Total Productive Maintenance Article 7 - S A Partners · 2017-02-22 · We in S A Partners aspire to help Manufacturing and Process Industry to realise its full potential in terms

1

TPM - The Pinch - Point Solution for Delivering Operational

Excellence © S A Partners

Total Productive

Maintenance

Article 7

Applying TPM to different Sectors & their specific Production Facilities

Peter Willmott

2



TPM-The ‘Pinch-Point’ Solution for Delivering Operational Excellence The Need to recognise the different Characteristics of Various Sectors and

their Physical Assets when applying TPM

1.0 Recap and Focus for this 7th Article In Articles 3 through to 6 we described the SA Partners Enterprise Excellence Model

centring on the 3 x P’s of Purpose, Process and People- which, through alignment,

improvement and engagement, is capable of delivering sustainable business results

as outcomes.

We illustrated how the TPM System Model aligns with these 3 x P’s as shown in

Figure 1 below where:

The TPM program is applied via a defined introductory and deployment process within the business unit –called the Purpose (the focus of Article 3)

The application of the TPM model is then delivered through a defined sequence of team based ‘learning by doing’ activities as a 4 x Cycle 11 step Process (which was the focus of Article 4)

The outputs of this 11 step application are then aligned to a progressive and evidence based assessment process to assure the team’s progress through the model-as the essential People development part (which was the focus of the 5th & 6th Articles).

Figure 1: The TPM System Model

Over the last 25 years it has been my privilege to help apply the TPM principles and

philosophy across the complete spectrum of industry. Whether it is in the acquisition

of primary materials (Offshore Oil & Gas, Surface and Deep mining.), through to the

conversion of those primary materials (Chemicals, Metals, Paper), or Public Utilities

and Transport (Water, Gas, Electricity & Nuclear, Air, Rail and Sea-including OEM and

MRO). Or indeed in the more traditional manufacturing sectors, whether hardware

3



related output, or for example, food & drink, pharmaceutical and medical devices, and

whether they are 1st, 2nd or 3rd tier suppliers into those industries.

The one common denominator in all these differing scenarios is the essential need to

recognise the different dynamics, characteristics and nuances of the specific

production operation and manufacturing processes-both in terms of the physical

assets themselves and equally important, the differing human interaction with those

assets. We then need to adapt the TPM process and system to reflect these

fundamental differences.

Whilst it is a play on three English language words, there is a huge difference between

adopting the TPM Philosophy without thinking it through, as opposed to adapting it.

Please remember however, that there is also a huge difference between adapting

something without corrupting the founding principles. Sadly, in my experience there

are far too many corrupted applications of TPM that fail to sustain the gains.

(previously addressed in Article 6).

2.0 Recognising the Differences

Whilst visiting Japan on a TPM study tour in 1992, I vividly remember being told by the

Japanese Managing Director of a recognised world class manufacturer and exemplar

TPM award winning company, that “…In the ‘1950s and ‘60s we had “M” for

Manufacturing. In the ‘70s we had “I M” for Integrated Manufacturing. In the ‘1980s

we had “C I M” for Computer Integrated Manufacturing. He paused for a moment and

then added “…For the remainder of this decade and 2000 and beyond, my company

is going to be pursuing “C H I M”-Computer Human Integrated Manufacturing…. He

added’…We have decided to re-introduce the human being back into our workplace

!!”.

As figure 2 below suggests- CHIM is no dream –it is a pressing reality. Today, some

twenty-five years later my interpretation of that powerful message is that it certainly

represents a challenge for all of us to develop and harness people’s skills in parallel

with advancing automation.

The bottom line is that it’s your people at the sharp end of the business that make

difference.

https://sapartners.com/how-do-you-measure-success-in-tpm/

4



31 October, 2016© S A Partners Slide 2

The Future Vision &

Impact of TPM on Operational Excellence

DEVELOPMENT

OF TECHNOLOGY

AND SKILLS

NOW FUTUREADVANCING AUTOMATION

TPM=Effective

Maintenance

AUTOMATION

OF

EQUIPMENTOPERATIONSEQUIPMENT

CHIM

Computer/Human Integrated Manufacture

Is No But is the Reality!Dream

Figure 2 The CHIM Reality

The biggest-and often false- assumption nowadays is that regular visible and physical

‘human’ inspections & maintenance are grossly undervalued and the technological tail

is left wagging the dog.

The tail is an important part of the dog- but in this analogy the dog is the human being.

We have all these highly qualified control room operators spinning around on swivel

chairs watching all these mimic screens flashing with green and occasional red lights

flashing on and off –whilst out there in the real world of the physical asset with a critical

prime-mover, such as a pump or motor- is going drip, drip, hiss and eventually bang!

Maybe like CHIM in figure 2 above, we need to rediscover some old behaviours and

start walking the talk!

We in S A Partners aspire to help Manufacturing and Process Industry to realise its full potential in terms of Customer Service, Cost, Quality, Safety and Morale. TPM is a powerful enabling tool to help deliver this potential. Our experience suggests that- In the right hands-TPM is capable of unlocking your installed productive capacity by unlocking the potential of your people. This statement is of course subject to some vital pre-requisites. Among which are two main ones Hardware Considerations

When applying TPM to various Industry sectors we need to take account of the type

of Manufacturing Processes involved and whether for example, it’s a labour intense or

capital intense scenario; bulk processing or piece part manufacturing and so on….

People Considerations

5



We also need to recognise the differing impacts and hence the ideal behaviours the

Operator, the Maintainer and the Leader need to exhibit in those different scenarios.

With this in mind, we are going to consider here a matrix of seven types of facility

groups and six main factors that will impact the application of TPM

The seven groupings are

A) Process/Bulk Manufacturing (often Capital Intense)

B) Classic Manufacturing (Cell &/or linked Assets)

C) Packaging (sometimes Labour Intense)

D) Assembly (often Labour intense & / or Automated)

E) Utilities & General Services (often Capital Intense)

F) Warehousing (Pick and Place +Automation)

G) Remote & Dispersed Assets (ie Windfarms, Phone Masts, Reservoirs)

The six main factors we are going to consider are:

The OEE Measure (and other relevant KPI’s)

Operator Impact

Maintainer Impact

5S –WPO & Visual Management

Changeovers & Set-ups

Standard Work

We are also then going to consider in more detail the further ‘Human Factor’ impact

on these same seven A) to G) groupings in terms of

A Comparison of Potential impact on the ability to make Sound Decisions or

Judgements, whether you are an Operator, Maintainer or Leader

The Ideal behaviours to be exhibited by those same three job roles

2.1Seven Facility Types and Six Characteristics

The 2 x figures 3a) and 3b) below illustrates a matrix of the 7 types of facilities and the

6 main factors.

Each of the above are now described in more detail below

6



Type of Facility OEE Measure Operator

Impact

Maintaine

r Impact

5S –WPO &

Visual Man’

Change

overs

& Set-ups

Standard

Work

A)Process/Bulk

Manufacturing

(Capital

Intense)

Campaign or

Batch OEE as

a Fixed

Repeating

Schedule

Significant.

-Other than

being

Control

Room

based

Major Significant -

contamination

Control

+yields

Significa

nt +

Cleaning

In

Process

& use of

VSM &

ECRS

Major

B)Classic

Manufacturing

(Cell &/or

linked Assets)

Running

Clock OEE

Major -can

be labour

controlled-

rather than

machine

controlled

Major Major -to

create Flow

Major +

use of

VSM &

ECRS

Major

C)Packaging

(Often Labour

Intense +some

Automation)

Running

Clock OEE

Major -can

also be

labour

partly

controlled

Major Major -to

create Flow

Major Major

Figure 3a - Recognising the differences when applying TPM (1 of 2)

Type of Facility OEE Measure Operator

Impact

Maintainer

Impact

5S –WPO &

Visual Man’

Changeovers

& Set-ups

Standard

Work

D)Assembly

(Often Labour

intense & / or

Automated)

Running Clock

OEE

Major

Cycle or

Pulse rate

often

labour

controlled

Major Major to

create Flow

Significant

(&Pre-Kitting

,VSM &

ECRS

Major

E)Utilities &

Gen. Services

(Often Capital

Intense)

? Relevance of

OEE v.

Efficiency &

other KPI’s

Ranges

from Very

Little to

Major

Major Housekeepin

g resulting in

‘Maintenance

Pride’

Rarely

Applicable

Relevant

F)Warehousing

(Pick and Place

+Automation)

Running Clock

OEE

Major Major Major to

create Flow

Pre-Kitting

VSM & ECRS

Relevant

G)Remote &

Dispersed

Assets ie

Windmills,

Phone masts,

H20Reservoirs

Alarms freq

Callout freq

MTBF

MTTR&R

Very Little Major Limited

application

Rarely

applicable

Relevant

Figure 3b - Recognising the differences when applying TPM (2 of 2)

Each of the above are now described in more detail below

2.2 Process / Bulk Manufacturing

This type of facility which can include the acquisition and conversion of primary

materials –for example metals & chemicals (both liquid and / or powder) and paper

making-often comprise major physical stand alone and /or sequentially linked assets-

7



which are spread over big acreage and /or multi storey buildings. It is often capital

intense and highly automated and employing relatively few staff with a central hub

Control Room environment, often working on a 24 hour, 7 days a week with a 365

days per year shift patterns.

Rather than jumping in with a classic running clock 24 hour OEE, it is often more logical

to consider a batch or campaign OEE as a standardised time and sequence. This can

then be monitored & tracked through the standard lead time cycle time gates according

to the manufacturing logic for that specific batch. This is sometimes referred to as a

Fixed Repeating Schedule OEE

One of the central tenants of the TPM process and philosophy is that it encourages

‘Equipment Consciousness’. (ie this is how this process or mechanism is meant to

work and these are the typical phenomena that negate against that actually

happening).The key learning points of the Criticality Assessment (Step 4 in the 11 Step

TPM Process) is that it highlights the Impact of Safety, Reliability, Environment and

APQ (ie the OEE).The Criticality Assessment also provides a focus on the parts that

need to be kept in Optimum Condition as part of Steps 6-the Future Total Asset Care-

and Steps 7 & 8-Root Cause Analyses, Problem Resolution and Standardised Best

Practice

Perhaps our over dependency on technology means we has lost the will and common

sense to walk around the site / facility or plant and use our god –given senses of look,

see, smell and touch- In other words, we have lost the ability for catching the status

quo of an item early (as in a pump, motor, mechanism) due to over-heating, or perhaps

a leak, or vibration before it becomes catastrophic. Often these out of sight / out of

mind assets are also surrounded by unacceptable levels of 5S / Work-place

organisation, which result in poor contamination control, spillage (and hence yields).

The principle of Autonomous Maintenance- or as I prefer to call the first part of Step 6

-Front Line Operator Asset Care –recognises that the best condition monitor ever

invented is the Operator using their God-given senses of look. listen and discuss with

their Maintenance colleagues.

The above comments are also largely true of the other six types of facilities mentioned

in 2.2 to 2.7 below

A really good example of adopting a mind-set based on knowledge and understanding

is the adaptation of the OEE metric to suit an offshore oil platform in a hostile North

Sea environment. Here the set of metrics developed by the TPM driven Asset

Reliability Team were as shown in figure 4 below

8



2 August, 2016© S A Partners

OEE Measurement & Responsibility

FREQUENCY PARAMETER MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY PERSON

Monthly 1 Subsea Wells & Reservoir (ORE) APQ Owner Reservoir Engineer

Monthly 2 Field Management Effectiveness (OFE)

APQ Owner Reservoir Engineer

Weekly `3 Effectiveness of Oil Plant (OPE) APQ Operator OIM

Weekly 4 Separation AQ Operator Production Supervisor

Weekly 5 Flare Minimisation P Operator Production Supervisor

Weekly 6 Gas Compression APQ Operator Production Supervisor

Weekly 7 Overall Gas Compression System

APQ Operator Production Supervisor

Weekly 8 LP Eductor Equipment P Operator Production Supervisor

Weekly 9 Produced Water AQ Operator Production Supervisor

Weekly 10 Fuel Gas System APQ Operator Production Supervisor

Weekly 11 Boilers A Operator Chief Engineer

Weekly 12 Water Injection APQ Operator Production Supervisor

Where the OEE =

A = Availability x P = Performance Rate When Running x Q = Quality Rate Produced

Figure 4. Adapting the OEE measure to reflect the Operating Environment

In the Process / Bulk Manufacturing industries, Changeovers are often significant and

in many cases involve a ‘Cleaning in Process’ cycle between batches which is both

lengthy and complex. Here the tool of Value Stream Mapping -or if you prefer, Brown

Paper Mapping the Current State in order to develop the Future State, where there is

only ‘One Best Way’-which is then Standardised and trained out.

We do this by getting the right people (especially the Operators and Maintainers)

involved in that process of defining each elemental activity of the Current State via a

systematic E, C, R, S challenge process of which steps can we

Eliminate? -and if we can’t eliminate it, can we…

Combine it? with another activity upstream or downstream, & if not, can

we…

Replace it? with something smarter or at least …

Simplify it?

And then Standardise that ‘One Best Way’ and train it out as Standard

Work.

2.3 Classic Manufacturing

These physical assets can either be Singular (one Machine / one Operator) or Cellular

(more than one Machine but only one Operator), and / or coupled into a Value Stream

comprising several linked assets and their associated dependency and inter-

dependencies. Again it is vital to fully understand and then assimilate those

dependencies. For example, one Operator looking after more than one asset can

become labour controlled in certain machine loading and changeover configurations

9



rather than using the standard M/c cycle time or nameplate performance rate when

running. Line balancing becomes critical in these situations to optimise OEE

considerations-whether a running clock OEE or Batch OEE. The point being that the

lost opportunity elements of the OEE are not always due to the classic 6 x equipment

losses, but can be based on a manning level decision (and hence a ‘Management’ or

‘Door to Door’ loss). The figure 5 below attempts to illustrate some of these issues that

need to be fully understood, otherwise a corrupted performance measurement system

will give misleading information which is based on erroneous assumptions and

standards.


Machine Cycle

Lost quality

Lost performance

Lost availability

Working time available

Equipment Effectiveness

M/C #1

M/C #2

M/C #3

M/C #4

M/C #5

To focus on the worst OEE (Machine

#3) will miss the point (because

capacity is available)

Machine #5 is the pinch point even though it has

moderate OEE and comfortable machine

cycle time (Capacity is restricted throughout the Value Stream by this M/C)

Productive Capacity

Non-Productive Capacity

Available Capacity

To focus on the longest cycle time (Machine #2) may miss the point as it

is not the ‘pinch point’ within the line of 5 x M/cs

Where to focus the TPM Effort?

Figure 5 –Where to Focus the TPM efforts

It is important to also note that the OEE says nothing about schedule adherence. It is

pointless having a high OEE if you are making the wrong products.

OEE can be improved in good and bad ways. Good ways are to reduce unplanned

breakdowns, minor stoppages and changeover times. Bad ways are simply to do fewer

changeovers, or avoid making products with high defect rates or more difficult

adjustments.

As such, OEE should not be used in isolation, but alongside such measures as

customer request date, manufacturing promise date, schedule attainment, WIP and

inventory levels.

Similarly, your TPM efforts and the associated need for Asset Performance

Improvement (ie the OEE) needs to take account of the top level Business Drivers and

Imperatives for the next say 12 to 18 months.

10



IT is also a worthwhile exercise to stimulate discussion and more detailed analysis, by

first setting down a simple but effective A, B, C categorisation of the Physical Assets

where

A) Assets are critical all of the time

B) Assets are critical some of the time

C) Assets are never or rarely critical

2.4 Packaging

Similar to Classic Manufacturing in the sense that both Operators and their

Maintenance colleagues can have a major impact on asset effectiveness because all

6 classic equipment losses come into play. Many packaging lines have a combination

of labour controlled elements as well as islands of automation (conveying, weighing,

filling, inserts, sealing, palletising and shrink wrap). Minor stoppages corrected by the

Operator are often more significant as lost time / lost opportunity than breakdowns

requiring the presence of a Maintainer. Similarly, Changeovers can be significant as

can the need for 5S / workplace organisation to create flow around those assets

together with the judicious use of equipment based visual indicators

2.5 Assembly

This can range from a stationary but complex physical asset into which are fed several

components often at high speed, using innovative and ingenious tracking, sequencing,

insert and pressing devices with high levels of automation.

Alternatively, it may comprise a moving line or pulse line assembly for larger more

complex products (Home Entertainment Goods, White Goods and Vehicles). Again

the man / machine interface and interaction may be more labour controlled than

machine controlled.

In both cases internal and external supply chain co-ordination will be crucial. Also the

resultant internal pre-kitting, kan-bans and line balancing will be just as important as

the equipment reliability issues themselves.

This is where a broader view of the OEE is worth exploring

Figure 6a) Below illustrates 3 x levels of measurement focus

The Floor to Floor OEE, which focuses the core Team’s TPM efforts onto the

classic 6 x Equipment based losses, (by tackling breakdowns, changeover

times, running at reduced speed, minor stops, scrap. yield, rework losses-

plus start-up losses every time we get a breakdown, changeover or minor

stop). This is where a product and / or raw material is fed to a ‘value adding’

machine, physical asset or process and them placed on a pallet or conveyor

for onward routing.

The Door to Door Effectiveness which is within Management’s control (and is not an equipment related loss). Typically, these losses might be

11



* Labour Co-ordination losses (i.e. no Operator available, or the Maintainer is diverted to other priority) * Product Supply Starvation * No Work Order * No Packaging Materials * Consumable Stock outs * Awaiting QA Clearance Instructions * NPI Trials * Machine Upgrade and hence out of production service.

The Value Chain Effectiveness embracing Suppliers through to Customer

Delivery


The Value Stream

and the OEE as an Enabler

65% M/C OEE(90%)

Classic 6 x Losses

FLOOR-TO-FLOOR

OEE

55% DOOR-TO-DOOR

EFFECTIVENESS (85%)

CustomersExternal Suppliers

45% “VALUE CHAIN” EFFECTIVENESS (80%)

Where (x%) = Target

y% = Actual

Figure 6a-The OEE as an Enabler through the Value stream

In the above example, the current and target levels of effectiveness are shown at each

level. The rationale being that there is little merit in increasing the F2F OEE from 65%

to 90% if the D2D effectiveness stays at 55%. Likewise, there is little merit in getting

the D2D effectiveness up to say 85% if we are getting inconsistent Supplier responses

and we are making product that sits in the finished goods warehouse for 6 months.

The point is that by concentrating on the F2F losses we will also be highlighting the

D2D losses and in turn the Supply chain effectiveness

This 3 x Level Model can then be aligned to the Plant organisation structure to reflect

accountabilities and expectations as illustrated in figure 6b.

12




General

Manager

Unit Operations

Manager

Manufacturing

Area T/L

& Team

Overall Supply Chain Efficiency

Factory “Door-to-Door” OEE

Machine/

Line

OEE

The OEE as an Enabler for a

Site Performance Contract

Site Performance “Contract”

Top Down Target Driven Management,

Bottom-Up Shift Team - Based Activity

Maximize Value Added & Eliminate Waste

Through OEE Measurement To Direct/

Focus Action/ Improvement

In

Order

To

Top

Down

Bottom

Up“Floor To

Floor”

Figure 6b-A Three Level Site Performance ‘Contract’

This approach allows us to pin-point commitment and accountability at the right level

in a Plant organisation such that, in this example:

The General Manager is the SPONSOR of the TPM routines (making TPM a

non-optional part of ‘the way we do things here’)

The Unit Operations Manager -through their Shift based Section Leaders, are

the FACILITATORS of the TPM routines (ensuring that the routines are

carried out to the required standard at the right time and frequency)

The Operators and Maintainers, who CARRY OUT the TPM routines that they

themselves have designed and specified during the TPM pilot project phase.

All of the above becomes a key part of the application of Standard Work which will be

central to the TPM activity.

2.6 Utilities & General Services

This grouping range from the large public utilities such as Water, Gas, Electricity and

Nuclear, and can also include Docks & Airports in this category

Likewise, In-plant local services for any of the above four A) to D) facilities such as on-

site CHP Energy raising (Steam, Gas, Electricity and Air) and its distribution to the

point of use. Also Effluent control and disposal.

There is often a very significant element of outsourcing the Maintenance activity. This

can range from specialist Condition Monitoring services to the total outsourcing of the

Maintenance activity. Here the TPM Philosophy becomes attractive as the moves

13



towards Partnership Agreements become a reality. (as opposed to purely Service

Level Agreements-which often tend to generate the wrong behaviours- even to the

extent of them eroding over time to become both adversarial and confrontational)

In terms of measurement, the classic OEE is not always relevant and other KPI’s need

to be thought through and used. A few examples that I have seen in this category are

Airport Baggage Handling System-Number of lost bags per day. Number of false sensor alarm resets per shift

Mail Sorting Office-Number of miss-sorted items per shift. Number of Interventions per day

Water Treatment Plant-Mean Time Between Failures & Mean Time to Respond & Repair. Maintenance cost per 1,000 litres of processed clean water.

In House Plant Services-Air Pressure distribution loss. Energy cost per unit of output

Obviously the possibilities are immense and it’s perhaps worthwhile setting down the

5 x Measurement principles within TPM to help you decide on the correct measures

to drive the right behaviours within your facility

The correct measures will:

Improve the quality of problem solving

Help set fast track priorities

Maintain Management commitment to the TPM approach

Help deliver the Business drivers

Focus on driving out non value adding waste in all its forms.

2.7 Warehousing

This category is again an opportunity to be creative by the careful tailoring and

adaptation of the more classic TPM application.

Here is an example of an ‘In-Plant’ highly Automated Storage and Retrieval System

(ASRS) which is characterised by

6 x Cranes servicing 12 Racks over 13 x Levels, 100 Spaces each

C.14,000 pallet spaces

1,200 pallet movements per month

100+ alarms per week caused by……

o Miss-aligned sensors

o Dirty sensors

o Twisted pallets (variety of reasons)

o Random Mixture of Plastic v. Wood pallets (Good & bad points)

Significant No. of Conveyors and transport Mobiles

‘Hundreds of Sensors

Very good Visual Process Flow Map (Photo’s +Graphic)

14



Many linked critical assets (GR→ Automated HL Storage → Retrieve

→ Convey → Kit → Convey →AGV → Production)

New Integrated Process Logic system bedding in

Need high Level Criticality assessment to focus improvement

opportunities via TPM & develop Future state via ECRS challenge &

then Standardise

The Future Vision and ‘Challenge’ developed across the Shift Team’s involvement in

applying relevant measures and TPM based Asset Care is articulated by the Team as

follows

Operates as it should-with the ASRS part of it as ‘lights-out’ operation

where Alarms are a rarity

Operations & Maintenance working as One Team to self-determined

Standards and then Sustaining those standards over the long term

Greatly improved understanding of how our physical Assets actually

work, through relevant Training in a Safe and fit for purpose

environment

Deliver our internal customer requirements (production) on time in full.

Early indications after 6 months’ application of the above ‘Statement of Intent’ are that

Alarms are now less than 10 per week and the Operators & Maintainers are proud of

their workplace and are far more ‘Equipment Conscious’. Internal customer demand

is being met without overtime and there is now a choice of flexibility to meet planned

future increase in demand.

In a more mature application of TPM in a Materials Handling environment of a highly

automated multi- sourced material stock feed system to c.60 moulding machines, the

following results- as articulated by the Team of Operators and Maintainers at Milestone

2 of their TPM journey (previously mentioned in article 5) has been as follows:

• ‘…. The Material Handling System Area has become an easier place to

work in and is presentable to both customers and suppliers. Safety is

now our number 1 Priority

• Current average alarms are 76 per Week which represents an 80%

reduction from 463 per Week before we started TPM

• Average Weekly Downtime as a result of the Material System

improvements & Feed delivery to all c.60 Moulding M/cs has gone from

68 Hours- down to just 3 Hours per week…’

2.8 Remote and Dispersed Assets

Typical, but not exhaustive examples would include Wind Farms, Telecommunications

masts, Water Reservoirs (both above & below ground) and their associated pumping

and metering stations.

Technically we might call these peripatetic maintenance assets, where the business

is responsible for multiple and geographically diverse assets which are largely

https://sapartners.com/team-recognition-people/

15



unmanned facilities requiring central 24-hour monitoring. The biggest-and often false-

assumption in this scenario is that regular visible and physical ‘human’ inspections &

maintenance are grossly undervalued and the technological tail is left wagging the

dog.

Maybe like CHIM in figure 2, we need to rediscover some old behaviours and start

walking the talk!

The OEE metric is not usually relevant in this category. More relevant Asset Reliability

metrics would include

Alarms frequency

Callout frequency

Mean Time Between Failure

Mean Time to Respond & Repair

Whilst Operator impact is minimal the Maintainer impact is major and Standard Work

will be very relevant

3.0 Human Factor Impact

We also need to consider the Human Factor impact on these same seven A) to G)

Facility groupings in terms of two considerations

A Comparison of the Potential impact on making Sound Decisions or

Judgements, whether you are an Operator, Maintainer or Leader (Figure 7a &

7b)

Ideal behaviours to be exhibited by those same three job roles (Figure 8)

These comparisons and statements as illustrated below are based on personal

experience and qualitative assessments (rather than absolute or quantified data).

They do however serve to help clarify roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and

expectations of the main players when implementing a TPM system in that industry

sector and facility type.

16



Type of

facility

Equipment Consciousness(How the Asset is meant to Work)

Initialtrouble Shooting &ProblemSolving-Before Issue Escalation

ProcessConsciousness(How the Process Works)

Preventative maintenance involvement

Process Plannedshutdown

Spares and stores processes

A)Process /

Bulk

O 3

M 3

L 3

O 2

M 3

L 2

O 3

M 3

L 3

O 3

M 3

L 1

O 1

M 3

L 3

O 1

M 3

L 3

B)Classic

Manufacture

O 3

M 3

L 2

O 3

M 3

L 2

O 3

M 2

L 3

O 3

M 3

L 1

O 2

M 3

L 2

O 2

M 3

L 3

C)Packaging O 3

M 3

L 2

O 3

M 3

L 2

O 3

M 3

L 3

O 3

M 3

L 1

O 2

M 3

L 2

O 2

M 3

L 2

D)Assembly O 3

M 3

L 2

O 2

M 3

L 2

O 3

M 3

L 3

O 3

M 3

L 1

O 1

M 3

L 3

O 2

M 3

L 3

Potential Impact Rating Scale 1= none, 2= some , 3= major .

Where job Role is O = Operator, M = Maintainer and L = Leader

Figure 7a) Comparison of Potential impact on making Sound Decisions or

Judgements

Type of Facility Equipment

Conscious

ness

(How the

Asset is

meant to

Work)

Initial

Trouble

Shooting &

Problem

Solving-

Before Issue

Escalation

Process

Conscious

ness

(How the

Process

Works)

Preventative

maintenance

involvement

Process

Planned

shutdown

Spares

and stores

processes

E)Utilities O 2

M 3

L 2

O 2

M 3

L 2

O 2

M 3

L 3

O 2

M 3

L 1

O 1

M 3

L 3

O 1

M 3

L 3

F)Warehouse O 3

M 3

L 2

O 3

M 3

L 2

O 3

M 3

L 3

O 3

M 3

L 1

O 1

M 3

L 3

O 1

M 3

L 3

G)Remote &

Dispersed

Assets

O 2

M 3

L 3

O 2

M 3

L 2

O 2

M 3

L 3

O 3

M 3

L 1

O 1

M 3

L 3

O 1

M 3

L 3

Where job Role is O = Operator, M = Maintainer and L = Lead

Potential Impact Rating Scale 1= none, 2= some , 3= major.

Figure 7b) Comparison of Potential impact on making Sound Decisions or

Judgements

17



© S A Partners

Type of Facility Ideal Behaviours

Operator

Ideal Behaviours

Maintainer

Ideal Behaviours

Leader

A)Process/Bulk Take initial front line Ownership

Resolve and Prevent Recurrence

Trust to DelegateManage by Green

B)Classic Manu Take front line Responsibility

Proactive &Innovative


C)Packaging Take front line Responsibility

100 yr fix Mentality Trust to DelegateManage by Green

D)Assembly Take initial front line Ownership

Resolve and Prevent Recurrence

Regular, Visible support

E)Utilities An appetite & willingness to Learn

Pride of OwnershipWith TLC

Ask not Tell.Regular, Visible support

F)Warehouse Take initial front line Ownership

100 yr fix Mentality Create anEnvironment for Teamwork to thrive

G)Remote &

Dispersed Assets

Learn new skills,Go see the Asset with the Maintainer

Pride of OwnershipGo see the Asset,Resolve and Prevent Recurrence


Figure 8-Ideal Behaviours exhibited by job role in the seven Facility types

Our penultimate article in this series (No 8) will be published in March and will focus

on the Early Equipment Management founding pillar of the TPM philosophy.

Finally, in Article 9 (April), we will review a number of TPM case studies and conclude

with a signposted Summary of the Key Learning points from all 8 previous articles.

Meanwhile –your observations & contribution to this article and particularly to

challenge my observations and statements will be very welcome. Please contact me

at [email protected] .

mailto:[email protected]

Total Productive Maintenance Article 7 - S A Partners · 2017-02-22 · We in S A Partners aspire to help Manufacturing and Process Industry to realise its full potential in terms

Documents