oee awareness
DESCRIPTION
EXPLAINS OEE IN TPM CONTEXT. CAN USED FOR TRAININGTRANSCRIPT
PowerPoint PresentationOEE
Overall equipment Effectiveness
TPM was developed in Japan in the 1970's. Manufactures such as Toyota were trying to create 'just in time' supply chains. With virtually no buffer stocks to fall back on, production personnel were under great pressure to supply a constant stream of high quality goods. Unexpected breakdowns would snap the supply chain.
From being 'inevitable', breakdowns suddenly
became 'unacceptable'.
How to smooth out the ups and downs of the production lines?
“Iron of TPM”
was the solution
Overall equipment Effectiveness
TPM started as an initiative that focuses on eliminating losses and creates a culture to sustain the gains
There are 16 major losses defined
They are of 3 types
Losses related to equipment efficiency
Losses related to human efficiency
Losses related to cost ( Optimum use of resources)
Learning while Implementing TPM
Operating Man-hours
Loading Man-hours
Working Hour
Operating Time
Production
Man-hour
4. Start-up loss
5. Minor stoppage
Scheduled downtime
16. Yield loss
15. Die, tool & jig loss
Efficiency of material, die, jig, tool and energy requirement per product unit ....
3 Major losses obstructing efficiency of material, Die, Jig & energy requirement per product unit
Start-up loss
Overload loss
Temperature loss
Idling & Minor
Running at less than design speed to meet quality specifications
Not knowing the capability of a machine or line.
Operator check off document
Cases accompanied by function stoppage or decline (normally or typically accompanied by production stoppage or output decline)
Cases requiring replacement of parts or repair in order to recover function
Cases requiring 5-10 minutes or more for repair
At any rate, failures must be reduced to zero. This can be attained at little cost, although some short-term investment may be necessary. To attain zero failures, it is necessary to correct the conventional misconception about BM (breakdown maintenance) that failures are unavoidable
Sporadic losses are bound to attract attention, and therefore countermeasures are readily adopted. Frequent chronic losses, however, may remain un-amended because various countermeasures are ineffective. Since these losses account for the largest weight, each plant takes countermeasures on a priority basis, but the current status seems to be that correction cannot be achieved as desired. To address failure losses, it is necessary to study measures to raise the reliability of equipment and its maintainability to reduce downtime.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Production thinks failures should be handled by maintenance.
Weak attitude toward failure analysis.
Phenomena are not observed in details.
Broken locations and places nearby are not examined fully.
Enough ‘Genbutsu’ is not collected and analyzed.
Causes are not pursued fully and only actions are taken.
Measures for preventing recurrence are not taken.
Failures are not analyzed at on-site.
Maintenance system and operation of it are weak.
Check criteria are not defined, eg., checking frequency, locations, method and criteria.
Maintenance calendar easily showing parts replacement and overhauling periods, oiling and oil
change, and other items and operation system for it are week.
Failure history system.
Measured values fluctuate greatly and re not reliable.
Measured values do not change for a long time and lose confidence in audit results.
Periodic measurement and trend control are not implemented.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Results
Causes
(2) Setup and adjustment losses
"Setup and adjustment losses" refers to time losses from the end of the production of a previous item through product-change adjustment to the point where the production of the new item is completely satisfactory. Setting up means a series of operations from the removal of jigs and fixtures following the end of production, clearing up and cleaning, through the preparation of jigs/tools and metal fixtures necessary for the next product, to their attachment, adjustment, trial processing, readjustment, measurement, production, and finally the ability to produce excellent products
Contd…..
Adjustment means the following:
Taking measures to implement optimum solutions/values for specific purposes, for instance, steps to restrict quality within a target value range or to prevent other problems.
Attaining certain aims through repeated trial and error.
The approach to be adopted should be to study the adjustment mechanism and seek time reduction. The ultimate goal of the approach is "minimisation.' The final objective of set-up & adjustment losses is to realise “one-shot machining in which quality production is possible ”.
To realize one-shot arrangements, it is essential to reduce adjustment to zero.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Why can’t we achieve One-step defect free change over ?
We assume that adjustments are simply inevitable in a high precision process
Our equipment and replaceable parts have poor precision so we make adjustments to compensate
The standards mounting points are not clearly defined with numerical values so people have to guess at the setting.
We don't know the proper machining conditions or if we do we aren’t applying that knowledge during set-up. (No standards procedures)
Learning while Implementing TPM
Understand the current process & condition
Clarify the problem areas in changeover adjustment & test runs
Check the precision of the equipment and replaceable parts
Improve your positioning methods
Take care of remaining adjustments
Carry out PM analysis ( systematic thinking using the principles & stds of the process)
Look again at stds values & check the items related to eqpt precision
Look again at the machining condition.
Look again at durability.
Create changeover Stds:
Overall equipment Effectiveness
(3) Cutting-blade losses
These are time losses due to regular cutting-blade exchanges and extraordinary replacement necessitated by blade damage and volume losses (defects and rework) that arise before and after blade replacement.
Cutting-blade losses are dropping due to material and shape studies yielding longer blade life, but they still pose a problem requiring further study.
In the case of transfer machines, cutting- blade losses may account for 10% to 12% of overall efficiency impedance, because the number of operators is few in relation to the number of the machines.
The reduction of cutting-blade losses requires study in both the fields of relevant technology (material changes, shape alteration, etc.) and software (vibration measurement and pursuit of optimum cutting conditions). The target is the maximisation of blade life
Learning while Implementing TPM
start-up after periodic repair,
start-up after holidays,
start-up after lunch breaks,
to the time when it is possible to produce excellent products of reliable quality, free from machine problems (minor stoppages, small problems, and blade breakdown) in a specified cycle time operation, as.well as volume losses (defects/ rework) that arise during that period.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Time-series data at the time of start-up
Examination of working oil/lubricating oil
Examination of related equipment portions
Adjustment of thermal displacement occurrence portions
Measurement of thermal displacement values
Countermeasures
The definition of these losses is as follows:
Losses that are accompanied by temporary functional stoppage
Losses allowing functional recovery through simple measures (removal of abnormal work pieces and resetting)
Losses that do not require parts exchange or repair
Losses that require from 3-5 seconds to less than 5 minutes for recovery.
Unlike failures, minor stoppage/idling losses represent the condition in which equipment stops or idles because of temporary problems; for example, a work piece clogs a chute, or a sensor is triggered by a quality defect, temporarily stopping the machine. In this case, if the work piece is removed and resetting is done, the machine will operate normally. Thus, this condition is different in character from equipment failure
Learning while Implementing TPM
Thus, this condition is different in character from equipment failure
Learning while Implementing TPM
The definition of these losses is as follows:
Losses that are accompanied by temporary functional stoppage
Losses allowing functional recovery through simple measures (removal of abnormal work pieces and resetting)
Losses that do not require parts exchange or repair
Losses that require from 3-5 seconds to less than 5 minutes for recovery.
Unlike failures, minor stoppage/idling losses represent the condition in which equipment stops or idles because of temporary problems; for example, a work piece clogs a chute, or a sensor is triggered by a quality defect, temporarily stopping the machine. In this case, if the work piece is removed and resetting is done, the machine will operate normally. Thus, this condition is different in character from equipment failure
Learning while Implementing TPM
Operating Man-hours
Loading Man-hours
Working Hour
Operating Time
Production
Man-hour
4. Start-up loss
5. Minor stoppage
Scheduled downtime
16. Yield loss
15. Die, tool & jig loss
Efficiency of material, die, jig, tool and energy requirement per product unit ....
3 Major losses obstructing efficiency of material, Die, Jig & energy requirement per product unit
Start-up loss
Overload loss
Temperature loss
Overall equipment effectiveness is a measure related to equipment efficiency.
Is the equipment available for production?
Is the performance of the machines as per standard performance expected?
Is the machine producing products of required quality?
To understand whether the equipment is really efficient we should ask 3 questions
Let us discuss one by one how availability, performance and quality affects the equipment efficiency
Learning while Implementing TPM
Machine is stopped due to a equipment failure
Machine is stopped to do set-up change from one component to other
Machine is stopped for changing the cutting tool or jig
Machine takes time to start at the shift start : Start up Loss
Machine is waiting for input material or man to run the machine : Management Loss
Availability
These are the five losses that will create “Down time” and reduce the availability of the machine
Learning while Implementing TPM
Availability
Total Loading time
A =
Loading time = machine runs for a shift of 8 hours ( excluding lunch time and tea time etc )
Down time = all five losses put together say 1 hour
A = = 0.875
Performance
Machine will not perform as per standard if
Machine is running at a slower speed than expected : Reduced speed loss
Machine is stopped frequently due to minor stoppages
Learning while Implementing TPM
Continuing with the same example :
in remaining 7 hours the machine should produce 360 components per hour .i.e. 360 x 7 =2520.
But it produces only at the rate of 240 units per hour i.e. 240 x 7 =1680
So performance rate = =0.66
Quality
It is not enough to produce components. They should be OK as per quality standards.
Out of 1680 components we produced
If only 1600 components are good
Time spent for producing 80 defective component is a loss too ( Defect loss)
So Quality rate = =0.95
= 0.87 x 0.66 x 0.95
= 0.55
Connected Losses
Availability rate
Equipment failure Set up and adjustment Tool and jig change loss Star up loss Management loss
P
Q
Overall equipment Effectiveness
The same concept can be applicable to entire cell with many machines, or a unit or entire plant.
Is it difficult to calculate OEE, or is it time consuming? Not at all.
If we look all all these equations for A, P and Q
Simple mathematics will tell that
OEE = Number of OK components produced
expected output as per standards
Calculation of A, P and Q will tell you what is going wrong and which loss we should focus.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Overall equipment Effectiveness
The machine is supposed to be healthy if OEE is more than 85%.
The ideal situation is
A = 90%
P = 95%
Q = 99%
Of course these are standards of good old days and you can raise the bar for better capacity utilisation
Once you achieve your expected OEE we can even challenge the standard and try to find out losses.
For example challenging lunch time, or challenging the non value added time in the total cycle time etc.
Sky is the limit.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Of how we loose time and reduce OEE
Total
shift
Time
Personal
Allowance
BREAKDOWNS
Mistake 1: What is standard out put?
The standard output prescribed by MSIE or the capacity declared by PED for the cell is taken for calculation of OEE. This is wrong as many times this figure is under the assumption of 90% utilisation. i.e. 10 % loss is already considered.
Correct way of calculating standard out put is
If the machine is controlling the cell
Find out the bottleneck machine
Find out its cycle time ( including loading unloading)
For a shift divide 438 minutes by this cycle time to get standard out put.
If the cell is man controlled
Check for the time from one loading to next loading of component and take it as cycle time
Make a table of output expected for number of people and use it appropriately.
The common Mistakes we do in calculating OEE
Learning while Implementing TPM
Overall equipment Effectiveness
Mistake 2: Can any of A, P, Q go more than 100%
Many times improvement is done to reduce cycle time and we get more output. Keeping the standard out put unchanged calculations are done and performance is shown more than 100%.
The right way is to revise standard output w.r.t. the reduced cycle time.
If any of the parameters ( A, P, Q ) is more than 100% we must question the calculations
The common Mistakes we do in calculating OEE
Mistake 3: Not considering rework components
Many times while calculating Q only rejection is considered and rework is not considered as it can be still used. This is not correct as the time spent for producing that rework component is a loss as we can not use it.
So while calculation Q both rework and rejection is required to be considered.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Sequential Progress.
First if the losses are alarming we should focus on them rather than utilization. If the machine is running only 1 shift consider 438 min as available time and calculate OEE. Set target of 85% OEE
If we reach 85% OEE and there are no line stoppers now from the cell check how we can utilise the cell for remaining two shifts. Best way is to convert the line to multi-model by compromising on set up change loss. This will drop OEE first but then we can work on improving it to take back OEE to 85%.
If the cell is running all three shifts and OEE is 85%, we need to look at the demand. It it is increasing and likely to create line stopper still, we can raise the bar and focus at improving OEE to 90%.
On the other hand we can focus on improving capacity.
Learning while Implementing TPM
have been deployed to the TPM Pillars
Learning While Implementing TPM
Loss Stratification and Deployment – Dec ‘07
The TPM journey which started in 2003 –04, has yielded its results
I am very happy to summarise the significant Effects of TPM implementation at Mysore Plant
Loss cost output Sheet
Cost Loss Details - Unitwise
MBD00110B7E.xls
Learning while Implementing TPM
Loss cost output Sheet
Cost Loss Details - Unitwise
MBD00110B7E.xls
Learning while Implementing TPM
Plastic Line 1
Plastic Line 2
Projects
Our future plan is to increase production volume by eliminating line stopper and improving productivity
Chart1
JH Loss Stratification
MBD00110B7E.xls
Learning while Implementing TPM
Loss cost output Sheet
Cost Loss Details - Unitwise
MBD00110B7E.xls
S noLossesMachiningEngine assyVehicle assyPaintingFabrication MaintenanceMPGTotal
Overall equipment Effectiveness
TPM was developed in Japan in the 1970's. Manufactures such as Toyota were trying to create 'just in time' supply chains. With virtually no buffer stocks to fall back on, production personnel were under great pressure to supply a constant stream of high quality goods. Unexpected breakdowns would snap the supply chain.
From being 'inevitable', breakdowns suddenly
became 'unacceptable'.
How to smooth out the ups and downs of the production lines?
“Iron of TPM”
was the solution
Overall equipment Effectiveness
TPM started as an initiative that focuses on eliminating losses and creates a culture to sustain the gains
There are 16 major losses defined
They are of 3 types
Losses related to equipment efficiency
Losses related to human efficiency
Losses related to cost ( Optimum use of resources)
Learning while Implementing TPM
Operating Man-hours
Loading Man-hours
Working Hour
Operating Time
Production
Man-hour
4. Start-up loss
5. Minor stoppage
Scheduled downtime
16. Yield loss
15. Die, tool & jig loss
Efficiency of material, die, jig, tool and energy requirement per product unit ....
3 Major losses obstructing efficiency of material, Die, Jig & energy requirement per product unit
Start-up loss
Overload loss
Temperature loss
Idling & Minor
Running at less than design speed to meet quality specifications
Not knowing the capability of a machine or line.
Operator check off document
Cases accompanied by function stoppage or decline (normally or typically accompanied by production stoppage or output decline)
Cases requiring replacement of parts or repair in order to recover function
Cases requiring 5-10 minutes or more for repair
At any rate, failures must be reduced to zero. This can be attained at little cost, although some short-term investment may be necessary. To attain zero failures, it is necessary to correct the conventional misconception about BM (breakdown maintenance) that failures are unavoidable
Sporadic losses are bound to attract attention, and therefore countermeasures are readily adopted. Frequent chronic losses, however, may remain un-amended because various countermeasures are ineffective. Since these losses account for the largest weight, each plant takes countermeasures on a priority basis, but the current status seems to be that correction cannot be achieved as desired. To address failure losses, it is necessary to study measures to raise the reliability of equipment and its maintainability to reduce downtime.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Production thinks failures should be handled by maintenance.
Weak attitude toward failure analysis.
Phenomena are not observed in details.
Broken locations and places nearby are not examined fully.
Enough ‘Genbutsu’ is not collected and analyzed.
Causes are not pursued fully and only actions are taken.
Measures for preventing recurrence are not taken.
Failures are not analyzed at on-site.
Maintenance system and operation of it are weak.
Check criteria are not defined, eg., checking frequency, locations, method and criteria.
Maintenance calendar easily showing parts replacement and overhauling periods, oiling and oil
change, and other items and operation system for it are week.
Failure history system.
Measured values fluctuate greatly and re not reliable.
Measured values do not change for a long time and lose confidence in audit results.
Periodic measurement and trend control are not implemented.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Results
Causes
(2) Setup and adjustment losses
"Setup and adjustment losses" refers to time losses from the end of the production of a previous item through product-change adjustment to the point where the production of the new item is completely satisfactory. Setting up means a series of operations from the removal of jigs and fixtures following the end of production, clearing up and cleaning, through the preparation of jigs/tools and metal fixtures necessary for the next product, to their attachment, adjustment, trial processing, readjustment, measurement, production, and finally the ability to produce excellent products
Contd…..
Adjustment means the following:
Taking measures to implement optimum solutions/values for specific purposes, for instance, steps to restrict quality within a target value range or to prevent other problems.
Attaining certain aims through repeated trial and error.
The approach to be adopted should be to study the adjustment mechanism and seek time reduction. The ultimate goal of the approach is "minimisation.' The final objective of set-up & adjustment losses is to realise “one-shot machining in which quality production is possible ”.
To realize one-shot arrangements, it is essential to reduce adjustment to zero.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Why can’t we achieve One-step defect free change over ?
We assume that adjustments are simply inevitable in a high precision process
Our equipment and replaceable parts have poor precision so we make adjustments to compensate
The standards mounting points are not clearly defined with numerical values so people have to guess at the setting.
We don't know the proper machining conditions or if we do we aren’t applying that knowledge during set-up. (No standards procedures)
Learning while Implementing TPM
Understand the current process & condition
Clarify the problem areas in changeover adjustment & test runs
Check the precision of the equipment and replaceable parts
Improve your positioning methods
Take care of remaining adjustments
Carry out PM analysis ( systematic thinking using the principles & stds of the process)
Look again at stds values & check the items related to eqpt precision
Look again at the machining condition.
Look again at durability.
Create changeover Stds:
Overall equipment Effectiveness
(3) Cutting-blade losses
These are time losses due to regular cutting-blade exchanges and extraordinary replacement necessitated by blade damage and volume losses (defects and rework) that arise before and after blade replacement.
Cutting-blade losses are dropping due to material and shape studies yielding longer blade life, but they still pose a problem requiring further study.
In the case of transfer machines, cutting- blade losses may account for 10% to 12% of overall efficiency impedance, because the number of operators is few in relation to the number of the machines.
The reduction of cutting-blade losses requires study in both the fields of relevant technology (material changes, shape alteration, etc.) and software (vibration measurement and pursuit of optimum cutting conditions). The target is the maximisation of blade life
Learning while Implementing TPM
start-up after periodic repair,
start-up after holidays,
start-up after lunch breaks,
to the time when it is possible to produce excellent products of reliable quality, free from machine problems (minor stoppages, small problems, and blade breakdown) in a specified cycle time operation, as.well as volume losses (defects/ rework) that arise during that period.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Time-series data at the time of start-up
Examination of working oil/lubricating oil
Examination of related equipment portions
Adjustment of thermal displacement occurrence portions
Measurement of thermal displacement values
Countermeasures
The definition of these losses is as follows:
Losses that are accompanied by temporary functional stoppage
Losses allowing functional recovery through simple measures (removal of abnormal work pieces and resetting)
Losses that do not require parts exchange or repair
Losses that require from 3-5 seconds to less than 5 minutes for recovery.
Unlike failures, minor stoppage/idling losses represent the condition in which equipment stops or idles because of temporary problems; for example, a work piece clogs a chute, or a sensor is triggered by a quality defect, temporarily stopping the machine. In this case, if the work piece is removed and resetting is done, the machine will operate normally. Thus, this condition is different in character from equipment failure
Learning while Implementing TPM
Thus, this condition is different in character from equipment failure
Learning while Implementing TPM
The definition of these losses is as follows:
Losses that are accompanied by temporary functional stoppage
Losses allowing functional recovery through simple measures (removal of abnormal work pieces and resetting)
Losses that do not require parts exchange or repair
Losses that require from 3-5 seconds to less than 5 minutes for recovery.
Unlike failures, minor stoppage/idling losses represent the condition in which equipment stops or idles because of temporary problems; for example, a work piece clogs a chute, or a sensor is triggered by a quality defect, temporarily stopping the machine. In this case, if the work piece is removed and resetting is done, the machine will operate normally. Thus, this condition is different in character from equipment failure
Learning while Implementing TPM
Operating Man-hours
Loading Man-hours
Working Hour
Operating Time
Production
Man-hour
4. Start-up loss
5. Minor stoppage
Scheduled downtime
16. Yield loss
15. Die, tool & jig loss
Efficiency of material, die, jig, tool and energy requirement per product unit ....
3 Major losses obstructing efficiency of material, Die, Jig & energy requirement per product unit
Start-up loss
Overload loss
Temperature loss
Overall equipment effectiveness is a measure related to equipment efficiency.
Is the equipment available for production?
Is the performance of the machines as per standard performance expected?
Is the machine producing products of required quality?
To understand whether the equipment is really efficient we should ask 3 questions
Let us discuss one by one how availability, performance and quality affects the equipment efficiency
Learning while Implementing TPM
Machine is stopped due to a equipment failure
Machine is stopped to do set-up change from one component to other
Machine is stopped for changing the cutting tool or jig
Machine takes time to start at the shift start : Start up Loss
Machine is waiting for input material or man to run the machine : Management Loss
Availability
These are the five losses that will create “Down time” and reduce the availability of the machine
Learning while Implementing TPM
Availability
Total Loading time
A =
Loading time = machine runs for a shift of 8 hours ( excluding lunch time and tea time etc )
Down time = all five losses put together say 1 hour
A = = 0.875
Performance
Machine will not perform as per standard if
Machine is running at a slower speed than expected : Reduced speed loss
Machine is stopped frequently due to minor stoppages
Learning while Implementing TPM
Continuing with the same example :
in remaining 7 hours the machine should produce 360 components per hour .i.e. 360 x 7 =2520.
But it produces only at the rate of 240 units per hour i.e. 240 x 7 =1680
So performance rate = =0.66
Quality
It is not enough to produce components. They should be OK as per quality standards.
Out of 1680 components we produced
If only 1600 components are good
Time spent for producing 80 defective component is a loss too ( Defect loss)
So Quality rate = =0.95
= 0.87 x 0.66 x 0.95
= 0.55
Connected Losses
Availability rate
Equipment failure Set up and adjustment Tool and jig change loss Star up loss Management loss
P
Q
Overall equipment Effectiveness
The same concept can be applicable to entire cell with many machines, or a unit or entire plant.
Is it difficult to calculate OEE, or is it time consuming? Not at all.
If we look all all these equations for A, P and Q
Simple mathematics will tell that
OEE = Number of OK components produced
expected output as per standards
Calculation of A, P and Q will tell you what is going wrong and which loss we should focus.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Overall equipment Effectiveness
The machine is supposed to be healthy if OEE is more than 85%.
The ideal situation is
A = 90%
P = 95%
Q = 99%
Of course these are standards of good old days and you can raise the bar for better capacity utilisation
Once you achieve your expected OEE we can even challenge the standard and try to find out losses.
For example challenging lunch time, or challenging the non value added time in the total cycle time etc.
Sky is the limit.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Of how we loose time and reduce OEE
Total
shift
Time
Personal
Allowance
BREAKDOWNS
Mistake 1: What is standard out put?
The standard output prescribed by MSIE or the capacity declared by PED for the cell is taken for calculation of OEE. This is wrong as many times this figure is under the assumption of 90% utilisation. i.e. 10 % loss is already considered.
Correct way of calculating standard out put is
If the machine is controlling the cell
Find out the bottleneck machine
Find out its cycle time ( including loading unloading)
For a shift divide 438 minutes by this cycle time to get standard out put.
If the cell is man controlled
Check for the time from one loading to next loading of component and take it as cycle time
Make a table of output expected for number of people and use it appropriately.
The common Mistakes we do in calculating OEE
Learning while Implementing TPM
Overall equipment Effectiveness
Mistake 2: Can any of A, P, Q go more than 100%
Many times improvement is done to reduce cycle time and we get more output. Keeping the standard out put unchanged calculations are done and performance is shown more than 100%.
The right way is to revise standard output w.r.t. the reduced cycle time.
If any of the parameters ( A, P, Q ) is more than 100% we must question the calculations
The common Mistakes we do in calculating OEE
Mistake 3: Not considering rework components
Many times while calculating Q only rejection is considered and rework is not considered as it can be still used. This is not correct as the time spent for producing that rework component is a loss as we can not use it.
So while calculation Q both rework and rejection is required to be considered.
Learning while Implementing TPM
Sequential Progress.
First if the losses are alarming we should focus on them rather than utilization. If the machine is running only 1 shift consider 438 min as available time and calculate OEE. Set target of 85% OEE
If we reach 85% OEE and there are no line stoppers now from the cell check how we can utilise the cell for remaining two shifts. Best way is to convert the line to multi-model by compromising on set up change loss. This will drop OEE first but then we can work on improving it to take back OEE to 85%.
If the cell is running all three shifts and OEE is 85%, we need to look at the demand. It it is increasing and likely to create line stopper still, we can raise the bar and focus at improving OEE to 90%.
On the other hand we can focus on improving capacity.
Learning while Implementing TPM
have been deployed to the TPM Pillars
Learning While Implementing TPM
Loss Stratification and Deployment – Dec ‘07
The TPM journey which started in 2003 –04, has yielded its results
I am very happy to summarise the significant Effects of TPM implementation at Mysore Plant
Loss cost output Sheet
Cost Loss Details - Unitwise
MBD00110B7E.xls
Learning while Implementing TPM
Loss cost output Sheet
Cost Loss Details - Unitwise
MBD00110B7E.xls
Learning while Implementing TPM
Plastic Line 1
Plastic Line 2
Projects
Our future plan is to increase production volume by eliminating line stopper and improving productivity
Chart1
JH Loss Stratification
MBD00110B7E.xls
Learning while Implementing TPM
Loss cost output Sheet
Cost Loss Details - Unitwise
MBD00110B7E.xls
S noLossesMachiningEngine assyVehicle assyPaintingFabrication MaintenanceMPGTotal