Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) was a big thing in the late 1980s, got lot of attention, tried to go from “maintenance” to “management” and finally faded out into oblivion.
This analysis is my own, you may respond in comments.
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) originated in Japan with Nippondenso in the 1960s and is an evolution from Preventive Maintenance principles introduces to Japan from the USA.
TPM grow popular in the west with other “Japanese methods” in the 1980s when Toyota Production System (TPS) was not known nor the word “Lean” used for manufacturing.
TPM in a nutshell
TPM proposed a framework of 8 pillars aiming at getting the most out of lines, machines and equipment especially by reducing machine downtime and increasing machine availability. The 8 pillars are:
- Autonomous Maintenance
- Planned Maintenance
- Quality Maintenance
- Focused Improvement
- Early Equipment Maintenance
- Education and Training
- Health, Safety & Environment
- TPM in Office
Their naming and order (may) vary according to sources. “Six big losses” were identified as obstacles to better machine effectiveness:
- Breakdown losses
- Setup and adjustment losses
- Idling and minor stoppage losses
- Speed losses
- Quality defects and rework losses
- Startup / yield losses
These six losses’ measurement were combined into a single KPI: Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), still very popular and widespread in industry.
TPM was striving to improve OEE by developing the personnel’s maturity about the 8 pillars and reducing the 6 losses.
Early years till today
TPM brought tremendous improvements in operations and work conditions. Despite the machine-orientation TPM had also influence on operations management and at some point was supposed to translate into broader application, attempting to go Total Productive Management.
Alas, TPM was strongly machine shop and shopfloor connoted and never got much attention outside of these playgrounds. Furthermore, Lean became highly fashionable and easier to transpose in any activity, thus got all attention.
In my humble opinion TPM was bound to fail from the moment it was presented as a maturity-driven approach to improvement, requiring organizations to go through a multiyear program, step by step implementing every pillar. The pitch was that eventually performance will raise once personnel is trained and gets experienced with TPM. After some years of continuous effort, the organization will be mature enough to apply for one of the PM awards awarded by the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM) or local representative body.
Of course, the journey toward maturity would require consultants’ support, making it a long, costly and still risky one. With the competitive challenges getting tougher, few CEOs would commit to such a slow approach with questionable ROI, very much machine-effectiveness oriented.