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.