An Integrated Approach to TPM and Six Sigma Development in the Castings Industry.

A.J. Thomasa, G.R. Jonesb, P. Vidales c

a

Manufacturing Engineering Centre, Cardiff University, CF24 3AA, UK b Wall Colmonoy, Pontardawe, Swansea, SA1 3DE c Ecole d'ingeniear CESI, France

Abstract Both Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) and Six Sigma are key business process strategies which are employed by companies to enhance their manufacturing performance. However, whilst there is significant research information available on implementing these systems in a sequential manner, there is little information available relating to the integration of these approaches to provide a single and highly effective strategy for change in companies. This paper proposes an integrated approach to TPM and Six Sigma which was developed as a result of work undertaken in the castings industry. The effectiveness of the approach is subsequently evaluated highlighting the benefits the host organization received through this new approach by measuring the effects of implementation against the seven Quality, Cost and Delivery (QCD) measures. Keywords: TPM, DMAIC, QCD Measures

1. Introduction to TPM and the Six Sigma Approach Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is a maintenance program which employs a strategy for maintaining plant and equipment to its optimum level of operational effectiveness. Primarily the TPM approach links into the Lean concept and aims at reducing waste due to poorly maintained machinery and provides for value added inputs by way of ensuring machinery remains in productive operation for longer periods of time [1]. Maintenance procedures and systems are designed so that they are easier to accomplish and this is achieved through machine redesign and modifications in order to facilitate this process.

Six Sigma can be considered both a business strategy and a science that has the aim of reducing manufacturing and service costs, and creating significant improvements in customer satisfaction and bottom-line savings through combining statistical and Business Process methodologies into an integrated model of process, product and service improvement [2]. Although both strategies have similar aims, those of improving productive effectiveness, the way in which these strategies are implemented into companies varies greatly. Traditionally Six Sigma employs a structured five-phased DMAIC methodology. Six Sigma teams are created to tackle specific problems to reach Six

Sigma levels of performance [2]. TPM implementation on the other hand is seen to be implemented in a range of different ways, although attempts have been made to formalise the TPM strategy [3], [4], [5], there is still no formally defined approach that can be considered as an industry standard approach to TPM implementation. However, when considering TPM, it is worth noting that the basic principles of the TPM strategy have very close links to the Six Sigma approach. In TPM the ultimate aim is to achieve significantly reduced breakdown levels through developing autonomous maintenance teams. Employing therefore a standard operational framework for implementing both approaches is seen as an obvious and necessary step for companies to achieve simultaneous benefits from the TPM and Six Sigma strategies. To this end the DMAIC process is used as the main operational approach for the implementation of TPM. The following section highlights the application of the DMAIC process in the implementation of TPM in a castings company. 2. Introduction to Wall Colmonoy Wall Colmonoy is a manufacturer of specialist castings. The company is based in South Wales and manufactures its products to a world wide market. Over the years the company has experienced increasing competition from the far-east where product unit costs have been dramatically reduced. This has brought about major changes to the company operations and has raised the need for the company to become leaner and more responsive to customers if they are to remain as serious competitors in their market. Over the past two years the company has embarked on a Lean manufacturing program. As part of the Lean approach, TPM and Six Sigma are seen as essential strategies for success. However, the company is concerned that the separate implementation of such approaches means the requirement of large scale human, financial and technical resources as well as the associated problems of running competing projects in the company. The company requires a simple yet effective operational framework that can be used as a standard approach to adopting both strategies in the company. The company expects that worker buy in will be easier if one common operational approach is adopted 3. DMAIC at Wall Colmonoy The Six Sigma strategy concentrates on a simple five phase methodology called DMAIC. DMAIC is an acronym of the major steps within the methodology namely Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve, Control. It

was decided that the DMAIC process would form the basic foundation for the TPM strategy and hence the standard approach for adopting the major stages of the TPM project. Each stage is explained in detail in the following section of the paper. 3.1 Define A benchmarking exercise was undertaken into the major product lines operated by the company. The product lines were benchmarked against on-time delivery and right first time quality levels. A gauge R+R study was undertaken in order to ensure that the measuring equipment was suitable for measuring the outgoing quality from the processes. From the analysis of the key casting processes within the company, the investment casting process was highlighted as the area requiring greatest attention with scrap rates in excess of 4% and on-time delivery at only 65%. The definition stage triggered the development of a TPM team within the company. This involved the training of team members in the principles of TPM as well as the implementation of a 5S program* aimed at piloting autonomous cleaning and teamworking prior to specific and targeted TPM projects being undertaken within the investment casting area. 3.2 Measure Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) was calculated on each of the machines within the investment casting area. Also, the company measured parts throughput (parts per hour) through the cell in order to identify whether the inefficiencies were due to the machinery or to the operations surrounding the machinery or both. As an example, OEE calculated for one machine was calculated at 75% however parts throughput in the cell where the machine operated in was 43% less than the theoretical throughput for that cell. Further analysis of the cell indicated that the process surrounding the machine was at fault rather than the machine itself. One casting cell was measured as having a throughput at 36% of its theoretical value and an OEE value of 30% for the wax making machine. A process mapping exercise confirmed that the wax making machine was the major cause of the low cell throughput and so this machine became the focus of the remainder of the project. 3.3 Analyse The OEE value was split down to its constituent parts namely; Availability, Performance and Quality.
* 5S A systematic process of workplace cleaning and maintenance. Sort, Sanitize, Stabilize, Systematize, Sustain

The results of this analysis showed that machine availability was lowest at 34% compared to performance at 94% and quality at 96%. This clearly indicated that machine breakdowns and major stoppage problems were the causal point for the poor OEE value. A Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) was therefore carried out by a team of engineers from within the company in order to ascertain the root cause(s) of high machinery failure. The FTA is shown in Fig 1 and lists the failure routes identified from the brainstorming session. Following the FTA, the engineering team progressed to creating Failure Modes and Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) on each of the areas identified from the failure routes on the FTA. The FMECA allowed the company to identify the potential causes of failure, assess its effect on the machine and process and also, and most importantly, allow for corrective actions to be identified. The engineering team did not follow normal FMECA convention at this stage and decided to employ individual FMECA sheets for each potential failure mode. The benefit this gave the team was that each sheet could be given to the maintenance teams in turn in order to apply the corrective action specified in the documents. In order to prioritise the issuing of the FMECA sheets to the maintenance teams, a Pareto analysis was constructed of the Risk Priority Number (RPN) from each FMECA study with the higher ranked RPNs being tackled first. 3.4 Improve Three levels of TPM were adopted in the company in order to improve the machines reliability. Level 1 was the introduction of shop floor autonomous maintenance teams. These teams applied basic maintenance practices including regular daily cleaning regimes as well as undertaking sensory maintenance tasks (smell, sound, sight, feel etc). However, prior to this level being undertaken, it was essential that major machinery and equipment was completely overhauled in order to revert the machinery to its original level of reliability. This was considered to be Level 2 in the TPM system and the work undertaken by the maintenance department. Level 3 involved the engineering department becoming more pro-active in the development of preventive maintenance practices including machine modification and enhancement strategies that allow for easier maintenance etc. Level 3 work also included the monitoring of maintenance
FMECA An advanced planning technique aimed at systematically assessing all the potential failures of a machine and the potential impact (criticality) of the failure on a human and/or the system. RPN Risk Priority Number. A numerical method of analysing the failure mode and its effect on the system. RPN = Severity x Occurrence x Detection.

activities and concentrating primarily on approaches towards increasing Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) so that higher machine availability is achieved. The aim here is to systematically extend the mean time between failure so that the machinery can remain productive for longer thus providing greater return on machine performance. Table 1 shows the work undertaken at each level in the TPM system.
Table 1 TPM Levels and Work Definition Levels of TPM Operation and Typical Activities Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Basic Cleaning Machine Machine overhaul redesign Machine care Major MTBF analysis plans Maintenance & extension Sensory Level 1 Level 2 maintenance Monitoring Monitoring

3.5 Control The work undertaken by the pilot TPM work was measured for its effectiveness before being rolled out through the company. Machine maintenance schedules and plans were formalized and attached to each machine. All operators were trained to undertake the maintenance schedules and to report any issues to the maintenance teams. As a control mechanism, it is the responsibility of the maintenance department to monitor the work of the operators and to rectify any issues raised by the shop floor personnel. The engineering department in turn monitored the outputs from the maintenance department in order to identify recurring failures and issues that could be redesigned in order to prevent future failures. The engineering team provided the technical and financial support to the maintenance department in order to facilitate the high level maintenance activities undertaken at the level 2 stage. Fig 2 shows the autonomous team approach at each of the TPM levels in the organization and how each level integrate with each other.

TPM Autonomous teams

2 3 4
Operators Team Leader

2 1 3 4
Maintenance Team Leader

2 1 3 4
Engineers Team Leader

Complexity of maintenance function

Fig 2 Autonomous Team Structure

4. Evaluation As part of the companys approach to improving their Quality, Cost and Delivery targets, it was decided to measure the QCD [6] outputs as a direct result of the TPM project. Table 2 shows the improvements made in each QCD area. In this case, the benefits gained from undertaking the TPM project may be considered idealistic when comparing the large benefits gained from a relatively small initial financial outlay. However, the costs incurred in continuously controlling the input variables and factors means that the monitoring costs can be large and greater than first expected. This in turn can affect the true savings achieved from the project. The issue of cost analysis and control is as a key consideration and its correct analysis and interpretation is key to providing credibility to the TPM strategy within the company. 5. Conclusions A TPM pilot study was undertaken in order to improve the Quality, Cost and Delivery measures of the company. In all measures, the TPM project achieved significant improvements. This relatively simple application of TPM using a structured DMAIC technique should allow for increased use of the methodology for tackling many maintenance issues. Likewise, the results can also provide the stimulus for the wider application of the technique to create process improvements at relatively lower costs. The application of the TPM approach to the wax machine area at Wall Colmonoy achieved savings in excess of 200,000 for an initial outlay of less than 4,000 in experimental and project costs. The development of the TPM approach developed a culture towards continuous improvement and the systematic implementation of the system throughout the organisation. The application of the TPM approach allowed the company to develop advanced systems mapping and analysis techniques and to become generally more technical in their approach to problem solving .

writing of this paper: Wall Colmonoy, I*PROMS, Cardiff University Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre. References [1] Jostes R S, Helms M M. Total Productive Maintenance and Its Link to Total Quality Management. Work Study Journal. (1994), 43,7. [2] Breyfogle, F.W. Implementing Six Sigma, Smarter Solutions - Using Statistical Methods, (1999).John Wiley & Sons Inc. [3] Blanchard,B S.An enhanced approach for implementing total productive maintenance in the manufacturing environment, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering.(1997), 3,2. [4] Jens,O, Riis J, Luxhj T, Thorsteinsson U. A situational maintenance model International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management; (1997).14, 4. [5] Raouf A, Ben-Daya M. Total maintenance management: a systematic approach, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering; (1995) 1,1. [6] Achieving Best Practice in Your Business QCD Measuring Manufacturing Performance. Department of Trade and Industry Brochure, www.dti.gov.uk.(2002).

Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their appreciation to the following organisations for their support during the development of the project and the

Auto Wax Machine 1 OEE=35,5%

SCRAP

BREAKDOWN

Parts in oil

Dipping

Parts chipping

Parts sticking

Air entrapment

Part springing

Flashing

Injection system

Tool jamming

Wiper arm creeping down

Hydraulic pipes bursting Blockage

Wax Temp

Back plates arent cold

Parts falling on each other

Wiper not long enough Temp Control Plate cooling Hold time Air entrapment

Patterns not cool

No wax

Ejector pin snaps

Tool condition

Seals in system

No regulators

Water cooling not working

Flushing system not working

Nozzle design Wear on the tool Brass bush wearing Surface Finish

Sucking in air

Nozzle temp

Spread of stirring

Sprue stuck

Handling problem

Dust Oil in water Storage

No set variables

Leak cooling

Pumps not working

Seal worn

Wax blocked in feed from tank

Blockage at nozzle

System blocking

Stirrer not long enough

Debris in tank

Temp control

Temp control at nozzle

Nozzle design

Water heating

Water contaminated

Poor housekeeping

Pouring system

LEGEND

Tool

Sprue

Fig 1

An FTA of the possible factors influencing machine performance

AND OR

Table 2 Quality, Cost Delivery The Seven Measures

People Productivity Improvement

Basic Measure: Units per direct operator hour ie Number if good units made Number of direct operator hours

Scrap / Defect Reduction

Basic Measure: % Quantity of defective units Total quantity of units supplied

Improved Space Utilisation

Basic Measure: per m2 Sales turnover of model area Number of square metres of area

Example of Improvement Measure Previous State 30 Units per Hour New State 60 units per Hour 60-30 Improvement = 50% 30 Example of Improvement Measure i.e a 80% Previous State 5% reduction in New State 1% defects (reported Improvement = 1% - 5% as a positive number) 5% Example of improvement measure Previous State 30,000 per m2 New State 50,000 per m2 Improvement = 50,000 - 30,000 30,000 =67%

On Time Delivery Improvement

Basic Measure: % delivered correctly and on time Number of planned deliveries - Number of not on time deliveries Number of not on time deliveries

Example of Improvement Measure Previous State New State Improvement = 90% delivered on Time 99% delivered on Time 99% - 90% 90%

=10%

Increase in Stock Turns

Basic Measure: Number of turns ie Sales turnover of product Value of (Raw material + WIP + Finished Goods)

Example of Improvement Measure Previous State 4 Stock Turns New State 5 Stock Turns Improvement = Increase 96% - 80% 80%

=20%

Overall Equipment Effectiveness

Basic Measure: % i.e. Availability % x Perfomance % x Quality %

Example of Improvement Measure Previous State 30% effective New State 66% effective Improvement = Increase 66% - 30% 30%

=120%

(Gross) Value Added Basic Measure: / person per Person i.e. Output value - Input value Number of employees

Example of Improvement Measure Previous State 30,000 per employee New State 50,000 per employee Improvement = Increase 50,000 - 30,000 30,000

=67%