Category: Total Productive Maintenance

A case study in reducing costs through the application of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM).

Background

Philips (Uden) produces and delivers ceramic light components to internal Philips customers. The products go into two main Philips products, SON and MASTERColour lamps. These products are widely used in street lighting in greenhouses, for lighting of buildings and for lighting shops, showrooms, hotels and public spaces.

Both discharge lamps have a high light output but are also energy efficient. The SON lamp uses half of the energy of high-pressure mercury lamps typically used in street lighting and the MASTERColour is an energy efficient replacement for halogen lamps.

Philips (Uden) currently use injection molding, a technique which is already widely used in plastics, to create the intricate shaped ceramic components.

Energy efficiency has become an important issue and global demand has risen for these products. This in turn has lead to rising demand for the ceramic components.

The Challenge

Philips (Uden) has been using Lean Improvement techniques to improve the productivity, delivery and quality of the factory for several years but they recognised the need to reduce costs even further to ensure that they remained competitive against emerging market competition.

The Objectives

The introduction of TPM was seen as a long term solution for the company which would allow the losses within the business to be identified and eliminated. This would allow them to achieve a production cost of €0.40 for a typical 70W ceramic component, a reduction of over 60% within a 4 year period.

The Industry Forum Solution

In 2010 Industry Forum and Philips (Uden) conducted initial management training and a pilot TPM project, focused primarily around Autonomous and Planned Maintenance on the Front and Mid End process. Following on from this a decision was taken by the Senior Leadership to use the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM) Total Productive Maintenance Award as a structure to drive sustainable business improvement within the organisation.

During early 2011, further TPM Pillar training was conducted with members of the leadership team, followed by a roadmap activity to help establish a TPM Pillar structure and align it to the Vision and Strategy of the Philips (Uden) factory.

This improvement structure is known as ‘One Uden World Class Manufacture’. It includes the standard 8 TPM pillars that are assessed by JIPM together with 2 additional Philips Specific Pillars: Lean and Supply Chain.

Activities to support the introduction and sustainability of TPM within Philps (Uden) were conducted throughout the following 3 years. Periodic assessments against the JIPM Award criteria have shown that the Philips (Uden) team is on track to be to apply for the first level TPM Award in 2014.

Philips (Uden) already have examples of zero breakdown equipment and zero accidents, operators have ownership for their areas and OEE, delivery and quality has improved across all areas of the factory. Need some figures.

The Customer’s View

“With the implementation of TPM we have focus for our improvement process. The improvements are on all areas of the factory, and the co-operation between departments is significantly improved! IF has given us direction where to go to. In the beginning the support was explaining the concept and benefits of TPM, and later in the process IF regularly audited our progress and kept us on track.”

Marijke Swaving, Manager Operational Excellence and Cost Eng. , Philips Lighting B.V.

Reference file:

• Download Case Study (pdf) 

Global TPM Transformation Deployment in the Industrial Components sector

Background

This global manufacturer processes minerals to produce great volumes of product used all over the world supplying high specification material to the automotive, marine, energy and renewables sectors.  A vital factor to stay ahead of competition is to maximise the return on capital associated with over twenty factories spread across all regions of the globe. Key to their success is the reliability and maintainability of the equipment as well as the commitment and motivation of its workforce.

The Challenge

The processing equipment operates in a high temperature and highly abrasive environment, so reliability and resilience is a key differentiator. There were additional challenges due to a range of technologies across the globe and also huge cultural differences, rates of acceptance and uptake by the workforce.

The Objective

The clear need was to develop a programme that maximised the performance and life of the equipment. It was recognised that this would need an approach that involved not only the equipment designers and maintainers but the whole organisation within plants and also to have consistent application across the regions.

To meet this end a Total Productive Maintenance approach was deployed in line with the JIPM model for a proven effective implementation.

The Industry Forum Solution

Phase 1

In 2010 an approach was designed to develop pilot improvement areas in a well-considered and selection of pilot factories in just one of the regions.  The model followed the JIPM approach with an initial assessment and awareness of TPM for the leadership teams, followed by the development of a master plan.  This focussed on the first four pillars of Focussed Improvement, Autonomous Maintenance, Planned Maintenance and Training and Education.  Pilot areas of equipment were selected on a chosen criteria based on chronic need, the opportunity to engage and learn, and also whether or not they could be completed in an appropriate time frame.

Phase 2

Following the evaluation of the Phase 1 findings and the initial success of this phase the approach was expanded to engage all regions in similar programmes following the same approach.  As the network grew there were additional work streams to develop Pillar specific expertise and knowledge sharing.  At the same time the original pilot plants continued their deployment to include more areas, engage more people and learned how to implement the advance pillars.

 

Phase 3

As the factories and regions developed traction the programme moved into a third phase where certain global strategic imperatives were pursued to move faster and deeper on areas of global concern.  This included a series of technical and process areas that were of concern.  Here a selected plant would develop the solution using Focussed Improvement, then deploy across other plants and regions.

Also in this phase other global pillars were launched on additional global projects, these included Finance, Supply Chain and the building of new and refurbished factories around the world.

The programme continues to develop and gain increased momentum, engaging more people and depth of application.  Leadership now identify with TPM as “the way we run our business”.
After three years of deployment the return on investment is over 4:1, and the initial first leading factories are getting ready for the first TPM award from JIPM.

 

All information in this document is copyright of Industry Forum © 2013

Reference file:

• Download Case Study (pdf)

 

Reducing costs through the application of Total Productive Maintenance

Background

This electrical component provider produces and delivers key electrical components to a wide number of customers. The products go into two main categories and the manufacturing and supply chain process is developed to ensure this. These products are widely used in street lighting, in greenhouses and the lighting of buildings such as shops, showrooms, hotels and public spaces.

Both categories of product have a high output but are also energy efficient. The first category product uses half of the energy of other similar designed components typically used and the second category product is an energy efficient replacement for modern automotive electrical components.

The provider currently uses injection moulding, a technique which is already widely used in plastics, to create the intricate shaped ceramic components.

Energy efficiency has become an important issue and global demand has risen for these products. This in turn has led to rising demand for the electrical components.

The Challenge

The factory has been using Lean improvement techniques to improve the productivity, delivery and quality of the factory for several years but they recognised the need to reduce costs even further to ensure that they remained competitive against emerging market competition.

The Objectives

The introduction of TPM was seen as a long term solution for the company which would allow the losses within the business to be identified and eliminated. This would allow them to achieve a production cost for a typical electrical component, a reduction of over 60% within a 4 year period.

The Industry Forum Solution

In 2010 Industry Forum and the factory conducted initial management training and a pilot TPM project, focussed primarily around Autonomous and Planned Maintenance on the front and mid end process. Following on from this a decision was taken by the Senior Leadership Team to use the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM) Total Productive Maintenance Award as a structure to drive sustainable business improvement within the organisation.

During early 2011, further TPM Pillar training was conducted with members of the leadership team, followed by a road map activity to help establish a TPM Pillar structure and align it to the vision and Ssrategy of the factory. This improvement structure includes the standard 8 TPM pillars that are assessed by JIPM together with 2 additional specific pillars: Lean and Supply Chain.

Activities to support the introduction and sustainability of TPM within the factory were conducted throughout the following 3 years. Periodic assessments against the JIPM Award criteria have shown that the team is on track to be to apply for the first level TPM Award in 2014.

The team already have examples of zero breakdown equipment and zero accidents, operators have ownership for their areas and OEE, delivery and quality has improved across all areas of the factory.

All information in this document is copyright of Industry Forum © 2013

Reference file:

• Download Case Study (pdf)

Using TPM to enable an environment for change to happen

Background

This well recognised foods producer started their TPM journey in 2010. They had done some good work but their factory was spread over a large area in individual business units. Change Agent roles were in place but reporting to a central steering group meant that business unit leaders were not seeing it as core to their role. There was a noticeable lack of the activities linking back to the site’s strategy.

The Challenge

There was a belief in the TPM programme to carry out the activity and an acknowledgement that the benefits would be reflected in the company culture. However, there was no link with the strategy and delivery of the business plan which meant that deployment was, at best, random and unconnected. In 2012 there were major new workload and new equipment initiatives which led to the Management Team’s focus being taken away with the Change Agents struggling to keep realistic momentum.

The Industry Forum Solution

The factory has been restructured and a driven business unit TPM Team has been established so that each business unit manager needs to decide what activities need to be delivered to meet their business unit objectives. It is not insisted that TPM is the way by which it is done, however now the links have become clear they must consider how else will they meet their targets. This now gives a matrix structure – site steering group, business unit steering group and then pillar teams with site steering group pillar lead and then the pillar representative in each unit. Activities are now linked to the strategy in a top down structure, giving a much clearer focus and enabling an environment for Change Agents to make change happen.

All information in this document is copyright of Industry Forum ©

Using TPM to help help develop business strategy

Background

This client started their TPM journey in 2009 with the implementation of some initial pillars but they were independent and were not working collectively or collaboratively. Completion between the pillars meant that standards were often imposed and not collectively agreed or developed.  All pillars were launched together and critically they were not related or linked to the business or its strategy so they did not have a clear purpose. Measures were so numerous that it became impossible to understand and rationalise as they were all activity based. This resulted in quantity driven results and not quality driven results.

The Challenge

A corporate structure was in place but it existed primarily as a result of auditing processes and it was not directly linked with the factories. This meant that shaping of the programme was variable and each factory was reinventing what had been learnt elsewhere in the business. Internal reviews recognised that the approach was not sustainable and now the maxim of “if it doesn’t support the strategy then don’t do it”.

The Industry Forum Solution

The 2013 key management indicators objectives have been divided amongst the pillars and can then use loss analysis to identify activities and show a clear link back to the business objectives. The bottom up approach is now also being driven following some line management restructuring which enables the approach of daily management upwards, pillar strategy downwards and a meeting in the middle to complete tactical activities. There has been however, some significant improvement following the initial uncertainties mainly due to a change in the management team and an effort to direct the programme with more focus towards deliberate activities. A key decision by the management team to enable the pillar teams to focus on the priorities that will drive the business delivery has brought about a new dynamism and energy in the TPM deployment.

All information in this document is copyright of Industry Forum ©