12

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The literature survey reported in this chapter was begun by

searching the literature to locate any model that would link QFD and TPM.

This search resulted in the identification of a model called maintenance

quality function deployment (MQFD). This model has been contributed in

Pramod et al (2010, 2008, 2007a and 2006a,b,c) and Pramod and Devadasan

(2011). While carrying out this literature survey, it was discernable that, one

of the challenges of implementing MQFD is to fit itself in varied

organizational cultures. In order to meet this challenge, the practicality of

MQFD has to be studied with respect to the concerned organizational culture.

During this process, numerous decision alternatives have to be considered.

This will be a tedious task. In order to ease this task, the AHP needs to be

applied. It was interesting to note that, in order to fulfill this need, Pramod

et al (2007a) has demonstrated the method of utilizing AHP technique while

implementing MQFD model.

As the research reported in this paper revealed that the application

of AHP in MQFD projects is practically feasible, during the end of this

literature survey, it was decided to design AMQFD model by incorporating all

the relevant knowledge made available by the researchers in literature arena

on TPM, QFD and AHP approaches. These knowledge were gathered by

surveying the status reports of these approaches and their integration. The

13

details of deriving this knowledge through the conduct of literature survey are

narrated in the following parts of this chapter.

2.2 TPM – A STATUS REPORT

A portion of the papers dealing with TPM have reported its origin,

principles, tools and techniques. The knowledge derived by reviewing these

papers is briefly presented in the following four subsections.

2.2.1 Origin and Principles of TPM Concept

Frequently, authors reporting researches on TPM cite a book

authored by Nakajima as a fundamental guide (Tsarouhas 2007; Ahuja and

Khamba 2008a,b,c,d,e,g; Al-Mishari and Suliman 2008; Ahren and Parida

2009a,b; Kodali et al 2009; Ahuja 2011a,b; Sugumaran et al 2011; Konecny

and Thun 2012). In this book, Seichii Nakajima has claimed that TPM was

evolved by him in the year 1971. However, Cooke (2000) has mentioned that

TPM was evolved by Japanese Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM).

Interestingly, Ireland and Dale (2001) have mentioned that, TPM emerged in

Tokai Rubber Industries as a seven step program. The common inference is

that TPM emerged in Japan during 1970s, and it was adopted intensively by

the organizations from 1980s (Yamashina 1995; Muthu et al 2000).

Presumably due to the lack of clarify about the origin of TPM,

Prickett (1999) mentioned that TPM was “perhaps most appropriately”

developed by Nakajima. According to the statement available in Nakajima

(1993), TPM principles were evolved by blending preventive maintenance

(PM), reliability engineering and maintenance prevention (MP) principles. In

a nutshell, TPM emphasizes the prevention of maintenance failures through

the participation of all departments and personnel in an organization. Hence

TPM is often defined as “the maintenance through the total participation”

14

(Blanchard 1997; Sharma et al 2006 and 2005; Ahuja and Khamba 2008a,e;

Ahuja 2011a,b; Sugumaran et al 2011 and 2013).

On the whole, TPM is erected on the following foundational

elements (Nakajima 1993; Sharma et al 2006; Pramod et al 2006b; Tsarouhas

2007; Ahuja and Khamba 2008c,d,e; Ahuja 2011a,b):

Maximum equipment effectiveness.

Creation of system for implementing PM.

Implementation through the participation of all departments.

Implementation through the participation of all employees

belonging to both managerial and non-managerial levels.

Implementation through autonomous small group activities.

Elimination of six big losses namely equipment failure and

breakdown losses, setup and adjustment losses, reduced speed

losses, idling and minor stoppage losses, defect and rework

losses, and start-up losses.

The above principles enunciated in Nakajima (1993) have been

elaborated by many authors to mean that TPM is a participation based PM

approach whose primary objective is to achieve zero breakdowns and zero

accidents (Cooke 2000; Ireland and Dale 2001; Kwon and Lee 2004; Sharma

et al 2006; Ahuja and Khamba 2008a,b,e; Ahuja and Kumar 2009; Ahuja

2011a,b).

Furthermore, researchers have imbibed the eight-pillar approach

suggested by JIPM which is shown in Figure 2.1 (Ireland and Dale 2001;

Ahuja and Khamba 2007 and 2008e; Amin et al 2013). These researchers

have appraised that after developing foundational elements, the eight pillars

15

namely autonomous maintenance, focused maintenance, planned

maintenance, quality maintenance, education and training, safety, health and

environment, office TPM and development management are to be built for

implementing TPM (Ahuja 2011a,b). The activities that are required to be

carried out to build these eight pillars of TPM are enumerated in Table 2.1

(Ahmed et al 2005; Patra et al 2005; Ahuja and Khamba 2007 and

2008c,d,e,g; Ahuja and Kumar 2009).

Figure 2.1 Eight pillars approach for TPM implementation in manufacturing organizations (suggested by JIPM)

5S / housekeeping

Aut

onom

ousm

aint

enan

ce

Focu

sed

mai

nten

ance

Plan

ned

mai

nten

ance

Qua

lity

mai

nten

ance

Educ

atio

nan

dtra

inin

g

Off

ice

TPM

Safe

ty,h

ealth

and

envi

ronm

ent

Dev

elop

men

tMan

agem

ent

TPM

To attain the world class level through the continuous maintenance quality improvement

16

These researchers have also pointed out TPM is not just a technique

but a philosophy or paradigm (Ahuja and Khamba 2007 and 2008b,c,d,e;

Ahuja and Kumar 2009) which encompasses numerous world class

manufacturing strategies like TQM, JIT and lean manufacturing (LM) (Ahuja

and Khamba 2008a,c,d; Sharma and Kodali 2008; Anand and Kodali 2009;

Eid 2009). Altogether TPM is regarded as the promising approach that would

enhance the competitive strength of the organizations (Ahmed et al 2004;

Patra et al 2005; Garg and Deshmukh 2006; Pinjala et al 2006; Ahuja and

Khamba 2008a,b,d,e; Ahuja and Kumar 2009; Ahuja 2011a,b; Sugumaran

et al 2011 and 2013).

Table 2.1 Activities leading to the building of the 8-pillars of TPM

Serial number

TPM pillars Activities to be carried out to build the TPM pillar

1 Autonomous maintenance

Cultivating the operator ownership culture

Training the employees about abnormalities in equipment and the routine maintenance on daily, weekly and quarterly durations

Initial cleaning up of machine to prevent the deterioration

Maintaining high machine reliability, low operating costs and high quality of production parts

2 Focusedmaintenance

Aiming for eliminating waste

Systematic identification and elimination of losses

Achieving system efficiency and improvement

Achieving OEE improvement on production systems

17

Table 2.1 (Continued)

Serial number

TPM pillars Activities to be carried out to build the TPM pillar

3 Planned maintenance

Aiming for achieving zero break down and zero equipment failure

Achieving reliability improvement

Reducing maintenance cost

Ensuring the availability of spares

Achieving MTBF and MTTR improvement

4 Quality maintenance

Eliminating of quality problems

Achieving zero defects

5 Education and training

Aiming for complete participation of employees

Achieving productivity improvement

Enhancing the multi-skills of employees by imparting training

6 Safety, health and environment

Aiming for achieve zero accident

Aiming for zero health hazard

Installing safe work environment

7 Office TPM Applying 5S technique in office and working areas

Identifying and eliminating the losses

Achieving productivity improvement

Achieving efficiency improvement in administrative functions

8 Development management

Executing maintenance improvement initiatives

Inculcating the knowledge from existing systems to new systems

Notes: OEE- Overall Equipment Effectiveness; MTBF- Mean Time Between Failure; MTTR- Mean Time To Repair;

18

2.2.2 Tools and Techniques of TPM Concept

In order to build the foundation and pillars of TPM, several tools

and techniques are applied. Some of them are also applied to attain other

world class manufacturing strategies like TQM, JIT and LM. Many of them

are uniquely applied in TPM projects (Ahuja and Khamba 2008f; Ahuja

2011a,b). A list of tools and techniques applied while implementing TPM is

enumerated in Ahuja and Khamba (2008d,e). These tools and techniques

include check list (Levering 2008), statistical process control charts (Cox

2009; Vassilakis and Besseris 2009), Pareto analysis (Barba and Mognaschi

2009; Cervone, 2009), quality assurance matrix, why-why analysis (Wee and

Wu 2009), simulation (Naseer et al 2009; Doloi 2010), benchmarking (Anand

and Kodali 2008; Ahren and Parida 2009b; Joo et al 2009; Meybodi 2009),

self - directed work team (Sun et al 2009).

Out of these tools and techniques, statistical process control charts

(Vassilakis and Besseris 2009), 5S (Barraza et al 2009; Khanna 2009; Bayo -

Moriones et al 2010; Singh and Khanduja 2010), brainstorming (Ahmed and

Hassan 2003; Besterfield et al 2003; Wee and Wu 2009), cause-effect

diagrams (Ahuja and Khamba 2008a; Kumar et al 2009a,b; Vassilakis and

Besseris 2009) and Poka-yoke system (Kumar et al 2009a) find applications

in TQM projects, while setup time reduction (Singh and Khanduja 2010) and

5M approach (Wee and Wu 2009) are relatively unique to TPM applications.

2.2.3 Applications of TPM Concept

As mentioned earlier, TPM was intensively applied in organizations

throughout the world from 1980s. Thereafter, a few authors have reported the

application of TPM in several types of industries. The list of those industries

and the papers reporting them are presented in Table 2.2. The listing of as

many as 11 industries is an indicative of the wide application of TPM.

19

Table 2.2 Application of TPM concept in manufacturing companies

Serial Number

Industries in which TPM is

applied Papers in which the research is reported

1 Manufacturing Ahmed et al 2004 and 2005; Sharma et al 2005; Pramod et al 2006a, 2007b and 2008; Ahuja and Khamba 2007 and 2008a,b,c,d; Al-Mishari and Suliman 2008; Gebauer et al 2008; Mathew 2008; Ahuja and Kumar 2009; Boulet et al 2009; Kumar et al 2009a; Sugumaran et al 2013.

2 Railway system Ahren and Parida 2009a,b. 3 Business Oke 2005; Pinjala et al 2006; Arca and Prado

2008; Kumar et al 2009b. 4 Management Bevilacqua and Braglia 2000; Bamber et al

2004; Bertolini and Bevilacqua 2006; Carnero and Delgado 2008; Moayed and Shell 2009.

5 Aircraft Cheung et al 2005; Karim et al 2009b; Vassilakis and Besseris 2009.

6 Logistics Choy et al 2007. 7 Political Eti et al 2006. 8 Textile Ilangkumaran and Kumanan 2009. 9 Food Tsarouhas 2007.

10 Information technology

Sherwin 2000; Kans 2009; Karim et al 2009a; Karim and Soderholm 2009.

11 Automobile service station

Pramod et al 2006c and 2007a.

2.2.4 Benefits of TPM Concept

A few authors have reported the reaping of several benefits after

implementing TPM (Sharma et al 2006; Ahuja and Khamba 2007; Ahuja and

Kumar 2009; Sugumaran et al 2011). Those benefits are shown in Table 2.3.

An overview of the contents of this Table would indicate that, as claimed

earlier, the implementation of TPM would facilitate an organization to acquire

competitive strength (Mckone et al 2001; Pramod et al 2006a,c; Pinjala et al

20

2006; Sharma et al 2006; Ahuja and Khamba 2007 and 2008a,b,c,d,e;

Tsarouhas 2007; Ahuja and Kumar 2009).

Table 2.3 Benefits of implementing TPM in manufacturing companies

Productivity improvement Overall equipment maintenance improvement Delivery compliance improvement Operating profits enhancement Plant yield improvement Realization of zero major accidents Improvement of employee contributions Increase of employee suggestions High availability of equipment Increase in production efficiency

Better quality of products Increase in operator involvement Reduction in inventory Reduction of customer complaints Reduction in failures and equipment breakdowns Reduction in minor accidents Reduction of variable, energy and maintenance costs Reduction in customer rejections Creation of safe workplace Change in top level management view High morale

2.3 QFD - A STATUS REPORT

A portion of the papers dealing with QFD technique have reported

its origin and approaches, strategies and techniques, benefits and applications.

The knowledge derived by surveying these papers is briefly presented in the

following three subsections.

2.3.1 Origin and Approaches of QFD

QFD is the most widely applied technique employed for converting

customer voices into technical languages (Carnevalli and Miguel 2008). QFD

technique facilitates the translation of the customer requirements or

expectations into appropriate technical descriptions in each stage of product

21

development and production (Chan and Wu 2002). It is reported that, QFD

originated in Japan’s Kobe Shipyard in the form of quality tables in the year

1972. In QFD, there are four phases of product development processes

namely product planning (begins with customer requirements, expectations

and needs), part development, process planning and production planning

(ends with prototype and production launch) (Besterfield et al 2003). These

four phases of QFD approaches are depicted in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 The four phases of QFD approach

In QFD, a primary planning tool called ‘house of quality’ (HoQ) is

used. The framework of HoQ is shown in Figure 2.3. After its origination in

Kobe shipyard, Japan, both practicing and research communities applied QFD

in numerous fields. This resulted in the reporting of QFD applications in

literature in the form of research papers. Some authors have even traced the

emanation of these papers in literature. For example, Chan and Wu (2002)

have reviewed 650 papers on QFD and summarized their contributions. These

authors also identified the functional fields of QFD. These fields are shown in

Figure 2.4.

Product planning specifications

Part / sub-system planning specifications

Process planning specifications

Quality control specifications

22

Figure 2.3 House of quality

Figure 2.4 Functional fields of QFD

Functional fields of QFD

Quality management

Customer needs analysis

Planning

Team work, timing and costing

Decision making Engineering

Management

Design

Product development

23

2.3.2 Strategy and Techniques Integrated with QFD

After nourishing the power of QFD, research communities began to explore the ways of integrating QFD with other manufacturing management strategies and techniques. Some of those researches reported in literature are listed in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 QFD integration with manufacturing management strategy and techniques

Serial Number

Manufacturing management strategy and techniques with

which QFD is integrated

Papers in which the research is reported

1 Kano model, AHP and planning matrix

Bayraktaroglu and Ozgen, 2008.

2 TQM and QFD Bosch and Enriquez, 2005.3 AHP and QFD Hanumaiah et al 2006; Chen et al 2007; Ho

et al 2009; Bhattacharya et al 2010; Mehrjerdi, 2010a,b; Ho et al 2011 and 2012; Tidwell and Sutterfield 2012.

4 Benchmarking and QFD Kumar et al 2006; Gonzalez et al 2008.5 SERVQUAL and Kano

model into QFDBaki et al 2009.

6 Concurrent engineering and QFD

Ho and Lin 2009.

7 New product development and QFD

Sun et al 2009.

8 Customers’ relation and QFD

Shahin and Nikneshan 2008.

9 TPM and QFD Pramod et al 2006a,b,c, 2007a, 2008 and 2010; Ahuja and Khamba 2008e; Cesarotti and Spada 2009; Vassilakis and Besseris 2009; Pramod and Devadasan 2011.

2.3.3 Benefits and Applications of QFD

Few authors have reported the benefits after implementing QFD technique in different organizations. These benefits are listed in Table 2.5 (Chan and Wu 2002; Akao and Mazur 2003; Besterfield et al 2003; Carnevalli and Miguel 2008). The applications of QFD approach are listed in Table 2.6 (Carnevalli and Miguel 2008; Gremyr and Raharjo 2013; Miguel 2013).

24

Table 2.5 Benefits of QFD

Improved quality of products Increased customer satisfaction Improved company performance Lower cost in design and manufacturing Reduction in design changes and problems

Improved product reliability Setting design quality Improved communication between departments Expanding the market share Enhance teamwork Shorten the time to market

Table 2.6 Applications of QFD

Development of strategy Development of software Development of services Applications for product development Applications for planning

2.4 AHP –A STATUS REPORT

AHP technique was developed by T.L.Saaty (Sugumaran et al 2011;

Subramanian and Ramanathan 2012; Lin 2013; Lo et al 2013; Singh 2013), a

Chair of University Professor at University of Pittsburgh, USA. AHP is useful

in prioritization of the actions in situations where in multiple decision criteria

are involved (Sugumaran et al 2011 and 2013; Lo et al 2013; Routroy and

Pradhan 2013; Singh 2013). AHP begins by stating the problem which is

followed by the identification of decision criteria and sub-criteria. Experts and

competent personnel are interviewed using questionnaires to assess the impact

of these criteria and sub-criteria on the problem under consideration. During

these interviews, the qualitative and quantitative terms are assessed using a

scale called Saaty’s scale, which has a range from 1 to 9 (Pramod et al 2007a;

25

Lo et al 2013; Singh 2013). After that, the pair-wise comparisons of these

values are carried out using ‘eigen value computational procedure’ (Chiang

and Li 2010; Sugumaran et al 2011 and 2013). These computed values are

used to rank and prioritize the actions required for solving the problem under

consideration.

Readers interested in studying the features of AHP quickly and

comprehensively are advised to read Saaty (1994 and 2008). After the

introduction of AHP by Saaty, a large number of researchers and practitioners

applied it to solve many problems through well prioritized decisions. The

number of papers reporting the AHP applications is enormous. In order to

attain the decisions (referred to as alternative) the four levels of hierarchy of

AHP is used. These four levels are shown in Figure 2.5 (Sapuan et al 2011).

In Figure 2.6, the process flow chart of the AHP steps is depicted (Sapuan

et al 2011).

Figure 2.5 Four levels of hierarchy of AHP

Goal

Criteria - 1 Criteria - 2

SC - 1 SC - 2 SC - 3

Criteria

A - 3A - 2A - 1

Sub -criteria

Alternative

Goal

26

Figure 2.6 The process flow chart for the AHP

A comprehensive review of these papers has been reported in

Vaidya and Kumar (2006) and Ho (2008). These two papers were reviewed

during the literature survey being reported here to gather knowledge on the

AHP applications. The application arena reported in Vaidya and Kumar

(2006) and Ho (2008) are pictorially depicted in Figure 2.7. As shown, many

papers have described the stages of AHP. This is indicated in this Figure as the

central core using a square box. After describing AHP, many authors have

reported the application of AHP along with many techniques such as QFD,

Consistency ratio is less than 10%

Performing the sensitivity analysis

Checking the consistency analysis

Analyzing and selecting the best alternative through strategy

No

Yes

Identification of the decision making problem to be solved

Development of discretization hierarchy

Performing judgment of pairwise comparison matrix

Calculation of normalized values

Development of priority ranking

27

TQM, benchmarking, etc. A closer view of this figure would indicate that

QFD has been applied along with as many as ten techniques, models and

approaches. All these applications have been carried out to perform eight

main operational activities namely planning, prioritization, allocation,

decision making, selection, evaluation, forecasting, and cost benefit analysis.

Notes: LP – Linear Programming; GA – Genetic Algorithm; ANP – Analytic Network Process ; ANN - Artificial Neural Networks; GP – Goal Programming

Figure 2.7 Applications of AHP

28

AHP has been applied vary widely in all kinds of problem areas and

fields. Particularly it is worthwhile to note that AHP has been applied along

with QFD (Hanumaiah et al 2006; Vaidya and Kumar 2006; Ho 2008; Ho et al

2009; Bhattacharya et al 2010; Mehrjerdi 2010a,b; Ho et al 2011 and 2012;

Tidwell and Sutterfield 2012). Likewise a few authors have reported the

application of AHP in maintenance field (Cheung et al 2005; Oke and

Ayomoh 2005; Bertolini and Bevilacqua 2006; Wang et al 2007; Shyjith et al

2008; Kodali et al 2009). To cap it all, only Pramod et al (2007a) have

mentioned the principles of integrating AHP, QFD and TPM.

2.5 INTEGRATION OF TPM WITH AHP - A STATUS REPORT

During the literature survey being presented here, four papers

dealing with the integration of TPM with AHP were identified. These papers

are enumerated in Table 2.7. The information extracted from these papers is

briefed in this subsection.

Kodali et al (2009) have employed a method called ‘AHCSM’

(stands for analytic hierarchy constant sum method) for comparing three

different maintenance systems (referred to as alternatives) namely TPM,

traditional maintenance system (TMS) and world-class maintenance systems

(WMS). During this exercise, the criteria namely ‘productivity’, ‘quality’,

‘cost’, ‘delivery’, ‘safety and environment’, ‘morale’, ‘flexibility’, ‘reliability’

and ‘inventory’ were selected to examine these three maintenance systems.

Subsequently, AHP was applied to carry out systematic analysis using

AHCSM. At the end of their research, these authors inferred that, WMS is

superior over TMS and TPM. This inference was drawn by referring to the

values of desirability index. The values of desirability indices pertaining to

TMS, TPM and WMS are 0.25821, 0.33103 and 0.41077 respectively. Based

on higher value of desirability index, the WMS was recognized as the superior

approach than TMS and TPM.

29

Table 2.7 Papers dealing with the integration of TPM with AHP

Serial number

Paper Aspects of integrating TPM

concept with AHP Application arena

1 Kodali et al (2009)

AHP based analytic hierarchy constant sum method (AHCSM) used with TPM concept for justifying the adoption of WCM strategy.

Maintenance organizations

2 Mishra et al (2009)

AHP based analytic hierarchy binary model (AHBM) used with TPM concept for justifying the adoption of WCM strategy.

Maintenance organizations

3 Kodali and Chandra(2001)

MCDM model using AHP for justifying the adoption of TPM.

Manufacturing organizations

4 Labib et al (1998)

TPM concept and AHP Automotive company

Similar research has been reported in Mishra et al (2009). In this

paper, a model called ‘AHBM’ (stands for analytic hierarchy binary model)

was employed to compare three maintenance systems (referred to as

alternatives) namely TMS, TPM and WMS. While carrying out this exercise,

the criteria namely ‘leadership and change management’, ‘ownership

maintenance’, ‘improvement of process’, ‘human resource development’,

‘eliminative maintenance’, ‘process quality maintenance’, ‘safety, health and

environmental systems’, ‘computer integrated maintenance management

systems’, ‘maintenance systems’, ‘support systems improvement’ and

‘performance measures’ were selected to examine the maintenance systems.

Subsequently, AHP was employed to carry out the systematic

analysis using AHBM. At the end of this exercise, it was inferred that WMS is

superior over TMS and TPM. These inferences were drawn by referring to the

30

values of decision indices for the desirability calculated against each

alternative. Such calculated values of decision indices for the desirability of

TMS, TPM and WMS are 0.111225, 0.294398 and 0.594347 respectively.

Based on higher value of decision index for the desirability, it was inferred

that, WMS was superior over TMS and TPM. In the research reported in the

above two papers, AHP was not directly integrated with TPM. However the

integration of AHP with TPM is emphasized in both these papers.

Kodali and Chandra (2001) employed AHP to examine the

superiority of TPM. During this exercise, the attributes namely ‘productivity’,

‘quality’, ‘cost’, ‘delivery’, ‘safety’, ‘morale’, ‘work environment’ and

‘competitive advantages’ were considered to examine the superiority of TMS

and TPM. Subsequently, AHP was employed to determine an index called

‘decision index’. The values of decision indices of TPM and TMS were found

to be 0.8123 and 0.1877 respectively. Based on higher value of decision

index, the TPM was recognized as the superior approach over TMS. Although

AHP is not directly integrated with TPM in this research, the emphasizing of

this paper favours the integration of AHP with TPM.

Labib et al (1998) have developed a multiple criteria decision

making maintenance model. The implementation of this model is required to

progress through three stages. In the first stage, these criteria involving

maintenance decisions need to be identified. In the second stage, these criteria

need to be prioritized by carrying out multiple criteria evaluation method.

This method is carried out using AHP. In the third stage, the machines are

ranked according to the criticality. These authors have presented a case

involving the application of this model in environment in which TPM is

implemented. During this exercise, these authors considered four criteria

namely frequency of calls, downtime, spare parts cost, and bottleneck

machines. These authors have integrated their model with the computerized

31

maintenance management system (CMMS) that was already being used in the

automobile company. These authors have mentioned that their model gives

rise to the integration of TPM with AHP.

2.6 INTEGRATION OF QFD WITH AHP - A STATUS REPORT

During the literature survey being reported here, six papers dealing

with the integration of QFD with AHP were identified. These papers are

enumerated in Table 2.8. The knowledge extracted from these papers is

briefed here.

Table 2.8 Papers dealing with the integration of QFD with AHP

Serial number

Paper Aspects of integrating QFD technique with

AHP Application arena

1 Tidwell and Sutterfield (2012)

QFD technique and AHP Supplier selection

2 Ho et al (2012) QFD technique, fuzzy set theory and AHP

Logistics, finance, manufacturing and marketing

3 Ho et al (2011) QFD technique and AHP Automobile companies

4 Bhattacharya et al (2010)

QFD technique and AHP Supplier selection

5 Mehrjerdi (2010a,b)

QFD technique and AHP Manufacturing organizations

Tidwell and Sutterfield (2012) illustrated the method of applying

QFD in supplier selection. These authors have mentioned that, QFD is devoid

of any mechanism to check group selection consistently. This drawback can

be overcome, in case AHP is integrated with QFD technique. These authors

have suggested that, in future, researches involving the integration of QFD

technique with AHP may be conducted to make best decisions out of the

32

available several alternatives. Ho et al (2012) have illustrated application of

this approach to select the best performing logistics provider. These authors

have claimed that this approach gives out a practically acceptable solution to

the management of the company and integrates the views of personnel

belonging to all the functions associated with third-party logistics service

providers.

Similar research is reported in Ho et al (2011). In this paper, a

research carried out to select the best supplier by making use of a combined

approach involving QFD and AHP is reported. These authors have listed as

many as 19 supplier selection integrated approaches that have been reported

in literature arena. One among them is, the combined approach involving

QFD and AHP. These authors have listed the application of QFD and AHP

combined approach in five areas as reported by several authors. However,

according to these authors, such QFD and AHP combined approach has not

been reported for the purpose of selecting the best supplier in a company. In

order to fill this research and practice gap, these authors have proposed QFD

and AHP combined approach exclusively for selecting suppliers. In this

approach, 13 steps are included. The application of these 13 steps is clearly

illustrated by describing a case study conducted in UK based multinational

automobile manufacturing company. The method of choosing the best

supplier from the perspective of different criteria is illustrated. While

describing the advantage of this approach, these authors mentioned that this

approach considers multiple criteria like lowest cost, highest quality and

fastest delivery in selecting the suppliers.

Similar research has also been reported in Bhattacharya et al

(2010). In this paper also, a method of choosing the best supplier by making

use of QFD and AHP has been reported. Mehrjerdi (2010a,b) have listed the

extension made to the QFD by incorporating several tools and techniques.

33

One among the techniques is AHP. This author has listed the papers which

have reported the combined QFD and AHP approaches. This author has

mentioned that QFD and AHP combined approaches has found application in

higher education, manufacturing, military, sports and logistics.

2.7 INTEGRATION OF TPM WITH QFD - A STATUS REPORT

TPM is applied using many tools and techniques used in TQM

field. This implies that TPM needs to be supported by TQM ideals. The basic

ideal of TQM is customer voice adoption. This ideal is achieved by QFD.

During this literature survey being presented here, ten papers dealing with the

integration of TPM with QFD were identified. These papers are enumerated

in Table 2.9. The information and knowledge extracted from these papers is

briefed here.

Cesarotti and Spada (2009) have brought out a model named by

them as systemic approach. This approach consists of two pillars. The first

pillar enunciates a favourable industrial culture that facilitates improvement in

the business process of the organization. The second pillar is required to be

built using a framework that would integrate powerful tools. As the process of

building the second pillar, these authors have enunciated the integration of

failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), QFD technique and TPM

concept. These authors examined the feasibility of applying this integrated

approach in the hotel industry. These authors anticipate the improvement in

the business performance through the implementation of this integrated

approach.

34

Table 2.9 Papers dealing with the integration of TPM with QFD

Serial number

Paper Aspects of integrating

TPM concept with QFD technique

Application arena

1 Cesarotti and Spada (2009)

QFD technique and TPM concept are integrated with FMEA

Hotel service sector

2 Vassilakis and Besseris (2009)

QFD technique and TPM concept are integrated

Aerospace company

3 Ahuja and Khamba (2008e)

QFD technique and TPM concept are integrated

Manufacturing organization

4 Pramod et al (2006a,b,c, 2007a, 2008 and 2010); Pramod and Devadasan (2011)

QFD technique and TPM concept are integrated to evolve MQFD model

Manufacturing organizations, EEIs and automobile companies

Vassilakis and Besseris (2009) have mentioned that, Pramod et al

(2006c) proposed the integration of QFD technique with TPM concepts.

Ahuja and Khamba (2008e) reported a literature survey on theory and practice

of TPM. In this paper, the various aspects of TPM including its

implementation steps, benefits and bottlenecks. Before concluding this paper,

these authors suggested the integration of TPM with other continuous quality

improvement techniques and approaches like JIT, TQM, QFD, TEI and CPI.

In this regard, these authors claim that, the integration of TPM and QFD

model enable the manufacturing organization to enhance their overall

manufacturing competencies.

No tangible model to integrate the TPM with QFD has been

contributed in the above papers. This shortcoming is overcome in the research

reported in Pramod et al (2006a,b,c, 2007a, 2008 and 2010) and Pramod and

Devadasan (2011). In these papers, a model called MQFD incorporated with

35

QFD technique and TPM principles has been presented. These authors

conducted case studies on the integration of TPM with QFD in manufacturing

organizations, automobile companies and engineering educational scenario.

Hence, this model was further reviewed during the literature survey being

reported here.

2.7.1 Features of MQFD

The MQFD model, contributed in Pramod et al (2006a,b,c, 2007a,

2008 and 2010) and Pramod and Devadasan (2011), tactfully links TPM’s

eight pillars with QFD’s HoQ. MQFD begins by developing HoQ matrix.

The inputs of HoQ matrix are the customer voices concerning maintenance

parameters. Its outputs are the target actions to be taken against the customer

voices. The top management of the company makes strategic decisions to

execute these target actions. The target activities are now segregated and

channelized through the eight pillars of TPM. After this stage, the target

activities are subjected to measurement using the maintenance quality

parameters such as overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), mean time

between failures (MTBF), mean time to repair (MTTR), performance quality

(PQ), availability and mean down time (MDT).

Finally the outputs are checked for their effectiveness in achieving

the corporate objectives namely improved maintenance quality, upgraded core

competence, increased profit and enhanced goodwill. These processes are

continued by incorporating tactical suggestions and improvements. The target

activities to be implemented are also decided based upon the strategic focus of

the organization. Finally, these target activities are permanently employed and

honed to achieve the corporate objectives. The readers are advised to study

Pramod et al (2006a,b,c, 2007a, 2008 and 2010) for getting better clarity of

the working of MQFD. The primary emphasis of MQFD is the spelling out of

actions for continuously improving the maintenance quality.

36

Though this emphasis appears to be prudent, in real time situation,

the top management would not like to implement all these actions

immediately. Rather the top management would like to implement these

actions in stages by prioritizing them. However, random prioritization of these

actions will retard the achievement of the final targets of MQFD

implementation. In this background, during the literature survey being

reported here, the wide application of the AHP technique was viewed with

interest. AHP facilitates the prioritization of activities in the order of

achieving the objectives of an organization (Routroy and Pradhan 2013;

Vaidya and Hudnurkar 2013).

2.8 SUMMARY OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED BY

SURVEYING THE LITERATURE

The literature survey reported in this chapter was useful

information which were used while pursuing the doctoral work being reported

in this thesis. These information are summarized below:

(i) The maintenance engineering field adopted breakdown

maintenance as its first strategy. After that many strategies

like PM, condition based maintenance (CBM) and reliability

centered maintenance (RCM) have appeared in maintenance

engineering field. During the last two decades, the

maintenance engineering field has settled in adopting TPM

(Sharma et al 2006; Ahuja and Khamba 2007 and 2008e)

(ii) TPM enables an organization to achieve corporate

performance through the achievement of continuous

maintenance quality improvement. The corporate

performance is represented in the form of zero breakdowns,

zero accidents, improved profit, improved core proficiency,

37

enhanced goodwill, improved productivity, market

leadership, improvement in the life of plant and equipment,

reliability improvement and continuous maintenance quality

improvement.

(iii) TPM has been applied in as many as 11 fields.

(iv) There is no specific function in which TPM is applied.

Rather all the functions are to be involved in achieving

continuous maintenance quality improvement through the

implementation of TPM.

(v) As many as 14 tools and techniques (Ahuja and Khamba

2008d,e) have been used while implementing TPM

programs. Out of them, six are TQM tools and techniques

(Besterfield et al 2003). Remaining tools and techniques are

applied only in TPM programmes.

(vi) AHP enables accurate decision making in which multi-

criteria decisions are involved. The opinion of experts and

competent personnel are gathered by interviewing those

using questionnaires. The responses are quantified and

analyzed using ‘eigen value computational approach’

(Pramod et al 2007a; Chiang and Li 2010; Sugumaran et al

2011 and 2013).

(vii) AHP has been applied in as many as 15 fields.

(viii) AHP has been applied in eight functions namely planning,

prioritization, allocation, decision making, selection,

evaluation, forecasting and cost benefit analysis.

38

(ix) Pramod et al (2007a) have presented a method of integrating

TPM, QFD and AHP in practical environment.

2.9 CONCLUSION

Of late, researchers and practitioners have been integrating several

models and techniques to avail synergy out of them (Chen et al 2007;

Andronikidis et al 2009; Thomas et al 2009; Pepper and Spedding 2010). A

typical example is the evolution of TPM concept which combines the TQM

and maintenance engineering principles. This kind of models has been found

to offer better solutions. In this context, the details of conducting a literature

survey have been narrated. This literature survey was carried out with the

purpose of identifying researches that have made use of synergy of integrating

TPM, QFD and AHP principles.

It was found out that, some researches on combining the

application of QFD in TPM has been reported in literature arena. Likewise,

few papers reporting the researches on the application of AHP in TPM

implementation have appeared in literature arena (Labib 1998 and 1999;

Labib et al 1998; Hajshirmohammadi and Wedley 2004; Ahuja and Khamba

2008b). It was also found that AHP and QFD have found enormous

applications (Hanumaiah et al 2006; Partovi 2006 and 2007; Vaidya and

Kumar 2006; Ho et al 2009). Though AHP has found applications in TPM and

QFD projects, except Pramod et al (2007a), no other paper has reported the

researches leading to the integration of TPM, QFD and AHP. At the last stage

of the literature survey, the method presented Pramod et al (2007a) was

critically studied. It was found that a model was necessary to apply TPM,

QFD and AHP in an integrated manner to achieve corporate performance. In

order to fulfill this necessity, a model under the name AMQFD was designed

during the doctoral work being reported here. The conceptual features of

AMQFD model are presented in the next chapter.