chapter 2 literature review - information and...
TRANSCRIPT
14
CHAPTER – 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents the review of literature concerning TQM and TPM
concepts and framework, there relationship with Lean Manufacturing, overview of
overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), TQM and TPM implementation practices
adopted by Western World, benefits of implementation and there contributions towards
improving manufacturing performance and achieving organizational core competencies.
The chapter also focuses on various TQM and TPM implementation issues in order to
develop an indigenous strategic synergetic effect, considering two key aspects of
profitability and operating performance. Lastly the gaps in literature regarding TQM-
TPM implementation, the stumbling blocks and success factors for TQM-TPM
Implementation have been elaborated in this chapter.
2.1 Sustaining Quality and Maintenance growth in Indian industries
Problem solving lies at the heart of (total) quality management. The continuous
process of identifying and eliminating the causes of ineffectiveness in business and
production processes has, along with technical improvements, driven much of the
increased standard of living we now enjoy. Hence, it is not surprising that most
organisations quote problem solving skills as a vital talent and require their people to
sharpen their competencies in this area. On the trail of so many Japanese industries that
in recent decades have succeeded in reaching leading positions in the global market
based on highly effective Manufacturing Systems (MSs), an enormous number of
investigations have been conducted in an attempt to elucidate the reasons for such
achievement. In the manufacturing industry, product quality has become a key factor in
determining a firm‘s success or failure in the global market place. Advanced, highly
reliable manufacturing methods have made it possible to achieve very high standards of
product quality. As a result, more and more firms are making product quality a keystone
of their competitive strategy. The success of many major Japanese companies is truly
rooted in their long-term commitment to the improvement of quality. The improvement
of production quality is a whole-hearted commitment to continuous improvement in
every aspect of the production process. Today‘s competitive market, in almost every
15
category of products and services, is characterised by accelerating changes, innovation
and massive amounts of new information.
In their quest to emerge as a leading manufacturing base for the world market,
many manufacturing industries face tough competition from global players (Nandi,
1998; Sahay et al., 2000). Though efforts have been made to boost industrial
development, yet much needs to be done by reducing costs, improving quality and
offering a bigger variety of products with improved services (Chandra and Shastri,
1998). A world-class maintenance department enhances the organisation‘s ability to
provide products or services (Kutucuoglu et al., 2002; Mishra et al., 2007). Recent
competitive trends and ever increasing business pressures have been putting the
maintenance function under the spotlight as never before (Garg and Deshmukh, 2006).
Maintenance processes can be streamlined to eliminate waste and produce breakthrough
performance in areas valued by customers (Lewis, 2006). Ever-increasing demands on
manufacturing organisations have contributed to a complete overhaul of maintenance
practices in manufacturing enterprises (Ahuja and Khamba, 2009).
The maintenance function has usually been considered as an operating expense
to be minimised, and not as an investment in increasing process reliability in many
organisations (Patterson et al., 1996). The inadequacies of maintenance practices in the
past have adversely affected organisational competitiveness by reducing throughput and
reliability of production facilities. This has resulted in fast deteriorations in production
facilities, lowering equipment availability due to excessive system downtime, lowering
production quality and increasing inventory, thereby leading to unreliable delivery
performance. As organisations in today‘s highly challenging scenario have moved to
reduce costs and improve quality and responsiveness, reductions in inventory and excess
capacity have revealed serious weaknesses in the traditional maintenance programmes
(Lawrence, 1999). Strategic investments in the maintenance function can lead to
improved performance of a MS and enhance the competitive market position of the
organisation (Jonsson and Lesshammar, 1999). Thus, as a significant contributor
towards organisational endeavours of growth and development, there is an utmost need
to improve the efficiency of the maintenance function in the organisation. Productive
success in today‘s manufacturing climate depends upon the implementation of multiple
complimentary and proven strategies. Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is the
proven manufacturing strategy that has been successfully employed globally for the last
16
three decades for achieving the organisational objectives of core competence in a
competitive environment (Ahuja and Khamba, 2007).
2.2 Developing a quality approach: TQM strategy
Total Quality Management (TQM) is a management process and a set of
disciplines that are coordinated to ensure that the organisation consistently meets and
exceeds customer requirements. TQM engages all divisions, departments and levels of
the organisation. Senior management organises all of its strategy and operations around
customer needs and develops a culture with high employee participation. Companies
with TQM are focused on the systematic management of data in all processes and
practices to eliminate waste, and pursue continuous improvement (Capezio and
Morehouse, 1993). In TQM, the responsibility for quality is located in both individuals
and teams through some evaluatory and developmental processes. This represents an
approach to Quality Assurance (QA) more congruent with the structures and ethos of
educational organisations than many of the more mechanistic and hierarchical processes
(McCulloch, 1993).
TQM is comprised of the following concepts:
Total: It expresses integration or participation of all the employees who take part
together in the processes of production or service (Sisman and Turan, 2002). The ‗total‘
of TQM underlines the continuous development enterprise that includes everybody and
everything in an organisation (Aksu, 2002; Sallis, 2002).
Quality: In the context of TQM ‗quality‘ can be defined as ―meeting the wishes and
expectations of customers in an ideal economical level and in a most suitable manner‖
(Simsek, 2001) or as ―a dynamic state that is meeting or exceeding customers‖
requirements, needs, expectations and desires‘ (Croker et al., 1996; Goetsch and Davis,
1997). In TQM, the quality improvement process begins and ends with the customers
(Senge, 1990).
Management: As a more comprehensive concept, ‗management‘ contains the other two
components. It may not be possible to have the desired quality without good
management and leadership (Sisman and Turan, 2002). As in the total concept, the
concept of management in TQM includes everybody, because everybody is the manager
of his or her responsibilities, whatever the roles, positions and status in the organisation
17
(Sallis, 2002). In TQM, the job of management is not supervision, but leadership. Rather
than focus on outcome (management by numbers, work standards, meet specifications,
zero defects, appraisal of performance), leadership should be put in place (Deming,
1986).
TQM is one of the quality-oriented approaches that many organisations adopt. It
is generally acknowledged that manufacturing companies need to be quality oriented in
conducting their business to survive the business world. TQM is an integrated
management philosophy and a set of practices that emphasise top management
commitment, customer focus, supplier relationship, benchmarking, quality-oriented
training, employee focus, zero-defects, process improvement, and quality measurement.
As defined by ISO ‗Total Quality Management (TQM) is a management
approach of an organisation, centred on quality, based on the participation of all its
members and aiming at long-term success through customer satisfaction, and benefi ts
to all members of the organisation and to society‖. TQM requires that the company
maintain this quality standard in all aspects of its business. This requires ensuring that
things are done right the first time and that defects and waste are eliminated from
operations. TQM has been widely used in manufacturing, education, government, and
service industries, as well as in NASA‘s space and science programmes.
Feigenbaum originated the concept of Total Quality Control (TQC) in 1956. His
seminal paper on TQC was first published in 1957 and was followed by his book titled
TQC: Engineering and Management in 1961. Feigenbaum emphasised three critical
areas for quality: quality control participation by all divisions of the enterprise, quality
control participation by all employees and the integration of quality control. Reed et al.
(2000) provided an excellent account of the theoretical under-pinning of TQM. TQM is
a key strategy for maintaining competitive advantage and is a way of managing
organisations to improve their overall effectiveness and performance towards achieving
world-class status (Zhang, 2000; Chapman and Al-Khawaldeh, 2002). Various studies
have been carried out for the identification of the elements of successful quality
management, from three different approaches: contributions from quality leaders,
formal evaluation models and empirical research. Besides, researchers have identified a
number of tools and techniques for quality improvement that are necessary for TQM
success.
18
Deming (1982, 1986) underlined the use of statistical techniques for quality
control, and proposed his 14 principles to improve quality in organisations, based on the
following ideas: leadership, an improvement philosophy, the right production from the
beginning, training for managers and employees, internal communication aimed at the
elimination of obstacles for cooperation and the suppression of quantitative objectives.
Juran (1986) pointed out the importance of both technical and managerial
aspects, and identified the three basic functions of the quality management process:
planning, organisation and control, as the stages for quality improvement. According to
some authors, TQM is rather more than a mere set of factors, a network of
interdependent components, a management system consisting of critical factors,
techniques and tools (Hellsten and Klefsjo, 2000).
One area that has received attention in studies is the influence of TQM practices
on performance (Hendricks and Singhal, 2001; Kaynak, 2003), which is achieved
through changes brought about in areas such as leadership, human resource
management, process management, supply chain management and information
management (Shieh and Wu, 2002). One of the studies has considered the impact of
TQM on project performance, though this study, by Shieh and Wu (2002), was limited
to appraising the effects on the processes in the architectural planning stage of
construction projects, rather than on achievement of the end objectives across a variety
of projects. There is a need for further systematic research into the relationship between
TQM and project performance to see if the introduction of a TQM approach leads to
changes in actual project management practices relating to managing performance.
2.3 A historic overview of quality management: TQM literature review
TQM is a management model that aims to meet customer needs and expectations
within an organisation through continuous improvement of the quality of goods and
services and integration of all functions and processes within an organisation. The TQM
literature concurs that its concepts and practices have been shaped by a number of icons
who are recognised as ‗quality gurus‘, such as Deming, Juran, Crosby, Feigenbaum,
Ishikawa, and Imai (Hackman and Wageman, 1995; Plenert, 1996; Lau and Anderson,
1998). These TQM gurus developed their concepts primarily based on their experience
in industry. Grant et al. (1994) argue that the prescriptive approach developed by these
gurus has created a perception that TQM involves no explicit theory, and caused
19
business schools to dismiss TQM as intellectually insubstantial and to consider it as but
one of a number of management fads.
The impact of TQM on organisational performance has been investigated by
many researchers (Flynn et al., 1994; Samson and Terziovski, 1999). These studies
typically conclude that TQM has a positive and significant relationship with
organisational performance. However, not all TQM implementation yields the
satisfactory results promoted by its advocates (Brown, 1993; Harari, 1993). There have
been numerous studies in literature reporting on the problematic issues relating to the
implementation process and how they affect its outcomes. Among several factors, which
have been attributed as key determinants of its success, organisational culture is often
among those listed at the top.
At the advent of industrialisation, quality was tantamount to inspection. From
that point forward, with every stride made in the technological realm, product quality
has equally experienced an evolutionary growth. Inspection of product dimensions or
composition and observed variance from design parameters have been used to define
product quality. Traversing through decades, quality has reached a zenith called TQM, a
coined term for the contemporary quality movement set across the industrial world.
TQM is a theory, practice and philosophy, and many theorists and practitioners are
contributing toward its growth. However, TQM is still considered to be in its early stage
of development (Dale et al., 2001). The quality paradigms are changing rapidly from
east to west and from developed to developing countries (Dahalgaard et al., 1998).
Differences in economic, technological, social and cultural achievements underlie these
variations. Moreover, the measure of advances attained in TQM has universal
acceptability determined by performance levels of identified critical factors (Badri and
Davis, 1995; Motwani, 2001).
McAdam and Henderson (2004) provided a detailed analysis, along with internal
and external driving factors, of the perceived future of TQM. Wankhade and Dabade
(2005) have elaborated on the mechanism of quality uncertainty due to information
asymmetry. The concept has been made clear by considering the ideal market with
complete information of quality product or with non-information. Continuous efforts
from product development to manufacturing of the product are essential for better
quality of the product.
20
Within the context of successful TQM implementation, there is increasing
recognition of the importance of human factors in quality management (Fok et al., 2000;
Brah et al., 2002; Montes et al., 2003). Many of the basic elements of TQM involve
people, such as teamwork, participative management, creativity, effective
communication, customer feedback, employee involvement and empowerment,
employee and management trust and support (Guimaraes, 1994).
For an organisation to realise the benefits of TQM, the consideration of human
factors is critical for the successful implementation of TQM. Human factors previously
identified in the TQM literature include management (leadership) style, type of
employees, departmental interaction, management commitment, employee‘s attitude
toward change, authority to empower employees, rewards/recognition for innovation
and citizenship behaviours (Mann and Kehoe, 1995; Montes et al., 2003). If the core
values in Business Excellence Models (BEM) are taken as examples of TQM values,
then a considerable number of values such as ―valuing employees and partners‖,
‗systems perspective‘, ‗social responsibility‘, and ―focus on results and creating value‖
could also be added (EFQM, 2003). The term methodology is commonly used to
describe activities that are performed in a certain order. Some methodologies applied to
TQM include benchmarking, self-assessment, business process management and Six-
Sigma (SS). An important methodology within TQM is the self-assessment process
based on criteria in BEM.
The American Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), the
European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model and the SIQ
Model for Performance Excellence specify criteria based on TQM core values (EFQM,
2003; SIQ, 2003; MBNQA, 2004). Applying these criteria successfully is proven to
improve economic performance (Hendricks and Singhal, 1999; Wrolstad and Krueger,
2001; Hansson and Eriksson, 2002). These criteria are: policy on quality management;
Quality Control Circle (QCC); training; quality audit; other quality improvement
programmes; top leadership involvement; management data and information; human
resource management; customer satisfaction; handling customers‘ complaints to
increase productivity; support services and vendor programmes; and quality and
operational results.
21
TQM thus focuses not only on the quality of product, but also on the quality of
employees. Indeed, most successful TQM implementations depend heavily on changes
in employees‘ attitudes and activities. Practice is defined as regularly repeated exercise
to improve one‘s skill, or doing something that is common, habitual or as expected
(Akpan, 2002). Thus, the employee‘s motivation for change is quite essential for change
to TQM to be practicable.
Juran and Gruna (1993) opined that without the human mind, tools alone cannot
help TQM to work. In fact, the human factor often makes change difficult and at times,
outright impossible (Esho, 1999). Hence, a research into factors that could influence
employees‘ change to TQM and its practice is inevitable.
It has been observed that TQM was adopted in Japan because it was generally
believed that quality was an effective and strategic weapon for improving productivity
(Tari and Molina, 2002; Hasan and Kerr, 2003). While it was also agreed that TQM was
an effective process for improving organisational functioning, Packard (1995) argues
that its value can only be assured through a comprehensive and well through-out
implementation process.
Thus, these days‘ researchers have been investigating how TQM implementation
can be enhanced. In fact, attempts have been made by researchers at determining what
factors could enhance or hinder TQM practice in organisations. Researchers like Amar
and Zain (2002) and Baidoun and Zairi (2003) have resolved that without attention to
contextual factors, well-intended organisational changes may not be adequately
implemented. Anantharaman (2003) reasoned that the duration in TQM implementation
might be a significant factor in determining its efficacy, but in a study subsequently
conducted, it was found that duration does not affect the effectiveness of quality
management programmes. Chang and Sinclair (2003) observe change in organisational
culture, like reward systems and management styles, as relevant. Gonzalez and Guillen
(2002) presented theoretical arguments for leadership of managers as a powerful enabler
for TQM to be sustained.
22
2.4 TQM: culture and evolution
A review of TQM literature (Kumar, 2006) showed that the TQM culture can be
considered to be one which uses team, promotes pride in workmanship, drives out fear,
allows participative management, promotes leadership in place of supervision and
promotes long term orientation among the members of the organisation (Deming, 1993;
Al-Khalifa and Aspinwall, 2000; Saha and Hardie, 2005). The national cultural
dimensions that are conducive for the TQM culture are high collectivism, low power
distance (i.e., low hierarchy) and low uncertainty avoidance (Chin and Pun, 2002; Yen
et al., 2002; Saha and Hardie, 2005). A review of quality awards and critical success
factors for TQM has shown that culture influences the understanding of TQM and also
affects the operationalisation of TQM in a country (Tan et al., 2003; Kumar, 2006).
Hofstede (1980) identified four factors on which the cultures of different countries
differ. The four factors are collectivism-individualism, power distance, masculinity
femininity and uncertainty avoidance. Because TQM de-emphasises status distinctions
and empowers employees to make decisions and use their own intelligence, cultures
which are high on ‗power distance‘ and ‗uncertainty avoidance‘ may not be conducive
for TQM implementation (Chin and Pun, 2002).
Another cultural dimension that mediates positively in TQM implementation is
collectivism (Kumar, 2006). It has been said that an individualistic cultural dimension
may not fit into the group orientation aspects of TQM (Yen et al., 2002). Collectivists
emphasise co-operation, endurance, persistence and obedience. They tend to have long-
term orientation, leading to long-term commitment to the organisation (Walumbwa and
Lawler, 2003), a requirement critical for success of TQM in an organisation (Yen et al.,
2002).
It is believed that TQM evolved from Quality Circles (QCs), an organisational
technique created in the USA by W. Edward Deming in the 1950s. QCs have been defi
ned as work groups, ranging from 4 to 15 members (Sillince et al., 1996; Robbins,
2003), that meet regularly to discuss quality problems, recommend solutions, and in
some cases, take action to make change (Flores and Utley, 2000; Robbins, 2003). Most
often, QCs are voluntary groups that employees decide to take part in. QCs did not
really have any effect on management in the USA until after the design was exported to
Japan, and then reintroduced to the USA in the 1980s (Gibson et al., 2003). The sharp
23
increase and decrease in popularity of QCs is a reaction to the change in literature
publications over time (Ponzi and Koenig, 2002). When TQM is looked at critically, it
is noticeable that many of the components have been developed from past organisational
techniques or what have been classified in some cases as management fads; this
includes QCs (Gibson et al., 2003). The flaws in the development and implementation
of QCs helped to guide TQM in a better direction.
Today, many business leaders mistake QCs for TQM. TQM has, however,
improved upon the faddish characteristics of QC. This confusion or diverging opinions
is partly due to the TQM evolution and because the meaning of the word quality itself
has shifted over time and from author to author (Boaden, 1997; Hellsten, 1997; Kroslid,
1999; Hellsten and Klefsjo, 2000). There is no general agreement on where and when
TQM was first used. Leonard and McAdams (2002) (2002) refer to Boaden (1997)
when claiming that TQM was not developed by one person. Rather, they argue that
quality efforts have always existed, in one form or another. Similarly Dale and
McQuater (1998) have defined the commonly used tools and techniques for TQM used
by different firms, as shown in Table - 2.1.
Table - 2.1 Commonly used tools and techniques of TQM
The seven basic
quality control
tools
The seven
management tools
Other tools Techniques
Cause and effect
diagram
Affinity diagram Brainstorming Benchmarking
Check sheet Arrow diagram Control plan Departmental purpose
analysis
Control chart Matrix diagram Flow chart Design of experiments
Graphs Matrix data analysis
method
Force field
analysis
Failure mode and effects
analysis
Histogram Process decision Questionnaire Fault tree analysis
Pareto diagram Relations diagram Sampling Poka yoke
Scatter diagram Systematic diagram Problem-solving
methodology Quality
costing, Quality function
deployment, Quality
improvement teams and
Statistical process control
24
There are several ways of describing the evolution of TQM. According to Dale
(1999), one common description of the historical development of quality improvement
is the use of four stages; ‗quality inspection‘, ‗QA‘, ‗quality control‘ and ‗Total Quality
Management (TQM)‘, the last with a focus on external and internal customers,
processes and quality improvements. Kroslid (1999) suggests instead that the
development should be described by the use of two different and parallel ‗schools‘.
On the one hand, there has been ‗the deterministic school‘, which had its starting
point in ‗Taylorism‘ and has since then passed the stages ‗standard development‘ and
the ‗zero defect principle‘. On the other hand, ‗the continuous improvement school‘,
which in its early state sought to reduce variation, has been developed. A third view of
the evolution of TQM is described by Park-Dahlgaard (2002), who have suggested that
it might beseen as a continuous process, as a ―fusion of eastern and western ideas‖,
which has gradually shaped TQM. There is also other development connected to TQM.
TQM is a concept that has traditionally been connected to business life, commercial and
industrial organisations for manufacturing and production.
However, the domain of TQM is changing, and TQM has been applied also to
public issues. Research has been conducted in the area of managing the third sector,
such as non-profit organisations (Hudson, 1995; Nutt and Mertens, 1999; Lyons, 2001;
Mertens, 1999). Consequently, the different views of the evolution of TQM and the
different views of the definitions of TQM generate problems both for those practitioners
who are applying TQM, and for those theorists who are studying TQM.
2.5 Management concepts: commitment, improvement and assurance
Management commitment is clearly a key factor which must be present before
initiating an implementation process. The implementation of TQM generally requires
major resources, such as human resources and funds (Kelly, 1992; Shin et al., 1998;
Latino, 1999). Since management is responsible for the availability of resources and the
overall implementation approach, management commitment is a prerequisite. However,
management commitment can decrease during the process, due to unclear understanding
of what is being done and of the objectives and methodologies of the concept (Clark,
1991; Hipkin and Lockett, 1995) and perceived threats to supervisors and managers
roles (Bardoel and Sohal, 1999) and failure to produce results quickly where
management has little patience to await benefits and is looking for short-term returns on
25
investment (Schawn and Khan, 1994; Laszlo, 1999). Withdrawal of management
support may also occur when benefits cannot be identified or attributed to the concept
implemented (Bowler and Leonard, 1994).
The TQM literature portrays visibility and support of top management as one of
the major determinants for successful TQM implementation. According to Grover et al.
(2006), no discussion on TQM is complete without considering references to top
management involvement. Almost all the quality awards recognise the crucial role of
top management leadership creating the goals, values and systems to satisfy customer
expectations and to improve performance of organisations.
Brown et al. (1994) identified lack of top management commitment ass one of
the reasons for the failure of TQM adoption. According to Garvin (1986), high levels of
quality performance have always been accompanied by an organisational commitment
to that goal and high-product quality does not exist without strong top management
commitment.
Chapman and Hyland (1997) have suggested that top management plays an
important role in changing organisational climate by providing leadership and support,
and also through face-to-face communication. According to the above authors, top
management should actively develop quality plans to meet business objectives;
communicate company philosophy to the employees and involve them in the TQM
effort and improvement activities; encourage employees to achieve their objectives;
ensure adequate resources for employee education and training.
Top management leadership in any organisation can be defined as the ability of a
role player to influence a team of employees to follow his or her instructions or missions
to achieve the goals or objectives that have been preset by the company (Bounds et al.,
1994). Thus, a leader plays an important role to ensure that it materialises (Ellinger and
Bostrom, 1999). The managerial ties of top managers are important to facilitate
knowledge sharing in an organisation (Gao et al., 2008).
According to MacNeil (2003), leadership in management could be a factor in the
improvement of main expertise and skills via their facilitators‘ role in organisational
learning within their organisations, particularly by creating an atmosphere of knowledge
sharing whereby the employees are encouraged to use their clear and unspoken
knowledge to assist in problem-solving. Many studies confirm that senior management
always plays an important role in influencing the rate of success for knowledge sharing
26
(Wong, 2006; Omerzel and Antoncic, 2008), and in enhancing the organisational
knowledge of the process management (Bryant, 2003). The leaders should also sanction
and encourage employees to take part in the process of decision making, and conduct
meetings where every team member could express his or her ideas and suggestions
freely (Arnold et al., 2000).
The most difficult stage of TQM is to create a team spirit and to coordinate
employee‘s efforts towards a certain target. At this point, there is a need for a strong
leadership (Ozevren, 2000; Simsek, 2001; Balci, 2002; Ensari, 2002; Ozden, 2002;
Sisman and Turan, 2002; Celik, 2003). The aim of leadership should be to improve
performance, to improve quality, to increase output, and simultaneously, to bring pride
of workmanship to people. Put in a negative way, the aim of leadership is not to find
and record failures of men, but to remove the causes of failure: to help people do a
better job with less effort (Deming, 1986). It is the managers‘ leadership ability that
creates the greatest effect on the performance and commitment of employees (Genc and
Halis, 2006). Strong leadership and also organisational culture have mutual influence on
the development of TQM policies and behaviours. TQM strategies are the best suited to
educational purposes, but there are deep, often conflicting, cultural processes that can
frustrate its introduction (Newby, 1999).
The role of top management is critical to the success of any TQM initiative.
Several studies have stated that since techniques such as successful Continuous Quality
Improvement (CQI) implementation may require a sustained effort over several years,
organisational members depend on the leadership of the CEO and senior management to
understand and interpret the relevant environmental pressures, and to position CQI
within the overall hospital strategy (Satia and Maj-Britt, 1999). In the healthcare
context, the hospital CEO leads the change effort required for the success of the quality
initiative.
In another study on leadership, Le Brasseur et al. (2002) found that a CEO
committed to implementing CQI as a transformational leader led to stronger signs of
CQI success than a middle management initiative. Horowitz et al. (2003) reported
success of a project in reducing length of stay, reducing unnecessary diagnostic study
utilisation, and improving materials management, because of senior leadership support.
In a study on the role of leadership in services, Prybil (2003) discussed the key
organisational, cultural, workforce-related, patient and community-related challenges
27
and constraints facing leaders in healthcare today. Therefore, as observed in research,
top management commitment and leadership remains a critical dimension of TQM in
healthcare. A summarised view of the TQM factors is shown in Table - 2.2.
Table - 2.2 Summarized views of the TQM factors
SEQUENCE TQM FACTORS
1 Leadership
2 Policy
3 Management
4 Planning
5 System Approach
6 Resources
7 Quality of Processes
8 Human Resource
9 Culture
10 Quality Awareness, Education and Training
11 Protection
12 Measurement and Control
13 Improvement
14 Satisfaction
Quality Assurance (QA) embraces all the activities and functions needed to
provide adequate confidence in a product or service for satisfying the given
requirements for quality (Chan and Fan, 1999). It is essentially a preventive function.
Quality assurance is based on the principle that prevention is better than cure and it is
more economical to get things right in the first place (Tang et al., 2005). Everyone
should aim at doing things right the first time and every time, thus achieving zero defect
in performance (Low and Teo, 2004).
To implement quality assurance, proper and systematic procedures are drawn up
and followed by all concerned. The ISO 9000 series of the IOS is a quality standard for
quality assurance purposes (ISO, 1994).The latest published version of the ISO 9000
family standard was issued in 2000. This version is of a more generic process-based
structure. Lau (2001) identified notable changes in the elements of ‗customer
28
satisfaction‘ and ‗continual improvement‘. It also assembles a limited amount of TQM
elements (Tang et al., 2005), but is still mainly a quality assurance model standard.
2.6 Strategic link between quality and maintenance function
In today‘s global economy, the survival of organisations depends on their ability
to rapidly innovate and improve. Organisations that want to survive in today‘s highly
competitive business environment must address the need for high quality, lower costs
and more effective, swifter research and development (R&D) (Gotoh, 1991; Hipkin and
Cock, 2000). The global marketplace has witnessed increased pressure from customers
and competitors in the manufacturing as well as in the service sectors (Basu, 2001;
George, 2002). As a result, an unceasing search is on for methods and processes that
drive improvements in quality, costs and productivity. In today‘s fast-changing
marketplace, slow and steady improvements in MSs do not guarantee sustained
profitability and survival of an organisation (Robinson and Ginder, 1995; Oke, 2005).
Thus, organisations need to improve at a faster rate than their competitors if they are to
become or remain leaders in their industry.
During recent years, organisations have been adopting strategies for enhancing
the maintenance and quality of products and processes as a means to excel in today‘s
competitive world. One of the current strategies being adopted in this direction by
modern organisations is TPM (Ahmed et al., 2005; Wang and Hwang, 2005). In
essence, TPM couples the principles of maintenance engineering and TQM (Seth and
Tripathi, 2005). The changes in the current business environment are characterised by
intense competition on the supply side and heightened volatility in customer
requirements on the demand side. These changes have left their unmistakable marks on
the different facets of the manufacturing organisations (Gomes et al., 2006).
In today‘s fast-changing marketplace, slow, steady improvements in
manufacturing operations do not guarantee sustained profitability or survival of an
organisation (Oke, 2005). Thus, organisations need to improve at a faster rate than their
competitors if they are to become or remain leaders in the industry. With increased
global competition, attention has been shifted from increasing efficiency by means of
economies of scale and internal specialisation to meeting market conditions in terms of
flexibility, delivery performance and quality (Yamashina, 1995). Like quality,
29
maintenance has been another shop floor issue of strategic importance. The realisation
of the need to focus on equipment maintenance to achieve quality has also brought TPM
into the corporate boardroom of many organisations, especially in the last decade. TPM
is viewed as complementary to TQM (Dale, 1999). It is considered to have originated
from the notion of TQM‘s concept of zero production defects applied to equipment
(Tajiri and Gotoh, 1992). Many manufacturing industries across the globe, having been
under the influence of western management practices for long, remained isolated from
these developments until the middle of the last decade. Quality was considered to be the
responsibility of the quality control department, rather than being understood as a tool
for gaining competitive advantage by focusing on customer requirements. Similarly,
maintenance was also treated as a low profle job with its scope limited to breakdown
and preventive maintenance. The strategic implications of quality and maintenance to
improve competitiveness have been realised by many business captains at the beginning
of the last decade.
Equipment maintenance represents a significant component of the operating cost
in transportation, utilities, mining and manufacturing industries. The potential impact of
maintenance on manufacturing performance is substantial. Maintenance is responsible
for controlling the cost of manpower, material, tools and overhead (Pintelon and
Gelders, 1992; Foster and VanTran, 1990). In financial terms, maintenance can
represent 20–40% of the value added to a product as it moves through the plant (Eti et
al., 2006). The rapidly changing needs of modern manufacturing and the ever-increasing
global competition have emphasised the re-examination of the role of improved
maintenance management towards enhancing an organisation‘s competitiveness (Riis et
al., 1997). In a dynamic and highly challenging environment, reliable manufacturing
equipment is regarded as a major contributor to the performance and profitability of
MSs (Kutucuoglu et al., 2001). Its importance is rather increasing in the growing
advanced manufacturing technology application stages (Maggard and Rhyne, 1992).
Therefore, equipment maintenance is an indispensable function in a manufacturing
enterprise (Ahmed et al., 2005).
As both quality and maintenance go hand in hand in a manufacturing set up,
TQM and TPM share many threads of commonalties like employee involvement, cross-
functional approach and continuous improvement (Cooke, 2000). As described by Ben-
Daya and Duffuaa (1995), maintenance is a function in an organisation that operates in
30
parallel with production. The primary output of production is the desired product, andits
secondary output is a demand for maintenance, which is in turn an input for the
maintenance function. Maintenance results in a secondary input to production in the
form of production capacity. While production manufactures the product, maintenance
produces the capacity for production. Therefore, maintenance affects production by
increasing production capacity and controlling the quality and quantity of output.
2.7 Evaluation and introduction to Total Productive Maintenance
Total Productive Maintenance stands for TPM, or productive maintenance with
total participation. First developed in Japan, TPM is team-based preventive and
productive maintenance, abbreviated as ‗PM‘, ‗PdM‘ and involves every level and every
function in the organisation, from top executives to the production floor operators. TPM
is the proven manufacturing strategy that has been successfully employed globally for
the last three decades for achieving organisational objectives of achieving core
competence in dynamic environments (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008b). In 1971, Nippon
Denso Co. introduced and successfully implemented a TPM programme in Japan.
TPM, as described by Nakajima (1988) is
―a plant level improvement methodology, which enables continuous and rapid
improvement of manufacturing processes through the use of employee involvement,
employee empowerment and close loop measurement of results.‖
TPM embraces a series of methods that ensure every piece of equipment in a
production process is always able to perform its required task. TPM has been widely
recognised as a strategic weapon for improving manufacturing performance by
enhancing the effectiveness of production facilities (Dwyer, 1999; Dossenbach, 2006).
TPM initiatives in production help in streamlining manufacturing and other business
functions, and garnering sustained profits (Ahuja and Khamba, 2007).
It is designed to maximise equipment effectiveness with the participation of all
employees, right from the top management downwards. TPM addresses the vital area of
equipment management, which is a major determinant of process performance in
today‘s manufacturing companies (Yamashina, 2000).
According to Steinbacher and Steinbacher (1993), the benefits of various
components of TPM make it an extremely powerful management tool to reduce costs of
31
equipment management; such reductions provide the greatest returns on investment. It is
also argued that TQM has only limited influence on machine performance and TPM fills
this gap by providing more focus on equipment (McKone et al., 1999). TPM is
considered as an application of TQM concepts to equipment to achieve zero breakdowns
and minimal production loss (Tajiri and Gotoh, 1992). TPM is relatively under-
researched, but there are some studies reported on its implementation issues. These
studies are related to the benchmarking of implementation practices to explore key areas
(Ireland and Dale, 2001), identification of critical factors (Tsang, 2002) and strategies to
support its implementation (Ben, 2000).
The relationship of TPM with business performance has also been addressed in
some recent studies (Bamber et al., 1999; Cooke, 2000; Tsang and Chan, 2000). For
example, Tsang and Chan (2000) revealed the importance of management leadership,
employee involvement, education and training, strategic planning and communication
for TPM in a Chinese setup. Cooke (2000) also identified top management support,
alignment of management initiatives and change, employee training, autonomy to
employees and communication as important factors for the success of TPM in a
European context. Equipment management has gone through many phases. The progress
of maintenance concepts over the years is explained below:
Breakdown Maintenance (BM): This refers to maintenance strategies where repair is
done after the equipment fails/stops or upon occurrence of severe performance decline
(Wireman, 1990). This maintenance strategy was primarily adopted in manufacturing
organisations worldwide prior to 1950. In this phase, machines are serviced only when
repair is drastically required. This concept has the disadvantage of unplanned stoppages,
excessive damage, spare parts problems, high repair costs, excessive waiting and
maintenance time and high trouble-shooting problems (Telang, 1998).
Preventive Maintenance (PM): This concept, introduced in 1951, is a kind of physical
check up of the equipment to prevent equipment breakdown and prolong equipment
service life. PM comprises of maintenance activities that are undertaken after a specified
period of time or amount of machine use (Herbaty, 1990). During this phase, the
maintenance function is established and Time-Based Maintenance (TBM) activities are
generally accepted (Pai, 1997).
32
Predictive Maintenance (PdM): Predictive maintenance is often referred to as
Condition- Based Maintenance (CBM). In this strategy, maintenance is initiated in
response to specific equipment condition or performance deterioration (Vanzile and
Otis, 1992). Diagnostic techniques are deployed to measure the physical condition of the
equipment, such as temperature, noise, vibration, lubrication and corrosion (Brook,
1998). Predictive maintenance is premised on the same principle as preventive
maintenance, although it employs a different criterion for determining the need for
specific maintenance activities.
Corrective Maintenance (CM): This is a system introduced in 1957, in which the
concept of preventing equipment failure is further expanded to be applied to the
improvement of equipment so that equipment failure can be eliminated (improving the
reliability) and the equipment can be easily maintained (improving equipment
maintainability) (Steinbacher and Steinbacher, 1993). The purpose of corrective
maintenance is to improve equipment reliability, maintainability, and safety, design
weaknesses (material, shapes), structurally reform existing equipment, reduce
deterioration and failures, and aim at maintenance-free equipment.
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM): TPM is a unique Japanese philosophy, which has
been developed based on productive maintenance concepts and methodologies. This
concept was first introduced by M/s Nippon Denso Co. Ltd. of Japan, a supplier of M/s
Toyota Motor Company, Japan, in the year 1971. TPM is an innovative approach to
maintenance that optimises equipment effectiveness, eliminates breakdowns and
promotes autonomous maintenance by operators through day-to-day activities involving
the total work force (Bhadury, 2000).
The basic practices of TPM are often called the pillars or elements of TPM. The
entire edifice of TPM is built, and stands, on eight pillars (Sangameshwran and
Jagannathan, 2002). TPM paves the way for excellent planning, organising, monitoring
and controlling practices through its unique eight-pillar methodology. TPM initiatives,
as suggested and promoted by the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM), involve
an eight-pillar implementation plan that results in substantial increase in labour
productivity through controlled maintenance, reduction in maintenance costs, and
reduced production stoppages and downtimes. The core TPM initiatives are classified
into eight TPM pillars or activities for accomplishing manufacturing performance
33
improvements, and include autonomous maintenance; focused maintenance; planned
maintenance; quality maintenance; education and training; office TPM; development
management; and safety, health and environment (Ireland and Dale, 2001; Shamsuddin
et al., 2005; Rodrigues and Hatakeyama, 2006). The JIPM eight-pillar TPM
implementation plan is shown in Figure - 2.1.
Figure - 2.1 Eight pillar TPM implementation plan by JIPM
Finally, the TPM paradigm idealises plants in which the equipments‘ overall
effectiveness is maximised, and there is an absolute reliance on equipment condition for
running production. The TPM approach innovates by encouraging the achievement of
such an ideal by transferring a great number of maintenance-related tasks to the front-
line operators, overthrowing the myth that dealing with ‗too complex‘ equipment is an
exclusive competence of the well qualified ‗experts‘ in the maintenance department
(Nakajima, 1988; Takahashi and Osada, 1990; Nakajima et al., 1992; Suzuki, 1992).In
the light of aforesaid change, the following change occurs.
The TPM approach innovates by encouraging the achievement of such an ideal
by transferring a great number of maintenance-related tasks to the front-line operators,
overthrowing the myth that dealing with ‗too complex‘ equipment is an exclusive
competence of the well qualified ‗experts‘ in the maintenance department (Nakajima,
1988; Takahashi and Osada, 1990; Peters, 1992; Suzuki, 1992).
34
2.8 Relationship of TPM with lean manufacturing
The terms ‗lean manufacturing‘ or ‗lean production‘ were first used by Womack
et al. (1990) in their historical book ‗The Machine That Changed the World‘. Lean
manufacturing describes the profound revolution that was initiated by the Toyota
production system against mass production systems. Lean means ‗manufacturing
without waste‘. Waste is anything other than minimum amount of equipment, materials,
parts, and working time that are absolutely essential to production. The lean approach is
focused on systematically reducing waste (Muda) in the value stream. The waste
concept includes all possible defective work/ activities, not only defective products.
Various terms have been used to denote the set of tools designed to increase business
competitiveness by systematically eliminating waste of all kinds (Callen et al., 2000).
Among them is ‗Just-In-Time‘ (JIT), ‗TQM‘, ‗world class manufacturing‘ and ‗lean
production‘ (White and Prybutok, 2001).
A first approach to improvement with lean production is levelling of flow, from
tact production to customer need. The key issues of lean can be considered as follows
(Ohno, 1998).
Value: The starting point for lean thinking is ‗value‘, as defined by the end customer. It
provides the customer with the right product/service for the right price at the right time.
Value stream: The set of actions from a product/service concept to realisation, from
order to delivery.
Flow: Seamless movement through a series of value creating steps. Pull: Acting only to
satisfy customer needs.
Perfection: continuously improving the value, value stream, flow and pull in business
operation.
TPM is a methodology originating from Japan to support Lean Manufacturing
System (LMS), since dependable and effective equipment are an essential pre-requisite
for implementing lean manufacturing initiatives in an organisations (Sekine and Arai,
1998). While JIT and TQM programmes have been around for a while, manufacturing
organisations of late have been showing enough confidence in the latest strategic quality
maintenance tools, such as TPM. Figure - 2.2 shows the relationships between TPM and
lean manufacturing building blocks. It is clearly revealed that TPM is the corner stone
35
activity for most of the lean manufacturing philosophies, and can effectively contribute
to the success of lean manufacturing.
Figure - 2.2 Relationship between TPM and Lean Manufacturing Philosophies
The management concepts of JIT and lean manufacturing focus on the
elimination of waste and non-value-added activities in all processes. Maintenance is
essential for the successful implementation of these concepts. TPM helps to ensure that
equipment is operational and available when needed (Evans and Lindsay, 2004).
Miyake and Enkawa (1999) show how TQC and TPM can complement each other in
reducing the Cost of Quality (COQ). The manufacturing industry has experienced an
unprecedented degree of change in the last three decades, involving drastic changes in
management approaches, product and process technologies, customer expectations,
supplier attitudes as well as competitive behaviour (Ahuja et al., 2006). Historically,
management has devoted much of its effort to improving manufacturing productivity by
probing, measuring, reporting and analysing manufacturing costs. Similar efforts in
regard to maintenance function productivity are long overdue (Elangovan et al., 2007).
Lean is a challenging concept to implement, and Total Preventative
Maintenance (TPM) is required for an effective lean initiative. No single standard exist
that promises successful implementation or guaranteed returns. In recent years, many
organisations worldwide, especially in the manufacturing sector, have implemented
either manufacturing philosophies or practices like Lean Manufacturing Systems
(LMS), TQM, SS, TPM, or technically sophisticated MSs like Flexible Manufacturing
36
Systems (FMS) and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Systems (CIMS). Even in the
other manufacturing sector, the situation remains the same. For example, Seth and
Gupta (2005) have discussed the application of Value Stream Mapping (VSM) for
productivity improvement of a company and reported the gain in production output per
person and reduction of Work-in-Process (WIP) and finished goods inventory.
Similarly, Sharma et al. (2006) have presented a case study of an Indian
company in which TPM was implemented in a semi-automated cell. They found that
TPM not only leads to increase in efficiency and effectiveness of MSs measured in
terms of the Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) index, but also prepares the plant
to meet the challenges put forward by globally competing economies to achieve world-
class manufacturing status. Antony et al. (2005) have explained the application of an
SS-based methodology (i.e., DMAIC: define-measure-analyse-improve-control) in
eliminating an engine-overheating problem in a automotive company, which resulted in
a reduction of the jamming problem encountered in the cylinder head and increased the
process capability from 0.49 to 1.28.
TPM is an innovative approach to plant maintenance that is complementary to
TQM, JIT, Total Employee Involvement (TEI), Continuous Performance Improvement
(CPI), and other world-class manufacturing strategies (Schonberger, 1996; Ollila and
Malmipuro, 1999; Cua et al., 2001). Lawrence (1999) describes TPM as a general
movement on the part of businesses to try to do more with fewer resources. According
to Besterfield et al. (1999), TPM helps to maintain the current plant and equipment at its
highest productive level through the cooperation of all functional areas of an
organisation TPM focuses primarily on improvement of production equipment, whereas
lean manufacturing has emphasis on flow.
Overall continuous improvement serves as a common denominator for TQM,
TPM, SS, Lean and ISO. Kumar et al. (2006) have emphasised upon manufacturing
organisations to adapt lean manufacturing, six sigma principles and business process
improvement strategies for achieving dramatic results in cost, quality and time by
focusing on production system performance. Lean manufacturing may be considered to
be a synergistic set of integrated modern manufacturing management practices
commonly classified under subsets of JIT, TQM, TPM, and a collection of supportive
human resource management practices including teamwork and employee
empowerment.
37
Lean manufacturing encompasses such practices as employee involvement in
problem solving, Statistical Process Control (SPC), reengineering setups, cellular
manufacturing, supplier information sharing and partnerships, supply base
rationalisation, pull production, worker teams, integrated product design, in-house
designed technology and customer requirements integration. TPM is considered to be an
effective strategic improvement initiative for improving quality in maintenance
engineering activities (Ollila and Malmipuro, 1999; Pramod et al., 2007).
2.9 The relevance of maintenance for competitiveness: overall equipment
effectiveness
Over the last few decades, the development of the business environment has
underscored the importance of maintenance for the competitiveness of manufacturing
companies. To succeed in a demanding market arena, manufacturing companies have to
fulfil several requirements. Today, cost, quality, and time should be observed as key
drivers for competitiveness. First, manufacturing companies should strive for a superior
cost position. As a result, the importance of maintenance has increased due to its
potential for guaranteeing high machine availability and failure-free machine operations,
thus, contributing to high process efficiency. Second, manufacturers should also be able
to offer high quality products. Accordingly, production on a high quality level is
necessary to meet quality specifications. Consequently, maintenance performance must
be enhanced to enable a high process capability, since only machines with a high
maintenance standard are able to produce with less or no failures. Finally, in the context
of time-based competition, fast and on-time deliveries are of great relevance to
corporate success. This leads to the necessity for a reduction in the manufacturing cycle
time, with the consequential need for a high maintenance standard that ensures fast
throughput.
For the above-mentioned reasons, OEE seems to be a better choice to evaluate
efficiency, for it addresses all the previous topics, and gives a consistent measure of the
real value added production for equipment. OEE was firstly proposed by Nakajima
(1998) as the key metric to support TPM, and is now a widely accepted way to monitor
the actual performance of equipment in relation to its nominal capabilities under optimal
operating conditions. Analytically, OEE can be expressed as the ratio between what was
38
actually manufactured and what could be ideally manufactured or, alternatively, as the
fraction of time in which an equipment works at its full operating capacity.
This concept can be formalised as follows:
OEE = Actual Output/Reference Output ………. (2.1)
= Cycle Time x Valuable Operating Time/Cycle Time x Loading Time
= Valuable Operating Time/Loading Time.
where, Valuable Operating Time (VOT) is the fraction of time in which equipment
works under optimal operating conditions; Loading Time (LT) is the actual available
time for operation after removing all planned stops. At present, OEE has been adopted
in several industrial fields as the principal efficiency metric. As a matter of fact, a
standard approach for OEE evaluation was also defined in a technical norm released by
SEMI E10-96 (1996). Nevertheless, OEE control is not always straightforward, and
many drawbacks and difficulties can still be found in several applications (Gouvea da
Costa and Pinheiro da Lima, 2002). A major problem arises when the actual
problems/inefficiencies of a line cannot be easily classified in terms of the six big
losses. In this case, the absence of a perfect matching (between equipment inefficiencies
and big losses) can generate a misunderstanding of OEE components, leading to the
adoption of an inappropriate structure of losses.
To solve this problem, an alternative losses classification scheme is proposed by
Jeong and Phillips (2001). The authors showed that the standard definition of OEE is
not appropriate for capital-intensive industries because, in this case, there is the need to
account for additional causes of losses, such as preventive maintenance, off-shifts and
holidays. Similarly, de Ron and Rooda (2005) noted that OEE includes losses, such as
blocking or starvation, which cannot be directly ascribed to specific equipment, as they
are a consequence of the whole productive system. Therefore, to get real equipment
metric, they suggested exclusion of all the losses that are internal to the productive
system, but do not depend on the equipment itself for calculation of OEE. Similarly,
Brandt and Taninecz (2005), arguing that the overall efficiency depends on the ‗hard‘
and on the ‗soft‘ side of a firm, introduced an alternative metric called overall plant
efficiency, which is obtained as a product of OEE, capacity usage and labour operating
efficiency.
39
2.10 Integrating maintenance in different quality philosophies
A well-balanced maintenance programme furnishes information and instruction
to personnel involved in maintaining existing equipment, provides current information
on the availability and location of maintenance materials, improves utilisation of labour
forces and increases equipment reliability. Planned and preventive maintenance
procedures, where components are serviced and changed when they approach the end of
their useful lives, can be augmented by suitable means, which continuously check vital
machine functions. Quality assurance can be observed as a management system that
brings maintenance activities undertaken by all parties under control with the aim of
preventing things from going wrong and costing time, effort and money to put them
right.
Indian Standards of Organizations (ISO) 9000 standards are quality management
and quality assurance standards which are the bases for implementation, assessment and
verification of the quality system in production as well as service organisations (Basak,
2002). This is closely linked to TQM. TQM is a combination of quality and
management tools aimed at increasing business and reducing losses due to wasteful
practices. There is a need for people who can effectively implement TQM within a
company (Chizmar, 1994). TQM is a corporate business management philosophy that
recognises that customer needs and business goals are inseparable. It ensures maximum
effectiveness and efficiency within a business, and secures commercial leadership by
putting in place processes and systems which would promote excellence, prevent errors
and ensure that every aspect of the business is aligned to customer needs and the
advancement of business goals, without duplication or waste of effort. Companies
implementing TQM are committed to move beyond PM and adhere to TQM concepts.
Thus, the concept of TPM evolved.
TPM thrives on the spirit of teamwork. This is a productive maintenance
programme, which focuses on maximising equipment effectiveness, establishing a
thorough system of PM for the equipments‘ entire life span, involving every single
employee from top management to shop floor workers, and empowering employees to
initiate corrective activities.
Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing awareness and implementation of
practices associated with TQM, JIT and TPM. Nevertheless, there has not been a careful
40
examination of the common and unique practices associated with these programmes.
TQM, JIT and TPM have similar fundamental goals of continuous improvement and
waste reduction (Schonberger, 1986; Nakajima, 1988; Ohno, 1988; Powell, 1995).
Together, the practices of TQM, JIT, and TPM form a comprehensive and consistent set
of manufacturing practices directed towards improved performance. Therefore,
manufacturing plants are likely to combine the implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM
practices. However, most of the studies on TQM, JIT, and TPM investigate these
programmes separately. Only a few studies have tried to explore the relationship
between TQM and JIT empirically (Flynn et al., 1995; Sriparavastu and Gupta, 1997).
Also, some studies indirectly consider all three programmes while focusing on only one
of them. For example, McKone et al. (2001) indirectly examine the relationship of TPM
with JIT and TQM when investigating the implementation and impact of TPM, and find
that TPM has a positive and significant direct relationship as well as an indirect
relationship through JIT with low cost, high levels of quality and strong delivery
performance.
Table - 2.3 provides an outline of the characteristics of the six approaches which
highlights similarities and difference between the approaches. The comparison finds
many similarities between the concepts, especially between TPM and lean. This
suggests there is strong linking between the two, but in total they are two separate
concepts. Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is the most exceptional among the six
concepts in terms of being abrupt, short-term and renewing rather than improving in the
long term. Apart from the practices that are common to all of the three programmes,
each of the programmes also has unique practices that are more technical - or process-
oriented. We refer to these programme-specific practices as the basic techniques. TQM
basic techniques include cross-functional product design, process management, supplier
quality management, and customer involvement; JIT basic techniques include set-up
time reduction, pull systems production, JIT delivery by suppliers, equipment layout,
and daily schedule adherence; and TPM basic practices are autonomous and planned
maintenance, technology emphasis and proprietary equipment development.
Table - 2.3 Characteristics of TQM, TPM, Six Sigma, Lean and ISO Factors
undertaken TQM TPM Six Sigma Lean ISO
Started In Japan Japan USA Japan Europe
Period Mid 1980s 1988 Mid 1980s 1990 1987
41
Approach Quality Control Resource
utilization
Variance
reduction
Waste
Reduction
Documentation and
Consistency
Concept on which
they are based
Data-based,
employee
driven,
Orientation
towards
customers and
suppliers
Improving
machine
availability
which includes
monitoring of
machine also
Normally called
OEE.
No. of
products and
process
defects should
reach Six
Sigma target
Continuously
improving the
value created
for the
customers by
letting them
pull value
through a
streamlined
value stream
Focusing on quality
goals based on
internal capabilities
Involvement Normally
everyone
including
suppliers
Everyone to
participate
Normally
everyone
Everyone to
participate
Normally everyone
Time required for
improvement
Continuous
improvement
Continuous
improvement
Continuous
improvement
Continuous
improvement
Continuous
improvement
Change
introduced
Slow,
incremental
Slow,
incremental
Could be
dramatic as
well as
incremental
Could be
dramatic as
well as
incremental
Could be dramatic as
well as incremental
Risk undertaken Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Implementation
time
Long term, 5-
10 years
Long, many new
things are to be
learned.
Short Long, many
new things are
to be learned
Moderate, 3-5 years
Starting condition Existing
systems
Existing systems Existing
systems
Existing
systems
Existing systems
Scope of
Implementation
Company wide Manufacturing
plant
Company
wide
Company wide Company wide
2.11 Need for transfusion of TQM and TPM
The TQM and TPM paradigms have in common the basic idea that the MS‘s
overall performance results not only from front-line operators‘ direct work, but also
from the interaction of a whole set of concatenated tasks that must be fulfilled by
employees allocated at diverse functional spheres (internal or external to MS). TQM and
TPM aim at widespread involvement and commitment throughout the implementing
unit. They include tools and techniques which can enable any one at any level to
improve their daily work on a step-by-step basis. They aim to use the organisation‘s
own employees and managers and trainers rather than outside consultants.
The TQM approach primarily promotes improvement measures oriented towards
products and services, with a striking concern for their quality characteristics. However,
it is definitely not restrained only to this, propounding the nurturing of a broader set of
organisational skills that contribute to enhancing the firm‘s competitiveness.
42
Analogously, though the TPM approach primarily advocates concepts and tools oriented
to equipments, driven by the aim of raising their overall objectiveness for production, it
is also devoted to the development of further engineering and manufacturing
capabilities.
As the TQM and TPM paradigms are becoming comparably popular and widely
diffused across a multitude of industries, the comparisons of these two paradigms have
attracted increasing attention over recent years. Miyake and Enkawa (1997) observed
that this coexistence has frequently aroused the misleading notion that one is redundant
or antagonistic to the other and, therefore, that they might be mutually exclusive. Shiomi
(1990), Akaoka (1992), and Ogake (1995) have analysed the characteristics of TQM and
TPM under a comparative perspective, considering each one‘s relative strengths and
weaknesses. Also, the deployment of analogous strategies like TQM and TPM is done
by manufacturers outside the Japan such as (Belair, 1995; McAdam and Duffner, 1996).
These studies suggest that the matching of TQM and TPM is an emerging strategic
pattern finding diffusion among diverse industries around the world.
However, these works are limited by most to the illustration of actual single
cases in a rather narrative way, exhibiting neither a structured comparative discussion of
TQC and TPM paradigms nor intent to elucidate, in more general terms, why the
matching of these two approaches would pay off. Thus, the improvement approaches
derived from the TQM and TPM paradigms suggest the pursuit of performance gains in
the whole stream of activities, which compound materials flow, product life and
equipment life respectively.
TQM‘s effectiveness in improving business performance is influenced by
various factors (Hendricks and Singhal, 2001). Experience in TQM implementation in
terms of time periods is one such major factor, which emphasises the continuous and
long term improvement characteristic of this drive (Dale, 1999). Most often, it is argued
that the benefits of TQM are realised over several years, with lack of identifiable results
during the initial period (Ahire and Rana, 1995). This view is also supported by other
research works like Ahire (1996), which indicated that due to the strategic nature of
TQM, the bigger payoffs are expected only in the long run.
The use of TPM as supportive strategy is another factor, for it is viewed as
complementary to TQM (Dale, 1999). TPM addresses the vital area of equipment
management, which is a major determinant of process performance in today‘s
43
manufacturing companies (Yamashina, 2000). According to Steinbacher and
Steinbacher (1993), the benefits of various components of TPM make it an extremely
powerful management tool to reduce costs of equipment management, and such
reductions provide the greatest returns on investment. It is also argued that TQM has
only limited influence on machine performance, and TPM fills this gap by providing
more focus on equipment (McKone et al., 1999).
The effect of period of implementation and TPM supported by TQM
performance is assessed by many researchers with the help of an empirical study on a
manufacturing industry. TPM supported by TQM is termed ‗combined strategy‘, and all
of the studies are carried out for three time periods or phases to examine short, medium
and long-term effects on performance. The selection of these time periods has been on
the basis of earlier research works (Dawson and Patrickson, 1991; Dale and Lightburn,
1992; Ahire, 1996). The justification for each of these time periods is explained below.
Period of transition (up to three years of implementation)
This is a period during which initial investment and efforts are made to
overcome initial resistance and to orient organisation as per requirements of the
strategies. In this phase, the organisation experiences changes in work culture, work
practices and policies. The period of transition normally goes for three years from the
beginning of implementation.
Period of stability (more than three years, but up to five years of implementation)
This is the period during which the improvement drives get stabilised and the
organisation starts realising the benefits of TQM and TPM. The period of stability is
taken as more than three years and up to five years from implementation.
Period of maturity (more than five years of implementation)
Over a long period, the benefits accrued from improvement drives give a
strategic and competitive edge in terms of cost, delivery, flexibility and customer
satisfaction in comparison to competitors. This phase represents long term experiences
with these two improvement drives in terms of strategic leverage over other companies.
44
2.12 Literature review on TQM and TPM paradigms
Total Quality Management and TPM have gained considerable acceptance in
organisations to aid them in facing the challenge of fierce global competition. These two
improvement drives are being adopted and adapted for raising performance standards of
a company to world-class levels. TQM and TPM are considered complementary to each
other, and thereby are implemented simultaneously by many companies to achieve
synergy. TPM is a methodology originating from Japan to support its LMS, since
dependable and effective equipment are essential pre-requisites for implementing lean
manufacturing initiatives in the organisations (Sekine and Arai, 1998).
TPM supports the other strategies most often associated with world-class
manufacturing: JIT, TQM, and TEI (Schonberger, 1996; Ollila and Malmipuro, 1999;
Cua et al., 2001; Sharma et al. 2006). TPM is an important world-class manufacturing
programme introduced during the quality revolution. TPM is a highly influential
technique that is in the core of ‗operations management‘ and deserves immediate
attention by organisations across the globe. An effective TPM programme provides for a
philosophy based upon the empowerment and encouragement of personnel from all
areas in the organisation (Davis and Willmott, 1999). The evaluation of TPM efficiency
can facilitate significantly enhanced organisational capabilities across a variety of
dimensions (Wang, 2006). TPM implementation in an organisation can ensure higher
productivity, better quality, fewer breakdowns, lower costs, and reliable deliveries,
motivating working environments, enhanced safety and improved morale of the
employees (Tripathi, 2005). The ultimate benefits that can be obtained by implementing
TPM are enhanced productivity and profitability of the organisation (Ahuja and
Khamba, 2008a).
TQM is defined as an approach to improving effectiveness and flexibility of
business as a whole. It is a way of organising and involving the whole organisation,
every department and every individual (Oakland, 1988). Both are considered as
comprehensive management strategies, which are built on a common foundation of
continuous improvement and organisation-wide involvement, but with different focus
areas, i.e., quality and maintenance respectively.
Various recent researches across the globe have also focused on identification of
factors that are critical to the success of TQM (Anderson and Sohal, 1999; Corbett and
45
Rastrick, 2000; Prabhu and Robson, 2000) in a country-specific scenario. Anderson and
Sohal (1999) carried out an empirical study to identify factors critical to the success of
TQM in the Australian manufacturing industry. The study revealed the importance of
factors like leadership, strong customer focus, quality systems and availability of
information. Raghunathan and Subba Rao (1999) have investigated the relationship
between TQM practices like leadership, strategic planning, human resource
management and quality performance. Sun (2000) has identified the importance of
leadership, information, strategy, human resources, processes, suppliers, and customer
focus for quality management practices in Shanghai and Norwegian companies. Similar
studies were also carried out in different national frameworks (Forker, 1996; Choi and
Eboch, 1998; Hendricks and Singhal, 2001).
It was only in the beginning of the 1990s that many business captains realised
the strategic implications of quality and maintenance to improve performance. The two
erstwhile shop floor entities were brought to the corporate boardroom through TQM and
TPM. Now, both have acquired wide acceptance in industry (Singh, 1991; Umeda,
1996; Bhadury and Mandal, 1998; Sahay et al., 2000). As both quality and maintenance
go hand-in-hand in a manufacturing set up, TQM and TPM share many threads of
commonalties like employee involvement, cross-functional approach and continuous
improvement (Cooke, 2000). On the other hand, TPM is considered as an application of
TQM concepts to equipment, for zero breakdowns and minimal production loss (Tajiri
and Gotoh, 1992). These two complementary drives have been implemented together in
many companies to leverage the prowess of both.
The TQM and TPM share much in common, like both involve everyone in the
organisation, emphasise cross-functional teams and work on the philosophy of
continuous improvement (Cooke, 2000). Therefore, the existing TQM environment in
an organisation supports TPM implementation, and this has led many organisations to
practice it along with TQM to achieve synergy (McKone et al., 1999).
2.12.1 TQM and TPM success archieves
TQM has been widely implemented throughout the world across different
industries and sectors. The implementation of TQM has given them positive results.
Industries in India have been trying individually to improve their product quality,
besides their overall performance through TQM practices (Rajashekhar, 1999). TQM is
46
a management philosophy which highlights the need to improve the quality of goods
and services in order to better utilize the resources of organizations (Collin, 1996). TQM
offers each individual the opportunity to participate, contribute and develop a sense of
ownership. Thiagarajan et al. (2000) presented the study in identifying quality factors
for effective TQM implementation, which are critical for TQM to flourish in Malaysian
industries in which the authors concluded that although the ‗key concepts‘ of the
framework represent most of the current philosophical understandings which underpin
TQM, it is recommended that organizations complement the guidelines by continually
seeking out and studying the best implementation practices.
Compared to business implementations, the impact of TQM concepts and tools
not only in organisations but also in higher education institutions has not been as
significant. Although TQM has been implemented with success in other service sectors,
its implementation in higher education has been mostly limited to non-academic,
administrative processes. Unlike manufacturing and other service sector
implementations of TQM, in higher education institutions, customer-based quality
definition has been problematic, limiting its spread and success (Bilen, 2010).
TQM is always considered to be a set of management practices throughout the
organisation, geared to ensure the organisation consistently meets or exceeds customer
requirement. Still many barriers come while implementing it. Abdolshah and Abdolshah
(2010) tried to investigate the most important barriers to successful TQM
implementation in Iranian manufacturing organisations and results showed that the main
root causes of unsuccessful implementation of TQM were the lack of management
commitment, resource problem and failure to use the right framework for TQM.
On the other hand Authors such as Nakajima (1988), Patterson et al. (1995),
Tajiri and Gotoh (1992) and Yeomans and Millington (1997), identify factors such as
management support and commitment, and greater responsibility, cooperation and
involvement among production and maintenance workers as being critical in TPM
success. Since 1980s there has been an increasing awareness and implementation of
practices associated with Total Quality Management and Total Productive Maintenance.
Nevertheless, there has not been a careful examination of the common and unique
practices associated with these programs.
47
The TQM and TPM paradigms have in common the basic idea that the
manufacturing system overall performance results not only from front-line operator‘s
direct work, but also from the interaction of a whole set of concatenated tasks that must
be fulfilled by employees allocated at diverse functional spheres (internal or external to
manufacturing system). TQM and TPM aim at widespread involvement and
commitment throughout the implementing unit. They include tools and techniques,
which can enable any one at any level to improve their daily work on a step-by-step
basis. They aim to use the organization‘s own employees and managers and trainers
rather than outside consultants.
It has become evident from the literature review that derived from the concept of TQM,
TPM shares much in common with TQM which are considered as success factors for
both quality drives:
• The extent of top management support for TQM-TPM implementations.
• Involve everybody in the company;
• Require inter-departmental team working and joint responsibility;
• Emphasis on company/plant efficiency and effectiveness through quality (zero
defects), continuous improvement and optimization of overall performance
instead of partial performance.
• The awareness usage and length of experience of TQM-TPM quality initiates.
• The extent of benefits realized by TQM-TPM.
• The extent to which the TQM-TPM principles are applied.
• Relationship between TQM-TPM realized benefits and top management support.
• Relationship between the TQM-TPM realized benefits and their principles
implemented.
2.12.2 TQM and TPM failures archieves
Many authors have discussed on the solutions for successful implementations
TQM and TPM. The objective of the research was to get a better understanding of why
the implementations of TQM and TPM in some companies fail so frequently. Success
48
stories of these closely allied quality drives are limited, perhaps not unexpectedly.
Quality, much like flexibility, is vague and difficult to improve yet critical to
competitiveness. While quality gurus diagnose the failure for these drives as
management's lack of understanding and commitment to the quality principles, thus
providing insufficient time and resources but making consequent assumptions that the
implementation of quality initiatives is a linear process requiring only fine tuning of
departmental functions (e.g. Willmott, 1994).
TQM practitioners claim that if a company's culture is not conducive to total
quality, the culture must be changed before a total quality programme can be
implemented. Youngless (2000) expressed that TQM has been both praised for its
ingenuity and criticized for a lack of measurable results. But that lack of results can be
due to the fact that TQM is often misunderstood. The author had briefly explained the
history of TQM. He had illustrated the four ideas that are involved in the modern TQM,
namely the fitness to standard, fitness to use, fitness of cost and fitness to latent
requirement. He concluded that TQM is an effective system because it can be truly
integrated at all levels of company. This is supported by Burrows (1992), which
reported a 95 percent failure rate for initiated TQM implementation programs.
Eskildson (1994) reported that TPM implementation has uncertain or even
negative effects on performance. Ahire et al. (1996) also presented the comparison for
the Quality management in TQM firm vs. non-TQM firms. They had classified firms
into four groups: high performance TQM firms, low performance TQM firms, high
performance non-TQM firms and low performance non- TQM firms. The authors had
discussed and stated the major reasons that caused the failure of TQM efforts. They are:
lack of management commitment, unrealistic expectations and time-frame and cost of
TQM implementation, under-reliance on statistical methods, and failure to develop and
sustain a quality-oriented culture.
Two common problems that are mostly appeared for not supporting TQM as
well as in TPM programmes in many companies are lack of strategic planning and a
lack of appropriate culture (Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2003). McAdam and Duffner
(1996) describe that many issues arise when trying to implement TPM in a union
environment. Workers fear that the only drive is to improve production efficiency,
reduce labor, and increase employee work load. Whereas, Some of the prominent
49
problems in TPM implementation include partial implementation of TPM, overly
optimistic expectations, lack of a well-defined routine for attaining the objectives of
implementation (equipment effectiveness), cultural resistance to change, lack of training
and education, lack of organizational communication, and implementation of TPM to
conform to societal norms rather than for its instrumentality to achieve world class
manufacturing (Crawford et al., 1988; Becker, 1993).
2.13 Common Barriers/Obstacles needed to overcome by Indian
Manufacturing Industries for successfully implementing TQM and TPM
It has been found that organizational culture is a major variance-causing factor
in implementation of TQM and TPM programs that inhibits or allows the success of
such a program. The Indian organizations have now understood the significance of
making investments in these initiatives for improving the competitiveness of the
manufacturing organizations.
From the literature, it has also been revealed that TQM programs are more
likely to succeed if the prevailing organizational culture is compatible with the values
and basic assumptions proposed by the TQM discipline (Kujala and Lillrank, 2004). The
success of TQM as an organizational change depends upon the organizational culture, as
a successful implementation of TQM requires a significant change in values, attitudes
and culture of the organization. The study of Liu (1998) and Rahim and Whalen (1994)
showed lack of top management support and lack of proper training as the main barriers
for TQM implementation.
The barriers to implementing TQM will show up in all sectors -
manufacturing, services, government, and education. Therefore, it is important for all
organizations to understand and avoid these barriers both before and during TQM
implementation (Tamimi and Sebastianelli, 1998). Salegna and Fazel (2000) have listed
16 obstacles which companies have reported when implementing TQM. Further,
Tamimi and Sebastianelli (1998) have identified many problems that companies might
experience while implementing TQM. Their survey was aimed at determining the extent
to which these obstacles were actually experienced by the responding organizations. The
study of Amar and Zain (2002), established 11 factors observed to be the barriers
against the successful implementation of TQM in Indonesian manufacturing
50
organizations. A survey conducted in India in 1998 revealed the following as barriers
impeding the implementation of TQM: lack of long-term supplier relationship,
continued dependence on traditional incentive schemes, numerical targets, performance
rating, slogans for improving productivity, and not identifying and providing the right
type of training for each and everyone as demanded for every job (Rajashekhar, 1999).
Finally, Ngai and Cheng (1997) derived the following four factors as the
barriers for the implementation of TQM from their 17 item scale:
Cultural and employee barriers;
Infrastructure barriers;
Managerial barriers; and
Organizational barriers.
According to Ahuja and Khamba (2008b), there are many challenges before
Indian manufacturing organizations for adapting to proactive TPM initiatives. They
critically examine the factors influencing the implementation of TPM practices and
focuses on systematic identification of obstacles in TPM implementation and work out
various success factors towards improving manufacturing performance in Indian
industry through strategic TPM initiatives.
The various obstacles hindering the organizations, for achieving business
excellence through effective implementation of TQM and TPM initiatives have been
classified, according to the strategic inputs based on questionnaires received, into five
main categories, which are as follows:
1st Category: Various obstacles regarding quality and leadership effecting
implementation of TQM and TPM in Indian organizations include:
Management‘s compensation is not linked for achieving quality goals.
Ineffectiveness of the top management to holistically implement change
management initiatives.
The best quality and maintenance practices of other companies are not
benchmarked.
51
Lack of awareness on the benefits of implementing TQM and TPM in the
organization.
In adequate knowledge about these quality techniques and improper
understanding of the measurement techniques that are used to measure the
effectiveness of TQM and TPM implementation.
Lack of clarity in the guideline, implementation plan and implementation
methods these quality drives.
Organization‘s inability to change the mindset of people to obtain total
involvement.
Top management does not insist on systematic measuring of customer
satisfaction level and training programs.
2nd
Category: Various obstacles regarding employee‘s culture effecting implementation
of TQM and TPM in Indian organizations include:
Employee‘s inability to change their own work culture (Routine Work).
Non-truly commitment to their immediate bosses and superior staff.
Insufficient teamwork facilitators and team building techniques in the
organization.
Failed to involve employees towards organizational goals and objectives.
Very less number of employees participate in the decision making process of
organization.
Workers survival in and adaptation to the external environment.
The degree of inequality in power distribution between a less powerful
individual and a more powerful one.
The extent to which individual workers are supposed to be self-reliant and look
after themselves only.
3rd
Category: Various personnel obstacles effecting implementation of TQM and TPM
in Indian organizations include:
Lack of consistency and resistant to change.
52
Loyalty towards work in accordance to time.
Worker evaluation lacks a systematic approach and hence salary adjustments are
not commensurate with job functions.
Not much effort towards multi-skilling and timely skill updating by the
employees.
Language difficulties in the shop floor and also in the training programmes.
Mostly employee‘s not given any promotions or loyalty on his valuable
suggestions by the organizations.
Inadequate staff participation and contribution towards quality control circles
and motivation program.
4th
Category: Various technical and process management obstacles effecting
implementation of TQM and TPM in Indian organizations include:
Fewer attentions to modify the production structures beyond the design
capabilities.
Less flexibility given by production systems as for long set up and changeover
times.
Constant change in schedule.
The long running times of equipment without any care in the production
processes.
One single operator commands more than one machine at the same time.
The technological sophistication and much age of most of the equipment
always increase the demand for preventative and corrective maintenance work.
Poor coordination of equipment spare part procurement.
Absence and lack of implementation of standard operating procedures.
The top management inadequate to implement safe work practices at the
workplace.
Less decision making power in the hands of operator related to improvements
about the machines.
53
Lack of process capability tools provided to workers.
5th
Category: Various obstacles regarding resources, infrastructure and internal
communications effecting implementation of TQM and TPM in Indian organizations
include:
Lack of sufficient funds to mobilize TQM and TPM activities by the top
management.
High investments involved for providing training to each member about TQM
and TPM.
Inadequate human resource development and management.
Absence of appropriate motivating reward and recognition mechanisms.
Raw material cost does not conform to the specification required.
Problems of purchase of replacement material, thus preventing the performance
of planned maintenance.
Always difficult to procure imported raw materials.
Less coordination between maintenance and production departments.
Lack of trust by maintenance department in the productive operator's
capabilities for performing basic autonomous maintenance tasks.
2.14 Strategies and success factors for successfully implementing TQM and TPM
programs
Whenever an organization wants to implement any new concept like TQM and
TPM it would always like to have a return on investment. Due to this, it is very
important for an organization to know the advantages and benefits of implementing
these quality concepts. With a proper understanding, the employees can accept the
changes required openly. Organizational culture has also a significant effect on the
successful implementation of these quality drives.
For TQM and TPM programs to be succeed, a collaborative and corporate
organizational culture supported by long-term management and employees commitment
and involvement, organizational learning, innovation and entrepreneurship, team
54
working and collaboration, open communication, risk taking, continuous improvement,
customers focus (internal and external), partnership with suppliers, and monitoring and
evaluation of quality should be developed. Care should also be taken that, an effective
quality organization must be established to be channels for communication, the
bureaucratic system must be transformed, a strategic plan must be established to be
guidelines for execution, strategies and processes must be aligned and integrated within
a quality culture, and the information system must be integrated.
TQM success is achieved through a shift from traditional approaches to the
new TQM paradigm (Glover, 1993; Bounds et al., 1994). A transformation of culture
will enable the installation of new values, beliefs and assumptions to underpin new ways
of working. TQM programs to get succeed a collaborative culture characterized by
honesty, trust, and openness and a culture that is conducive to creativity and empowers
individuals and nurtures their capacity in order to increase their responsibility in
carrying out the mission of an organization should be developed. The efforts, which are
put in implementing TQM, should be assessed. There is a need to know the strong and
weak parts of implementation quality plans. Implementing an effective and efficient
system of quality management, self-assessment, continuous monitoring and evaluation
of quality activities by employees and providing good feedbacks are the most important
factors in success of TQM.
It has been observed that Indian manufacturing organizations have been facing
a strong resistance from within the organization, and also suffering major problems due
to lack of organizational culture, inappropriate maintenance and quality improvement
initiatives, low skill and knowledge of operators, inadequate resources, and poor work
environments. And also it has becomes very important for the Indian organizations to
evolve proactive strategies like TQM and TPM to gain business excellence. Thus, there
is an urgent need for the Indian organization to establish and adopt the key strategies
and success factors for implementing these programs. The key strategies and success
factors for successful implementation of TQM and TPM in Indian manufacturing
industry can be classified into five categories:
1) Management understanding about quality initiative programs.
2) Changed employee mind set and total involvement.
3) Establishing customized process policies.
55
4) Strengthening the employee base.
5) Speed of implementation with proper inter-departmental communication.
The transformation into a TQM and TPM organization always depends on the
extent to which the firms have successfully implemented these quality management
practices. The top management has to play a special role to improve the organization‘s
quality and maintenance performances from the existing level. All type of the
organizations, including schools, manufacturing companies, service industries, health
care organizations and public organizations, experience low employee participation and
interest in these programs mainly because management commitment is not present in
any of the departments. Management commitment to the process of continuous
improvement, a dedication to empowering people to change, and a periodical desire to
raise goals for improvement are observed as the most critical human developmental
needs (Kasul and Motwani, 1995).
No organization can succeed without a certain level of commitment and effort
from its leadership (Stoner and Freeman, 1992). By practicing TQM and TPM like
quality initiative programs, teamwork is improved and employees are motivated and
encouraged to control, manage and improve the processes which are within their
responsibility. In order to ensure the proper alignment of employees towards the
organization‘s goals and objectives, an appropriate understanding of underlying TQM
and TPM principles and strategies must be provided to employees at all levels in the
organization and also total employee involvement is indeed as a pre-requite for
successful implementation of these programs. The empowerment of employees through
the use of teamwork, education and by giving people responsibility for the control over
the quality of their work will also cultivate a friendly and happy working environment.
The success of the organization is fully realizing on the benefits through
effective implementation of traditional and proactive quality and maintenance initiatives
critically dependent upon the competencies of the employees towards the job. Therefore
adequate training and education for employees at all levels should be treated as key
strategic initiative for successful implementation of TQM and TPM. There are several
specific tools and quality-adding techniques as mentioned by Hackman and Wageman
(1995) and Zairi and Youssef (1995), such as quality function deployment, Pareto
charts, statistical process control charts, cause and effect diagrams and affinity
56
diagrams. Benchmarking, however, comes with the basic objective of minimizing
variance or deviation of achieved success from the established quality standards. It
involves structured problem solving and identifying processes and finding opportunities
for improvements and future developments. Thus, continuous improvement should form
the basis of every management approach and the organizations should always believe
that the strategy of making progress is on the basis of sudden and dramatic
improvements in technology and management techniques.
Training creates awareness, builds employees commitment to quality policy and
strategy, facilitates teamwork, enhances performance standards, and bolsters the skills
and abilities of employees. However, the organizations need to focus more upon
improving communication competencies, multiple skill development and customer
value training. Successful training in the organization needs more budgetary allocation
and commitment, support and enthusiasm of the top management. Thus, the basic tenet
is that the perpetual development can be achieved not only by enriching the employees
with knowledge, learning and training but also by entrusting them the power to take
decisions. Moreover, the organizations must make concerted efforts to adopt state-of-art
initiatives related towards implementing programs and must have a check that it should
be implemented over all domains possible and at fast pace along with keeping full
record of its implementation according to the laid schedules. On the other hand,
management should maintain a perfect synergy and coordination between maintenance
and production departments. And also, the production operators should consider
autonomous maintenance initiatives as part of their routine jobs.
As the success of an industry depend upon its product quality, cost and
expenditure on machines. But in the present scenario all manufacturing companies
concentrate on producing high quality products, involving low cost and also avoiding
large expenditures on maintenance of machines. In order to achieve optimum levels of
above said factors, the policy adopted in the industry should be rational, perfect and
easy to implement. So, these days‘ manufacturers are trying to implement some new
methods like Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) models like Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP), piecewise-affine (PWA), a Fuzzy Based (FB) model, Neural
Networks etc along with TQM-TPM drives for effective production process. Many
researchers like McKone et al. (2001) investigated the relationship between Total
57
Productive Maintenance (TPM) and manufacturing performance (MP) through
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). They observed that TPM has a positive and
significant relationship with low cost, high levels of quality, and strong delivery
performance. In particular, there is a significant and positive indirect relationship
between TPM and MP through Just-In-Time (JIT) practices. Cua et al. (2001)
investigated the practices of the three programs TPM, TQM and JIT simultaneously.
They observed that there is evidence supporting the compatibility of the practices in
these programs and that manufacturing performance is associated with the level of
implementation of both socially- and technically-oriented practices of the three
programs. Kumar and Vrat (2004) developed a fuzzy goal programming approach to
deal with the effect of information uncertainty in the objectives of vendor selection
process, and showed how the quota allocation of vendors is varied with uncertainty.
Whereas, Yang et al. (2008) has proposed an integrated multi-criteria supplier selection
process integrated with fuzzy MCDM techniques using independent and interdependent
relationships between them and used it in the actual selection process.
Although there are several approaches and models suggested for TQM
implementation (Dale, 1999; Fuentes-Fuents et al., 2004; Prajogo and Sohal, 2006), but
management still faces the challenge of environment uncertainty, intensive competition
and conflicting selection decisions in the issue of imperative TQM implementation.
Therefore, to provide a framework in the selection of competitive advantages under
uncertainty, Tseng and Lin (2008) studied the TQM implementation in an
organizational system and their study showed that the application of fuzzy AHP has
been proven to be efficient in handling the decision criteria and fuzzy data involved in
the selection of alternatives.
Earlier, Saaty (1980) stated that current business scenario calls for an effective
methodology for competitive advantage and so for tackling real situations, AHP is a
most widely used approach. To facilitate TQM criteria selection process, some other
authors such as Chang (1996) and Lee et al. (2003) also introduce a fuzzy AHP
approach using triangular fuzzy numbers to represent the comparison judgements of
DMs. The fuzzy set theory resembles human reasoning in its use of approximate
information and uncertainty to generate decisions.
Some authors also described the selection of a maintenance strategy by using the
AHP. Application of AHP has been applied in numerous fields, among which a
58
previous work for maintenance strategy formulation (Labib et al., 1997), intelligent
decision analysis (Labib et al., 1997), the selection of simulation software (Davis and
Williams, 1994) and numerous other applications compiled by the work of Zahedi
(1986). Bertolini and Bevilacqua (2006) have provided a combination of goal
programming and AHP. Other works modelled the organisational decisions associated
with maintenance using AHP (Bertolini et al., 2004; Haj Shirmohammadi and Wedley,
2004).
2.15 Relationship of TQM and TPM with business performance
The concept of manufacturing performance/excellence is a topic under much
discussion. It is considered as a path to being the best manufacturer or having best-in-
class performance. It has the implications of being the best in the world in terms of
manufacturing capabilities. Essentially, manufacturing excellence is both a vision in
terms of the best practices that a company needs to adopt, whether it is business
ambience or outside requirements, and a process in terms of measurable performance
results of a company‘s process and its impact on market and customer satisfaction.
Manufacturing excellence in the simplest terms is a common way of referring to the
goal of achieving superior manufacturing capabilities.
In the research done so far, there has been an attempt to outline the content of
business manufacturing excellence: the tendency has been to focus on specific
improvement techniques, such as JIT, Material Requirements Planning (MRP), TQM
and TPM. Basically, it tries to incorporate the advantages of the most commonly used
philosophies or strategies like TQM and TPM.
The TQM approach primarily promotes improvement measures oriented towards
products and services, with a striking concern for their quality characteristics. However,
it is definitely not restrained only to this, but includes many other properties that
contribute to enhancing the firm‘s competitiveness. On the other hand, though the TPM
approach primarily advocates concepts and tools oriented to equipment, driven by the
aim of raising their overall effectiveness for production, it is also devoted to the
development of further engineering and manufacturing capabilities. Despite the fact that
neither approach possesses a clear-cut single focus that could be elected as a bite-sized
goal, the Phase Model is still helpful in explaining how increasingly complex market
59
requirements are calling for the complementary exploitation of the strengths featured by
TQM and TPM to nurture different organisational skills, rather than the deployment of a
one-pattern approach based on a single performance improvement paradigm. It is
evident that neither of them alone can nurture the development of the extended set of
qualifications that well-balanced firms should possess nowadays.
According to Hall (1987), the concepts of total quality and people involvement
constitute the substance of manufacturing excellence. He believed that these concepts
represent a fundamentally different way of operating a company and are not techniques
that can be grafted onto a current organisation. He stressed the importance of continuous
improvement and concluded by stating that ‗one interesting aspect of manufacturing
excellence is that if such a thing is attainable at all, it will be by those who realise that
no such conditions exists‘.
Market environment is characterised by an increase in technological
advancements and rapid economic changes. This transition to global competition forces
companies to improve their competitiveness by enhancing their manufacturing
performance. Hence, manufacturing companies have to pay attention to the reliability of
their production processes as well as to their quality management. To improve their
production processes, various quality programmes are implemented (Ahuja and
Khamba, 2008a). Two major improvement programmes in the field of production and
operations management are TPM and TQM (Chan et al., 2005).
Since the origins of TPM are based on TQM, the latter supports the
implementation of TPM. However, due to the fact that TQM and TPM can be
characterised as holistic improvement programmes, it is necessary to concentrate on
their respective core practices to differentiate clearly between them. On the one hand,
TQM and TPM consist of fundamental practices that are unique to each programme
(TQM - or TPM-specific techniques). On the other hand, TQM and TPM include HR-
oriented practices, which are considered as common to both programmes. HR-oriented
practices provide the supportive basis to implement the individual techniques and
practices of TQM and TPM (Hoogervorst et al., 2005).
The deployment of a heterogeneous approach by dual promotion of TQM and
TPM is inherently more powerful. However, firms are strongly advised not to undergo a
60
simultaneous introduction of TQM-based and TPM-based approaches. Senju (1988,
1989) argues that starting with both, in a two-front strategy, is troublesome, for this
would implicate an extreme overburden. Moreover, he asserts that the lack of
concentration on each one could cause instability over this drive, owing to swinging
short-sighted changes in priorities, leading to a loose implementation of both, which is
not effective.
A large number of studies are done on relationship between TQM practices and
business performance (Ismail and Ebrahimpour, 2002). These include development of
research frameworks to study the effects of TQM on business performance (Saraph et
al., 1989; Anderson et al, 1994; Flynn et al., 1994; Ahire et al., 1996). Various recent
researches across the globe have also focused on identification of factors, which are
critical to the success of TQM (Anderson and Sohal, 1999; Corbett and Rastrick, 2000;
Prabhu and Robson, 2000) in a country specific scenario. For example, Anderson and
Sohal (1999) carried out an empirical study to identify factors critical to the success of
TQM in Australian manufacturing industry. The study revealed the importance of
factors like leadership, strong customer focus, quality systems and availability of
information.
The main objective of TPM is to achieve a reliable MS (Ahuja and Khamba,
2008b). This is accomplished by maximising the OEE so that plant and equipment
productivity is increased (Ljungberg, 1998; Ahuja and Khamba, 2008a). In addition to
this, the main objective of TQM is to generate improved product quality to improve firm
performance. Several studies on TQM and TPM claim positive relationship between
those improvement programmes and performance (Hendricks and Singhal, 1997;
Wilson and Collier, 2000; Yamashima, 2000; Seth and Tripathi, 2005). The
relationships between either of the two improvement programmes and plant
performance have been discussed extensively in literature (Brah and Chong, 2004; Seth
and Tripathi, 2005; Cua et al., 2006; Lazim et al., 2008). However, only a few of the
existing studies have dealt with the effect of a simultaneous implementation of TQM
and TPM in an empirical way.
A study by the Strategic Planning Institute of Cambridge, also established the
relationship between quality, profitability and market share (Ross, 1995). It revealed
that quality drives like TQM and TPM leads to market share and profitability. Mohanty
61
and Lakhe (2000) also identified increased market and profitability as the major tangible
benefits along with reduction in cost, improvement in quality and productivity and
reduced employee grievances. Soin (1993) provided a model to explain the linkage
between quality, profitability and market share. According to him, TQM improves
business performance both internally and externally. Internally, improvement in quality
results in higher productivity, which enables the organisation to lower prices, if it
wishes to compete on prices. Externally, higher quality improves customer satisfaction,
increases customer loyalty, and this result in increased market share and higher profits.
TQM and TPM show many similarities. Together, the specific practices of each
respective concept are directed towards an improved plant performance in terms of
quality, cost flexibility, and time. Therefore, many researchers call for a better
understanding of a simultaneous implementation of specific TQM and TPM practices
(Imai, 1998; Cua et al., 2001; McKone et al., 2001). The implementation of TPM and
TQM is highly interrelated (Flynn et al., 1995; Sriparavastu and Gupta, 1997; Cua et al.,
2006). Since it can be stated that TPM has emerged from TQM, as mentioned in the
literature review above, we suppose that there is also a supportive effect from TQM
specific practices on TPM. Furthermore, TQM and TPM are strongly supported by
human resource-oriented practices. The fact that employees are trained in multiple skills
in addition to their function-specific skills helps to improve the implementation of both
improvement programmes, e.g., by cross-functional employee integration and a solid
employee suggestion system.
2.16 Concluding Remarks
Quality management, by means of TQM, is considered to foster organisational
performance characterised by competitiveness and long-term profitability. However, the
benefits of quality management cannot be achieved without the sustained performance
of equipment maintenance, and thus, maintenance management has also become
important. This has led to the development of maintenance methodologies such as TPM.
TQM is clearly a suitable approach in which the quality of the products or services is the
major concern. On the other hand, TPM is historically equipment-focused, in which
effective implementation offers a continuous improvement methodology to increase
overall manufacturing productivity. The TPM methodology provides enterprises with
62
the tools required to explore, increase, document, and proliferate organisational
learning.
Approaches such as TQM, TPM, and lean manufacturing outline the desired end
state of getting excellence in business performance side by side with the demand for
self-thinking in the organisation. All the approaches can be useful if handled carefully.
TQM and TPM implementation implies organisational change. It is imperative that
management and employees are committed to implementation. Management must
address intangible factors such as motivation, engagement and acceptance, to nurture a
willingness to change. The core values of TQM, and also to some extent of TPM, focus
on achieving commitment and other intangible factors such as involvement and
engagement. However, implementation often fails due to lack of commitment. Although
the core focus of TQM is on quality and that of TPM is on equipment or physical assets,
in today‘s manufacturing environment of increased automation and equipment-reliant
processes, equipment is the major determinant of quality performance. Therefore, an
organisation aiming to implement TQM and TPM must clearly consider their context
when performing these activities within the organisation.