Measuring the effectiveness of lean

thinking activities within maintenance

C. DAVIES, R.M. GREENOUGH

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
Maintenance has become a management issue, with its function as a contributor towards
profit. This indicates the need for the maintenance operation to align with the business
objectives and increase value for the enterprise. As a contributor to current management
techniques, lean thinking approaches are now more commonly used. Without strong
evidence to support the presence of generic lean thinking strategies especially in
maintenance, a lean practice template needs to be developed, representative of activities
possible within a company and maintenance in particular.

The use of performance measurements and their strategic importance to organisations have
been well documented. However, lack of research in their implementation and use, relation
to the organisation, and satisfaction of the decision-maker’s requirements needs further
consideration.
Keywords: Lean thinking, Maintenance, Performance measurement, Lean maintenance

Introduction
This paper discusses the combined issues of lean thinking, maintenance, and measures of
performance, in particular performance indicators to identify the impact of lean thinking
within maintenance. Specific attention focuses on the contribution of lean thinking within
an organisation, the need for maintenance to align itself with the business objectives of the
organisation, and the need for performance measures to inform of improvement within the
organisation, and maintenance in particular, through lean activity.

The Lean thinking issue

The concept of lean thinking (Womack and Jones, 1996) originated from the Toyota
production system (TPS) developed in 1950s Japan (Katayama and Bennett, 1996), through
the lean principles described by Womack et al. (1990). The industries not influenced by the
principles and demonstrated benefits of lean, along with its associated methodologies such
as just-in-time (JIT), total quality management (TQM) and total productive maintenance
(TPM), are becoming fewer (Katayama and Bennett, 1996). A brief summary of the central
theme, principles and characteristics of lean thinking which among other features refer to
the total enterprise (Womack et al., 1990; Womack and Jones, 1996; Bicheno, 2000), is
summarised by Bicheno (2000).

Comm et al (2000) state that “Industries strive for leanness, because being lean means
being competitive by eliminating the non-value added practices”, i.e., wastes. However, the
 strategy for a generic lean practice implementation, and achieving leanness throughout,
lacks strong evidence and is not clear to many (Comm et al., 2000; Chang 2001).

Central theme of lean thinking

Eliminate waste

The five lean principles

Specify value Identify the value stream Make value flow Pull Perfection
Suit the needs from a customer Identify the sequence of One piece production flow. Only make as What the customer
point of view(vision). processes from product concept Never delay a value adding needed. wants, at the right
Internal / external to market step by a non-value adding quality, time, price
step. and without waste.

The fifteen characteristics of lean

Customer Simplicity Visibility Regularity Synchronisation Pull

Understand the true In operation, Operational No surprise Work at customers
Keep it moving. v
demand technology & visibility & operations, rate of demand
Seek flow
(internal /external) process transparancey "time pacing"

Waste Process Prevention Time Improvement

Learn to Think horizontal & Shift emphasis Simultaneous & Beyond waste
recognise then map to understand from failure to parallel operations. reduction to include
reduce process prevention Time as a measure innovation

Partnership Gemba Variation Participation

Seek to build trust, Innovation in the Seek to reduce. Everybody takes
with supplier and workplace not in the Understand the responsibility!
customer office limits Everything shared

Figure 1. Theme, principles and characteristics of lean thinking

The maintenance issue

Maintenance is the management, control, execution and quality of those activities which
ensure optimum levels of availability and overall performance of plant are achieved to meet
business objectives (DTI, 1997). Machines have also become more complex, making the
effectiveness of the maintenance function a major management issue through increased
demand on productivity, quality and availability (Labib, 1998; Tsang, 1998). This has led
to the realisation that maintenance activities should not only be technologically improved
but also blended with managerial concepts (Blanchard, 1997). Due to, the change of
process technologies, customer expectations, supplier attitudes and increased competition;
maintenance has been without proper integration of suitable techniques (Coetzee, 1999). It
would appear that the aim of the maintenance function currently is to contribute towards an
organisation’s profit, clearly bringing the need for maintenance operations to be in harmony
with business objectives (Kutucuoglu et al., 2001).
 The maintenance issue and lean thinking
From a lean thinking perspective, improved efficiency and profitability can be sought by
increasing value within an organisation through the elimination of waste (Womack and
Jones, 1996; Womack et al., 1990). Ohno (1985) identified seven initial wastes within
manufacturing production to which Bicheno (2000) added a further seven. A characteristic
of lean thinking associated with maintenance to improve efficiency and reduce waste is
through the use of total productive maintenance (TPM). TPM is aimed at zero breakdowns
and zero defects which deviate from the specialist maintenance function to improve global
consideration, i.e., the operator, the process and environment (Nakajima, 1998). Analogous
wastes within maintenance to those proposed in production (Bicheno, 2000; Ohno, (1985)
are also shown in Figure 2.

T h e 7 origin al w astes (O h n o, 1985) T h e 7 n ew w astes (B ich en o, 2000)

W aste of E xcessive W IP W aste of P oor w orker creativity

O verproduction T oo much P M H uman P otential L ack of training

W aste of N on moving materials Inappropriate P oor record keeping

W aiting W aiting for resources S ystems P oor information

W aste of M ovement is w aste E nergy E nergy management

T ransporting C entralised maintenance and W ater E nergy management

W aste of T oo much variation W asted M aterial conservation

processing N on-standard P M materials T oo much P M

W aste of E xcessive stock S ervice and O ffice D ata legacy

Inventory E xcessive stock w astes P oor service operations

W aste of D ouble handling C ustomer C ustomer inconvienience

M otions D ouble handling time P rod. inconvienience

W aste of S crap, re-work D efecting P oor quality goods

D efects P oor maintenance customers P oor maintenance

B O X N O T A T IO N : W aste type P roduction w aste example M aintenance w aste example

Figure 2, Lean production wastes and analogous wastes within maintenance

Research has shown that other lean thinking approaches and techniques, not just TPM, are
used by maintenance to support their activities (Davies and Greenough, 2001). However,
this research could not identify a strategy for generic lean practice implementation, or a
comprehensive list of lean activities used by maintenance.

Possible lean thinking activities within maintenance

Lacking strong evidence for a generic implementation order of lean practice, efforts have
been made to formalise the introduction (Chang, 2001), however these focus more on
production (Chang, 2001; Monden, 1994; Shingo, 1989), and purchasing issues (Womack
and Jones, 1996; Womack et al., 1990; Chang, 2001) than maintenance. As no clearly
defined lean practice framework can be referred to, especially concerning the maintenance
function for further research, an alternative approach needs to be taken.

A lean practice template comprehensive enough to fairly represent lean activities possible
within a company and in particular the maintenance function was developed. Table 1
summarises various lean activities known and used by maintenance (Davies and
Greenough, 2001) and additional lean activities possible within a company as a framework.
Table 1 selection groups similar components together where possible, and makes use of
known lean practices (Chang, 2001; Davies and Greenough, 2001). See Table 1 for
additional references.

Source Lean activities Lean emphasis Perceived benefit

(reference) (approaches / techniques) (see Figure 1) examples
Monden 1994 5S (CANDO) Participation Improved asset M'tance
Nakajima 1988 TPM Prevention Asset uptime
Nakajima 1988 OEE Improvement Asset availability
Bicheno 2000 Standards Improvement Standardised work
Hines et al 1997 Mapping Process Task improvement
Bicheno 2000 Inventory management Waste Improved turnover
Henderson et al 1999 Visual management Task visibility Workforce involvement
Bicheno 2000 Root cause problem solving Improvement Defect reduction
Bicheno 2000 Continuous improvement Gemba Improved efficiency
Imai 1986 Kaizen activities Improvement Waste reduction
Shingo 1989 Pokayoke Prevention Improved throughput
Bicheno 2000 Process activity mapping Time Improved utilisation
Bicheno 2000 Self audits Visibility Self-evaluation
Bicheno 2000 Story boarding Visibility Information access
Monden 1994 Kanban Pull Task control
Bicheno 2000 Scenarios (Decision)Pull Organisational learning
Henderson et al 1999 Takt time Customer Rate uniformity
Bicheno 2000 Lead time mapping Time Lead time breakdown
Bicheno 2000 Value focussed thinking Variation Aid decision making
Bicheno 2000 Supplier associations Partnership Cost reduction
Semler 1993 Open book management Partnership Ownership

Table 1 A lean reference framework

An overall measure of maintenance performance with indicators of lean

activity
Future research could lead to the development of a common generic lean strategy for the
maintenance function. In the meantime, a framework of lean activities for reference has
been developed that provides a summary of lean activities possible within a company and
maintenance in particular. The next section discovers which lean activities presented in
Table 1 are measurable in terms of maintenance performance.
• Performance measurement
Performance measurement is the process of quantifying action and can be defined as
measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of action (Neely et al., 1994; Neely et al.,
1995). Overall, the use of performance measurements and their strategic importance to
organisations have been well-documented (Kaplen and Norton, 1992). On a more essential
level, efficiency and effectiveness measurements focus on the central issues of the business
which are usually cost, quality, delivery, people, suppliers, markets and new product
introduction (Bicheno, 2000; Kaplen and Norton, 1992; 1996). However a lack of research
in the practical implementation and use of performance measurement systems has been
noted (Bourne et al, 2000.).

• Maintenance performance measurement

To measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the maintenance function, performance

measurements should reflect all relevant factors that affect performance (Niebel, 1994;
Jardine, 1970). Stated simply, any choice of action concerning performance measurement
generally and within maintenance should fulfil at least two fundamental criteria: all actions
should be viewed in relation to the organisation, and should satisfy the requirements of the
decision-maker. (Neely et al., 1994; Neely et al., 1995; Bourne et al., 2000; Niebel, 1994;
Jardine, 1970).

Various index and quality-based methods for measuring maintenance performance and for
controlling maintenance effort have been developed ((Kutucuoglu, 2001; Jardine, 1970).
Measures regarding various lean activities have also been developed (Kutucuoglu, 2001;
Nakajima, 1988; Dal et al., 2000). However, it has been suggested that these measures,
although beneficial as monitors, are either not suitable as sole performance measures or
require further research (Kutucuoglu, 2001; Dal et al., 2000).

A set of measures of performance measurement needs to be developed that can relate to the
organisation and satisfy the decision-maker’s needs. For this research, the decision-maker
requires descriptive performance information that may indicate change within maintenance
through circumstance or improved activity, in particular those activities possibly related to
lean thinking issues.

• An overall measure of maintenance performance

A number of desirable properties should be considered when developing a measure of
maintenance performance (Jardine, 1970; Dal et al., 2000). These relate to the ease of data
retrieval, cost of retrieval, and ease of understanding (i.e. the results), through
administration, effectiveness and overall costs. Two such methods of measurement when
summarised comprehensively satisfy the change through action variables of the
maintenance function (Priel, 1962), and fundamental criteria of maintenance performance
measurement (Niebel, 1994). Figure 3 shows a representation of an overall maintenance
performance measure developed from these summarised performance measures.
 Hours worked as scheduled
Manpower Efficiency =
Total hours scheduled
Total overtime worked
Overtime =
Manpower Total hours worked

Department operation
Standard hours
Utilisation =
Total clock time
Maintenance administration

Predictive and PM Total man-hours of Predictive and PM

=
M'tance coverage Total man-hours worked
No. Jobs overdue by one week
Overdue tasks =
No. Jobs completed in same week

Work orders, Planned Work orders, Planned and scheduled

Work order =
and scheduled Work orders executed

No of Jobs completed in period

Work orders turnover =
No of jobs in-hand at present

Degree of scheduling = Hours scheduled

Service assessment

Total hours worked

Service operation
No Hours spent on breakdowns
Breakdown repair hours = Total direct M'tance hours
Overall measure of performance

Maintenance Maintenance hours Total direct M'tance hours applied

=
intensity applied Total production hours same period
No M'tance breakdowns
Breakdown frequency =
Total No Breakdowns

Equipment downtime Downtime caused by breakdowns

Plant condition =
caused by breakdown Total downtime
Maintenance effectiveness

Evaluation of PM and Predictive and PM inspections completed

=
Predictive M'tance Predictive and PM inspections scheduled

Equipment runtime
Equipment availability =
Equipment runtime + breakdown time

Total production output in units or hours

Length of running =
No repairs during same period
Plant performance
Man-hours spent on emergency jobs
Emergency man-hours =
Total direct M'tance hours worked

Emergency and other Man-hours emergency, unscheduled jobs

=
unscheduled tasks Total direct M'tance hours worked

Total cost of maintenance

Cost of M'tance hours =
Total man-hours worked
PM costs as percent of Total PM costs (incl Production losses)
Economy =
breakdown cost Total breakdown costs
Maintenance cost

Inventory consumption cost for period

Inventory turnover rate =
Average cost of inventory

Total cost of breakdown repairs

Breakdown severity =
Total no of breakdowns

Total cost of scheduled service

Service cost Scheduled service cost =
Total production cost for same period
M'tance costs per unit of Total M'tance costs
=
production Total units produced

Figure 3 Overall measure of maintenance performance

 Concluding summary
The concept and use of lean thinking refers to the total enterprise and is aimed at adding
value to an organisation through the elimination of waste. The maintenance function is
expected to add value through its activities, requiring greater management integration
within the enterprise. However, despite some methodologies associated with lean thinking
being used by maintenance, evidence could not be found to support a generic structure for
lean activities. Furthermore, there is no evidence that suggests a suitable methodology that
can identify possible improvements for the maintenance function of lean thinking activities,
other than direct operational measures.

It is evident from the literature, research, and management perspective that the maintenance
function would benefit from a lean approach to align with business objectives. As a
contributor towards an organisation’s profit, there is a need for maintenance to improve
efficiency. These elements are fundamental characteristics of lean thinking and are
implemented using TPM and other approaches to support maintenance activities. The added
need of management to measure improvement through use of these and other techniques
calls for a strategy of generic lean practice implementation and performance measurement.

Research has also shown that there is little evidence of a defined order of lean practice, or a
comprehensive list of lean activities used by maintenance. As no clearly defined lean
practice framework can be referred to, a comprehensive template sufficient to represent
lean activities possible within a company, and in particular the maintenance function, needs
to be developed.

For this research, descriptive performance information that may indicate change within
maintenance, through circumstance or improved activity (in particular those activities
possibly related to lean thinking issues) is required. A framework for reference has been
developed that provides a summary of lean activities possible within a company and
maintenance in particular. Activities are identified as measurable in terms of maintenance
performance, taking into account that activities may be used by maintenance.

Future work
Future research will focus on further development of performance indicators for lean
maintenance. It will also concentrate on the refinement of an overall measure of
maintenance performance usable by organisations. The overall aim is to develop a standard
methodology for comparing improvements within maintenance against the introduction and
use of lean thinking practices. Additional research will also help define a standard
performance framework for maintenance departments to benchmark their own
improvements.

Case study research, within a number of different companies, has been undertaken to
identify lean thinking within maintenance, and to investigate the value of such measures of
performance. Initial results suggest a greater use of lean thinking by maintenance than
otherwise suggested in the research, and that improvements have been noticeable both
subjectively and quantitatively. As such, this research will continue to develop the themes
discussed within this paper.
 References
Bicheno. J; “The lean toolbox 2nd edition”., PICSIE books, (2000)

Blanchard, B.S; “An enhanced approach for implementing total productive maintenance in
the manufacturing environment”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 7,
No. 2, (1997), pp. 69-80

Bourne, K., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A and, Platts, K; "Designing, implementing and
updating performance measurement systems" International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 20 No.7, (2000), pp. 754-771

Chang.Y; “Development of the lean manufacturing systems engineering (LMSE)

framework”, Ph.D. Thesis, School of industrial and manufacturing science, Cranfield
University, (UK), (2001)

Coetzee. J.L; “A holistic approach to the maintenance “problem”, Journal of quality in

maintenance engineering, Vol. 5, No.3, (1999), pp 276-280

Comm. C. L and, Mathaisel. D.F.X; “A paradigm for benchmarking lean initiatives for
quality improvement” Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, (2000), pp.
118-127

Dal, B., Tugwell, P and, Greatbanks, R; "Overall equipment effectiveness as a measure of

operational improvement: A practical analysis", International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 20, No.12, (2000), pp. 1488-1502

Davies, C, and Greenough, R.M; “Maintenance survey – identification of lean thinking

within maintenance” 17th National conference on manufacturing research, Cardiff (UK),
(2001), pp. 37-42

DTI, “Optimising plant availability” (UK), (1997)

Henderson, B. A and, Larco, J. L; “Lean transformation: how to change your business into
a lean enterprise” Oaklea Press, (1999)

Hines. P and, Rich, N; “The seven value stream mapping tools” International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, (1997), pp. 46-64

Imai. M; “Kaizen: The key to Japans competitive success”., McGraw-Hill publishing,

(1986)

Jardine, A.K.S., (ed.); "Operational research in maintenance", Manchester University press,

(1970)

Kaplan, R.S and, Norton, D.P; "The balanced scorecard-measures that drive performance",
Harvard Business Review, January-February (1992), pp. 71-79

Kaplan, R.S and, Norton, D.P; "The balanced scorecard-translating strategy into action",
Harvard Business school press, Boston, M.A., (1996)
Katayama. H and, Bennett. D; “Lean production in a changing competitive world: a
Japanese perspective”., International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 16, No. 2, (1996), pp. 8-23

Kutucuoglu. K.Y, Hamali. J., Irani. Z and, Sharp. J.M; “A framework for managing
maintenance using performance measurement systems”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21, No. 1/2, (2001), pp. 173-194

Labib. A.W; “World-class maintenance using a computerised maintenance management

system”., Journal of quality in maintenance engineering, Vol. 4, No.1, (1998), pp. 66-75

Monden. Y; “Toyota production system: An integrated approach to just-in-time, 2nd

edition”., Chapman hall publishing, (1994)

Nakajima. S; “Introduction to TPM, Total Productive Maintenance”, Productivity Press,

(1988)

Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Gregory, M and, Richards, H; "Mapping measures and
activities: A practical tool for assessing measurement systems", First international
conference of the European operations management association, Cambridge, (UK), (1994),
pp. 313-318

Neely, A., Gregory, M and, Platts, K; "Performance measurement system design: a

literature review and research agenda", International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 15, No.4, (1995), pp. 80-116

Niebel, B.W; "Engineering Maintenance Management" 2nd Edition revised and expanded,
Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, (1994)

Ohno. T; “Kanban: just-in-time at Toyota”, Productivity press, (1985)

Priel, V.Z; "Twenty ways to track maintenance performance", Factory, pp. 88-91, McGraw-
Hill, March, (1962)

Semler. R; “Maverick”, Century books, (1993)

Shingo. S; “A study of the Toyota production system from an industrial engineering

viewpoint”, revised edition translated by Dillon. P., Productivity Press, (1989)

Tsang. H.C; “A strategic approach to managing maintenance performance”., Journal of

quality in maintenance engineering, Vol. 4, No.2, (1998), pp 87-94

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D; “The Machine that Changed the World”, Rawson
Associates, (1990)
Womack. J.P and, Jones. D.T; “ Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation”, Simon & Schuster, (1996)