According to the PAS-551 standard on asset management from the British Standards Institute, asset management is defined as: “systematic and coordinated activities and practices through which an organization optimally and sustainably manages its assets and asset systems, their associated performance, risks and expenditures over their life cycles for the purpose of achieving its organizational strategic plan.”

Embodied in this definition, of course, are assets of various types (physical, financial, human, information and intangible), which all contribute to the organizational strategic plan. Best practices dictate that an Asset Management Plan, comprising of three main sub-plans (Operations, Maintenance and Risk) or its equivalent, be developed and implemented for physical assets.  

The main focus of this article will be on physical assets, but you will find that some of the risks to asset management identified herein will be shared with the other asset type categories. The author suggests that there are at least five such risks that primarily contribute to an organization’s failure to optimally manage their assets: 1) not knowing what they have; 2) over- or under-maintenance; 3) improper operation; 4) improper risk management; and 5) suboptimized asset management systems.

1) Not knowing what you have
In common manufacturing industry parlance, this is known as the FDH (fat, dumb and happy) approach to asset management. While it might seem intuitively obvious, many organizations either don’t appreciate the need to know with a high level of confidence, the assets that they have or they choose not to take the time to do so. Either way, this has to be the first major step taken towards ensuring that one’s asset management program is effective. Not knowing what one has is tantamount to playing a game of Russian roulette. If an organization is truly serious about their program they will need to take the following steps to establish the proper foundation to build upon:

• Develop a list of all the organization’s assets and verify this list with what is in the field.
• Establish and configure a physical asset hierarchy. ISO 142242 from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) can be used as reference.
• Develop the criticality evaluation criteria for the business and apply to the verified asset base. This is where the individual assets are linked to how they affect the organizational strategic plan.
• Develop and implement a management of change or configuration management process that will ensure that any future changes to the asset are properly evaluated and recorded.

2) Over- or under-maintenance
During the operational phase of the asset life cycle, there can be a problem of over-maintaining as well as under-maintaining. The key issue regarding over-maintaining typically involves two issues that will make the asset management system ineffective. First, there is generally a significant cost associated with the execution of non-value-added maintenance. In this regard, cost can be loosely used as a guideline since there are well-documented industry benchmarks for maintenance spending that can be followed. Second, the typical organization that can be accused of over-maintaining its assets will most likely be performing intrusive maintenance tasks more frequently. From what we know of how typical failures manifest, this means that there will be additional exposure risk for the business to infant mortality failures and further incurred costs.

The issue of under-maintenance and how it prevents effective asset management is even more clear-cut. Maintenance is often viewed as a business expense open to cutting like any other in order to maximize profits. With these pressures, maintenance departments are constantly struggling with how to balance cost with the performance requirements for the assets such as reliability and uptime. Cost-cutting often wins, however, in the form of delayed proactive maintenance as well as maintenance technicians lacking the necessary skills and tools to perform precise work.   

With respect to both the issues of over- and under-maintenance, the author’s recommended approach is, starting with the most critical assets, determine the optimum maintenance requirements of the assets through one of the more rigorous methodologies such as Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM). Then, load level the resources (financial and human) required to implement the maintenance plan. Finally, ensure that a training plan is in place to close the skills gap of the persons required for the tasks.

3) Improper operation
Many organizations suffer first of all from a lack of understanding of the inherent design capabilities of their assets and, secondly, how best to operate within their ranges to optimize the asset life cycle. For some assets, either operating below or above the design range adversely affects the life of the asset. A perfect example of this is the typical centrifugal process pump, as illustrated in the pump curve in Figure 1. Operating on either side of the best efficiency point on the curve is accompanied by a myriad of life-shortening issues. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we do when we choose to speed things up, slow things down or continuously operate assets that were designed to be intermittently run. The best guidance that the author can give with respect to this issue is to: 1) find out how your assets should be run; 2) understand the effects of operating outside of design ranges; and 3) if you can’t operate within the ranges, understand the risks or mitigate the risk (example: resize the impellor to match the operating point).

Figure 1. Pump and Reliability Curve

4) Improper risk management
The basic tenet of best practices asset management dictates that a plan is implemented that not only manages the operation and maintenance of an organization’s assets, but also manages the risks associated with the ownership and use of the assets. Risk, in its most elementary form, is a function of consequences and the likelihood of such an event taking place. Risk management takes place on two major fronts: 1) assessment or identification; and 2) management and controls. Each area, when not done well, is a continued contributor to ineffective asset management. One doesn’t have to stretch the imagination too far to understand this concept. Perform a Google search on the “Bhopal Disaster”³, widely regarded as the world’s worst industrial catastrophe, for an example of unassessed and unmanaged risk. In order to fully manage risk, the author recommends that the following four step model, by ISO, be used:

• Establish context
• Risk assessment: Risk identification, Risk analysis, Risk evaluation
• Risk treatment
• Monitor and review

5) Sub-optimized asset management systems
In recent years, enterprise asset management (EAM) systems have become more popularly used within organizations to manage assets. Most systems have inherent deficiencies that prevent holistic management of all the required areas of the plan. As a result, additional secondary systems are often necessary. That being said, of the features that are available from most EAMs, many organizations are guilty of not fully utilizing them. This generally stems from shortcuts taken during the EAM implementation. The way to fully address this issue is to either do it right the first time or pay more to do it later. The author’s personal preference is the former. This takes planning, resources and treating the implementation as a major change program and not just a project. This is easier said than done, and is often best when supported by the services of change management professionals and asset infrastructure specialists. Apart from the tools (EAM, secondary systems) and technical solutions, we often fail to recognize that our human resources and business processes are important parts of an organization’s asset management system. A lack of due diligence in these areas will also negatively impact the bottom line and should be planned for as well.

Asset management is an integrated approach to optimizing the life cycle of your assets, beginning at conceptual design, through to usage, decommissioning and disposal. By acknowledging and paying attention to these five primary risks to effective asset management, you can put in place plans to mitigate the effects these might have on their program. Note also, that true excellence in asset management performance does not lie only in avoiding the pitfalls, but in turning each and every one of these opportunities to fail into an opportunity to excel.

This article first appeared in the Life Cycle Engineering newsletter RxToday.

References

1. PAS 55:2008, Specification for the Optimized Management of Physical Assets, British Standards Institution (BSI), 2008.
2. ISO 14224, Petroleum and natural gas industries — Collection and exchange of reliability and maintenance data for equipment, International Organization for Standardization (2005).
3. Bhopal Disaster. Trade Environmental Database. TED case studies no. 233, American University, Washington (1 Nov 1997). Link

About the author:
Carl March has a wealth of experience in the areas of maintenance, reliability engineering, systems modeling and design. Carl holds an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering and a graduate degree in automotive systems engineering. As a reliability subject matter expert at Life Cycle Engineering, his passion and focus is in the transfer of knowledge in RCM, TPM, root cause analysis and Reliability Excellence to clients worldwide seeking to achieve manufacturing distinction. Carl has attained a significant level of professional recognition as a licensed Professional Engineer (PE), a Certified Reliability Engineer (CRE) by the American Society for Quality, and as a Certified Maintenance and Reliability Professional (CMRP) by the Society of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals. You can reach Carl at cmarch@LCE.com. For more information on Life Cycle Engineering, visit www.LCE.com.

This week, Brady Corporation announced the debut of its new eLearning training program, a series of Web-based training courses on workplace safety and productivity. Brady launched the eLearning platform with two comprehensive training modules: a lockout/tagout compliance program and a visual workplace program.

At $29.95 per course, the lockout/tagout and visual workplace eLearning programs offers employers an affordable and convenient solution to meet the growing need for employee training – without the cost of travel and days off of work.

Interactive training courses aid learning with real-life scenarios, quizzes and reporting
Brady’s eLearning courses offer a number of interactive features to facilitate learning and comprehension, including real-life application situations and on-the-spot quizzes. With graphics, flash animation and hundreds of photographs from actual facilities, the courses provide tangible examples that participants can relate to in their existing job responsibilities.

Designed as a self-directed learning experience, the eLearning courses are available 24 hours a day via the internet. Participants can save their course progress and come back to complete the training at their own pace.

For managers, the courses also feature a number of convenient reporting options for monitoring the training progress of their employees. Managers can assign courses, send reminder emails and generate progress reports all within the eLearning platform.

Lockout training module provides instruction for a safe and compliant lockout program
As a leader in lockout/tagout compliance devices and services, Brady launched the lockout training program to round out its complete offering of lockout/tagout solutions. The Lockout/Tagout eLearning module is a two-part training program for all employees involved in lockout/tagout activities in a facility.

The first course is specifically designed for authorized and affected workers, which are the employees who will actually be performing the servicing and maintenance activities on de-energized equipment. It provides a comprehensive review of how to safely perform lockout activities in line with OSHA requirements.

The second course is intended for corporate safety leaders, or the employees responsible for managing the lockout program. It reviews key learnings from the first course, and trains participants on the proper requirements for developing, implementing and sustaining a safe and compliant lockout/tagout program.

Visual Workplace modules train employees to use visuals to sustain lean improvements
The Visual Workplace eLearning program consists of three individual training modules, each designed for lean managers and their employees. With a module on visual workplace, 5-S workplace organization and Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), the program provides a comprehensive review of visual workplace techniques and best practices, and teaches employees how to sustain lean improvements by incorporating visuals into their existing 5-S and TPM activities.

In the first module, “Introduction to Visual Workplace,” employees learn the fundamental concepts of a visually-instructive workplace and learn how to identify, create and maintain visuals throughout a facility based on visual management tools and best practices.

The second module, “5S Visuals – Improving Workplace Organization,” provides an overview of 5-S workplace organization and how visuals are used in 5-S to maintain order and optimize efficiency.

The final module is entitled “Visual Controls for TPM – Enhancing Equipment Reliability and Maintenance Efficiency.” This course reviews the methods and goals of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), and demonstrates how to use visuals in TPM to simplify maintenance and detect abnormalities. 

eLearning course descriptions available on www.BradyID.com

For more information on Brady’s new Lockout/Tagout and Visual Workplace eLearning training modules, or to view the complete course descriptions, visit www.BradyID.com/elearning.

About Brady Corporation
Brady Corporation is an international manufacturer and marketer of complete solutions that identify and protect premises, products and people. Its products include high-performance labels and signs, safety devices, printing systems and software, and precision die-cut materials. Founded in 1914, the company has more than 500,000 customers in electronics, telecommunications, manufacturing, electrical, construction, education, medical and a variety of other industries. Brady is headquartered in Milwaukee and employs more than 7,000 people at operations in the Americas, Europe and Asia/Pacific. Brady’s fiscal 2010 sales were approximately $1.2 billion. 

Are you overlooking your plant's maintenance issues? Are you covering them up or Band-Aiding them? This video slide show features photos from one plant that shows the myriad of maintenance issues that remain to be addressed.

This is a commonly posed question in industry and is sometimes inversely worded as, “Are OEM recommendations enough?” It quite simply boils down to an evaluation of two underlying issues. First, what do you get from original equipment manufacturer (OEM) recommendations? Second, what do you consider to be enough or meeting the need? The knee-jerk response by many might be to challenge the validity of OEM recommendations for any and everything, but that leaves us to wonder how effective the alternatives might be and under what circumstances it makes sense to employ them.

What OEM Recommendations Provide

It is fairly commonplace to receive assets with an accompanying set of operating and maintenance manuals. The operating manual generally covers guidelines around the design-intended operating parameters (dos) and the limits or restrictions to operation (don’ts). The maintenance manual, on the other hand, often provides the user with the schedules for necessary maintenance, critical spare parts usage and basic maintenance work instructions.

How OEM Recommendations Are Determined

The details of the dos and don’ts provided by the OEM vary widely, but it is not too difficult to imagine how they were developed. First of all, OEMs consider the engineering characteristics that will dictate what the asset is physically capable of. The next step involves the analysis of previous history from in-house and field tests by customers. Even with new designs, OEMs are able to draw upon a plethora of data that is often available for similar systems or components as reference, and any good OEM will continue to improve the recommendations as new data is made available.

In other situations, based on the nature of the system, OEMs go further to employ very strict methodologies, such as reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) for the determination of recommendations. Depending on the mix of strategies employed by the OEM, the user and maintainer may have a valid concern about their credibility. Often it is next to impossible to get a true understanding of what their approach might have been.

Another prevailing concern is whether the OEM’s recommendations are more self-serving than being of any real benefit to its customers. Let us consider the case of the age-old recommended oil change intervals for automobiles of every 3,000 miles. It is the contention of most automotive experts that the oil change interval on most vehicles can be extended safely up to 10,000 miles when using synthetic oil and as much as 6,000 miles with regular mineral-based oil. Now, who benefits from too frequent oil changes? The dealers performing the maintenance? The quick lube shops? The oil companies? While the example might be simplistic, similar concerns are shared by many asset owners in industry regarding the frequency of maintenance being recommended. This, of course, benefits the markets for spare parts and for specialized maintenance services, but is this what is needed?

What Your Assets Need

The publicly available specification PAS 55-1:2008 from the British Standards Institute (BSI) offers some guidance. This standard recommends that every organization needs a systematic and coordinated set of activities and practices that sustainably manages its assets’ performance, risks and expenditures over their life cycles for the purpose of achieving the organizational strategic plan.

This suggests that the first consideration is to determine what the strategic objectives are for the business and then to determine how each asset supports them. Obviously, the degree to which the objectives depend on a given asset will determine how valuable its asset-management strategy will be to the organization. The process by which this is determined is known as criticality analysis.

The asset’s criticality ranking should be one of the primary considerations used to determine how its control strategy is developed. Of all the approaches that are commonly used today, such as reliability-centered maintenance, total productive maintenance and all the standard risk-management plan development techniques, the blind acceptance and use of OEM recommendations must be one of the least effective. All of the previously mentioned techniques require due diligence to be done by reviewing OEM recommendations, but total reliance on them is only reserved for the least critical of assets.

So when are OEM recommendations not enough? OEM recommendations are not enough for assets that fall in the medium to high criticality range. An old saying of biblical origin states that, “to whom much is given, much is expected.” In direct reference to assets, we could modify these sage words of advice to say that, “to the asset from which much is expected, much should be given.” Quite frankly, the guidance that most OEM recommendations provide can rarely be considered as “much.”

For additional information about asset care and boosting the performance of your critical assets, visit www.LCE.com.

Several years ago, a group called the Maintenance Excellence Roundtable met on the West Coast to present what it had accomplished during the previous year and where it was headed for the coming year. We were privileged to have Robert Williamson in attendance, and he told us a story that stuck with me, as this was the time of “empowerment of the workforce.” It is called the “White Glove Story.” I have added a bit to it to give you a mental picture of some of the action. When Williamson tells it in person, he does likewise, although the story comes from the real-life experience of one of the characters.

A manufacturing plant had several lines manufacturing the same products. Each had an operator, and several were supported by the same maintenance technician. The operator’s responsibilities were to operate the machine, and the maintenance tech was to perform maintenance, even some of what we would call adjustments.

The operator on Line 3 was Mike, and the tech was Pat. Mike ran the machines, and when Pat was not doing equipment maintenance, he worked on several bench projects. Pat was frustrated that he was not able to perform minor maintenance work, which he knew he could accomplish, and Mike was always behind on his bench projects. Mike put in overtime and was tired of missing his son’s afterschool activities.

Quality of the final product required all operators to wear white gloves. When the techs touched the product, they also donned gloves. One day, Mike was watching Pat perform a corrective task and asked Pat if he could train him to perform those tasks, which they both agreed he was capable of doing. One thing led to another, and line production went up. Pat worked less overtime and did not have to climb the 25 steps to Mike’s work area more than once or twice a day.

At a staff meeting, the plant manager, Mark, queried the operations superintendent, Don, about the increased production on Line 3. He was also disturbed about some smudges found upon final inspection. Don did not have an answer. Mark pounded on the table, “We run this plant, and I expect you to explain major fluctuations in performance.” They agreed that the industrial engineer (IE) would study the situation and report back.

The IE quietly observed the Line 3 operator from a distance and discovered the Pat and Mike show. His report to the plant staff meeting was that “We have collusion between the operator and the tech, where the operator is performing maintenance and the tech is spending more time on bench projects.”

“Damn the maintenance make-work bench projects. Maintenance fixes machines and operators operate,” exclaimed Mark as he pounded the table. “Does everyone understand that? The inmates do not run the asylum? Don’t fix it.”

Don put things back in order. Production dropped to below the other lines, Pat took unscheduled absences (fishing season started), and Mark got behind on his bench projects and began refusing overtime. However, Pat and Mike were not to be deterred. They decided that Mike should have two sets of gloves and switch when he did “maintenance work,” then back to the other pair for “operations work.” Production went up, but they controlled it to appear that they were just motivated to do superior work.

All went well until the stockroom sent finance a requisition for gloves. The buyer commented to the director about the unusual usage. He brought it up at a staff meeting. Mark stated, “We have more important things to discuss than gloves; the bigger question is possible theft. Get our new quality lady, Ispy, to track this down.”

Ispy discovered that gloves were placed in an open bin near the break room and employees swapped soiled gloves for clean ones, if needed, when they took breaks. The next time the soiled bin was emptied, she went through it glove by glove to determine if the swaps were appropriate. All were equally soiled or damaged.

She then walked the floor and visited each line, questioning the operators. Mike knew the party line. Ispy then went to security and used the in-plant cameras to watch the lines. “They lied to me!” she exclaimed at the next staff meeting. Don became enraged as Mark became uncontrollable. Their solution was to begin an employee rotation, with Pat assigned to shop work.

Total plant production went down as word of what Mike and Pat had been up to became known when Don held a town meeting.

Soon after, things had settled down, albeit production was still low. Mark attended a conference on total productive maintenance and total quality manufacturing. He invited the prime speaker to attend his plant’s off-site meeting in the Poconos. That was a revelation weekend for Mark, as his staff discussed the possibility of the redesign of the plant’s own work processes and how to change the line operations. The IE and Ispy quietly brought up the Pat and Mike episode. Mark jumped on it and said, “That’s it. We’re going to institute that across all the lines. Don, set up a town meeting and I’ll tell them what we are going to do.”

I’ll end the story here. You can mull the conundrum facing the employees and the problem the management team is building for itself.

This article is really about the dignity of the individual. How do we tap the creativity, passion, sense of accomplishment and social requirements of people to provide them a sense of self-motivation, acceptance, growth, recognition and maybe self-actualization? Quality, world-class leadership focuses on the “fifth discipline” of self-mastery and systems thinking.

How could this whole story have been handled to access the discretionary effort of all employees and become truly an industry leader?

Middle- and top-level executives can now obtain certification in total productive maintenance (TPM) through a program sponsored by Productivity Inc. and the Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University.

The TPM manager certification program is designed for executives at any company interested in increasing process capability, improving equipment reliability and establishing a culture of teamwork, which are all critical components of an effective continuous improvement initiative.   

“TPM enables a company to move from being a reactive to a proactive maintenance organization focused on preventive, scheduled and corrective maintenance activities,” says Maureen Fahey, managing partner of Productivity Inc. “Moving from fix and repair to equipment management provides the flexibility necessary to substantially reduce costs and generate additional income by increasing overall capacity.”

Over four non-consecutive weeks, participants experience a series of learning modules. In between the weeks of training, they are required to apply the methods they have learned in class to operations at their own companies. Participants who successfully complete the four-week training and mentoring program, pass the certification exam and demonstrate successful implementation of the techniques in their own facility are then certified by Productivity Inc. and the Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University. 

“More and more organizations are realizing that corporate profitability is built on asset reliability,” said Ellis New, senior management consultant for Productivity Inc. “As a result, it has become apparent that the lean manager can’t do it alone. There is a need for a counterpart to manage the improvement initiative from the equipment process reliability side. The TPM manager fills this need. Having both a certified lean manager and certified TPM manager will provide organizations with the synergy they need to really succeed.”

Productivity Inc. and the Fisher College of Business also offer a lean manager certification program and a lean tool awareness certificate. The next TPM manager certification session starts Aug. 6, 2012, on the Ohio State University campus. 

For more information, visit www.productivityinc.com.

Several years ago I visited a state-of-the-art power plant that had a net generation of 260 megawatts, which is enough electricity to serve 75,000 homes. I was there for an executive meeting of the Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals, which included presentations about this unique plant and its workforce.

It was a green plant in more ways than one. The technology was designed with “green” in mind, and it was a new plant with all of the potential that comes with that. The result was a world-class example of total productive maintenance (TPM).

The opportunity with the most risk was the marriage of maintenance and operations. This was to be a very intense front-end workload with major operating cost impacts. For example, there were 55 craftsmen comprising five 11-person supervisor-less teams on rotating shifts, with the rotated-out team devoted to planning and project type work.

The unique part was that all were experienced craftsmen in performing the required maintenance activities as well as plant operations. There were two managers: a plant manager and a maintenance manager. Every three weeks, corresponding to the shift rotation, they traded places.

During the process of planning for the plant and its operation, management decided to do away with supervisors, planners, maintenance engineers and schedulers. Could not the maintenance/operators perform these activities? Well, yes, if it was laid out and appropriate training was provided to all concerned. It was decided that all of the functions of a world-class operation would be present and active, however resident within each team.

There were approximately 20 people interviewed for each position. Most unsuccessful applicants were uncertain about self-directed teams. After the first employees were selected, they and following hires would make up the interviewing teams. The position requirements included:

• The employee was a journeyman in a technical craft
• Had a willingness to work in a team-empowered environment
• Be cross-trained to be multi-skilled
• Be trained on and support world-class maintenance principles
• Be trained and willing to operate the plant equipment
• Be willing to do whatever the shift required in concert with the other 10 team members.

Work-order planning and within-shift scheduling would come from within the team. Training coincided with the plant construction, taking advantage of the contractors and equipment vendors participating in installations, while simultaneously developing preventive, predictive and corrective maintenance procedures.

Extensive training also covered the soft skills required for self-managed work teams and working in this open environment. All administrative, planning and estimating, preventive and overhaul, operating, performance evaluation, stockroom, and maintenance engineering procedures were developed by the team members with guidance from the two managers, the plant technical staff and company employees from other plants. The 55 craftsmen owned the operation of this generating facility.

A computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) was specified by the teams, and world-class estimating, planning and scheduling were loaded into the system. Preventive maintenance (PM) tasks were assigned to the four shifts, and the rotating teams did not change this basic schedule unless it was agreed across teams. Each team developed expertise within itself for estimating and planning work orders along with analysis of maintenance and operational performance.

Every three weeks, a member from each team would be chosen within the team as a shift representative through whom the other shifts communicated, and the managers would convey pertinent information. After a year, the two managers thought that maybe the representatives should be paid extra for this three-week term. To a man, the 55 craftsmen decided that management should take that additional money and divide it up to increase the hourly rate for all. "This is a team effort."

Over the two years the plant had been in operation, team members all attended additional outside training, some began college programs, and all participated in continuous evaluations of the preventive and predictive maintenance activities. The result was that the plant continued to see continuous improvement, proving that implementation of TPM is possible even without supervisors.

You are only as strong as your weakest link. While trite, this phrase embodies what manufacturing plants and processing facilities have worked to overcome for years. How do you plan for and prevent broken equipment in your lean machine? Another trite phrase has the answer: The weakest link in a chain is the strongest because it can break it.

Preventive and routine maintenance models help alleviate downtime and boost overall production. The most popular method is total productive maintenance (TPM). TPM brings maintenance into focus as a vital part of business. Maintenance downtime is included in manufacturing scheduling, and in many cases, becomes an integral part of the manufacturing process.

TPM assigns the responsibility for preventive and routine maintenance to the same people who operate that individual equipment. This puts the people most familiar with the machine in charge of its care.

TPM is built on the 5-S foundation, which creates effective workplace organization and standardized procedures to improve safety, quality, productivity and employee attitudes.

In the most basic sense, the three goals of TPM are zero unplanned failures (no small stops or slow running), zero product defects and zero accidents.

The 8 Pillars of TPM

TPM aims to increase productivity, efficiency and safety by empowering operators and team leaders to play a proactive role in day-to-day lubrication, inspection and cleaning. Management is tasked with creating a "buy-in culture" to support continuous activities through eight pillars of activity. The eight pillars of TPM are:

1.      Autonomous Maintenance — Operators monitor the condition of their own equipment and work areas.

2.      Process and Machine Improvement — Team leaders collect information from operators and work areas, and then prioritize preventive maintenance and improvements.

3.      Preventive Maintenance — Operators and team leaders share preventive maintenance tasks and schedules.

4.      Early Management of New Equipment — Team leaders anticipate and plan for parts of equipment life cycles and report to mangers based on maintenance reports.

5.      Process Quality Management — Shared responsibility for operation and maintenance encourages quality improvement ideas from all areas of work.

6.      Administrative Work — Managers prioritize data from the previous pillars and share outcomes with team leaders and work areas.

7.      Education and Training — Continuous improvement includes operator and work area education and training, which improve morale, retention and efficiency.

8.      Safety and Sustained Success — Facility-wide safety is prioritized, which positively impacts sustained success of the TPM program.

As maintenance is traditionally considered an inevitable and not-for-profit function, TPM is believed to be the most difficult lean manufacturing tool to implement. Shifting cultural beliefs within a facility may take years, but the payoff for both the finished product and employee morale is worth the investment.