Difficulties observed when implementing Total Productive Maintenance (TPM): empirical evidences from the manufacturing sector

Arromba, Iara Franchi; Anholon, Rosley; Rampasso, Izabela Simon; Silva, Dirceu; Quelhas, Osvaldo Luiz Gonçalves; Santa-Eulalia, Luis Antonio; Leal Filho, Walter

doi:10.1590/1806-9649-2021v28e5300

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Gest. Prod. 28 (3) • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2021v28e5300 linkcopy

Difficulties observed when implementing Total Productive Maintenance (TPM): empirical evidences from the manufacturing sector

Dificuldades observadas na implementação da Manutenção Produtiva Total (TPM): evidências empíricas do setor manufatureiro

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract:

This article analyses the difficulties observed in adopting the Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) program in production systems. The research strategies used for this purpose consisted of a literature review, a panel of experts and a survey with professionals working in manufacturing companies. Altogether, 69 market professionals took part in the survey and the collected data was analyzed through the PLS-SEM technique. Results indicate that there is a causal relationship between difficulties associated with the planning phase of a TPM program and issues associated with its implementation. This is an original research and the results are valuable to business professionals desiring to properly implement TPM, as well for researchers interested in the mechanics of total productive maintenance system’s adoption.

Keywords:
Total Productive Maintenance; TPM; Difficulties; Barriers

n	Description	References
1	Difficulty in selling the project to the company's board, i.e. justifying that improvements in the production indicators will arise from the TPM implementation.	(Ahuja & Khamba, 2008a; Baglee & Knowles, 2010; Bartz et al., 2012; Estanqueiro & Lima, 2006; Graisa & Al-Habaibeh, 2011; Singh et al., 2016; Torres, 2014)
2	Collaborators’ resistance related to cultural changes provided by the implementation of TPM.	(Ahuja & Khamba, 2008b; Aspinwall & Elgharib, 2013; Attri, Grover, Dev, & Kumar, 2013; Bamber, Sharp, & Hides, 1999; Bartz et al., 2012; Carrijo, 2008; Cigolini & Turco, 1997; Cooke, 2000; da Costa et al., 2015; Estanqueiro & Lima, 2006; Gupta, Vardhan, & Al Haque, 2015; Lawrence, 1999; Milara Guedes, 2009; Poduval, Pramod, & Jagathy Raj, 2015; Rodrigues & Hatakeyama, 2006)
3	Problems in deploying pilot studies as an embryo for subsequent dissemination of the program throughout the company.	(Aspinwall & Elgharib, 2013; Attri, Grover, & Dev, 2014; Attri et al., 2013; Poduval et al., 2015; Poduval et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2016)
4	Low priority in allocating financial resources by the company to TPM implementation.	(Aspinwall & Elgharib, 2013; Attri et al., 2013; Baglee & Knowles, 2010; Cooke, 2000; P.S. Poduval et al., 2015; Poduval et al., 2013; Rodrigues & Hatakeyama, 2006)
5	Collaborators’ deficit understanding the philosophy, principles and tools that compose the TPM program.	(Ahuja & Khamba, 2008b; Aspinwall & Elgharib, 2013; Attri et al., 2014, 2013; Baglee & Knowles, 2010; Bamber et al., 1999; Carrijo, 2008; da Costa et al., 2015; Gupta et al., 2015; Lawrence, 1999; Milara Guedes, 2009; P.S. Poduval et al., 2015; Rodrigues & Hatakeyama, 2006; Singh et al., 2016)
6	Poor planning about collaborators training needs.	(Ahuja & Khamba, 2008b; Aspinwall & Elgharib, 2013; Attri et al., 2014, 2013; Baglee & Knowles, 2010; Bamber et al., 1999; da Costa et al., 2015; Graisa & Al-Habaibeh, 2011; Gupta et al., 2015; Poduval et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2016)
7	Lack of support by senior management to raise awareness on the importance of the program.	(Ahuja & Khamba, 2008b; Ahuja & Kumar, 2009; Aspinwall & Elgharib, 2013; Attri et al., 2014, 2013; Bamber et al., 1999; Carrijo, 2008; Cooke, 2000; Gupta et al., 2015; Kelly, 2006; P.S. Poduval et al., 2015; Poduval et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2016)
8	Deficient communication and low synergy among areas involved in the TPM implantation.	(Ahuja & Khamba, 2008b; Aspinwall & Elgharib, 2013; Attri et al., 2014, 2013; Baglee & Knowles, 2010; Cooke, 2000; Estanqueiro & Lima, 2006; Rodrigues & Hatakeyama, 2006; Singh et al., 2016)
9	Difficulty in allocating greater responsibility and autonomy to collaborators.	(Ahuja & Khamba, 2008b; Aspinwall & Elgharib, 2013; Cooke, 2000; Lawrence, 1999; Milara Guedes, 2009; Singh et al., 2016)
10	Poor planning related to targets and goals to be achieved by deploying the TPM program.	(Ahuja & Khamba, 2008b; Aspinwall & Elgharib, 2013; Attri et al., 2014; Bamber et al., 1999; Estanqueiro & Lima, 2006; Graisa & Al-Habaibeh, 2011; Gupta et al., 2015; Milara Guedes, 2009; Poduval et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2016)
11	Non-compliance with all initially planned sequential stages.	(Aspinwall & Elgharib, 2013; Attri et al., 2014; Bamber et al., 1999; Estanqueiro & Lima, 2006; Milara Guedes, 2009; Rodrigues & Hatakeyama, 2006; Singh et al., 2016; Torres, 2014)
12	Lack of a common language to be used by all employees in the implementation of the program's activities.	(Attri et al., 2014; da Costa et al., 2015; Graisa & Al-Habaibeh, 2011; Poduval et al., 2015; Poduval et al., 2013; Torres, 2014)

Variables	Parameters
DP_1	Difficulty in selling the project to the company’s board, i.e. justifying that improvements in the production indicators will arise from the TPM implantation.
DP_2	Problems in deploying pilot studies as an embryo for subsequent dissemination of the program throughout the company.
DP_3	Low priority in allocating financial resources to TPM implementation.
DP_4	Lack of planning related to targets and goals to be achieved by deploying the TPM program.
DP_5	Lack of training needs’ planning.
DP_6	Lack of support by senior management to raise awareness on the importance of the program.

Variables	Parameters
DI_1	Collaborators’ resistance related to cultural changes provided by the implantation of TPM.
DI_2	Collaborators’ lack of understanding about philosophy, principles and tools that compose the TPM program.
DI_3	Deficient communication and low synergy between areas involved in the TPM implantation.
DI_4	Difficulty in allocating greater responsibility and autonomy to collaborators.
DI_5	Non-compliance to all initially planned sequential stage.
DI_6	Lack of a common language to be used by all employees on the implementation of the program’s activities.

Constructs	AVE	Composite reliability	Cronbach’s alpha
DI	0.601339	0.899910	0.865615
DP	0.536095	0.821155	0.711326

Variables	DI	DP
DI_1	0.804684	0.553788
DI_2	0.862758	0.604032
DI_3	0.828715	0.608124
DI_4	0.738801	0.460536
DI_5	0.696638	0.582268
DI_6	0.705882	0.607244
DP_2	0.484717	0.698105
DP_4	0.637617	0.825458
DP_5	0.583124	0.730607
DP_6	0.436589	0.664727

vertical_align_top show_chart

more_horiz close
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Universidade Federal de São Carlos Departamento de Engenharia de Produção , Caixa Postal 676 , 13.565-905 São Carlos SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 16 3351 8471 - São Carlos - SP - Brazil
E-mail: gp@dep.ufscar.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Source: (see table).