Can Industry 4.0 rejuvenate Total Productive Maintenance?

In this post:

The youngest among my blog readers may not understand what I mean with Total Productive Maintenance, this pre-Lean management approach to maximize machines and equipment effectiveness and aiming to improve companies’ performances.

TPM in a nutshell

In a nutshell, Total Productive Maintenance or TPM in short, originated in Japan, 1971. It was a participative spin-off of the american Productive Maintenance (a mix of maintenance policies to maximize machines’ availability and effectiveness), aiming to minimize all kind of losses by involving every department and everyone.

TPM had its heyday in the 1985-1995s in the western companies and failed to get mainstream despite the efforts to rebrand it Total Productive Management. The original name and much of the content, even so transposable to almost any activity, was too much linked to industrial machinery maintenance.

Total Productive Maintenance gave way to Lean Manufacturing and somehow got absorbed by Lean. TPM brought Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) indicator to the world, a still very popular KPI nowadays.

Industry 4.0 and Total Productive Maintenance 2.0?

My basic assumption for this prospective thinking is that industry 4.0 environments will be highly automated so that the human factor will have lesser impact on the machines / cells / lines /workshops performance. Conversely machines’ utilization will regain focus.

Performance is determined by market requirements, but it will continue to be a mix of responsiveness, speed (time to market, lead time… ) and quality, with a higher expectation for agility than today. Costs may come second when dealing with high customization.

Performance will be mainly driven by machines’ availability, speed and yield, the latter being roughly the right first time rate. In other words OEE.

Availability is key for agility and responsiveness. This stresses the need of preventive maintenance and quick changeovers. Preventive maintenance starts with daily cleaning and inspection in order to keep all equipment in operational state and detect any wear or damage early. Some equipment will probably also need periodic calibration and geometry checks to ensure accuracy e.g 3D printing.

These tasks may be passed to former operators now converted into level one maintenance technicians. Further more in-depth periodic inspection will also be required by more expert staff that can be either company’s own or third-party. This reminds of the ‘autonomous maintenance’ pillar of TPM.

TPM autonomous maintenance in 4.0 environment

Autonomous maintenance intent was/is to give operators greater “ownership” of their equipment in order for them to take care and use responsibly. By increasing operators’ technical knowledge of the equipment they use and entitle them to do the simple daily maintenance tasks, autonomous maintenance aim was/is to:

  • ensure equipment is constantly well-cleaned and lubricated
  • maintenance experts’ time is freed for higher-level tasks
  • emergent issues are noticed and identified before they become failures
  • enrich the job of production operators.

if operators showed interest and demonstrated capacities, they could be trained further and assist maintenance experts for more complex maintenance tasks and even take part in repairs and overhauls.

In a industry 4.0 environment, the content of this ‘autonomous maintenance’ pillar of TPM must be adapted to the new technologies. It could encompass data management, using the digital twin, simulate… and require digital literacy.

In a industry 4.0 environment the role of operators as machine feeder, unloader and tool fitter may be marginalized thanks to automation. The jobs for production operators as we knew them may diminish and new jobs will be created requiring different skills and abilities, but not as many.

I could imagine recycling some of the former production operators into ‘autonomous maintenance’ operators, but my guestimate is that one operator could take care of 5 to 20 3D printers. The operator-to-equipment rate compared to traditional manufacturing will surely shrink. Besides, everyone will not show the necessary capacity to evolve.

Can Industry 4.0 rejuvenate Total Productive Maintenance?

As for the autonomous maintenance my guess is that chances are good, even so it may need to be updated in a new 2.0 version fitting the new technical environment.

Focus will be on equipment because of the investment, because of managers in love with tech, because equipment performance will be the main driver for (a production) company’s performance, and for probably more reasons.

For the other 7 traditional pillars I am not sure. You’re welcome to share your own thoughts.

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Advertisements

Industry 4.0 promoter’s flaw of logic and Categories of Legitimate Reservation

Promoters of any solution or change agents of are usually in love with the object of their promotion. Love is said to be blind and oblivious of any negative aspect of the loved thing. That is why so often promoters of change highlight all the benefits of the change, regardless of any Undesirable side Effects for the people they try to convince to change. They usually also complain about resistance to change when skeptic listeners do not show enthusiasm for the promoted brilliant solution.

But promoters may also forget to adapt their communication to the targeted audience. They may know well their subject and cut corners, leaving the audience with doubts and questions about a logic they can’t completely follow.

In this post I will address:

For that I pick two sentences from an Industry 4.0 promoter’s blog post which does not seem logically sound.

The statement

“Brave companies who adopt new approaches (e.i. Industry 4.0) and adapt how they manufacture and run their businesses will be rewarded with success. While those who drag their feet and avoid risk will get left behind.”

There is no further explanation in the blog to backup these two sentences.

The first sentence, rephrased in logical cause-and-relationship reads: “if companies adopt new approaches (e.i. Industry 4.0) AND if companies adapt how they manufacture and run their businesses THEN companies will be rewarded by success.”

The AND here suggest that the two conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously in order to cause the success.

Necessity-based logic versus sufficiency-based logic

The statement is made with sufficiency-based logic, because it suggest that the adoption of new approaches and adaptation are sufficient to cause the companies to be successful.

Sufficiency is base on “if…then” or cause-and-effect relationship.

If the article was about listing all the conditions necessary to make the companies successful, it would have been necessity-based logic. In this case the relationship would have been: “in order to… the companies must…”.

The logical structure that Logical Thinking Process aware people “see” in the statement is either a Communication Current Reality Tree or a Future Reality Tree.

To learn more about necessity-based logic versus sufficiency-based logic, check my post: Goal Tree Chronicles – Enablers vs.triggers

Reservations

1 – Clarity

The first reservation about this statement is a clarity reservation about the meaning of “success”. What is “success”? How can we measure it? How can we know whether the company is “successful” or not?

Unfortunately there is no way to ask the author for clarification. One could understand that deployment of industry 4.0 technologie(s) together with adaptation of the work procedures is a success. A project manager in charge of such a program would surely agree about this definition of success.

The CEO and the board are probably looking for more than having the latest technologies installed, even it probably helps the image of the company to have a nice techno-showcase. In their view, success is more likely increase of sales, profit and market share. Let’s assume this one is meant by “success”.

We could go on and challenge the meaning of “new approaches”, “industry 4.0” or even what is exactly meant by “how they manufacture”. In case someone really need clarification, the question could be raised, otherwise let’s not go for unnecessary wordsmithing.

2 – Entity existence

An entity in the Logical Thinking Process parlance is a statement that conveys an idea. An entity is also the logical box holding the statement in the various logic trees.

An entity must only convey a single idea, therefore when building a logic tree on this statement we must have 3 entities combining their effects to produce one outcome: the success of the companies (read figure from bottom to top).

3 – Causality existence

Causality existence is checking the existence of the causal connection between entities.

“if companies adopt Industry 4.0 AND if companies adapt how they manufacture AND if companies adapt how they run their businesses THEN companies will be rewarded by success.”

Does it exist? One example would be enough to demonstrate it exists, but, in absence of hard evidence, the likeliness of the causality existence must be evaluated. We assume it’s ok.

4 – Cause sufficiency

Are the 3 proposed causes sufficient alone to produce the effect “successful companies”? I would intuitively say no. There is a lot more necessary. We are here facing a typical “long arrow” which is a leap of logic from some causes directly to the outcome, ignoring intermediate steps and conditions in between.

This is typical when people discuss matters they know well because they don’t have to detail everything, they know what is missing and is implicit. But here it is about promoting something which is quite new (in 2017), relatively complicated and not very well known by laymen. Effort should be paid to elaborate on the message in order to favor buy-in.

5 – Additional cause

This check is looking for other causes that can independently produce the same effect. There are indeed other ways for companies to be successful than going for industry 4.0, but the statement suggests there is only one, as it warns: “those who drag their feet and avoid risk will get left behind.”

Conclusion

With these two last reservations we uncover the major flaw in the statement:

  • The proposed “logic” is not likely to be enough to produce the expected effect
  • There are other ways to be successful

From the audience point of view, the argumentation is weak. This is more likely to raise suspicion about the promoter’s expertise and trustworthiness, thus distrust and reservation than frantic enthusiasm about the proposed idea.

Such a weak argumentation can have devastating effects, making decision makers to turn their backs, refusing a good plan or a clever strategy which was ill-prepared and badly presented.

The Categories of Legitimate Reservation are 8 formal “rules” or “tests” used to check the logical soundness of a reasoning or an argumentation. They are part of the Logical Thinking Process corpus.


View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn