14

CHAPTER – 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents the review of literature concerning TQM and TPM

concepts and framework, there relationship with Lean Manufacturing, overview of

overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), TQM and TPM implementation practices

adopted by Western World, benefits of implementation and there contributions towards

improving manufacturing performance and achieving organizational core competencies.

The chapter also focuses on various TQM and TPM implementation issues in order to

develop an indigenous strategic synergetic effect, considering two key aspects of

profitability and operating performance. Lastly the gaps in literature regarding TQM-

TPM implementation, the stumbling blocks and success factors for TQM-TPM

Implementation have been elaborated in this chapter.

2.1 Sustaining Quality and Maintenance growth in Indian industries

Problem solving lies at the heart of (total) quality management. The continuous

process of identifying and eliminating the causes of ineffectiveness in business and

production processes has, along with technical improvements, driven much of the

increased standard of living we now enjoy. Hence, it is not surprising that most

organisations quote problem solving skills as a vital talent and require their people to

sharpen their competencies in this area. On the trail of so many Japanese industries that

in recent decades have succeeded in reaching leading positions in the global market

based on highly effective Manufacturing Systems (MSs), an enormous number of

investigations have been conducted in an attempt to elucidate the reasons for such

achievement. In the manufacturing industry, product quality has become a key factor in

determining a firm‘s success or failure in the global market place. Advanced, highly

reliable manufacturing methods have made it possible to achieve very high standards of

product quality. As a result, more and more firms are making product quality a keystone

of their competitive strategy. The success of many major Japanese companies is truly

rooted in their long-term commitment to the improvement of quality. The improvement

of production quality is a whole-hearted commitment to continuous improvement in

every aspect of the production process. Today‘s competitive market, in almost every

15

category of products and services, is characterised by accelerating changes, innovation

and massive amounts of new information.

In their quest to emerge as a leading manufacturing base for the world market,

many manufacturing industries face tough competition from global players (Nandi,

1998; Sahay et al., 2000). Though efforts have been made to boost industrial

development, yet much needs to be done by reducing costs, improving quality and

offering a bigger variety of products with improved services (Chandra and Shastri,

1998). A world-class maintenance department enhances the organisation‘s ability to

provide products or services (Kutucuoglu et al., 2002; Mishra et al., 2007). Recent

competitive trends and ever increasing business pressures have been putting the

maintenance function under the spotlight as never before (Garg and Deshmukh, 2006).

Maintenance processes can be streamlined to eliminate waste and produce breakthrough

performance in areas valued by customers (Lewis, 2006). Ever-increasing demands on

manufacturing organisations have contributed to a complete overhaul of maintenance

practices in manufacturing enterprises (Ahuja and Khamba, 2009).

The maintenance function has usually been considered as an operating expense

to be minimised, and not as an investment in increasing process reliability in many

organisations (Patterson et al., 1996). The inadequacies of maintenance practices in the

past have adversely affected organisational competitiveness by reducing throughput and

reliability of production facilities. This has resulted in fast deteriorations in production

facilities, lowering equipment availability due to excessive system downtime, lowering

production quality and increasing inventory, thereby leading to unreliable delivery

performance. As organisations in today‘s highly challenging scenario have moved to

reduce costs and improve quality and responsiveness, reductions in inventory and excess

capacity have revealed serious weaknesses in the traditional maintenance programmes

(Lawrence, 1999). Strategic investments in the maintenance function can lead to

improved performance of a MS and enhance the competitive market position of the

organisation (Jonsson and Lesshammar, 1999). Thus, as a significant contributor

towards organisational endeavours of growth and development, there is an utmost need

to improve the efficiency of the maintenance function in the organisation. Productive

success in today‘s manufacturing climate depends upon the implementation of multiple

complimentary and proven strategies. Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is the

proven manufacturing strategy that has been successfully employed globally for the last

16

three decades for achieving the organisational objectives of core competence in a

competitive environment (Ahuja and Khamba, 2007).

2.2 Developing a quality approach: TQM strategy

Total Quality Management (TQM) is a management process and a set of

disciplines that are coordinated to ensure that the organisation consistently meets and

exceeds customer requirements. TQM engages all divisions, departments and levels of

the organisation. Senior management organises all of its strategy and operations around

customer needs and develops a culture with high employee participation. Companies

with TQM are focused on the systematic management of data in all processes and

practices to eliminate waste, and pursue continuous improvement (Capezio and

Morehouse, 1993). In TQM, the responsibility for quality is located in both individuals

and teams through some evaluatory and developmental processes. This represents an

approach to Quality Assurance (QA) more congruent with the structures and ethos of

educational organisations than many of the more mechanistic and hierarchical processes

(McCulloch, 1993).

TQM is comprised of the following concepts:

Total: It expresses integration or participation of all the employees who take part

together in the processes of production or service (Sisman and Turan, 2002). The ‗total‘

of TQM underlines the continuous development enterprise that includes everybody and

everything in an organisation (Aksu, 2002; Sallis, 2002).

Quality: In the context of TQM ‗quality‘ can be defined as ―meeting the wishes and

expectations of customers in an ideal economical level and in a most suitable manner‖

(Simsek, 2001) or as ―a dynamic state that is meeting or exceeding customers‖

requirements, needs, expectations and desires‘ (Croker et al., 1996; Goetsch and Davis,

1997). In TQM, the quality improvement process begins and ends with the customers

(Senge, 1990).

Management: As a more comprehensive concept, ‗management‘ contains the other two

components. It may not be possible to have the desired quality without good

management and leadership (Sisman and Turan, 2002). As in the total concept, the

concept of management in TQM includes everybody, because everybody is the manager

of his or her responsibilities, whatever the roles, positions and status in the organisation

17

(Sallis, 2002). In TQM, the job of management is not supervision, but leadership. Rather

than focus on outcome (management by numbers, work standards, meet specifications,

zero defects, appraisal of performance), leadership should be put in place (Deming,

1986).

TQM is one of the quality-oriented approaches that many organisations adopt. It

is generally acknowledged that manufacturing companies need to be quality oriented in

conducting their business to survive the business world. TQM is an integrated

management philosophy and a set of practices that emphasise top management

commitment, customer focus, supplier relationship, benchmarking, quality-oriented

training, employee focus, zero-defects, process improvement, and quality measurement.

As defined by ISO ‗Total Quality Management (TQM) is a management

approach of an organisation, centred on quality, based on the participation of all its

members and aiming at long-term success through customer satisfaction, and benefi ts

to all members of the organisation and to society‖. TQM requires that the company

maintain this quality standard in all aspects of its business. This requires ensuring that

things are done right the first time and that defects and waste are eliminated from

operations. TQM has been widely used in manufacturing, education, government, and

service industries, as well as in NASA‘s space and science programmes.

Feigenbaum originated the concept of Total Quality Control (TQC) in 1956. His

seminal paper on TQC was first published in 1957 and was followed by his book titled

TQC: Engineering and Management in 1961. Feigenbaum emphasised three critical

areas for quality: quality control participation by all divisions of the enterprise, quality

control participation by all employees and the integration of quality control. Reed et al.

(2000) provided an excellent account of the theoretical under-pinning of TQM. TQM is

a key strategy for maintaining competitive advantage and is a way of managing

organisations to improve their overall effectiveness and performance towards achieving

world-class status (Zhang, 2000; Chapman and Al-Khawaldeh, 2002). Various studies

have been carried out for the identification of the elements of successful quality

management, from three different approaches: contributions from quality leaders,

formal evaluation models and empirical research. Besides, researchers have identified a

number of tools and techniques for quality improvement that are necessary for TQM

success.

18

Deming (1982, 1986) underlined the use of statistical techniques for quality

control, and proposed his 14 principles to improve quality in organisations, based on the

following ideas: leadership, an improvement philosophy, the right production from the

beginning, training for managers and employees, internal communication aimed at the

elimination of obstacles for cooperation and the suppression of quantitative objectives.

Juran (1986) pointed out the importance of both technical and managerial

aspects, and identified the three basic functions of the quality management process:

planning, organisation and control, as the stages for quality improvement. According to

some authors, TQM is rather more than a mere set of factors, a network of

interdependent components, a management system consisting of critical factors,

techniques and tools (Hellsten and Klefsjo, 2000).

One area that has received attention in studies is the influence of TQM practices

on performance (Hendricks and Singhal, 2001; Kaynak, 2003), which is achieved

through changes brought about in areas such as leadership, human resource

management, process management, supply chain management and information

management (Shieh and Wu, 2002). One of the studies has considered the impact of

TQM on project performance, though this study, by Shieh and Wu (2002), was limited

to appraising the effects on the processes in the architectural planning stage of

construction projects, rather than on achievement of the end objectives across a variety

of projects. There is a need for further systematic research into the relationship between

TQM and project performance to see if the introduction of a TQM approach leads to

changes in actual project management practices relating to managing performance.

2.3 A historic overview of quality management: TQM literature review

TQM is a management model that aims to meet customer needs and expectations

within an organisation through continuous improvement of the quality of goods and

services and integration of all functions and processes within an organisation. The TQM

literature concurs that its concepts and practices have been shaped by a number of icons

who are recognised as ‗quality gurus‘, such as Deming, Juran, Crosby, Feigenbaum,

Ishikawa, and Imai (Hackman and Wageman, 1995; Plenert, 1996; Lau and Anderson,

1998). These TQM gurus developed their concepts primarily based on their experience

in industry. Grant et al. (1994) argue that the prescriptive approach developed by these

gurus has created a perception that TQM involves no explicit theory, and caused

19

business schools to dismiss TQM as intellectually insubstantial and to consider it as but

one of a number of management fads.

The impact of TQM on organisational performance has been investigated by

many researchers (Flynn et al., 1994; Samson and Terziovski, 1999). These studies

typically conclude that TQM has a positive and significant relationship with

organisational performance. However, not all TQM implementation yields the

satisfactory results promoted by its advocates (Brown, 1993; Harari, 1993). There have

been numerous studies in literature reporting on the problematic issues relating to the

implementation process and how they affect its outcomes. Among several factors, which

have been attributed as key determinants of its success, organisational culture is often

among those listed at the top.

At the advent of industrialisation, quality was tantamount to inspection. From

that point forward, with every stride made in the technological realm, product quality

has equally experienced an evolutionary growth. Inspection of product dimensions or

composition and observed variance from design parameters have been used to define

product quality. Traversing through decades, quality has reached a zenith called TQM, a

coined term for the contemporary quality movement set across the industrial world.

TQM is a theory, practice and philosophy, and many theorists and practitioners are

contributing toward its growth. However, TQM is still considered to be in its early stage

of development (Dale et al., 2001). The quality paradigms are changing rapidly from

east to west and from developed to developing countries (Dahalgaard et al., 1998).

Differences in economic, technological, social and cultural achievements underlie these

variations. Moreover, the measure of advances attained in TQM has universal

acceptability determined by performance levels of identified critical factors (Badri and

Davis, 1995; Motwani, 2001).

McAdam and Henderson (2004) provided a detailed analysis, along with internal

and external driving factors, of the perceived future of TQM. Wankhade and Dabade

(2005) have elaborated on the mechanism of quality uncertainty due to information

asymmetry. The concept has been made clear by considering the ideal market with

complete information of quality product or with non-information. Continuous efforts

from product development to manufacturing of the product are essential for better

quality of the product.

20

Within the context of successful TQM implementation, there is increasing

recognition of the importance of human factors in quality management (Fok et al., 2000;

Brah et al., 2002; Montes et al., 2003). Many of the basic elements of TQM involve

people, such as teamwork, participative management, creativity, effective

communication, customer feedback, employee involvement and empowerment,

employee and management trust and support (Guimaraes, 1994).

For an organisation to realise the benefits of TQM, the consideration of human

factors is critical for the successful implementation of TQM. Human factors previously

identified in the TQM literature include management (leadership) style, type of

employees, departmental interaction, management commitment, employee‘s attitude

toward change, authority to empower employees, rewards/recognition for innovation

and citizenship behaviours (Mann and Kehoe, 1995; Montes et al., 2003). If the core

values in Business Excellence Models (BEM) are taken as examples of TQM values,

then a considerable number of values such as ―valuing employees and partners‖,

‗systems perspective‘, ‗social responsibility‘, and ―focus on results and creating value‖

could also be added (EFQM, 2003). The term methodology is commonly used to

describe activities that are performed in a certain order. Some methodologies applied to

TQM include benchmarking, self-assessment, business process management and Six-

Sigma (SS). An important methodology within TQM is the self-assessment process

based on criteria in BEM.

The American Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), the

European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model and the SIQ

Model for Performance Excellence specify criteria based on TQM core values (EFQM,

2003; SIQ, 2003; MBNQA, 2004). Applying these criteria successfully is proven to

improve economic performance (Hendricks and Singhal, 1999; Wrolstad and Krueger,

2001; Hansson and Eriksson, 2002). These criteria are: policy on quality management;

Quality Control Circle (QCC); training; quality audit; other quality improvement

programmes; top leadership involvement; management data and information; human

resource management; customer satisfaction; handling customers‘ complaints to

increase productivity; support services and vendor programmes; and quality and

operational results.

21

TQM thus focuses not only on the quality of product, but also on the quality of

employees. Indeed, most successful TQM implementations depend heavily on changes

in employees‘ attitudes and activities. Practice is defined as regularly repeated exercise

to improve one‘s skill, or doing something that is common, habitual or as expected

(Akpan, 2002). Thus, the employee‘s motivation for change is quite essential for change

to TQM to be practicable.

Juran and Gruna (1993) opined that without the human mind, tools alone cannot

help TQM to work. In fact, the human factor often makes change difficult and at times,

outright impossible (Esho, 1999). Hence, a research into factors that could influence

employees‘ change to TQM and its practice is inevitable.

It has been observed that TQM was adopted in Japan because it was generally

believed that quality was an effective and strategic weapon for improving productivity

(Tari and Molina, 2002; Hasan and Kerr, 2003). While it was also agreed that TQM was

an effective process for improving organisational functioning, Packard (1995) argues

that its value can only be assured through a comprehensive and well through-out

implementation process.

Thus, these days‘ researchers have been investigating how TQM implementation

can be enhanced. In fact, attempts have been made by researchers at determining what

factors could enhance or hinder TQM practice in organisations. Researchers like Amar

and Zain (2002) and Baidoun and Zairi (2003) have resolved that without attention to

contextual factors, well-intended organisational changes may not be adequately

implemented. Anantharaman (2003) reasoned that the duration in TQM implementation

might be a significant factor in determining its efficacy, but in a study subsequently

conducted, it was found that duration does not affect the effectiveness of quality

management programmes. Chang and Sinclair (2003) observe change in organisational

culture, like reward systems and management styles, as relevant. Gonzalez and Guillen

(2002) presented theoretical arguments for leadership of managers as a powerful enabler

for TQM to be sustained.

22

2.4 TQM: culture and evolution

A review of TQM literature (Kumar, 2006) showed that the TQM culture can be

considered to be one which uses team, promotes pride in workmanship, drives out fear,

allows participative management, promotes leadership in place of supervision and

promotes long term orientation among the members of the organisation (Deming, 1993;

Al-Khalifa and Aspinwall, 2000; Saha and Hardie, 2005). The national cultural

dimensions that are conducive for the TQM culture are high collectivism, low power

distance (i.e., low hierarchy) and low uncertainty avoidance (Chin and Pun, 2002; Yen

et al., 2002; Saha and Hardie, 2005). A review of quality awards and critical success

factors for TQM has shown that culture influences the understanding of TQM and also

affects the operationalisation of TQM in a country (Tan et al., 2003; Kumar, 2006).

Hofstede (1980) identified four factors on which the cultures of different countries

differ. The four factors are collectivism-individualism, power distance, masculinity

femininity and uncertainty avoidance. Because TQM de-emphasises status distinctions

and empowers employees to make decisions and use their own intelligence, cultures

which are high on ‗power distance‘ and ‗uncertainty avoidance‘ may not be conducive

for TQM implementation (Chin and Pun, 2002).

Another cultural dimension that mediates positively in TQM implementation is

collectivism (Kumar, 2006). It has been said that an individualistic cultural dimension

may not fit into the group orientation aspects of TQM (Yen et al., 2002). Collectivists

emphasise co-operation, endurance, persistence and obedience. They tend to have long-

term orientation, leading to long-term commitment to the organisation (Walumbwa and

Lawler, 2003), a requirement critical for success of TQM in an organisation (Yen et al.,

2002).

It is believed that TQM evolved from Quality Circles (QCs), an organisational

technique created in the USA by W. Edward Deming in the 1950s. QCs have been defi

ned as work groups, ranging from 4 to 15 members (Sillince et al., 1996; Robbins,

2003), that meet regularly to discuss quality problems, recommend solutions, and in

some cases, take action to make change (Flores and Utley, 2000; Robbins, 2003). Most

often, QCs are voluntary groups that employees decide to take part in. QCs did not

really have any effect on management in the USA until after the design was exported to

Japan, and then reintroduced to the USA in the 1980s (Gibson et al., 2003). The sharp

23

increase and decrease in popularity of QCs is a reaction to the change in literature

publications over time (Ponzi and Koenig, 2002). When TQM is looked at critically, it

is noticeable that many of the components have been developed from past organisational

techniques or what have been classified in some cases as management fads; this

includes QCs (Gibson et al., 2003). The flaws in the development and implementation

of QCs helped to guide TQM in a better direction.

Today, many business leaders mistake QCs for TQM. TQM has, however,

improved upon the faddish characteristics of QC. This confusion or diverging opinions

is partly due to the TQM evolution and because the meaning of the word quality itself

has shifted over time and from author to author (Boaden, 1997; Hellsten, 1997; Kroslid,

1999; Hellsten and Klefsjo, 2000). There is no general agreement on where and when

TQM was first used. Leonard and McAdams (2002) (2002) refer to Boaden (1997)

when claiming that TQM was not developed by one person. Rather, they argue that

quality efforts have always existed, in one form or another. Similarly Dale and

McQuater (1998) have defined the commonly used tools and techniques for TQM used

by different firms, as shown in Table - 2.1.

Table - 2.1 Commonly used tools and techniques of TQM

The seven basic

quality control

tools

The seven

management tools

Other tools Techniques

Cause and effect

diagram

Affinity diagram Brainstorming Benchmarking

Check sheet Arrow diagram Control plan Departmental purpose

analysis

Control chart Matrix diagram Flow chart Design of experiments

Graphs Matrix data analysis

method

Force field

analysis

Failure mode and effects

analysis

Histogram Process decision Questionnaire Fault tree analysis

Pareto diagram Relations diagram Sampling Poka yoke

Scatter diagram Systematic diagram Problem-solving

methodology Quality

costing, Quality function

deployment, Quality

improvement teams and

Statistical process control

24

There are several ways of describing the evolution of TQM. According to Dale

(1999), one common description of the historical development of quality improvement

is the use of four stages; ‗quality inspection‘, ‗QA‘, ‗quality control‘ and ‗Total Quality

Management (TQM)‘, the last with a focus on external and internal customers,

processes and quality improvements. Kroslid (1999) suggests instead that the

development should be described by the use of two different and parallel ‗schools‘.

On the one hand, there has been ‗the deterministic school‘, which had its starting

point in ‗Taylorism‘ and has since then passed the stages ‗standard development‘ and

the ‗zero defect principle‘. On the other hand, ‗the continuous improvement school‘,

which in its early state sought to reduce variation, has been developed. A third view of

the evolution of TQM is described by Park-Dahlgaard (2002), who have suggested that

it might beseen as a continuous process, as a ―fusion of eastern and western ideas‖,

which has gradually shaped TQM. There is also other development connected to TQM.

TQM is a concept that has traditionally been connected to business life, commercial and

industrial organisations for manufacturing and production.

However, the domain of TQM is changing, and TQM has been applied also to

public issues. Research has been conducted in the area of managing the third sector,

such as non-profit organisations (Hudson, 1995; Nutt and Mertens, 1999; Lyons, 2001;

Mertens, 1999). Consequently, the different views of the evolution of TQM and the

different views of the definitions of TQM generate problems both for those practitioners

who are applying TQM, and for those theorists who are studying TQM.

2.5 Management concepts: commitment, improvement and assurance

Management commitment is clearly a key factor which must be present before

initiating an implementation process. The implementation of TQM generally requires

major resources, such as human resources and funds (Kelly, 1992; Shin et al., 1998;

Latino, 1999). Since management is responsible for the availability of resources and the

overall implementation approach, management commitment is a prerequisite. However,

management commitment can decrease during the process, due to unclear understanding

of what is being done and of the objectives and methodologies of the concept (Clark,

1991; Hipkin and Lockett, 1995) and perceived threats to supervisors and managers

roles (Bardoel and Sohal, 1999) and failure to produce results quickly where

management has little patience to await benefits and is looking for short-term returns on

25

investment (Schawn and Khan, 1994; Laszlo, 1999). Withdrawal of management

support may also occur when benefits cannot be identified or attributed to the concept

implemented (Bowler and Leonard, 1994).

The TQM literature portrays visibility and support of top management as one of

the major determinants for successful TQM implementation. According to Grover et al.

(2006), no discussion on TQM is complete without considering references to top

management involvement. Almost all the quality awards recognise the crucial role of

top management leadership creating the goals, values and systems to satisfy customer

expectations and to improve performance of organisations.

Brown et al. (1994) identified lack of top management commitment ass one of

the reasons for the failure of TQM adoption. According to Garvin (1986), high levels of

quality performance have always been accompanied by an organisational commitment

to that goal and high-product quality does not exist without strong top management

commitment.

Chapman and Hyland (1997) have suggested that top management plays an

important role in changing organisational climate by providing leadership and support,

and also through face-to-face communication. According to the above authors, top

management should actively develop quality plans to meet business objectives;

communicate company philosophy to the employees and involve them in the TQM

effort and improvement activities; encourage employees to achieve their objectives;

ensure adequate resources for employee education and training.

Top management leadership in any organisation can be defined as the ability of a

role player to influence a team of employees to follow his or her instructions or missions

to achieve the goals or objectives that have been preset by the company (Bounds et al.,

1994). Thus, a leader plays an important role to ensure that it materialises (Ellinger and

Bostrom, 1999). The managerial ties of top managers are important to facilitate

knowledge sharing in an organisation (Gao et al., 2008).

According to MacNeil (2003), leadership in management could be a factor in the

improvement of main expertise and skills via their facilitators‘ role in organisational

learning within their organisations, particularly by creating an atmosphere of knowledge

sharing whereby the employees are encouraged to use their clear and unspoken

knowledge to assist in problem-solving. Many studies confirm that senior management

always plays an important role in influencing the rate of success for knowledge sharing

26

(Wong, 2006; Omerzel and Antoncic, 2008), and in enhancing the organisational

knowledge of the process management (Bryant, 2003). The leaders should also sanction

and encourage employees to take part in the process of decision making, and conduct

meetings where every team member could express his or her ideas and suggestions

freely (Arnold et al., 2000).

The most difficult stage of TQM is to create a team spirit and to coordinate

employee‘s efforts towards a certain target. At this point, there is a need for a strong

leadership (Ozevren, 2000; Simsek, 2001; Balci, 2002; Ensari, 2002; Ozden, 2002;

Sisman and Turan, 2002; Celik, 2003). The aim of leadership should be to improve

performance, to improve quality, to increase output, and simultaneously, to bring pride

of workmanship to people. Put in a negative way, the aim of leadership is not to find

and record failures of men, but to remove the causes of failure: to help people do a

better job with less effort (Deming, 1986). It is the managers‘ leadership ability that

creates the greatest effect on the performance and commitment of employees (Genc and

Halis, 2006). Strong leadership and also organisational culture have mutual influence on

the development of TQM policies and behaviours. TQM strategies are the best suited to

educational purposes, but there are deep, often conflicting, cultural processes that can

frustrate its introduction (Newby, 1999).

The role of top management is critical to the success of any TQM initiative.

Several studies have stated that since techniques such as successful Continuous Quality

Improvement (CQI) implementation may require a sustained effort over several years,

organisational members depend on the leadership of the CEO and senior management to

understand and interpret the relevant environmental pressures, and to position CQI

within the overall hospital strategy (Satia and Maj-Britt, 1999). In the healthcare

context, the hospital CEO leads the change effort required for the success of the quality

initiative.

In another study on leadership, Le Brasseur et al. (2002) found that a CEO

committed to implementing CQI as a transformational leader led to stronger signs of

CQI success than a middle management initiative. Horowitz et al. (2003) reported

success of a project in reducing length of stay, reducing unnecessary diagnostic study

utilisation, and improving materials management, because of senior leadership support.

In a study on the role of leadership in services, Prybil (2003) discussed the key

organisational, cultural, workforce-related, patient and community-related challenges

27

and constraints facing leaders in healthcare today. Therefore, as observed in research,

top management commitment and leadership remains a critical dimension of TQM in

healthcare. A summarised view of the TQM factors is shown in Table - 2.2.

Table - 2.2 Summarized views of the TQM factors

SEQUENCE TQM FACTORS

1 Leadership

2 Policy

3 Management

4 Planning

5 System Approach

6 Resources

7 Quality of Processes

8 Human Resource

9 Culture

10 Quality Awareness, Education and Training

11 Protection

12 Measurement and Control

13 Improvement

14 Satisfaction

Quality Assurance (QA) embraces all the activities and functions needed to

provide adequate confidence in a product or service for satisfying the given

requirements for quality (Chan and Fan, 1999). It is essentially a preventive function.

Quality assurance is based on the principle that prevention is better than cure and it is

more economical to get things right in the first place (Tang et al., 2005). Everyone

should aim at doing things right the first time and every time, thus achieving zero defect

in performance (Low and Teo, 2004).

To implement quality assurance, proper and systematic procedures are drawn up

and followed by all concerned. The ISO 9000 series of the IOS is a quality standard for

quality assurance purposes (ISO, 1994).The latest published version of the ISO 9000

family standard was issued in 2000. This version is of a more generic process-based

structure. Lau (2001) identified notable changes in the elements of ‗customer

28

satisfaction‘ and ‗continual improvement‘. It also assembles a limited amount of TQM

elements (Tang et al., 2005), but is still mainly a quality assurance model standard.

2.6 Strategic link between quality and maintenance function

In today‘s global economy, the survival of organisations depends on their ability

to rapidly innovate and improve. Organisations that want to survive in today‘s highly

competitive business environment must address the need for high quality, lower costs

and more effective, swifter research and development (R&D) (Gotoh, 1991; Hipkin and

Cock, 2000). The global marketplace has witnessed increased pressure from customers

and competitors in the manufacturing as well as in the service sectors (Basu, 2001;

George, 2002). As a result, an unceasing search is on for methods and processes that

drive improvements in quality, costs and productivity. In today‘s fast-changing

marketplace, slow and steady improvements in MSs do not guarantee sustained

profitability and survival of an organisation (Robinson and Ginder, 1995; Oke, 2005).

Thus, organisations need to improve at a faster rate than their competitors if they are to

become or remain leaders in their industry.

During recent years, organisations have been adopting strategies for enhancing

the maintenance and quality of products and processes as a means to excel in today‘s

competitive world. One of the current strategies being adopted in this direction by

modern organisations is TPM (Ahmed et al., 2005; Wang and Hwang, 2005). In

essence, TPM couples the principles of maintenance engineering and TQM (Seth and

Tripathi, 2005). The changes in the current business environment are characterised by

intense competition on the supply side and heightened volatility in customer

requirements on the demand side. These changes have left their unmistakable marks on

the different facets of the manufacturing organisations (Gomes et al., 2006).

In today‘s fast-changing marketplace, slow, steady improvements in

manufacturing operations do not guarantee sustained profitability or survival of an

organisation (Oke, 2005). Thus, organisations need to improve at a faster rate than their

competitors if they are to become or remain leaders in the industry. With increased

global competition, attention has been shifted from increasing efficiency by means of

economies of scale and internal specialisation to meeting market conditions in terms of

flexibility, delivery performance and quality (Yamashina, 1995). Like quality,

29

maintenance has been another shop floor issue of strategic importance. The realisation

of the need to focus on equipment maintenance to achieve quality has also brought TPM

into the corporate boardroom of many organisations, especially in the last decade. TPM

is viewed as complementary to TQM (Dale, 1999). It is considered to have originated

from the notion of TQM‘s concept of zero production defects applied to equipment

(Tajiri and Gotoh, 1992). Many manufacturing industries across the globe, having been

under the influence of western management practices for long, remained isolated from

these developments until the middle of the last decade. Quality was considered to be the

responsibility of the quality control department, rather than being understood as a tool

for gaining competitive advantage by focusing on customer requirements. Similarly,

maintenance was also treated as a low profle job with its scope limited to breakdown

and preventive maintenance. The strategic implications of quality and maintenance to

improve competitiveness have been realised by many business captains at the beginning

of the last decade.

Equipment maintenance represents a significant component of the operating cost

in transportation, utilities, mining and manufacturing industries. The potential impact of

maintenance on manufacturing performance is substantial. Maintenance is responsible

for controlling the cost of manpower, material, tools and overhead (Pintelon and

Gelders, 1992; Foster and VanTran, 1990). In financial terms, maintenance can

represent 20–40% of the value added to a product as it moves through the plant (Eti et

al., 2006). The rapidly changing needs of modern manufacturing and the ever-increasing

global competition have emphasised the re-examination of the role of improved

maintenance management towards enhancing an organisation‘s competitiveness (Riis et

al., 1997). In a dynamic and highly challenging environment, reliable manufacturing

equipment is regarded as a major contributor to the performance and profitability of

MSs (Kutucuoglu et al., 2001). Its importance is rather increasing in the growing

advanced manufacturing technology application stages (Maggard and Rhyne, 1992).

Therefore, equipment maintenance is an indispensable function in a manufacturing

enterprise (Ahmed et al., 2005).

As both quality and maintenance go hand in hand in a manufacturing set up,

TQM and TPM share many threads of commonalties like employee involvement, cross-

functional approach and continuous improvement (Cooke, 2000). As described by Ben-

Daya and Duffuaa (1995), maintenance is a function in an organisation that operates in

30

parallel with production. The primary output of production is the desired product, andits

secondary output is a demand for maintenance, which is in turn an input for the

maintenance function. Maintenance results in a secondary input to production in the

form of production capacity. While production manufactures the product, maintenance

produces the capacity for production. Therefore, maintenance affects production by

increasing production capacity and controlling the quality and quantity of output.

2.7 Evaluation and introduction to Total Productive Maintenance

Total Productive Maintenance stands for TPM, or productive maintenance with

total participation. First developed in Japan, TPM is team-based preventive and

productive maintenance, abbreviated as ‗PM‘, ‗PdM‘ and involves every level and every

function in the organisation, from top executives to the production floor operators. TPM

is the proven manufacturing strategy that has been successfully employed globally for

the last three decades for achieving organisational objectives of achieving core

competence in dynamic environments (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008b). In 1971, Nippon

Denso Co. introduced and successfully implemented a TPM programme in Japan.

TPM, as described by Nakajima (1988) is

―a plant level improvement methodology, which enables continuous and rapid

improvement of manufacturing processes through the use of employee involvement,

employee empowerment and close loop measurement of results.‖

TPM embraces a series of methods that ensure every piece of equipment in a

production process is always able to perform its required task. TPM has been widely

recognised as a strategic weapon for improving manufacturing performance by

enhancing the effectiveness of production facilities (Dwyer, 1999; Dossenbach, 2006).

TPM initiatives in production help in streamlining manufacturing and other business

functions, and garnering sustained profits (Ahuja and Khamba, 2007).

It is designed to maximise equipment effectiveness with the participation of all

employees, right from the top management downwards. TPM addresses the vital area of

equipment management, which is a major determinant of process performance in

today‘s manufacturing companies (Yamashina, 2000).

According to Steinbacher and Steinbacher (1993), the benefits of various

components of TPM make it an extremely powerful management tool to reduce costs of

31

equipment management; such reductions provide the greatest returns on investment. It is

also argued that TQM has only limited influence on machine performance and TPM fills

this gap by providing more focus on equipment (McKone et al., 1999). TPM is

considered as an application of TQM concepts to equipment to achieve zero breakdowns

and minimal production loss (Tajiri and Gotoh, 1992). TPM is relatively under-

researched, but there are some studies reported on its implementation issues. These

studies are related to the benchmarking of implementation practices to explore key areas

(Ireland and Dale, 2001), identification of critical factors (Tsang, 2002) and strategies to

support its implementation (Ben, 2000).

The relationship of TPM with business performance has also been addressed in

some recent studies (Bamber et al., 1999; Cooke, 2000; Tsang and Chan, 2000). For

example, Tsang and Chan (2000) revealed the importance of management leadership,

employee involvement, education and training, strategic planning and communication

for TPM in a Chinese setup. Cooke (2000) also identified top management support,

alignment of management initiatives and change, employee training, autonomy to

employees and communication as important factors for the success of TPM in a

European context. Equipment management has gone through many phases. The progress

of maintenance concepts over the years is explained below:

Breakdown Maintenance (BM): This refers to maintenance strategies where repair is

done after the equipment fails/stops or upon occurrence of severe performance decline

(Wireman, 1990). This maintenance strategy was primarily adopted in manufacturing

organisations worldwide prior to 1950. In this phase, machines are serviced only when

repair is drastically required. This concept has the disadvantage of unplanned stoppages,

excessive damage, spare parts problems, high repair costs, excessive waiting and

maintenance time and high trouble-shooting problems (Telang, 1998).

Preventive Maintenance (PM): This concept, introduced in 1951, is a kind of physical

check up of the equipment to prevent equipment breakdown and prolong equipment

service life. PM comprises of maintenance activities that are undertaken after a specified

period of time or amount of machine use (Herbaty, 1990). During this phase, the

maintenance function is established and Time-Based Maintenance (TBM) activities are

generally accepted (Pai, 1997).

32

Predictive Maintenance (PdM): Predictive maintenance is often referred to as

Condition- Based Maintenance (CBM). In this strategy, maintenance is initiated in

response to specific equipment condition or performance deterioration (Vanzile and

Otis, 1992). Diagnostic techniques are deployed to measure the physical condition of the

equipment, such as temperature, noise, vibration, lubrication and corrosion (Brook,

1998). Predictive maintenance is premised on the same principle as preventive

maintenance, although it employs a different criterion for determining the need for

specific maintenance activities.

Corrective Maintenance (CM): This is a system introduced in 1957, in which the

concept of preventing equipment failure is further expanded to be applied to the

improvement of equipment so that equipment failure can be eliminated (improving the

reliability) and the equipment can be easily maintained (improving equipment

maintainability) (Steinbacher and Steinbacher, 1993). The purpose of corrective

maintenance is to improve equipment reliability, maintainability, and safety, design

weaknesses (material, shapes), structurally reform existing equipment, reduce

deterioration and failures, and aim at maintenance-free equipment.

Total Productive Maintenance (TPM): TPM is a unique Japanese philosophy, which has

been developed based on productive maintenance concepts and methodologies. This

concept was first introduced by M/s Nippon Denso Co. Ltd. of Japan, a supplier of M/s

Toyota Motor Company, Japan, in the year 1971. TPM is an innovative approach to

maintenance that optimises equipment effectiveness, eliminates breakdowns and

promotes autonomous maintenance by operators through day-to-day activities involving

the total work force (Bhadury, 2000).

The basic practices of TPM are often called the pillars or elements of TPM. The

entire edifice of TPM is built, and stands, on eight pillars (Sangameshwran and

Jagannathan, 2002). TPM paves the way for excellent planning, organising, monitoring

and controlling practices through its unique eight-pillar methodology. TPM initiatives,

as suggested and promoted by the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM), involve

an eight-pillar implementation plan that results in substantial increase in labour

productivity through controlled maintenance, reduction in maintenance costs, and

reduced production stoppages and downtimes. The core TPM initiatives are classified

into eight TPM pillars or activities for accomplishing manufacturing performance

33

improvements, and include autonomous maintenance; focused maintenance; planned

maintenance; quality maintenance; education and training; office TPM; development

management; and safety, health and environment (Ireland and Dale, 2001; Shamsuddin

et al., 2005; Rodrigues and Hatakeyama, 2006). The JIPM eight-pillar TPM

implementation plan is shown in Figure - 2.1.

Figure - 2.1 Eight pillar TPM implementation plan by JIPM

Finally, the TPM paradigm idealises plants in which the equipments‘ overall

effectiveness is maximised, and there is an absolute reliance on equipment condition for

running production. The TPM approach innovates by encouraging the achievement of

such an ideal by transferring a great number of maintenance-related tasks to the front-

line operators, overthrowing the myth that dealing with ‗too complex‘ equipment is an

exclusive competence of the well qualified ‗experts‘ in the maintenance department

(Nakajima, 1988; Takahashi and Osada, 1990; Nakajima et al., 1992; Suzuki, 1992).In

the light of aforesaid change, the following change occurs.

The TPM approach innovates by encouraging the achievement of such an ideal

by transferring a great number of maintenance-related tasks to the front-line operators,

overthrowing the myth that dealing with ‗too complex‘ equipment is an exclusive

competence of the well qualified ‗experts‘ in the maintenance department (Nakajima,

1988; Takahashi and Osada, 1990; Peters, 1992; Suzuki, 1992).

34

2.8 Relationship of TPM with lean manufacturing

The terms ‗lean manufacturing‘ or ‗lean production‘ were first used by Womack

et al. (1990) in their historical book ‗The Machine That Changed the World‘. Lean

manufacturing describes the profound revolution that was initiated by the Toyota

production system against mass production systems. Lean means ‗manufacturing

without waste‘. Waste is anything other than minimum amount of equipment, materials,

parts, and working time that are absolutely essential to production. The lean approach is

focused on systematically reducing waste (Muda) in the value stream. The waste

concept includes all possible defective work/ activities, not only defective products.

Various terms have been used to denote the set of tools designed to increase business

competitiveness by systematically eliminating waste of all kinds (Callen et al., 2000).

Among them is ‗Just-In-Time‘ (JIT), ‗TQM‘, ‗world class manufacturing‘ and ‗lean

production‘ (White and Prybutok, 2001).

A first approach to improvement with lean production is levelling of flow, from

tact production to customer need. The key issues of lean can be considered as follows

(Ohno, 1998).

Value: The starting point for lean thinking is ‗value‘, as defined by the end customer. It

provides the customer with the right product/service for the right price at the right time.

Value stream: The set of actions from a product/service concept to realisation, from

order to delivery.

Flow: Seamless movement through a series of value creating steps. Pull: Acting only to

satisfy customer needs.

Perfection: continuously improving the value, value stream, flow and pull in business

operation.

TPM is a methodology originating from Japan to support Lean Manufacturing

System (LMS), since dependable and effective equipment are an essential pre-requisite

for implementing lean manufacturing initiatives in an organisations (Sekine and Arai,

1998). While JIT and TQM programmes have been around for a while, manufacturing

organisations of late have been showing enough confidence in the latest strategic quality

maintenance tools, such as TPM. Figure - 2.2 shows the relationships between TPM and

lean manufacturing building blocks. It is clearly revealed that TPM is the corner stone

35

activity for most of the lean manufacturing philosophies, and can effectively contribute

to the success of lean manufacturing.

Figure - 2.2 Relationship between TPM and Lean Manufacturing Philosophies

The management concepts of JIT and lean manufacturing focus on the

elimination of waste and non-value-added activities in all processes. Maintenance is

essential for the successful implementation of these concepts. TPM helps to ensure that

equipment is operational and available when needed (Evans and Lindsay, 2004).

Miyake and Enkawa (1999) show how TQC and TPM can complement each other in

reducing the Cost of Quality (COQ). The manufacturing industry has experienced an

unprecedented degree of change in the last three decades, involving drastic changes in

management approaches, product and process technologies, customer expectations,

supplier attitudes as well as competitive behaviour (Ahuja et al., 2006). Historically,

management has devoted much of its effort to improving manufacturing productivity by

probing, measuring, reporting and analysing manufacturing costs. Similar efforts in

regard to maintenance function productivity are long overdue (Elangovan et al., 2007).

Lean is a challenging concept to implement, and Total Preventative

Maintenance (TPM) is required for an effective lean initiative. No single standard exist

that promises successful implementation or guaranteed returns. In recent years, many

organisations worldwide, especially in the manufacturing sector, have implemented

either manufacturing philosophies or practices like Lean Manufacturing Systems

(LMS), TQM, SS, TPM, or technically sophisticated MSs like Flexible Manufacturing

36

Systems (FMS) and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Systems (CIMS). Even in the

other manufacturing sector, the situation remains the same. For example, Seth and

Gupta (2005) have discussed the application of Value Stream Mapping (VSM) for

productivity improvement of a company and reported the gain in production output per

person and reduction of Work-in-Process (WIP) and finished goods inventory.

Similarly, Sharma et al. (2006) have presented a case study of an Indian

company in which TPM was implemented in a semi-automated cell. They found that

TPM not only leads to increase in efficiency and effectiveness of MSs measured in

terms of the Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) index, but also prepares the plant

to meet the challenges put forward by globally competing economies to achieve world-

class manufacturing status. Antony et al. (2005) have explained the application of an

SS-based methodology (i.e., DMAIC: define-measure-analyse-improve-control) in

eliminating an engine-overheating problem in a automotive company, which resulted in

a reduction of the jamming problem encountered in the cylinder head and increased the

process capability from 0.49 to 1.28.

TPM is an innovative approach to plant maintenance that is complementary to

TQM, JIT, Total Employee Involvement (TEI), Continuous Performance Improvement

(CPI), and other world-class manufacturing strategies (Schonberger, 1996; Ollila and

Malmipuro, 1999; Cua et al., 2001). Lawrence (1999) describes TPM as a general

movement on the part of businesses to try to do more with fewer resources. According

to Besterfield et al. (1999), TPM helps to maintain the current plant and equipment at its

highest productive level through the cooperation of all functional areas of an

organisation TPM focuses primarily on improvement of production equipment, whereas

lean manufacturing has emphasis on flow.

Overall continuous improvement serves as a common denominator for TQM,

TPM, SS, Lean and ISO. Kumar et al. (2006) have emphasised upon manufacturing

organisations to adapt lean manufacturing, six sigma principles and business process

improvement strategies for achieving dramatic results in cost, quality and time by

focusing on production system performance. Lean manufacturing may be considered to

be a synergistic set of integrated modern manufacturing management practices

commonly classified under subsets of JIT, TQM, TPM, and a collection of supportive

human resource management practices including teamwork and employee

empowerment.

37

Lean manufacturing encompasses such practices as employee involvement in

problem solving, Statistical Process Control (SPC), reengineering setups, cellular

manufacturing, supplier information sharing and partnerships, supply base

rationalisation, pull production, worker teams, integrated product design, in-house

designed technology and customer requirements integration. TPM is considered to be an

effective strategic improvement initiative for improving quality in maintenance

engineering activities (Ollila and Malmipuro, 1999; Pramod et al., 2007).

2.9 The relevance of maintenance for competitiveness: overall equipment

effectiveness

Over the last few decades, the development of the business environment has

underscored the importance of maintenance for the competitiveness of manufacturing

companies. To succeed in a demanding market arena, manufacturing companies have to

fulfil several requirements. Today, cost, quality, and time should be observed as key

drivers for competitiveness. First, manufacturing companies should strive for a superior

cost position. As a result, the importance of maintenance has increased due to its

potential for guaranteeing high machine availability and failure-free machine operations,

thus, contributing to high process efficiency. Second, manufacturers should also be able

to offer high quality products. Accordingly, production on a high quality level is

necessary to meet quality specifications. Consequently, maintenance performance must

be enhanced to enable a high process capability, since only machines with a high

maintenance standard are able to produce with less or no failures. Finally, in the context

of time-based competition, fast and on-time deliveries are of great relevance to

corporate success. This leads to the necessity for a reduction in the manufacturing cycle

time, with the consequential need for a high maintenance standard that ensures fast

throughput.

For the above-mentioned reasons, OEE seems to be a better choice to evaluate

efficiency, for it addresses all the previous topics, and gives a consistent measure of the

real value added production for equipment. OEE was firstly proposed by Nakajima

(1998) as the key metric to support TPM, and is now a widely accepted way to monitor

the actual performance of equipment in relation to its nominal capabilities under optimal

operating conditions. Analytically, OEE can be expressed as the ratio between what was

38

actually manufactured and what could be ideally manufactured or, alternatively, as the

fraction of time in which an equipment works at its full operating capacity.

This concept can be formalised as follows:

OEE = Actual Output/Reference Output ………. (2.1)

= Cycle Time x Valuable Operating Time/Cycle Time x Loading Time

= Valuable Operating Time/Loading Time.

where, Valuable Operating Time (VOT) is the fraction of time in which equipment

works under optimal operating conditions; Loading Time (LT) is the actual available

time for operation after removing all planned stops. At present, OEE has been adopted

in several industrial fields as the principal efficiency metric. As a matter of fact, a

standard approach for OEE evaluation was also defined in a technical norm released by

SEMI E10-96 (1996). Nevertheless, OEE control is not always straightforward, and

many drawbacks and difficulties can still be found in several applications (Gouvea da

Costa and Pinheiro da Lima, 2002). A major problem arises when the actual

problems/inefficiencies of a line cannot be easily classified in terms of the six big

losses. In this case, the absence of a perfect matching (between equipment inefficiencies

and big losses) can generate a misunderstanding of OEE components, leading to the

adoption of an inappropriate structure of losses.

To solve this problem, an alternative losses classification scheme is proposed by

Jeong and Phillips (2001). The authors showed that the standard definition of OEE is

not appropriate for capital-intensive industries because, in this case, there is the need to

account for additional causes of losses, such as preventive maintenance, off-shifts and

holidays. Similarly, de Ron and Rooda (2005) noted that OEE includes losses, such as

blocking or starvation, which cannot be directly ascribed to specific equipment, as they

are a consequence of the whole productive system. Therefore, to get real equipment

metric, they suggested exclusion of all the losses that are internal to the productive

system, but do not depend on the equipment itself for calculation of OEE. Similarly,

Brandt and Taninecz (2005), arguing that the overall efficiency depends on the ‗hard‘

and on the ‗soft‘ side of a firm, introduced an alternative metric called overall plant

efficiency, which is obtained as a product of OEE, capacity usage and labour operating

efficiency.

39

2.10 Integrating maintenance in different quality philosophies

A well-balanced maintenance programme furnishes information and instruction

to personnel involved in maintaining existing equipment, provides current information

on the availability and location of maintenance materials, improves utilisation of labour

forces and increases equipment reliability. Planned and preventive maintenance

procedures, where components are serviced and changed when they approach the end of

their useful lives, can be augmented by suitable means, which continuously check vital

machine functions. Quality assurance can be observed as a management system that

brings maintenance activities undertaken by all parties under control with the aim of

preventing things from going wrong and costing time, effort and money to put them

right.

Indian Standards of Organizations (ISO) 9000 standards are quality management

and quality assurance standards which are the bases for implementation, assessment and

verification of the quality system in production as well as service organisations (Basak,

2002). This is closely linked to TQM. TQM is a combination of quality and

management tools aimed at increasing business and reducing losses due to wasteful

practices. There is a need for people who can effectively implement TQM within a

company (Chizmar, 1994). TQM is a corporate business management philosophy that

recognises that customer needs and business goals are inseparable. It ensures maximum

effectiveness and efficiency within a business, and secures commercial leadership by

putting in place processes and systems which would promote excellence, prevent errors

and ensure that every aspect of the business is aligned to customer needs and the

advancement of business goals, without duplication or waste of effort. Companies

implementing TQM are committed to move beyond PM and adhere to TQM concepts.

Thus, the concept of TPM evolved.

TPM thrives on the spirit of teamwork. This is a productive maintenance

programme, which focuses on maximising equipment effectiveness, establishing a

thorough system of PM for the equipments‘ entire life span, involving every single

employee from top management to shop floor workers, and empowering employees to

initiate corrective activities.

Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing awareness and implementation of

practices associated with TQM, JIT and TPM. Nevertheless, there has not been a careful

40

examination of the common and unique practices associated with these programmes.

TQM, JIT and TPM have similar fundamental goals of continuous improvement and

waste reduction (Schonberger, 1986; Nakajima, 1988; Ohno, 1988; Powell, 1995).

Together, the practices of TQM, JIT, and TPM form a comprehensive and consistent set

of manufacturing practices directed towards improved performance. Therefore,

manufacturing plants are likely to combine the implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM

practices. However, most of the studies on TQM, JIT, and TPM investigate these

programmes separately. Only a few studies have tried to explore the relationship

between TQM and JIT empirically (Flynn et al., 1995; Sriparavastu and Gupta, 1997).

Also, some studies indirectly consider all three programmes while focusing on only one

of them. For example, McKone et al. (2001) indirectly examine the relationship of TPM

with JIT and TQM when investigating the implementation and impact of TPM, and find

that TPM has a positive and significant direct relationship as well as an indirect

relationship through JIT with low cost, high levels of quality and strong delivery

performance.

Table - 2.3 provides an outline of the characteristics of the six approaches which

highlights similarities and difference between the approaches. The comparison finds

many similarities between the concepts, especially between TPM and lean. This

suggests there is strong linking between the two, but in total they are two separate

concepts. Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is the most exceptional among the six

concepts in terms of being abrupt, short-term and renewing rather than improving in the

long term. Apart from the practices that are common to all of the three programmes,

each of the programmes also has unique practices that are more technical - or process-

oriented. We refer to these programme-specific practices as the basic techniques. TQM

basic techniques include cross-functional product design, process management, supplier

quality management, and customer involvement; JIT basic techniques include set-up

time reduction, pull systems production, JIT delivery by suppliers, equipment layout,

and daily schedule adherence; and TPM basic practices are autonomous and planned

maintenance, technology emphasis and proprietary equipment development.

Table - 2.3 Characteristics of TQM, TPM, Six Sigma, Lean and ISO Factors

undertaken TQM TPM Six Sigma Lean ISO

Started In Japan Japan USA Japan Europe

Period Mid 1980s 1988 Mid 1980s 1990 1987

41

Approach Quality Control Resource

utilization

Variance

reduction

Waste

Reduction

Documentation and

Consistency

Concept on which

they are based

Data-based,

employee

driven,

Orientation

towards

customers and

suppliers

Improving

machine

availability

which includes

monitoring of

machine also

Normally called

OEE.

No. of

products and

process

defects should

reach Six

Sigma target

Continuously

improving the

value created

for the

customers by

letting them

pull value

through a

streamlined

value stream

Focusing on quality

goals based on

internal capabilities

Involvement Normally

everyone

including

suppliers

Everyone to

participate

Normally

everyone

Everyone to

participate

Normally everyone

Time required for

improvement

Continuous

improvement

Continuous

improvement

Continuous

improvement

Continuous

improvement

Continuous

improvement

Change

introduced

Slow,

incremental

Slow,

incremental

Could be

dramatic as

well as

incremental

Could be

dramatic as

well as

incremental

Could be dramatic as

well as incremental

Risk undertaken Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Implementation

time

Long term, 5-

10 years

Long, many new

things are to be

learned.

Short Long, many

new things are

to be learned

Moderate, 3-5 years

Starting condition Existing

systems

Existing systems Existing

systems

Existing

systems

Existing systems

Scope of

Implementation

Company wide Manufacturing

plant

Company

wide

Company wide Company wide

2.11 Need for transfusion of TQM and TPM

The TQM and TPM paradigms have in common the basic idea that the MS‘s

overall performance results not only from front-line operators‘ direct work, but also

from the interaction of a whole set of concatenated tasks that must be fulfilled by

employees allocated at diverse functional spheres (internal or external to MS). TQM and

TPM aim at widespread involvement and commitment throughout the implementing

unit. They include tools and techniques which can enable any one at any level to

improve their daily work on a step-by-step basis. They aim to use the organisation‘s

own employees and managers and trainers rather than outside consultants.

The TQM approach primarily promotes improvement measures oriented towards

products and services, with a striking concern for their quality characteristics. However,

it is definitely not restrained only to this, propounding the nurturing of a broader set of

organisational skills that contribute to enhancing the firm‘s competitiveness.

42

Analogously, though the TPM approach primarily advocates concepts and tools oriented

to equipments, driven by the aim of raising their overall objectiveness for production, it

is also devoted to the development of further engineering and manufacturing

capabilities.

As the TQM and TPM paradigms are becoming comparably popular and widely

diffused across a multitude of industries, the comparisons of these two paradigms have

attracted increasing attention over recent years. Miyake and Enkawa (1997) observed

that this coexistence has frequently aroused the misleading notion that one is redundant

or antagonistic to the other and, therefore, that they might be mutually exclusive. Shiomi

(1990), Akaoka (1992), and Ogake (1995) have analysed the characteristics of TQM and

TPM under a comparative perspective, considering each one‘s relative strengths and

weaknesses. Also, the deployment of analogous strategies like TQM and TPM is done

by manufacturers outside the Japan such as (Belair, 1995; McAdam and Duffner, 1996).

These studies suggest that the matching of TQM and TPM is an emerging strategic

pattern finding diffusion among diverse industries around the world.

However, these works are limited by most to the illustration of actual single

cases in a rather narrative way, exhibiting neither a structured comparative discussion of

TQC and TPM paradigms nor intent to elucidate, in more general terms, why the

matching of these two approaches would pay off. Thus, the improvement approaches

derived from the TQM and TPM paradigms suggest the pursuit of performance gains in

the whole stream of activities, which compound materials flow, product life and

equipment life respectively.

TQM‘s effectiveness in improving business performance is influenced by

various factors (Hendricks and Singhal, 2001). Experience in TQM implementation in

terms of time periods is one such major factor, which emphasises the continuous and

long term improvement characteristic of this drive (Dale, 1999). Most often, it is argued

that the benefits of TQM are realised over several years, with lack of identifiable results

during the initial period (Ahire and Rana, 1995). This view is also supported by other

research works like Ahire (1996), which indicated that due to the strategic nature of

TQM, the bigger payoffs are expected only in the long run.

The use of TPM as supportive strategy is another factor, for it is viewed as

complementary to TQM (Dale, 1999). TPM addresses the vital area of equipment

management, which is a major determinant of process performance in today‘s

43

manufacturing companies (Yamashina, 2000). According to Steinbacher and

Steinbacher (1993), the benefits of various components of TPM make it an extremely

powerful management tool to reduce costs of equipment management, and such

reductions provide the greatest returns on investment. It is also argued that TQM has

only limited influence on machine performance, and TPM fills this gap by providing

more focus on equipment (McKone et al., 1999).

The effect of period of implementation and TPM supported by TQM

performance is assessed by many researchers with the help of an empirical study on a

manufacturing industry. TPM supported by TQM is termed ‗combined strategy‘, and all

of the studies are carried out for three time periods or phases to examine short, medium

and long-term effects on performance. The selection of these time periods has been on

the basis of earlier research works (Dawson and Patrickson, 1991; Dale and Lightburn,

1992; Ahire, 1996). The justification for each of these time periods is explained below.

Period of transition (up to three years of implementation)

This is a period during which initial investment and efforts are made to

overcome initial resistance and to orient organisation as per requirements of the

strategies. In this phase, the organisation experiences changes in work culture, work

practices and policies. The period of transition normally goes for three years from the

beginning of implementation.

Period of stability (more than three years, but up to five years of implementation)

This is the period during which the improvement drives get stabilised and the

organisation starts realising the benefits of TQM and TPM. The period of stability is

taken as more than three years and up to five years from implementation.

Period of maturity (more than five years of implementation)

Over a long period, the benefits accrued from improvement drives give a

strategic and competitive edge in terms of cost, delivery, flexibility and customer

satisfaction in comparison to competitors. This phase represents long term experiences

with these two improvement drives in terms of strategic leverage over other companies.

44

2.12 Literature review on TQM and TPM paradigms

Total Quality Management and TPM have gained considerable acceptance in

organisations to aid them in facing the challenge of fierce global competition. These two

improvement drives are being adopted and adapted for raising performance standards of

a company to world-class levels. TQM and TPM are considered complementary to each

other, and thereby are implemented simultaneously by many companies to achieve

synergy. TPM is a methodology originating from Japan to support its LMS, since

dependable and effective equipment are essential pre-requisites for implementing lean

manufacturing initiatives in the organisations (Sekine and Arai, 1998).

TPM supports the other strategies most often associated with world-class

manufacturing: JIT, TQM, and TEI (Schonberger, 1996; Ollila and Malmipuro, 1999;

Cua et al., 2001; Sharma et al. 2006). TPM is an important world-class manufacturing

programme introduced during the quality revolution. TPM is a highly influential

technique that is in the core of ‗operations management‘ and deserves immediate

attention by organisations across the globe. An effective TPM programme provides for a

philosophy based upon the empowerment and encouragement of personnel from all

areas in the organisation (Davis and Willmott, 1999). The evaluation of TPM efficiency

can facilitate significantly enhanced organisational capabilities across a variety of

dimensions (Wang, 2006). TPM implementation in an organisation can ensure higher

productivity, better quality, fewer breakdowns, lower costs, and reliable deliveries,

motivating working environments, enhanced safety and improved morale of the

employees (Tripathi, 2005). The ultimate benefits that can be obtained by implementing

TPM are enhanced productivity and profitability of the organisation (Ahuja and

Khamba, 2008a).

TQM is defined as an approach to improving effectiveness and flexibility of

business as a whole. It is a way of organising and involving the whole organisation,

every department and every individual (Oakland, 1988). Both are considered as

comprehensive management strategies, which are built on a common foundation of

continuous improvement and organisation-wide involvement, but with different focus

areas, i.e., quality and maintenance respectively.

Various recent researches across the globe have also focused on identification of

factors that are critical to the success of TQM (Anderson and Sohal, 1999; Corbett and

45

Rastrick, 2000; Prabhu and Robson, 2000) in a country-specific scenario. Anderson and

Sohal (1999) carried out an empirical study to identify factors critical to the success of

TQM in the Australian manufacturing industry. The study revealed the importance of

factors like leadership, strong customer focus, quality systems and availability of

information. Raghunathan and Subba Rao (1999) have investigated the relationship

between TQM practices like leadership, strategic planning, human resource

management and quality performance. Sun (2000) has identified the importance of

leadership, information, strategy, human resources, processes, suppliers, and customer

focus for quality management practices in Shanghai and Norwegian companies. Similar

studies were also carried out in different national frameworks (Forker, 1996; Choi and

Eboch, 1998; Hendricks and Singhal, 2001).

It was only in the beginning of the 1990s that many business captains realised

the strategic implications of quality and maintenance to improve performance. The two

erstwhile shop floor entities were brought to the corporate boardroom through TQM and

TPM. Now, both have acquired wide acceptance in industry (Singh, 1991; Umeda,

1996; Bhadury and Mandal, 1998; Sahay et al., 2000). As both quality and maintenance

go hand-in-hand in a manufacturing set up, TQM and TPM share many threads of

commonalties like employee involvement, cross-functional approach and continuous

improvement (Cooke, 2000). On the other hand, TPM is considered as an application of

TQM concepts to equipment, for zero breakdowns and minimal production loss (Tajiri

and Gotoh, 1992). These two complementary drives have been implemented together in

many companies to leverage the prowess of both.

The TQM and TPM share much in common, like both involve everyone in the

organisation, emphasise cross-functional teams and work on the philosophy of

continuous improvement (Cooke, 2000). Therefore, the existing TQM environment in

an organisation supports TPM implementation, and this has led many organisations to

practice it along with TQM to achieve synergy (McKone et al., 1999).

2.12.1 TQM and TPM success archieves

TQM has been widely implemented throughout the world across different

industries and sectors. The implementation of TQM has given them positive results.

Industries in India have been trying individually to improve their product quality,

besides their overall performance through TQM practices (Rajashekhar, 1999). TQM is

46

a management philosophy which highlights the need to improve the quality of goods

and services in order to better utilize the resources of organizations (Collin, 1996). TQM

offers each individual the opportunity to participate, contribute and develop a sense of

ownership. Thiagarajan et al. (2000) presented the study in identifying quality factors

for effective TQM implementation, which are critical for TQM to flourish in Malaysian

industries in which the authors concluded that although the ‗key concepts‘ of the

framework represent most of the current philosophical understandings which underpin

TQM, it is recommended that organizations complement the guidelines by continually

seeking out and studying the best implementation practices.

Compared to business implementations, the impact of TQM concepts and tools

not only in organisations but also in higher education institutions has not been as

significant. Although TQM has been implemented with success in other service sectors,

its implementation in higher education has been mostly limited to non-academic,

administrative processes. Unlike manufacturing and other service sector

implementations of TQM, in higher education institutions, customer-based quality

definition has been problematic, limiting its spread and success (Bilen, 2010).

TQM is always considered to be a set of management practices throughout the

organisation, geared to ensure the organisation consistently meets or exceeds customer

requirement. Still many barriers come while implementing it. Abdolshah and Abdolshah

(2010) tried to investigate the most important barriers to successful TQM

implementation in Iranian manufacturing organisations and results showed that the main

root causes of unsuccessful implementation of TQM were the lack of management

commitment, resource problem and failure to use the right framework for TQM.

On the other hand Authors such as Nakajima (1988), Patterson et al. (1995),

Tajiri and Gotoh (1992) and Yeomans and Millington (1997), identify factors such as

management support and commitment, and greater responsibility, cooperation and

involvement among production and maintenance workers as being critical in TPM

success. Since 1980s there has been an increasing awareness and implementation of

practices associated with Total Quality Management and Total Productive Maintenance.

Nevertheless, there has not been a careful examination of the common and unique

practices associated with these programs.

47

The TQM and TPM paradigms have in common the basic idea that the

manufacturing system overall performance results not only from front-line operator‘s

direct work, but also from the interaction of a whole set of concatenated tasks that must

be fulfilled by employees allocated at diverse functional spheres (internal or external to

manufacturing system). TQM and TPM aim at widespread involvement and

commitment throughout the implementing unit. They include tools and techniques,

which can enable any one at any level to improve their daily work on a step-by-step

basis. They aim to use the organization‘s own employees and managers and trainers

rather than outside consultants.

It has become evident from the literature review that derived from the concept of TQM,

TPM shares much in common with TQM which are considered as success factors for

both quality drives:

• The extent of top management support for TQM-TPM implementations.

• Involve everybody in the company;

• Require inter-departmental team working and joint responsibility;

• Emphasis on company/plant efficiency and effectiveness through quality (zero

defects), continuous improvement and optimization of overall performance

instead of partial performance.

• The awareness usage and length of experience of TQM-TPM quality initiates.

• The extent of benefits realized by TQM-TPM.

• The extent to which the TQM-TPM principles are applied.

• Relationship between TQM-TPM realized benefits and top management support.

• Relationship between the TQM-TPM realized benefits and their principles

implemented.

2.12.2 TQM and TPM failures archieves

Many authors have discussed on the solutions for successful implementations

TQM and TPM. The objective of the research was to get a better understanding of why

the implementations of TQM and TPM in some companies fail so frequently. Success

48

stories of these closely allied quality drives are limited, perhaps not unexpectedly.

Quality, much like flexibility, is vague and difficult to improve yet critical to

competitiveness. While quality gurus diagnose the failure for these drives as

management's lack of understanding and commitment to the quality principles, thus

providing insufficient time and resources but making consequent assumptions that the

implementation of quality initiatives is a linear process requiring only fine tuning of

departmental functions (e.g. Willmott, 1994).

TQM practitioners claim that if a company's culture is not conducive to total

quality, the culture must be changed before a total quality programme can be

implemented. Youngless (2000) expressed that TQM has been both praised for its

ingenuity and criticized for a lack of measurable results. But that lack of results can be

due to the fact that TQM is often misunderstood. The author had briefly explained the

history of TQM. He had illustrated the four ideas that are involved in the modern TQM,

namely the fitness to standard, fitness to use, fitness of cost and fitness to latent

requirement. He concluded that TQM is an effective system because it can be truly

integrated at all levels of company. This is supported by Burrows (1992), which

reported a 95 percent failure rate for initiated TQM implementation programs.

Eskildson (1994) reported that TPM implementation has uncertain or even

negative effects on performance. Ahire et al. (1996) also presented the comparison for

the Quality management in TQM firm vs. non-TQM firms. They had classified firms

into four groups: high performance TQM firms, low performance TQM firms, high

performance non-TQM firms and low performance non- TQM firms. The authors had

discussed and stated the major reasons that caused the failure of TQM efforts. They are:

lack of management commitment, unrealistic expectations and time-frame and cost of

TQM implementation, under-reliance on statistical methods, and failure to develop and

sustain a quality-oriented culture.

Two common problems that are mostly appeared for not supporting TQM as

well as in TPM programmes in many companies are lack of strategic planning and a

lack of appropriate culture (Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2003). McAdam and Duffner

(1996) describe that many issues arise when trying to implement TPM in a union

environment. Workers fear that the only drive is to improve production efficiency,

reduce labor, and increase employee work load. Whereas, Some of the prominent

49

problems in TPM implementation include partial implementation of TPM, overly

optimistic expectations, lack of a well-defined routine for attaining the objectives of

implementation (equipment effectiveness), cultural resistance to change, lack of training

and education, lack of organizational communication, and implementation of TPM to

conform to societal norms rather than for its instrumentality to achieve world class

manufacturing (Crawford et al., 1988; Becker, 1993).

2.13 Common Barriers/Obstacles needed to overcome by Indian

Manufacturing Industries for successfully implementing TQM and TPM

It has been found that organizational culture is a major variance-causing factor

in implementation of TQM and TPM programs that inhibits or allows the success of

such a program. The Indian organizations have now understood the significance of

making investments in these initiatives for improving the competitiveness of the

manufacturing organizations.

From the literature, it has also been revealed that TQM programs are more

likely to succeed if the prevailing organizational culture is compatible with the values

and basic assumptions proposed by the TQM discipline (Kujala and Lillrank, 2004). The

success of TQM as an organizational change depends upon the organizational culture, as

a successful implementation of TQM requires a significant change in values, attitudes

and culture of the organization. The study of Liu (1998) and Rahim and Whalen (1994)

showed lack of top management support and lack of proper training as the main barriers

for TQM implementation.

The barriers to implementing TQM will show up in all sectors -

manufacturing, services, government, and education. Therefore, it is important for all

organizations to understand and avoid these barriers both before and during TQM

implementation (Tamimi and Sebastianelli, 1998). Salegna and Fazel (2000) have listed

16 obstacles which companies have reported when implementing TQM. Further,

Tamimi and Sebastianelli (1998) have identified many problems that companies might

experience while implementing TQM. Their survey was aimed at determining the extent

to which these obstacles were actually experienced by the responding organizations. The

study of Amar and Zain (2002), established 11 factors observed to be the barriers

against the successful implementation of TQM in Indonesian manufacturing

50

organizations. A survey conducted in India in 1998 revealed the following as barriers

impeding the implementation of TQM: lack of long-term supplier relationship,

continued dependence on traditional incentive schemes, numerical targets, performance

rating, slogans for improving productivity, and not identifying and providing the right

type of training for each and everyone as demanded for every job (Rajashekhar, 1999).

Finally, Ngai and Cheng (1997) derived the following four factors as the

barriers for the implementation of TQM from their 17 item scale:

Cultural and employee barriers;

Infrastructure barriers;

Managerial barriers; and

Organizational barriers.

According to Ahuja and Khamba (2008b), there are many challenges before

Indian manufacturing organizations for adapting to proactive TPM initiatives. They

critically examine the factors influencing the implementation of TPM practices and

focuses on systematic identification of obstacles in TPM implementation and work out

various success factors towards improving manufacturing performance in Indian

industry through strategic TPM initiatives.

The various obstacles hindering the organizations, for achieving business

excellence through effective implementation of TQM and TPM initiatives have been

classified, according to the strategic inputs based on questionnaires received, into five

main categories, which are as follows:

1st Category: Various obstacles regarding quality and leadership effecting

implementation of TQM and TPM in Indian organizations include:

Management‘s compensation is not linked for achieving quality goals.

Ineffectiveness of the top management to holistically implement change

management initiatives.

The best quality and maintenance practices of other companies are not

benchmarked.

51

Lack of awareness on the benefits of implementing TQM and TPM in the

organization.

In adequate knowledge about these quality techniques and improper

understanding of the measurement techniques that are used to measure the

effectiveness of TQM and TPM implementation.

Lack of clarity in the guideline, implementation plan and implementation

methods these quality drives.

Organization‘s inability to change the mindset of people to obtain total

involvement.

Top management does not insist on systematic measuring of customer

satisfaction level and training programs.

2nd

Category: Various obstacles regarding employee‘s culture effecting implementation

of TQM and TPM in Indian organizations include:

Employee‘s inability to change their own work culture (Routine Work).

Non-truly commitment to their immediate bosses and superior staff.

Insufficient teamwork facilitators and team building techniques in the

organization.

Failed to involve employees towards organizational goals and objectives.

Very less number of employees participate in the decision making process of

organization.

Workers survival in and adaptation to the external environment.

The degree of inequality in power distribution between a less powerful

individual and a more powerful one.

The extent to which individual workers are supposed to be self-reliant and look

after themselves only.

3rd

Category: Various personnel obstacles effecting implementation of TQM and TPM

in Indian organizations include:

Lack of consistency and resistant to change.

52

Loyalty towards work in accordance to time.

Worker evaluation lacks a systematic approach and hence salary adjustments are

not commensurate with job functions.

Not much effort towards multi-skilling and timely skill updating by the

employees.

Language difficulties in the shop floor and also in the training programmes.

Mostly employee‘s not given any promotions or loyalty on his valuable

suggestions by the organizations.

Inadequate staff participation and contribution towards quality control circles

and motivation program.

4th

Category: Various technical and process management obstacles effecting

implementation of TQM and TPM in Indian organizations include:

Fewer attentions to modify the production structures beyond the design

capabilities.

Less flexibility given by production systems as for long set up and changeover

times.

Constant change in schedule.

The long running times of equipment without any care in the production

processes.

One single operator commands more than one machine at the same time.

The technological sophistication and much age of most of the equipment

always increase the demand for preventative and corrective maintenance work.

Poor coordination of equipment spare part procurement.

Absence and lack of implementation of standard operating procedures.

The top management inadequate to implement safe work practices at the

workplace.

Less decision making power in the hands of operator related to improvements

about the machines.

53

Lack of process capability tools provided to workers.

5th

Category: Various obstacles regarding resources, infrastructure and internal

communications effecting implementation of TQM and TPM in Indian organizations

include:

Lack of sufficient funds to mobilize TQM and TPM activities by the top

management.

High investments involved for providing training to each member about TQM

and TPM.

Inadequate human resource development and management.

Absence of appropriate motivating reward and recognition mechanisms.

Raw material cost does not conform to the specification required.

Problems of purchase of replacement material, thus preventing the performance

of planned maintenance.

Always difficult to procure imported raw materials.

Less coordination between maintenance and production departments.

Lack of trust by maintenance department in the productive operator's

capabilities for performing basic autonomous maintenance tasks.

2.14 Strategies and success factors for successfully implementing TQM and TPM

programs

Whenever an organization wants to implement any new concept like TQM and

TPM it would always like to have a return on investment. Due to this, it is very

important for an organization to know the advantages and benefits of implementing

these quality concepts. With a proper understanding, the employees can accept the

changes required openly. Organizational culture has also a significant effect on the

successful implementation of these quality drives.

For TQM and TPM programs to be succeed, a collaborative and corporate

organizational culture supported by long-term management and employees commitment

and involvement, organizational learning, innovation and entrepreneurship, team

54

working and collaboration, open communication, risk taking, continuous improvement,

customers focus (internal and external), partnership with suppliers, and monitoring and

evaluation of quality should be developed. Care should also be taken that, an effective

quality organization must be established to be channels for communication, the

bureaucratic system must be transformed, a strategic plan must be established to be

guidelines for execution, strategies and processes must be aligned and integrated within

a quality culture, and the information system must be integrated.

TQM success is achieved through a shift from traditional approaches to the

new TQM paradigm (Glover, 1993; Bounds et al., 1994). A transformation of culture

will enable the installation of new values, beliefs and assumptions to underpin new ways

of working. TQM programs to get succeed a collaborative culture characterized by

honesty, trust, and openness and a culture that is conducive to creativity and empowers

individuals and nurtures their capacity in order to increase their responsibility in

carrying out the mission of an organization should be developed. The efforts, which are

put in implementing TQM, should be assessed. There is a need to know the strong and

weak parts of implementation quality plans. Implementing an effective and efficient

system of quality management, self-assessment, continuous monitoring and evaluation

of quality activities by employees and providing good feedbacks are the most important

factors in success of TQM.

It has been observed that Indian manufacturing organizations have been facing

a strong resistance from within the organization, and also suffering major problems due

to lack of organizational culture, inappropriate maintenance and quality improvement

initiatives, low skill and knowledge of operators, inadequate resources, and poor work

environments. And also it has becomes very important for the Indian organizations to

evolve proactive strategies like TQM and TPM to gain business excellence. Thus, there

is an urgent need for the Indian organization to establish and adopt the key strategies

and success factors for implementing these programs. The key strategies and success

factors for successful implementation of TQM and TPM in Indian manufacturing

industry can be classified into five categories:

1) Management understanding about quality initiative programs.

2) Changed employee mind set and total involvement.

3) Establishing customized process policies.

55

4) Strengthening the employee base.

5) Speed of implementation with proper inter-departmental communication.

The transformation into a TQM and TPM organization always depends on the

extent to which the firms have successfully implemented these quality management

practices. The top management has to play a special role to improve the organization‘s

quality and maintenance performances from the existing level. All type of the

organizations, including schools, manufacturing companies, service industries, health

care organizations and public organizations, experience low employee participation and

interest in these programs mainly because management commitment is not present in

any of the departments. Management commitment to the process of continuous

improvement, a dedication to empowering people to change, and a periodical desire to

raise goals for improvement are observed as the most critical human developmental

needs (Kasul and Motwani, 1995).

No organization can succeed without a certain level of commitment and effort

from its leadership (Stoner and Freeman, 1992). By practicing TQM and TPM like

quality initiative programs, teamwork is improved and employees are motivated and

encouraged to control, manage and improve the processes which are within their

responsibility. In order to ensure the proper alignment of employees towards the

organization‘s goals and objectives, an appropriate understanding of underlying TQM

and TPM principles and strategies must be provided to employees at all levels in the

organization and also total employee involvement is indeed as a pre-requite for

successful implementation of these programs. The empowerment of employees through

the use of teamwork, education and by giving people responsibility for the control over

the quality of their work will also cultivate a friendly and happy working environment.

The success of the organization is fully realizing on the benefits through

effective implementation of traditional and proactive quality and maintenance initiatives

critically dependent upon the competencies of the employees towards the job. Therefore

adequate training and education for employees at all levels should be treated as key

strategic initiative for successful implementation of TQM and TPM. There are several

specific tools and quality-adding techniques as mentioned by Hackman and Wageman

(1995) and Zairi and Youssef (1995), such as quality function deployment, Pareto

charts, statistical process control charts, cause and effect diagrams and affinity

56

diagrams. Benchmarking, however, comes with the basic objective of minimizing

variance or deviation of achieved success from the established quality standards. It

involves structured problem solving and identifying processes and finding opportunities

for improvements and future developments. Thus, continuous improvement should form

the basis of every management approach and the organizations should always believe

that the strategy of making progress is on the basis of sudden and dramatic

improvements in technology and management techniques.

Training creates awareness, builds employees commitment to quality policy and

strategy, facilitates teamwork, enhances performance standards, and bolsters the skills

and abilities of employees. However, the organizations need to focus more upon

improving communication competencies, multiple skill development and customer

value training. Successful training in the organization needs more budgetary allocation

and commitment, support and enthusiasm of the top management. Thus, the basic tenet

is that the perpetual development can be achieved not only by enriching the employees

with knowledge, learning and training but also by entrusting them the power to take

decisions. Moreover, the organizations must make concerted efforts to adopt state-of-art

initiatives related towards implementing programs and must have a check that it should

be implemented over all domains possible and at fast pace along with keeping full

record of its implementation according to the laid schedules. On the other hand,

management should maintain a perfect synergy and coordination between maintenance

and production departments. And also, the production operators should consider

autonomous maintenance initiatives as part of their routine jobs.

As the success of an industry depend upon its product quality, cost and

expenditure on machines. But in the present scenario all manufacturing companies

concentrate on producing high quality products, involving low cost and also avoiding

large expenditures on maintenance of machines. In order to achieve optimum levels of

above said factors, the policy adopted in the industry should be rational, perfect and

easy to implement. So, these days‘ manufacturers are trying to implement some new

methods like Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) models like Analytical

Hierarchy Process (AHP), piecewise-affine (PWA), a Fuzzy Based (FB) model, Neural

Networks etc along with TQM-TPM drives for effective production process. Many

researchers like McKone et al. (2001) investigated the relationship between Total

57

Productive Maintenance (TPM) and manufacturing performance (MP) through

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). They observed that TPM has a positive and

significant relationship with low cost, high levels of quality, and strong delivery

performance. In particular, there is a significant and positive indirect relationship

between TPM and MP through Just-In-Time (JIT) practices. Cua et al. (2001)

investigated the practices of the three programs TPM, TQM and JIT simultaneously.

They observed that there is evidence supporting the compatibility of the practices in

these programs and that manufacturing performance is associated with the level of

implementation of both socially- and technically-oriented practices of the three

programs. Kumar and Vrat (2004) developed a fuzzy goal programming approach to

deal with the effect of information uncertainty in the objectives of vendor selection

process, and showed how the quota allocation of vendors is varied with uncertainty.

Whereas, Yang et al. (2008) has proposed an integrated multi-criteria supplier selection

process integrated with fuzzy MCDM techniques using independent and interdependent

relationships between them and used it in the actual selection process.

Although there are several approaches and models suggested for TQM

implementation (Dale, 1999; Fuentes-Fuents et al., 2004; Prajogo and Sohal, 2006), but

management still faces the challenge of environment uncertainty, intensive competition

and conflicting selection decisions in the issue of imperative TQM implementation.

Therefore, to provide a framework in the selection of competitive advantages under

uncertainty, Tseng and Lin (2008) studied the TQM implementation in an

organizational system and their study showed that the application of fuzzy AHP has

been proven to be efficient in handling the decision criteria and fuzzy data involved in

the selection of alternatives.

Earlier, Saaty (1980) stated that current business scenario calls for an effective

methodology for competitive advantage and so for tackling real situations, AHP is a

most widely used approach. To facilitate TQM criteria selection process, some other

authors such as Chang (1996) and Lee et al. (2003) also introduce a fuzzy AHP

approach using triangular fuzzy numbers to represent the comparison judgements of

DMs. The fuzzy set theory resembles human reasoning in its use of approximate

information and uncertainty to generate decisions.

Some authors also described the selection of a maintenance strategy by using the

AHP. Application of AHP has been applied in numerous fields, among which a

58

previous work for maintenance strategy formulation (Labib et al., 1997), intelligent

decision analysis (Labib et al., 1997), the selection of simulation software (Davis and

Williams, 1994) and numerous other applications compiled by the work of Zahedi

(1986). Bertolini and Bevilacqua (2006) have provided a combination of goal

programming and AHP. Other works modelled the organisational decisions associated

with maintenance using AHP (Bertolini et al., 2004; Haj Shirmohammadi and Wedley,

2004).

2.15 Relationship of TQM and TPM with business performance

The concept of manufacturing performance/excellence is a topic under much

discussion. It is considered as a path to being the best manufacturer or having best-in-

class performance. It has the implications of being the best in the world in terms of

manufacturing capabilities. Essentially, manufacturing excellence is both a vision in

terms of the best practices that a company needs to adopt, whether it is business

ambience or outside requirements, and a process in terms of measurable performance

results of a company‘s process and its impact on market and customer satisfaction.

Manufacturing excellence in the simplest terms is a common way of referring to the

goal of achieving superior manufacturing capabilities.

In the research done so far, there has been an attempt to outline the content of

business manufacturing excellence: the tendency has been to focus on specific

improvement techniques, such as JIT, Material Requirements Planning (MRP), TQM

and TPM. Basically, it tries to incorporate the advantages of the most commonly used

philosophies or strategies like TQM and TPM.

The TQM approach primarily promotes improvement measures oriented towards

products and services, with a striking concern for their quality characteristics. However,

it is definitely not restrained only to this, but includes many other properties that

contribute to enhancing the firm‘s competitiveness. On the other hand, though the TPM

approach primarily advocates concepts and tools oriented to equipment, driven by the

aim of raising their overall effectiveness for production, it is also devoted to the

development of further engineering and manufacturing capabilities. Despite the fact that

neither approach possesses a clear-cut single focus that could be elected as a bite-sized

goal, the Phase Model is still helpful in explaining how increasingly complex market

59

requirements are calling for the complementary exploitation of the strengths featured by

TQM and TPM to nurture different organisational skills, rather than the deployment of a

one-pattern approach based on a single performance improvement paradigm. It is

evident that neither of them alone can nurture the development of the extended set of

qualifications that well-balanced firms should possess nowadays.

According to Hall (1987), the concepts of total quality and people involvement

constitute the substance of manufacturing excellence. He believed that these concepts

represent a fundamentally different way of operating a company and are not techniques

that can be grafted onto a current organisation. He stressed the importance of continuous

improvement and concluded by stating that ‗one interesting aspect of manufacturing

excellence is that if such a thing is attainable at all, it will be by those who realise that

no such conditions exists‘.

Market environment is characterised by an increase in technological

advancements and rapid economic changes. This transition to global competition forces

companies to improve their competitiveness by enhancing their manufacturing

performance. Hence, manufacturing companies have to pay attention to the reliability of

their production processes as well as to their quality management. To improve their

production processes, various quality programmes are implemented (Ahuja and

Khamba, 2008a). Two major improvement programmes in the field of production and

operations management are TPM and TQM (Chan et al., 2005).

Since the origins of TPM are based on TQM, the latter supports the

implementation of TPM. However, due to the fact that TQM and TPM can be

characterised as holistic improvement programmes, it is necessary to concentrate on

their respective core practices to differentiate clearly between them. On the one hand,

TQM and TPM consist of fundamental practices that are unique to each programme

(TQM - or TPM-specific techniques). On the other hand, TQM and TPM include HR-

oriented practices, which are considered as common to both programmes. HR-oriented

practices provide the supportive basis to implement the individual techniques and

practices of TQM and TPM (Hoogervorst et al., 2005).

The deployment of a heterogeneous approach by dual promotion of TQM and

TPM is inherently more powerful. However, firms are strongly advised not to undergo a

60

simultaneous introduction of TQM-based and TPM-based approaches. Senju (1988,

1989) argues that starting with both, in a two-front strategy, is troublesome, for this

would implicate an extreme overburden. Moreover, he asserts that the lack of

concentration on each one could cause instability over this drive, owing to swinging

short-sighted changes in priorities, leading to a loose implementation of both, which is

not effective.

A large number of studies are done on relationship between TQM practices and

business performance (Ismail and Ebrahimpour, 2002). These include development of

research frameworks to study the effects of TQM on business performance (Saraph et

al., 1989; Anderson et al, 1994; Flynn et al., 1994; Ahire et al., 1996). Various recent

researches across the globe have also focused on identification of factors, which are

critical to the success of TQM (Anderson and Sohal, 1999; Corbett and Rastrick, 2000;

Prabhu and Robson, 2000) in a country specific scenario. For example, Anderson and

Sohal (1999) carried out an empirical study to identify factors critical to the success of

TQM in Australian manufacturing industry. The study revealed the importance of

factors like leadership, strong customer focus, quality systems and availability of

information.

The main objective of TPM is to achieve a reliable MS (Ahuja and Khamba,

2008b). This is accomplished by maximising the OEE so that plant and equipment

productivity is increased (Ljungberg, 1998; Ahuja and Khamba, 2008a). In addition to

this, the main objective of TQM is to generate improved product quality to improve firm

performance. Several studies on TQM and TPM claim positive relationship between

those improvement programmes and performance (Hendricks and Singhal, 1997;

Wilson and Collier, 2000; Yamashima, 2000; Seth and Tripathi, 2005). The

relationships between either of the two improvement programmes and plant

performance have been discussed extensively in literature (Brah and Chong, 2004; Seth

and Tripathi, 2005; Cua et al., 2006; Lazim et al., 2008). However, only a few of the

existing studies have dealt with the effect of a simultaneous implementation of TQM

and TPM in an empirical way.

A study by the Strategic Planning Institute of Cambridge, also established the

relationship between quality, profitability and market share (Ross, 1995). It revealed

that quality drives like TQM and TPM leads to market share and profitability. Mohanty

61

and Lakhe (2000) also identified increased market and profitability as the major tangible

benefits along with reduction in cost, improvement in quality and productivity and

reduced employee grievances. Soin (1993) provided a model to explain the linkage

between quality, profitability and market share. According to him, TQM improves

business performance both internally and externally. Internally, improvement in quality

results in higher productivity, which enables the organisation to lower prices, if it

wishes to compete on prices. Externally, higher quality improves customer satisfaction,

increases customer loyalty, and this result in increased market share and higher profits.

TQM and TPM show many similarities. Together, the specific practices of each

respective concept are directed towards an improved plant performance in terms of

quality, cost flexibility, and time. Therefore, many researchers call for a better

understanding of a simultaneous implementation of specific TQM and TPM practices

(Imai, 1998; Cua et al., 2001; McKone et al., 2001). The implementation of TPM and

TQM is highly interrelated (Flynn et al., 1995; Sriparavastu and Gupta, 1997; Cua et al.,

2006). Since it can be stated that TPM has emerged from TQM, as mentioned in the

literature review above, we suppose that there is also a supportive effect from TQM

specific practices on TPM. Furthermore, TQM and TPM are strongly supported by

human resource-oriented practices. The fact that employees are trained in multiple skills

in addition to their function-specific skills helps to improve the implementation of both

improvement programmes, e.g., by cross-functional employee integration and a solid

employee suggestion system.

2.16 Concluding Remarks

Quality management, by means of TQM, is considered to foster organisational

performance characterised by competitiveness and long-term profitability. However, the

benefits of quality management cannot be achieved without the sustained performance

of equipment maintenance, and thus, maintenance management has also become

important. This has led to the development of maintenance methodologies such as TPM.

TQM is clearly a suitable approach in which the quality of the products or services is the

major concern. On the other hand, TPM is historically equipment-focused, in which

effective implementation offers a continuous improvement methodology to increase

overall manufacturing productivity. The TPM methodology provides enterprises with

62

the tools required to explore, increase, document, and proliferate organisational

learning.

Approaches such as TQM, TPM, and lean manufacturing outline the desired end

state of getting excellence in business performance side by side with the demand for

self-thinking in the organisation. All the approaches can be useful if handled carefully.

TQM and TPM implementation implies organisational change. It is imperative that

management and employees are committed to implementation. Management must

address intangible factors such as motivation, engagement and acceptance, to nurture a

willingness to change. The core values of TQM, and also to some extent of TPM, focus

on achieving commitment and other intangible factors such as involvement and

engagement. However, implementation often fails due to lack of commitment. Although

the core focus of TQM is on quality and that of TPM is on equipment or physical assets,

in today‘s manufacturing environment of increased automation and equipment-reliant

processes, equipment is the major determinant of quality performance. Therefore, an

organisation aiming to implement TQM and TPM must clearly consider their context

when performing these activities within the organisation.