the emphases away from both maintenance and teamwork and towards equipment
management and utilisation with operator participation.
It could further be suggested that the reason for the many differing definitions of TPM is the
complexity and divergence of TPM programs adopted throughout industry and it is accepted that to
gain a better and more useful understanding of TPM it is more meaningful to explore TPM from an
operational or elemental and implementation viewpoint.
Operational elements of a TPM program
TPM experts Nakajima (1988), Hartmann (1992), Willmott (1997) and Wireman (1991) all agree
that a common feature of either the Japanese or Western style approach to TPM is to strive for the
three goals of zero defects, zero accidents and zero breakdowns. Likewise, these experts also

agree that the aim of TPM activities is to improve the productivity, quality costs, cost of products,
delivery and movement of products, safety of operations and morale of those involved (PQCDSM).
Therefore, the key operational needs of any approach could be considered essentially the same, the
difference being the focus of approach. Furthermore, with the exception of the publication from
Wireman (1991), these experts consider operational elements of any TPM program should aim to
provide the five pillars of TPM development which are shown by Yeomans and Millington (1997) in
Figure 1 and summarised by Nakajima (1989) as:
(1) Implement improvement activities designed to increase equipment efficiency. This is
accomplished mainly by eliminating the "six big losses" (for more detail see Bamber, 1998).
(2) Establish a system of autonomous maintenance to be performed by equipment operators. This
is set up after they are trained to be "equipment conscious" and "equipment skilled."
(3) Establish a planned maintenance system. This increases the efficiency of
the maintenance department.
(4) Establish training courses. These help equipment operators raise their skill levels.
(5) Establish a system of maintenance prevention (MP) design and early equipment management.
MP design generates equipment that requires less maintenance, while early equipment
management gets new equipment operating normally in less time.
Although writers on TPM tend to agree the five pillars are fundamental to TPM success the
implementation strategies may vary and emphasis or concentration on each pillar is often
presented with differing approaches. For instance, Yeomans and Millington (1997) suggest that in
practice concentration on implementation of TPM tends to focus on the single
autonomous maintenance pillar; while, Nakajima (1988, 1989) or Shirose (1994) presents no such
focus on any single pillar. The following sections review TPM implementation in UK industry.
Case study reviews of factors affecting successful implementation of TPM
Implementing TPM in the UK automotive industry
The automotive industries are leaders in the UK for adoption of techniques such as world class
manufacturing (WCM), TQM, lean production and SPC initiatives. In particular, the Rover Group
have been at the forefront of development and implementation of new manufacturing strategies
and have shown that TQM requires both effective and efficient maintenance to be successful
(Wilmott, 1997a).

The Land Rover transmissions manufacturing plant in Birmingham, UK attempted twice during the
period of 1991-1993 to implement TPM practices. However, both attempts were finally abandoned
and the main reasons outlined for TPM implementation failure during the early implementation
attempts include:
- simultaneous introduction of TPM on too many machines;
- lack of involvement of production associates (operators);
- introduction of TPM to machines that were not really important to the product process.
Despite the earlier failures, the Rover Group strategic plans detailed implementation of TPM as an
essential component of its strategy for manufacturing divisions. According to Bohoris et al. (1995)
successful implementation of TPM within Rover came about with the change of the management
manufacturing structure and a new emphasis on:
- production driving the TPM implementation, with maintenance assisting in the process (and
involvement from the initial (planning) stages of the production associates and union of H & S
representatives);
- the full utilisation of the in-house developed computerised maintenance management system
(CMMS);
- the gradual and proper implementation of TPM on a handful of machines at a given time.
Similarly, at the Rover Body & Pressings plant in Swindon, two shortcomings of
its maintenance performance stood out; a misalignment between maintenance objectives and
manufacturing; and poor productivity andmaintenance effectiveness. The emphasis was changed
and consequently directed at continuous learning and development. The TPM program is now
driven within the quality strategy (Holder, 1996).
At the Rover Body & Pressings plant two pilot areas were chosen to initiate the TPM implementation
effort. Success in both pilot studies led the company to roll out TPM to the workforce using a oneday awareness course developed by the maintenance staff. Although, initially, manufacturing
managers were reluctant to take ownership of maintenance, this was overcome through continual
reinforcement of TPM commitment by senior management (Holder, 1996). Continuous training and
development at all levels reinforced the TPM message and facilitated the successful implementation
of the TPM program. Accordingly, Willmott (1997a) suggests that through successful TPM
introduction effective maintenance management is cascaded across tradesmen, production
planners, team engineers and team leaders.

Implementing TPM at GKN Westland Industrial Products, UK

Holder (1997) suggests that introducing TPM is not easy. But like any major project, commitment,
planning and direction go a long way in achieving success. At GKN Westland Industrial Products
(GKN) based at Weston-Super-Mare the idea for introducing TPM came from a senior shop steward
who had attended a union seminar outlining TPM and team work. The management team
supported the shop steward and set-up a steering committee to plan and direct the introduction
and continuance of TPM.
The first step at GKN was to train a production supervisor as a facilitator and then to develop a TPM
awareness pack which was distributed to the 199 strong workforce at a series of two to three hour
introductory sessions. The aim was to highlight the benefits of TPM and why it was needed.
Actual implementation of the practice of TPM came about with a team of volunteers that emerged
with a self selected leader which looked at a pilot project in a machine shop. The team targeted the
pilot area and soon realised improvements through identifying and rectifying faults to improve
overall equipment effectiveness. The team used the red tagging method and cleaning exercises to
start the TPM processes in further critical areas and machine centres. The cleaning regime has
helped to change the operators' attitudes and revealed hidden defects that usually go unnoticed.
The practice of cleaning, identifying faults and improvement has led to the operators talking
proudly about TPM and recognising the impact they can make on manufacturing improvement and
contribution to the program.
Momentum of the program at GKN is seen as a major concern and this is maintained through
senior management commitment and communication with a newsletter, TPM bulletin boards and
before and after photos of improvement being used to motivate and increase morale (Holder,
1997). Accordingly, it has been recognised by specialists in the implementation of business
performance improvement concepts that:"In all organisations where success is known to have been
achieved, considerable efforts have been made to give recognition to successful teams and enable
them to display their work (Hutchins, 1998)."
The obstacles to introducing TPM
The number of companies successfully implementing a TPM program is considered relatively small
and failure has been attributed to the following three major obstacles (Bakerjan, 1994):
(1) Lack of management support and understanding.
(2) Lack of sufficient training.
(3) Failure to allow sufficient time for the evolution.

The lack of management support is attributed to management not completely understanding the
true goal of the TPM program. For example if management consider that TPM is a means to
reduce maintenance staff, they have failed to understand the true goal and purpose of the
program. The real goal is to increase the equipment's effectiveness, not reduce the labour headcount. Lack of training will inevitably lead to a decrease in overall equipment effectiveness and
result in failure to adopt new and improved methods. To make TPM become a successful part of
factory life will take considerable effort to change mindsets from a
traditionalmaintenance approach. Roy Davis a UK director of Manufacturing Productivity
Improvements Ltd. considers a good awareness, education and training strategic plan to be an
essential factor in the success of implementation (Davis, 1997).
The time required to change from a reactive program to a proactive approach will be considerable
by some estimates it may be a three to five year venture before achieving a competitive venture
for the TPM program. TPM must be seen as a long-term commitment to strive for zero losses and
not a way of obtaining short-term fixes (McCarthy 1997). Windle (1993), an active management
consultant implementing improvement programs, considers that limited applications of TPM from
companies, which have taken the short-term perspective, have led to regressive steps, including:
- converting skilled maintenance personnel into routine operators;
- shifting line authority for maintenance crews to production managers;
- pushing TPM as a means to reduce the apparent overhead of the maintenance department;
- applying TPM principally to reduce maintenance costs.
Similarly, Davis (1997) outlines ten main reasons for TPM failure within UK manufacturing
organisations as:
(1) The program is not serious about change.
(2) Inexperienced consultants/trainers are used.
(3) The program is too high level, run by managers for managers.
(4) There is a lack of structure and relationship to strategic needs.
(5) The program does not implement change on the shop floor and is not managed.
(6) A lack of education and training for those expected to take it on board and provide support.

(7) Programs are initiated and run exclusively by engineering and seen by production as a project
that does not involve them.
(8) Attempts to apply TPM in the same way it is implemented in Japan, using the standard
approach found in Japanese publications.
(9) TPM teams lack the necessary mix of skills and experience.
(10) Poor structure to support the TPM teams and their activities.
Critical success factor in implementing TPM
The previous three sections have discussed the difficulties and obstacles facing UK companies when
adopting a TPM approach. This is not to say that UK manufacturing has not adopted TPM
successfully. Quite the opposite; the Rover and GKN examples show that with a structured and
evolutionary approach TPM implementation can succeed. TPM demands commitment, structure and
direction. It also takes a great deal of time, effort and resource to establish and sustain as with
many other change management philosophies (see Clarke, 1994; Revenaugh, 1994; Dunn, 1995).
Furthermore, according to the senior consultant of Manufacturing Productivity Improvements
Limited, Davis (1997), experience of TPM implementation in the UK has shown that the key factors
for successful implementations are to:
- approach TPM realistically, developing a practical plan and employing program and project
management principles;
- accept that TPM will take a long time to spread across the company and change
existing maintenanceculture;
- be determined to keep going;
- put in place, train and develop a network of TPM co-ordinators that will promote and support TPM
activities every day;
- support TPM co-ordinators with time and resources, plus senior level back up;
- put in place relevant measures of performance and continually monitor and publicise benefits
achieved in financial terms;
Davis (1997) provides a vital addition to the understanding of implementation issues related to the
TPM program with his last point mentioned above. It is considered extremely important to measure
performance as it gives managers the possibility to base their decisions on facts, not opinions
(Maskell, 1994). Quality improvement experts Deming (1986), Tenner and DeToro (1992) and

Spenley (1992) all emphasise this need for appropriate measures of performance, to provide
management focus and fact based decision making for the implementation of change to be
successful.
A generic model of factors affecting successful implementation of TPM
Many factors have been drawn from a review of case study literature on manufacturing
organisations' efforts to implement TPM, namely; GKN Westland Industrial Products, Land Rover
Transmissions and Rover body and pressings as discussed earlier in this paper. This has led to
identification of certain factors that are likely to be present in successful implementation of TPM in
UK industry. Moreover, the factors have been derived not only from case study literature but also
from the experiences documented by TPM experts and consultants proficient in TPM
implementation in the UK, namely; Manufacturing Productivity Improvements Limited, Davis
(1997); management consultant Windle (1993); and TPM consultant Willmot (1997a).
Furthermore, a review of literature on manufacturing and management change strategies has
contributed to the development of factors and grouping of these factors into nine categories. (For
example the critiques on implementation of just-in-time by Jewitt (1991) and Suzuki (1992);
literature from TQM, Bendell (1990) and Dunn (1995); and reviews of Business Process ReEngineering by Hammer and Champy (1993) and Davenport (1993) have been used). Bamber
(1998) provides a more detailed review of the literature survey used to develop the categories.
This review of literature and case studies has led to the development of a conceptual framework,
which is summarised in Figure 2 and the nine categories developed from the theory in the manner
described above are considered as:
(1) the existing organisation;
(2) measures of performance;
(3) alignment to company mission;
(4) the involvement of people;
(5) an implementation plan;
(6) knowledge and beliefs;
(7) time allocation for implementation;
(8) management commitment;
(9) motivation of management and workforce.

A more comprehensive model is presented by Bamber (1998) showing sub-factors related to each
of the nine categories and describes their interrelationships and dependencies.
A case study assessment of the generic model
The model (Figure 2) combined with the five pillars of TPM (Figure 1) were used to develop a tool
for the assessment of an organisation's TPM implementation program. Thorsman and Co. (UK)
Limited (TCE) were used as a case study organisation in order to validate the model using the
assessment tool.
The findings from the case study assessment
The case study organisation (TCE) have been attempting implementation of TPM for over two
years, and so far, the efforts can only be considered to have partially developed a TPM program.
TCE have not yet implemented the full requirements of the five pillars of TPM as described by
Willmott (1997), Nakajima (1989) or Yeomans and Millington (1997). From the literature of Davis
(1997), Bakerjan (1994) and Holder (1996) it has been shown in the conceptual model that there
is a need to allow sufficient time for the successful implementation of TPM, otherwise failure is
expected. In fact, Bakerjan (1994) suggests a planned time frame of over three years should be
considered, while others such as McCarthy (1997) and Windle (1993) express the regressive and
detrimental effects of short term perspectives, which inevitably lead to failure of implementation of
TPM.
In particular with reference to the five pillars, most activity within the TCE TPM program is in the
planned or preventive maintenance pillar and there is greatest emphasis on operatorplanned maintenance and housekeeping routines rather than higher level maintenance by skilled
personnel. Consequently, less emphasis has been given to the development of the four remaining
pillars of training, autonomousmaintenance, early equipment management, and to increasing
overall equipment effectiveness. Notwithstanding this situation, many other TPM implementation
efforts, such as the Rover Group experience (Holder, 1996) described in this paper have taken
several years of changing strategies before developing significant benefit from TPM. Similarly, the
Land Rover case study has shown that an incomplete or failing TPM program can be turned around
into a successful production strategy.
Similar to the TCE current situation mentioned above, Davis (1997) discusses that many
organisations'maintenance and engineering functions drive the implementation of TPM and thus
efforts are ineffectively used to impose planned maintenance routines on a reluctant and hence
resisting production department. Consequently, less resource is devoted to all the remaining
requirements of a complete TPM program. In this respect, Davis (1997), Parker (1995) and
Hutchins (1998) suggest that TPM implementation should be driven by production and supported

by the engineering functions, thus reducing resistance and implementation efforts, rather than
requirements being imposed and rejected, this view then advocates efforts should be planned and
co-ordinated by production.
The Land Rover case review discussed by Bohoris et al. (1995) and critiqued in earlier sections has
shown that an incomplete or unsuccessful TPM program can be turned around and highlights "lack
of involvement of production associates" as a main reason for TPM implementation failure in the
early implementation attempts. Likewise, the TCE program, although incomplete in that time and
resource has not yet been allowed to develop the TCE system completely could arguably be turned
around through review of the implementation so far and renewal of the strategy of production
driven implementation efforts. Similarly, the successful case studies discussed in this paper only
became successful as a result of learning from earlier attempts at implementation and involving
production associates more.
The conceptual model (Figure 2) shows that an implementation plan for TPM is a necessary success
factor; furthermore, the plan should be realistic and practical. The model indicates that with such a
plan, measures of performance or milestones should be included and project management
principles adopted. Accordingly, monitoring of the implementation effort, whether it be milestone
project achievements as advocated by Davis (1997) or other appropriate measures of performance
that provide a source of data for management decision making as described by Tenner and DeToro
(1992) also is an essential factor within the conceptual model. Although, TCE have developed a
written TPM policy, strategic measures of TPM had not been created and documented. Therefore, a
strategy for implementation of TPM does not exist; hence milestones or sub-goals on route to full
implementation are not explicit and hence cannot be communicated. The fact that TCE do not have
a comprehensive or detailed implementation plan with associated goals or objectives indicates that
there is no clear direction or focus for TPM development. Without an implementation plan the
expectation indicated by the conceptual model is for TPM implementation to be unsuccessful. In
support of this view a recent edition of the Quality World publication from the Institute of Quality
Assurance (1998) discusses the teachings of Joseph Juran: "Failing to plan, is planning to fail".
Consequently, if TCE do not re-assess the implementation strategy and formulate a practical
planned approach to developing the TPM program, failure is likely to occur. The TPM
implementation plans available at TCE are limited to creating a planned maintenance requirement
which include operator and skilled maintenance scheduled activities per machine centre, therefore
this type of plan fails to address all five TPM pillars.
The fundamental measure of TPM performance is the overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) value
which as described by Nakajima (1989) should be the driving force and provides direction for
improvement based activities with manufacturing organisations. Many activities and changes at
TCE resulted in an improvement in OEE. However, at TCE it is true to say that the adopted

improvement methods are not focused specifically on OEE, as OEE values are not available.
However, production operatives gather much information on certain machines which could be used
to identify the six big losses as described by Shirose (1994) as a specific activity to address the
OEE. Shirose (1994) also proposes that the information gathered be analysed and root causes of
problems or inefficiencies attacked. Because the six big losses are not addressed at TCE in this
manner improvement is neither systematic nor focused.
Additionally, Willmott (1997) and Nakajima (1989) have also discussed improvements in overall
equipment effectiveness as an essential element of the early equipment management pillar of TPM.
The review of TCE indicated that the company had not developed a continuous improvement
program for new machinery. Willmott (1997) describes early equipment maintenance and
management as a major part of the fifth pillar. Consequently, at TCE, new equipment is not
optimised from a life cycle cost minimisation perspective or from amaintenance prevention view.
Early equipment management is described as those activities aimed at preventing breakdowns and
defects of machinery, thus an organisation with a strong fifth pillar will develop a culture of
prevention rather than fostering a reactive culture. Therefore, as TCE have not fully developed this
activity much can be done to foster a culture of prevention through development of its TPM
program. Not only is a culture of prevention and overcoming traditional mindsets seen as subfactors of the existing organisation in the conceptual model, overcoming traditional mindsets is
seen as a sub-factor of "knowledge and belief" (Bamber, 1998).
The fourth pillar of training and education is aimed at improving the understanding and awareness
of the participants of the TPM program to enable them to develop world class practice. Therefore,
training and education is seen as an enabler of successful TPM. Likewise, to increase understanding
of the benefits of practising TPM the knowledge and beliefs of participants in the program must be
considered an important factor as illustrated in the conceptual model (Figure 2). In the early days
of implementing TPM at TCE, as described in Bamber (1998) communication was a key element in
the training and education of the participants. For instance, presentations to senior management
were given and team briefings were held to discuss the requirements of operator maintenance.
Similarly, the steering group meetings showed management commitment and provided a means to
understanding the difficulties of implementation and development of the TPM program.
The findings of the case study analysis indicates that the steering group meetings ceased to
continue after December 1996. However, Holder (1997) advocates that a steering committee be set
up to provide and encourage commitment, planning and direction to the introduction and
continuance of TPM. Accordingly, continuous management commitment from a steering group to
the TPM program provides the constancy of purpose required for success (Jones, 1997). A
determination to succeed must be present and this comes about as a result of the clear belief that

TPM is needed to facilitate change and improvement in turn this belief can only be fostered through
awareness, training and practice.
The use of the assessment tool has identified the current situation of TPM implementation at TCE
and furthermore, identifies the need to revitalise or rejuvenate the TPM program. The TPM case
study assessment method used in this research not only identifies the current situation of TPM
implementation but also provides the necessary information for the company to address their
shortfalls. This has provided the opportunity to develop a revitalisation program for TCE which is
summarised in the recommendations below. Further development of the research has led to the
development of a step-wise program or generic roadmap for the improvement or implementation of
TPM programs in UK small to medium size enterprises, and this is also presented below.
Recommendations for further work at TCE: the case study organisation
One of the main objectives of this research was to provide proposals to the case study organisation
(TCE) on how to further develop the implementation of its TPM program. Based on the research
findings and discussions of Bamber (1998) the following proposals have been offered to TCE and
are expected to provide a renewed emphasis and vitality to the TPM program if adopted.
- (1) Re-establish a top management steering group to provide the necessary planning,
commitment and direction to the TPM program by:
- using the force field analysis technique within the group to assess the restraining and driving
forces of a TCE TPM development program (to use as a learning and awareness tool - for examples
see Bamber, 1998);
- involving production associates in the development of the implementation plan, which should
consider all the requirements of the five pillars of TPM;
- create and establish clear measures of performance including achievable milestones and
objectives using project management techniques.
- (2) Obtain director and group level commitment to the program and realise the necessary
resource support by:
- communicating the successes of the program so far;
- developing an assessment of the opportunities that TPM will bring to the company; both
financially and in terms of none financial improvements;
- provide an explanation of the goals of TPM and the reasons why overall equipment effectiveness
is a world class measure.

- (3) Communicate, communicate, and communicate by:

- awareness campaigns at all levels and in all functions;
- continued integration of the establishing TPM system with management procedures such as:
- Health and Safety and SQO (see Bamber, 1998);
- Quality management;
- Environmental management arrangements;
- Production engineering projects.
- training and development programs for operators, setters and shop floor supervisors based on
the seven-step autonomous maintenance program;
- encourage small group activities, which include production associates as the core team with
facilitation and support from engineering staff aiming at elimination of the six big losses;
- create a visual factory environment through a shop floor 5S program.
Recommendations to other UK small to medium size enterprises (SMEs)
A main objective of this research was to develop a critical understanding of factors affecting
successful implementation of Total Productive Maintenance in a UK small to medium size enterprise
(SME). This has been achieved through critical analysis of the case study organisation and in part
through the reviews of other UK case study TPM implementation experiences. Additionally it is an
aim that the research findings could be of benefit to organisations that are embarking or have
started a TPM program but are experiencing difficulties with implementation, or their efforts are not
providing the success expected of the program. Consequently, the following six-step approach
(shown in Figure 3 and a step by step summary presented) is recommendation drawn from the
research and is considered as offering help to companies that require a renewed emphasis or
vitality to an already implemented but floundering TPM program:
Step 1: Create a steering organisation. A steering organisation or committee if not already in place
should be created with the authority and responsibility to develop the TPM program.
Step 2: Understand the current situation. The steering organisation should carry out a situational
analysis of the current level of TPM development; this can be done through established review
techniques or using audit methodology. However, the recommendation from this research is to
examine the organisation in respect to the nine categories expressed as factors affecting successful

implementation of TPM developed from the theory which are:(1) The existing organisation. (2)
Measures of performance. (3) Alignment to company mission. (4) The involvement of people. (5)
An implementation plan. (6) Knowledge and beliefs. (7) Time allocation for implementation. (8)
Management commitment. (9) Motivation of management and workforce.
Step 3: Understand the restraining forces and the driving forces. An understanding of the
restraining and driving forces is necessary before developing an improvement plan aimed at
successful implementation of TPM. The recommendation is to adopt the force field analysis method
by the steering organisation and use each of the nine categories on separate analysis sheets. This
is aimed at developing a critical understanding of the driving forces and restraining forces in
implementing TPM in the particular organisational setting.
Step 4: With production associates: develop an implementation plan including milestones and
measures of performance. Production driven programs have been shown as being the most
successful approach in implementing TPM. Therefore, it is advocated that production associates are
involved in the development of the program to encourage production ownership in the early stages
of TPM development, hence increasing the chances of successful implementation. Also at this stage
the full requirements of the five pillars of TPM must be considered, because successful TPM can
only be achieved through consideration of each pillar due to their dependence and interrelated
requirements. Additionally, at this stage measures of performance and milestone objectives should
be included in the plan to provide criteria for assessment, review and direction of the program.
Step 5: Implementation of the TPM Plan. Project management techniques should be employed to
give the implementation of the plan the best opportunity to succeed. Accordingly, project
management principles are advocated by Davis (1997) and shown as a success factor in
implementing TPM within the UK case study organisations reviewed. Additionally, this research has
shown that implementation should be production driven and supported by the engineering
functions.
Step 6: Review the implementation of the plan and amend activities or milestones as necessary.
Motivation of management and workforce is shown in the conceptual model as a key success factor
in the implementation of TPM. Hence, a review of the achievements of the TPM program must
result in the communication and reward of the achievements aimed at reinforcement of successful
behaviour and practice. Reward and recognition should be used to encourage and motivate in the
required direction. Furthermore, this reinforces management commitment to the TPM program.
Conversely, if failure to achieve the required results is seen at the review stage, analysis of why the
expectations have not been met must be carried out and consequently amendments to the
activities must be promptly made so inappropriate practice or direction is not continued. At this
stage the determination of top management and the steering organisation to make TPM succeed

must be well communicated to all personnel involved in TPM development. Continuous

management commitment is necessary for continued improvement and development of TPM.
Discussion on the implications of the findings
The conceptual model shown in Figure 2 has been derived from both TPM theory and from a review
of literature relating to management strategies used in implementing change in manufacturing
organisations. Therefore, the model created, although complex in appearance, shows considerable
robustness when under scrutiny from a change management perspective. Hence, the findings
validate the model in many instances; however, the case study research has indicated complex
interactions between certain parts of the model which are not shown in Figure 2. Therefore, the
main criticism of the model is that the interrelationship of sub-factors is not depicted and the interdependencies and influence of various sub-factors on the nine critical factors is not being shown in
the model.
In addition, the general validity of the model is considered as significant, because not only was it
derived from TPM theory and change management theory, it also takes into consideration the
experience of other attempts at implementing TPM. This inclusion of others' experience also
provides a certain generalisability for the model, particularly for small to medium sized enterprises
but also for manufacturing organisations that are part of a larger group or corporation such as
those discussed in this paper.
Conclusions
Traditional UK manufacturing organisations are likely to struggle when attempting to implement a
TPM strategy. There are many obstacles or barriers affecting the successful implementation of TPM
within UK organisations which have been represented within the nine categories shown in Figure 2.
Nevertheless, it has also been shown that successful implementation of TPM can be achieved.
Furthermore, a failing or partially implemented TPM program can be rejuvenated albeit needing a
considerable amount of attention and management commitment. Following on from the research
aimed at identifying factors affecting successful implementation of TPM, this paper has proposed a
step-wise program which can be used as a generic roadmap for UK SMEs which are committed to
implementing or rejuvenating their TPM strategy.
References
1. Bakerjan, R. (1994), Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, Vol. 7, Continuous
Improvement, 4th ed., An ASME Publication, USA, Chapter 15.
2. Bamber, C. (1998), "Factors affecting successful implementation of total productive
maintenance", MSc Research Dissertation, University of Salford.

3. Bendell, T. (1990), The Quality Gurus: What Can They Do For Your Company?, DTI Publication,
Managing into the '90s Series, London.
4. Bohoris, G.A., Vamvalis, C., Tracey, W. and Ignatiadou, K. (1995), "TPM implementation in LandRover with assistance of a CMMS", Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 4.
5. Cheng, T.C.E. and Podolsky, S. (1996), Just-in-Time Manufacturing: An Introduction, 2nd ed.,
Chapman and Hall, London.
6. Clarke, L. (1994), The Essence of Managing Change, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
7. Dale, B.G. (1994), Managing Quality, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
8. Davenport, T. (1993), Process Innovation: Re-engineering Work through Information Technology,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
9. Davis, R. (1997), "Making TPM a part of factory life", TPM Experience (Project EU 1190,
Sponsored by the DTI), Findlay.
10. Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
University Press, MA.
11. DTI (1988), Effective Maintenance - A Route to Increased Profitability, Department of Trade and
Industry Publication, Managing Into the 90's Series, London.
12. Dunn, C. (1995), "Factors affecting successful implementation of total quality management",
MSc Thesis, University of Salford.
13. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Re-engineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution, Nicholas Brearley, London.
14. Hartmann, E.H. (1992), Successfully Installing TPM in a Non-Japanese Plant: Total Productive
Maintenance, TPM Press Inc, London.
15. Holder, R. (1996), "Major profits for Rover and LMP as TPM proves itself", Works Management,
August, pp. 16-17.
16. Holder, R. (1997), "GKN and Ferodo reap rhe Rewards", TPM Experience (Project EU 1190,
Sponsored by the DTI), Findlay, UK.
17. Hutchins, D. (1998), "Introducing TPM", Manufacturing Engineer, February 1998, pp. 34-7.
18. Institute of Quality Assurance (1998), "The teachings of Dr Joseph Juran", Quality World, April.

19. Jewitt, R. (1991), JIT: The Route to Success, DTI Publication, Managing into the 90's Series.
20. Jones, R. (1997), "When commitment makes it work", TPM Experience (Project EU 1190,
Sponsored by the DTI), June.
21. Maskell, B. H. (1994), New Performance Measures, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
22. McBride, V.E. (1986), "In today's market: quality is best focal point for management",
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp 51-5.
23. McCarthy, D. (1997), "To benefit, change the way you manage", TPM Experience (Project EU
1190, Sponsored by the DTI), Findlay, UK.
24. Nakajima, S. (1988), TPM: Introduction to Total Productive Maintenance, Productivity Press Inc.
25. Nakajima, S. (1989), TPM Development Program: Implementing Total Productive Maintenance,
Productivity Press Inc, Cambridge, MA.
26. Naylor, J. (1996), Operations Management, Pitman Publishing, Boston, MA, pp. 255-82.
27. Ohno, T. (1988), The Toyota Production System: Beyond Large Scale Production, Productivity
Press, Cambridge, MA.
28. Parker, A. (1995), "Maintaining the shop floor", Manufacturing Engineer, December 1995, pp.
290-5.
29. Perry, R. (1993), "TPM at Rover Group", Conference on Systematic Maintenance, January,
Institute of Industrial Research, Copenhagen, Denmark.
30. Revenaugh, D.L. (1994), "Implementing major organisational change: can we really do it?",
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 38-48.
31. Rhyne, D.M. (1990), "Total plant performance advantages through total productive
maintenance", APICS, Conference Proceedings, Birmingham, pp. 683-6.
32. Schonberger, R.J. (1987), World Class Manufacturing Casebook: Implementing JIT and TQC,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
33. Sharp, J.M. and Kutuocuoglu, K.Y. (1997), "Striving for quality in maintenance within
manufacturing organisations", IFRIM 1997 Meeting Proceedings, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University.
34. Shirose, K. (1992), TPM for Workshop Leaders, Productivity Press, Inc., Cambridge, MA.

35. Shirose, K. (1994), TPM for Operators, Productivity Press Inc., Cambridge, MA
36. Spenley, P. (1992), World Class Performance Through Total Quality, Chapman and Hall, London.
37. Suzaki, K. (1987), The New Manufacturing Challenge, The Free Press, New York, NY.
38. Suzuki, T. (1992), New Directions for TPM, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
39. Tenner, A.R. and DeToro, I.J. (1992), Total Quality Management: Three Steps to Continuous
Improvement, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Reading, MA.
40. Tajiri, M. and Gotoh, F. (1992), TPM Implementation: A Japanese Approach, McGraw-Hill.
41. Willmott, P. (1994), "TPM's place in the quality scene", Quality World, November ed., pp. 762-5.
42. Willmott, P. (1997), TPM: Total Productive Maintenance: The Western Way, ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford.
43. Willmott, P. (1997a), TPM Experience: Showing the Way to Better Equipment Care Through
Teamwork, EU 1190, Findlay Publications, UK.
44. Windle. W.W. (1993), "TPM: more alphabet soup or a useful plant improvement concept", Plant
Engineering, Vol. 47.2, February, pp. 62-3.
45. Wireman, T. (1991), Total Productive Maintenance: An American Approach, Industrial Press
Inc., New York, NY.
46. Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your
Corporation, Simon and Schuster Publications, New York, NY.
47. Yeomans, M. and Millington, P. (1997), "Getting maintenance into TPM", Manufacturing
Engineer, August, pp. 170-3.
Illustration
Caption: Figure 1.; The five pillars of TPM; Figure 2.; Cause and effect diagram a generic model of
factors affecting successful implementation of TPM; Figure 3.; Summary of the stepwise program
for implementing TPM