Let's recap: As noted in Parts I and II of this series of discussions (see link below), the concept of engaging operators in the maintenance of their machines has met with mixed reviews since it rolled out as part of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) in the 1980s. But, when properly, operators can provide the most efficient and effective form of preventive maintenance in a plant. The key to success, though, is to think in terms of operator "care," rather
than "maintenance." That's what TPM intended regarding the operator’s role. This type of “care,” however, must be carefully defined to focus on specific results as part of an overall equipment-improvement strategy. That's where the Five Pillars of TPM come in.
When Total Productive Maintenance got underway outside of Japan, its basic principles often went unexplored and/or underdeveloped. Those principles, i.e., the "Pillars," were intended to be INTERDEPENDENT, meaning each enabled and enhanced the others. They were not intended to be separate functions of a “maintenance” program. Note that the focus of TPM is improving EQUIPMENT effectiveness, which goes well beyond performing better maintenance.
Here are the “Five Pillars.”
1. Improving equipment effectiveness by targeting the major
losses (or causes of poor performance).
2. Involving operators in routine (daily) maintenance of their equipment.
3. Improving maintenance efficiency and effectiveness.
4. Training to improve the skills and knowledge of everyone involved.
5. Early equipment management and maintenance prevention design.
All too often, the roles and responsibilities associated with Pillar 2, i.e., operator care (or “autonomous maintenance”), became INDEPENDENT of the remaining Pillars. Autonomous maintenance was not designed as a stand-alone program, despite an unfortunate translation from Japanese. Unintentionally, two of 11 chapters of the out-of-print book Training for TPM – A Manufacturing Success Story, published by the Japan Institute for Plant
Maintenance (JIPM), in 1986 (and Productivity Press, in 1990), set the stage for a stand-alone program called “autonomous maintenance.”
So, let’s recalibrate the second Pillar of TPM in context. The interdependence TPM's Pillars starts with the first one involving DATA and the targeting of the “major losses or causes of poor performance.” Again, this is the Pillar that launched “Overall Equipment Effectiveness” (OEE) as the root-cause score card of equipment-performance problems. This OEE DATA should point us to problems, causes, priorities, desired conditions, roles, and
responsibilities.
Now, consider the remaining four Pillars and how to “focus on results” (the desired conditions and priorities). Focus on ONE problem to eliminate using root-cause analysis tools and techniques. The results of a root-cause analysis should then lead to answering the following four questions:
1. What role can operators play in eliminating the problem? The operators are part of
an equipment improvement team effort.
2. Next, what can maintenance staff and systems do to eliminate the same problem?
3. Then, what training do operators, maintainers, supervisors, managers, planners,
and others need to help eliminate the problem?
4. Finally, what improvements can be made to the equipment in the future to reduce the need for maintenance related to the problem?
The bottom line here is to deploy operator care as part of an overall equipment-improvement strategy using the INTERDEPENDENT Pillars of TPM, whether they're labeled “TPM” or not. Please stay tuned for Part IV (next week). It will be a longer discussion with case-study details on the power of equipment-improvement teams.
