Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Vol. 16, No. 3 (2021) 2227 - 2244

© School of Engineering, Taylor’s University

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT USING

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS AND OVERALL
EQUIPMENT EFFECTIVENESS (OEE): CASE STUDY

MUATAZ HAZZA F. AL HAZZA1,*, MOHAMMAD YEAKUB ALI2,

NUR FARAHANIS BT MOHD RAZIF3
1*Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department, School of Engineering, American
University of Ras Al Khaimah, PO Box 10021, Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates
2Mechanical Engineering Programme Area, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi

Brunei, Tungku Highway, Gadong BE1410, Brunei Darussalam

3Department of Manufacturing and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, International

Islamic University Malaysia, P.O. Box 10, 50728 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract
Improving productivity using an efficient measurement approach is essential for any
manufacturer. One of the most used approaches that significantly value the current situation
is overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) by intending to reduce breakdowns to increase the
performance. Underutilized machinery, over-utilized machinery, and poor maintenance are
leading to waste of the company's resources. In this case study, a comprehensive analysis
has been conducted that never been done in the company to ensure a high utilization rate. It
has been observed that some of the machines in the production line are idle and unused. The
main objective of this research is to improve the productivity of one of the manufacturers of
a concrete pole by determining the current Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) value of
the most critical machines in the production line, analyse the causes of losses. To achieve
the objective, the following three steps were conducted: (i) data collection and analysis, (ii)
collection of in-depth information about the raw material and the production line using
visual investigation, history, and (iii) in-depth interview with the key stakeholders in the
company. A nine-metre concrete pole production line was selected to conduct the study. The
research is focused on to identify the most critical machines on the production line. Those
machines were selected by using multi-criteria decision-making method Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP). Three consecutive steps were conducted: computing the vector
of criteria weights, computing the option scores' matrix, and ranking the options. Six
alternatives were considered. In AHP calculations, four machines were selected to perform
this study: top cage machine, wire cage machine, wire straightening machine, and concrete
pump injection machine. Rank number one is the highest percentage of 32.9%, which is a
frequent breakdown. The second highest rate is 29.4%, which is machine that are producing
primary parts of the final product. The third-highest percentage is 22.4%, which are the
machines that have historical production data. The OEE for the selected machines was
conducted by calculating the quality level, performance, and availability. The result shows
that the wire straightening machine's performance score was satisfactory with OEE of
85.17%. In contrast, the wire caging machine, top caging machine, and the concrete pump
injection machine were found to have unsatisfactory OEE scores of 54.3%, 15.37%, and
68.84%, respectively. As a result, OEE can drive the company improvement by providing a
better understanding of the losses that give a real metric to improve productivity and better
utilization for the company resources.
Keywords: AHP, Manufacturing sector, OEE. Productivity.

2227
2228 M. H. F. Al Hazza et al.

1. Introduction
Productivity is considered one of the most effective technical efficiency measures
in any production line [1]. It is a measure of efficiency considers the value of output
in relation to the cost of inputs used. Increasing productivity means an increase of
output by less input utilization. Based on cost-effective, productivity can be defined
as the ratio of outputs to the inputs as Eq. (1) [2]. This cost-effective system for
adding values to the inputs to create outputs can be presented in Fig. 1 [2].
However, Eq. (2) is normally used for measuring productivity in automated
production lines [2].
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = (1)
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑟𝑟 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 (𝑄𝑄) = (2)
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝

Fig. 1. Cost effective system [2].

Many researchers used different techniques to improve productivity [2-7].

Hussain [2] has developed a new novel productivity model using an integrated
approach of DAMIC and PACE techniques. His result shows high accuracy with
only 3.3% errors in productivity estimating as compared to real productivity level.
Hussain [3] optimized the productivity using 5S and Kaizen approach by trying to
eliminate the rejection frequency. Hussain [4] showed a different approach to

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

 Performance Improvement using Analytical Hierarchy Process and . . . . 2229

improving the production rate. He used statistical data analyses to establish an

appropriate model.
Singh et al. [5] investigated the effect of lean manufacturing approach in
improving the productivity using a questionnaire survey in collecting data to
evaluate the performance of different lean manufacturing tools on productivity
improvement. Yemane et al. [6] used an integrated approach by combining manual
line balancing techniques with computer simulation to find the optimal solution in
productivity. Khan et al. [7] preferred to use DMAIC as a continuous improvement
tool in productivity improvement. However, one of the most essential and efficient
technique is named: Total Preventive Maintenance (TPM).
Nakajima, in the 1980s, has introduced TPM concept that provided a
quantitative metric Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) for measuring the
productivity of individual equipment in a factory [8, 9]. Ishigame [10] defined the
OEE for any process is a result of breaking the process down into three constituent
components: availability, performance, and quality.
TPM is a maintenance program with the concept for maintaining plant and
working the equipment effectively [11]. TPM aims to maximize the OEE by
establishing a comprehensive preventive maintenance system for the whole life
span of the equipment, involve activities like make plans, use and maintaining
equipment by involving all departments, participation of all employees from the
top to the bottom is vital in TPM, and promotes preventive maintenance through
supportive management such as through small group activities [12, 13]. TPM seeks
to minimize all the potential losses in the production and to operate the equipment
with full design capability. Those losses as mentioned by many researchers as the
big six losses [14-19]. Of the 6 main losses grouped into 3 namely downtime losses,
speed losses, quality losses [20]. However, the six big losses of TPM are classified
into six major categories namely: breakdown losses, setup and adjustment losses,
defect and rework losses, start-up losses, speed losses, and idling and minor
stoppage losses [21]. Figure 2 presents the six losses and it is related to the OEE
with examples of causes.

Fig. 2. Hierarchical problem based on the six losses.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

2230 M. H. F. Al Hazza et al.

In OEE, the individual machine or equipment as part of a system should be

operating as designed. However, downtime must be at a very minimum level [22].
OEE is an active production and maintenance tool that increases profits by bringing
together the social and technical aspects [23]. OEE is an excellent way of measuring
machinery utilization and evaluating machine performance.
Ishigame [10] defined the OEE for any process is a result of breaking the
process down into three constituent components: availability, performance, and
quality. He considered the OEE as a framework for measuring the efficiency and
effectiveness of OEE. It is a useful tool for helping the management see and
measure the problems to be fixed. OEE has been used widely in the manufacturing
sector to determine productivity at the machinery level [24].
Raguram [25] claims that one of the best practices in manufacturing is by
measuring OEE because companies could identify losses and improving the
productivity of manufacturing equipment. OEE is a hierarchy of metrics to measure
machine performance in any manufacturing industry. The measurement of OEE is
inspired by the Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), which has been used as a
critical machine performance technique that measures availability, performance, and
quality rate [26]. OEE is a practical and straightforward, powerful calculation tool.
OEE focused on the most common sources of manufacturing productivity losses and
categorized them into three understandable categories, which are availability,
performance, and quality [27]. By doing so, it simplifies the complexity of the
problem into more straightforward and more understandable measures.
Some researchers found that integrating Value stream mapping (VSM) and OEE
can give a good improvement in the production line. Shakil and Parvez [28] used the
Value stream mapping (VSM) to improve the OEE in a sewing line industry. The
results show an improvement of OEE from 45 to 53.75%. Dadashnejad and
Valmohammadi [29] attempted to discover the relation between VSM and OEE using
a structured questionnaire. The results show that the OEE metric is positively
significantly influenced through identified improvements of VSM.
Tsarouhas [30] studied a croissant production line, and to measure the OEE
characteristics. He claims that OEE is a useful guide to aspects of the production
process, which identifies the critical points of the production line that needs more
improvement using an effective maintenance strategy. Tsarouhas [31] analysed an
ice cream production line and improved the overall equipment efficiency (OEE) by
identifying significant stoppage losses using a TPM approach. Musa et al. [32]
investigated the effect of Autonomous Maintenance (AM) implementation in the
CNC machine at the automotive components manufacturing line on OEE. The
result shows a significant improvement from 65.8% to 80.4%.
Tomar and Soni [33] measured the (OEE) for a plastic moulding machine in the
automobile industry in terms of availability, performance, and quality and
identified significant productivity losses. Their study was measured and identify
downtime, speed loss, and quality loss. Responsible main factors that affect those
losses were measured and identified. The OEE was 59.88% of production. This
value is below the standards (85%) due to the considerable change over time.
Singh and Narwal [34, 35] examined the OEE concepts in different lines and took
up the availability, performance, and quality. They found that minimizing the
breakdowns, changeovers losses, defects, and setup scraps losses will lead to

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

 Performance Improvement using Analytical Hierarchy Process and . . . . 2231

increased OE. Shah et al. [36] tried to investigate OEE's improvement for a bending
machine and labour productivity of the header machine shop. The researchers used
the cellular layout technique at a boiler manufacturing organization. Nallusamy et al.
[37] conducted TPM to improve OEE to meet the global standard. They found that
not only the downtime losses are the influencing parameter, but the idle time of a
machine is also another factor. The examined results showed that the percentage of
OEE could be improved from 55.45% to 68.04% by implementing this technique.
TPM is manufacturing excellence based on eight pillars with the foundation of
5S [38]. They tried to prioritize the eight TPM pillars, terms of four significant
parameters productivity, cost, quality, and delivery in time. The eight pillars are
continuous improvement, do the necessary calibration, plan periodical
maintenance, upgrade the skills and knowledge, work with suppliers to improve the
design, use 5M to aim for zero defect, proper administration system, and improve
work environment aiming for zero accident [39].
However, to select the most critical machine that need to be evaluated is a
difficult and complex procedure. Therefore, selecting the best method become one
of the main success factors to manufacturers. Thus, a multicriteria decision making
methods (MCDM) will be useful and effective. MCDM included both factors of
quantitative and qualitative which considered as a complex decision-making tool,
making it the most widely used and favourable decision methodologies in many
fields Mardani et al. [40] in their valued review, they covered the period from 2000
to 2014 by discussing the different methods in decision making and their
application. They identified various methods in multi-criteria decision making that
have been used and applied by different researchers in different sectors that need
to decide such as machine selection. Those methods are Multi-Attribute Utility
Theory, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Fuzzy Set Theory, Case-Based
Reasoning, Data Envelopment Analysis, Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique,
Goal Programming, ELECTRE method, Simple Additive Weighing, and
Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS).
However, in this research the AHP method was used to reduce the number of
machines under investigation.
OEE enhancement is a continuous improvement cycle that need to be a part of
the production activities. This cycle can use different approaches in the analysis or
in the decision making. However, the suggested steps that the organizations need
to follow is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Proposed steps for OEE enhancement procedure.

Finally, in the above discussion, it can be recognized that many researchers have
applied OEE as a part of the TPM approach to improve productivity in different
types of industries and sectors. Few of them tried to use the OEE to recognize the
unused capacity and highlighted the advantages of using this approach by
identifying the weakness of the capacity used. In this research, OEE approach is

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

2232 M. H. F. Al Hazza et al.

used to analyse and optimise the whole manufacturing processes for concrete
electric pole. The novelty of this research is in terms of applications.

2. Methodology
The research was conducted based on structured steps, as shown in Fig. 4. The data
collected give in-depth information about the raw material used, machines, how
they are processed, and the quantity needed to produce the 9.0 m concrete pole. The
research is focused on the critical machines on the production line: wire machines,
concrete injection pump machine, spinning machine, rivet head machine, pole
pushing machine, and pole pulling machine. And then, using (AHP) method as one
of the multi-criteria decision makings, the most critical ones were selected. The
OEE for the selected machines was measured by three evaluating measures:
quality, performance, and availability.

Fig. 4. Main steps for the research.

The information gathered was in two directions: machinery and human

resources. Visual investigation and cycle time measurement had been made to
identify the current OEE value and identify the source of losses from the OEE that
has been calculated. It is essential to measure the machinery and human resources'
current utilization rate. OEE is a framework for measuring the efficiency and
effectiveness of a machine by breaking it down into three constituent components.
OEE is consisted of 6 metrics which often referred to as the hierarchy of metrics
which are [25]:
i. OEE: the method of determining and measuring how well a unit performs
when it is operational, in comparison to how it ought to perform.
ii. Total Effective Equipment Performance (TEEP): the second metric which
measures the OEE set against time.
iii. Loading: part of TEEP representing the amount of time that machines are in
operation.
iv. Availability: uptime or the time when the equipment is available to operate.
The availability is calculated by Eq. (3) [12].
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦−𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = ∙ 100% (3)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎

v. Performance: the speed at which the production machine operates in a % form

of the machine's capacity. Eq. (4) is the performance Formula [9].
design cycle time.Output
Performance = ∙ 100% (4)
operating time

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

 Performance Improvement using Analytical Hierarchy Process and . . . . 2233

vi. Quality: number of good parts or products with no defects. Equation below is
the equation of quality Eq. (5) [12].
Output−Rejected
Quality = ∙ 100% (5)
Output

OEE takes a manufacturing machine and break down into three components
which are availability, performance and quality. Each of the components involved
in OEE will highlight any aspect of the manufacturing process where improvements
can be made and where output produced is not in a good quality. OEE can be
calculated using the formula Eq. (6) [12]:
OEE = Availability * Performance * Quality (6)
Another important measure that was needed is the Cycle time. Cycle time refers
to time taken to produce one part or product. To get a more accurate data, the
average of three measurement have been conducted.
OEE have benchmark so that any manufacturing company can easily set a
benchmark of OEE to be followed. Below are the lists of commonly used OEE
benchmarks [41]:
i. OEE percentage of 100% is a perfect production in which only good products
are produced with no stop time.
ii. OEE percentage of 85% can be considered as a world class for discrete manufacturers.
For most of the companies, it is a suitable for achieving long-term goal.
iii. OEE percentage of 60% is typical for discrete manufacturers but indicates
there is substantial room for improvement.
OEE percentage of 40% is common for most of manufacturing companies that
are just starting to improve their manufacturing performance. It is a low score but,
in most cases, can be improved through straightforward measures for example by
tracking stop time and addressing the largest sources of down time, one at a time.

3. Data Collection
The main product of this company is the pre-stressed concrete pole for electrical
use. The company has three main products: a 10-meter pole of 5.0 kN, a 9-meter
pole of 2 kN, and a 7.5-meter pole of 2 kN. In this research, the 9-meter pole of 2
kN was selected to conduct the study due to the high demanded than other products.
The basic dimensions for selected concrete pole are 9000 mm of length, top
diameter of 140 mm, bottom diameter of 260 mm with wall thickness of 33mm. the
total weight of the pole is about 410 kg. Figure 5 shows the product shape and
dimensions. All the machinery used is semi-automated and human intervention is
needed at each workstation. The production line use cranes, forklift, and conveyor
as material handling equipment.

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of a concrete electric pole (dimensions are in mm).

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

2234 M. H. F. Al Hazza et al.

Data collection is a systematic process that gathers and measures information

on the area of the research. A step by step of data collection for this research has
been identified as follows:
1. Identification of process involved and components of the 9.0 m concrete pole
by plotting the flow diagram,
2. Record the names of the machines used to produce 9.0 m concrete pole, and
3. Selection of the most suitable machine to perform the study based on AHP
method to give priority for the study.
4. Analysing the availability, performance and quality level for each machine
5. Determine the OEE level of each machine.
6. Propose suitable solutions.
The flow of the process is crucial to determine the operations and machines
used to produce the product. The researcher needs to identify all the processes
involved in the production line. The process involved in the production line of
industrial company divided into seven main sections: Moulding section, concrete
section, spinning division, steam curing section, demolding-1, demoulding-2 with
inspection section and stacking section
However, there are sub-sections in each of the main sections, and one section
might have several tasks and machines. The concrete pole goes through several
operations of concrete injection, spinning, boiling, and assembling different parts.
All the machines involved in the production line of the company were identified
with all the processes required to produce the 9.0 m concrete pole, thus develop a
production process flowchart, as shown in Fig. 6. All the processes involved were
recorded by using the camera to understand the process and machines required
carefully. The final product is as shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 6. Production process flowchart.

Fig. 7. Finished product of concrete electric pole.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

 Performance Improvement using Analytical Hierarchy Process and . . . . 2235

After analysing the production process, all the machines and material handling
equipment used in all the sections were identified. Figure 8 shows the list of all
machines used in each section.

Fig. 8. Machines and material handling equipment used in each section.

However, not all the machines used in the production line are problematic. The
focuses are on the machines that face problems like frequent breakdown,
underutilized, need to be handled by skilled operators and more. However, after
visual analysis and deep discussion six machines were involved in the study wire
machine, concrete injection pump machine, spinning machine, rivet head machine,
pole pushing machine and pole pulling machine. Table 1 shows the machines taken
as part of this research.
Table 1. Machines involved in the study.
Machine Name of the machine
Mc1 Wire Machine
Mc2 Concrete injection pump machine
Mc3 Spinning machine
Mc4 Rivet head machine
Mc5 Pole pushing machine
Mc6 Pole pulling machine

4. Machine Selection
In this research, the Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) technique used to define
the most critical machine to perform the study. AHP, was developed in 1971 by
Saaty [42] that matches the product characteristics with the supplier’s
characteristics, considering multi criteria in one decision, especially when both
quantitative and qualitative factors are involved. It helps to assign weights for the
selected criteria, and to structure the problem in a hierarchical way, dividing it to

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

2236 M. H. F. Al Hazza et al.

many levels (at least three levels: the goal, the criteria, and the possible suppliers),
then to make the integration between these levels. AHP is one of the practical tools
that can help in the complex decision-making process. It can improve the decision-
makers set priorities and make the best decisions [33]. The AHP considers a set of
evaluation criteria and alternative options among which the best choice is to be
made. The AHP generates a weight for each evaluation criterion according to the
decision-maker’s pairwise comparisons of the criteria. The higher the weight
means, the more critical the corresponding criterion and priorities must be on the
criteria with high weight. Next, for a fixed criterion, the AHP assigns a score to
each option according to the decision-maker’s pairwise comparisons of the options
based on that criterion. The higher the score means, the better the option's
performance concerning the considered criterion. Finally, the AHP combines the
criteria weights and the options scores, thus determining a global score for each
option, and a consequent ranking.
Three key persons from the company were selected and interviewed to obtain
accurate information from the respondents regarding machinery used in the
production line. Five criteria were defined to choose the critical machine to conduct
this study which are historical data, producing original parts, frequent breakdown,
skilled operator, and high rejected parts. The first step is to establish the hierarchy,
which is similar to the decision tree with three levels: the goal, the criteria, and the
alternatives, the available (alternatives) machines are located at the last level of the
hierarchy. Figure 9 illustrates the three basic levels of each AHP hierarchy.

Fig. 9. AHP hierarchy levels.

The pairwise comparisons between each two elements in the same level,
considering the parent element which is from the upper level. In such a way, these
comparisons will cover all the possible combinations that can be done between the
elements. A set of matrices depending on each group comparison, this matrix will
lead to the final selection of the machine. The last step is to compute the numerical
comparison between all the decision alternatives. By comparing the numerical
values coming from the matrices’ calculations, considering the criteria importance
values (weights). The machine which will get the highest ranking among all is the
one that have to be selected.
Three AHP interviews using structured questionnaire were filled based on
comments from three respondents chosen randomly to avoid the bias from the key
members in the staff. The interview questionnaire were six sections that cover their
opinion on following topics: problems often faced by machines, prioritizing the

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

 Performance Improvement using Analytical Hierarchy Process and . . . . 2237

problematic machines, criteria need to be considered to conduct the study,

machines that need skill workers and complex maintenance requirements. The
comparison between two elements using AHP can be done in different ways.
However, the most used way is to compare the relative importance between two
alternatives is Saaty scale as shown in Table 2 [42].

Table 2. Saaty's scale of relative importance.

Numerical: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Very Very Strongly
Extremely Strongly Moderately Moderately Equally to Equally
Scale: strong to strong to very
preferred preferred to strongly preferred moderately preferred
extremely preferred strongly

The odd numbers are mostly used, even numbers are used only when there is a
need (even number is the middle point as negotiated solution when the consensus
cannot be reached). The following steps were applied as an AHP methodology
among a set of criteria:
Step 1. Lies in the determination of the criteria to be compared.
Step 2. Determining the Comparison Matrix, the Priority Vector, and the
Inconsistency, following the Table 3.
Step 3. The comparison matrix must be normalized, by dividing each number by
the sum of its column.
Step 4. The weight of each criterion is calculated by using the priority vector
(Eigen vector). By calculating the average of each criterion (each raw).
Step 5. Calculation of the consistency index.

Table 3. AHP Pairwise matrix.

Criterion 1 Criterion 2
Criterion 1 1 Numerical rating
Criterion 2 1/ Numerical rating 1

The consistency calculation is to determine how consistent the decision is. It is

totally related to transitive property. To make this idea clearer, assume that you have
three statements, (A, B, and C), and an evaluation must be conducted among them. If
the evaluator stated that he prefers A over B (A>B). And stated that he prefers B over
C (B>C): So, when the evaluator is asked to compare between A and C: (Logically
he must answer that he prefers A over C). If the answer received (A>C), then the
decision can be confirmed as consistent, If the opposite, then the decision is
inconsistent. A similar concept applied to the AHP criteria that are being compared.
In this case study a comparison matrix between the five criteria have been
developed and the normalized by the comparison matrix has been normalized, by
dividing each number by the sum of its column. Then The weight calculated by
using the priority vector (Eigen vector). Figure 10 shows the AHP chart developed
from the interview. The AHP is conducted in three simple consecutive steps:
computing the vector of criteria weights, computing the matrix of option scores,
and ranking the options. Figure 11. also shows the weight developed based on the
AHP matrix for each criterion and each machine.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

2238 M. H. F. Al Hazza et al.

Fig. 10. Machine indicator for AHP.

Criteria Weight Rank

Frequent breakdown 32.9% 1
Producing primary parts 29.4% 2
Historical data 22.4% 3
High rejected parts 9.8% 4
Skilled operator 5.5% 5

Fig. 11. Weight and rank for each selection criteria.

The AHP chart shows that frequent breakdown is the highest percentage factor
that needs to be considered to select the most critical machine and suitable machine
to perform this study. The focuses are on the machine that has a frequent breakdown
in comparison to another machine. Figure 11 shows the percentage of weight for
each criterion tested and the rank of the machines according to the weight.
Rank number one is the highest percentage of 32.9%, which is a frequent
breakdown. Frequent breakdown means that the machines are facing frequent
failure in comparison to other machines. The second highest percentage is 29.4%,
which is a machine that are producing primary parts fundamental elements of the
final product. The third-highest percentage is 22.4% which are the machines that
have historical production data. Next, the selection of machines is based on the
most critical factor chosen earlier, based on the highest percentage of weight. From
the calculations, Mc2 under the criteria of frequent breakdown has the highest
percentage of 42.1%, followed by Mc1 23.9% and Mc3 16.1%.

5. OEE Calculation
The weight percentage for each machine was calculated as shown in Fig 10. The
calculations show that the most critical machines based on frequent breakdown
are Mc2, a concrete injection pump, and Mc1 Wire machines. There are three
machines under the wire section: top cage machine, wire caging machine, and
wire straightening machine. In conclusion, four machines were selected to
perform this study: top cage machine, wire cage machine, wire straightening
machine, and concrete pump injection machine. The OEE for the selected
machines is listed in Table 4.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

 Performance Improvement using Analytical Hierarchy Process and . . . . 2239

Table 4. Overall equipment efficiency calculations for four machines.

Concrete Pump Top Cage Wire Caging Wire Straightening
No. Description
Injection Machine Machines Machines Machine

1 Shift Time 540 min 540 min 540 min 540 min
2 Planned Downtime 130 min 130 min 130 min 130 min
3 Running Time 410 min 410 min 410 min 410 min
4 Unplanned downtime
Machine breakdown 18 min 1.5 min 9.75 min 3 min
adjustments and Set-ups 102.5 min 41.67 min 27.5 min 10 min
5 Operating Time 307.5 min 366.83 min 372.75 min 397 min
6 Availability 75% 89.47% 90.91% 96.83%
7 Output 150 pole 250 cage 150 900 wire
8 Cycle time (min/ pole) 1.94 min 0.26 min 1.68 min 0.45 min
9 Performance 94.63% 17.71% 61.58 % 90.68%
10 Reject 0 0 0 0
11 Quality 97% 97% 97% 97%
12 OEE = A*P*Q 68.84% 15.37 54.30% 85.17%
*A: Availability, P: Performance, Q: Quality

The calculated OEE values for four machines are being compared with the
standard class value of OEE. An OEE value of 85% is considered as a world-class
value [31, 43]. As discussed earlier, an OEE value of 100% is regarded as the
perfect production. The production line is only producing the right parts with no
reject, as fast as possible, and with no machine downtime. Meanwhile, an OEE
value of 60% is the most common value for a manufacturing company, and there
is substantial room for improvement for the machines.
Figure 12 shows the OEE value for four machines and comparison with an OEE
value of 60% as it is a typical value for most manufacturing company. It is clear
from Fig. 12 that two machines are not satisfying the common OEE value: top cage
machines and wire caging machine. It is clear from Fig. 12 and Table 4 that two
machines are not satisfying the common OEE value which are top cage machine
and wire caging machine. The top caging and wire-gaging machines have a low
OEE of 15.37% and 54.30%, respectively. The low value is due to the low-
performance levels of 17% and 61.58, as shown in Table 4. Visual observations,
root cause analysis, and cycle time analysis have been made to investigate the low-
performance reasons. It was found that both machines are idle sometimes due to
low in the daily demand, especially for the top cage machine. The causes of low
OEE for top caging machine and wire caging machine were analysed and identified.

Fig. 12. OEE value for all the machines studied.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

2240 M. H. F. Al Hazza et al.

There are many rooms for improvement in the production line. However, the
starting point should be from focusing on the top cage machine and wire caging
machine due to the low performance of (15.37%) and (54.3%). Other measures for
quality and availability considered acceptable except for the concrete pump
injection machine with 75%. Based on this research findings the following
suggestions are made to enhance the performance level of the top cage machine
and wire caging:
• Implementation of total productive maintenance (TPM): TPM can be used to
minimize the potential losses and to operate the equipment with full design
capability using autonomous maintenance and preventive maintenance:
• Planned downtime is not part of the OEE calculations, but it can have a
significant impact on the overall productivity. All activities that halt the
production, such as equipment wash down, maintenance programs, and line
changeovers, are an example of planned downtime. Another essential
contributor to planned downtime is product changeovers. The company should
not change parameters too often between product batches for the concrete pole
are 7.5 kN, 9.0 kN, and 10.0 kN load capacity. Therefore, well planning for
production is vital.
• Create performance evaluation daily or weekly to OEE provides a
comprehensive and clear view of performance of machineries. OEE forces an
organization to look at individual equipment and ensure that the maximum
benefits obtained. OEE makes the manufacturing unit or piece of equipment
visible, and it allows real in-depth analysis of how the group performs. For poor
production output (<85%), the objective of evaluating machine performance is
to calculate the actual versus planned production quantity of the day.

6. Conclusions
At the beginning of this research, information was extracted from journal, books
and articles related to the topic. It was found that one of the main factors that greatly
affected productivity in production line is the effective use of machinery and
manpower. The efficiency of the most critical machines selected by using AHP
technique at the production line Dalia Industries Sdn. Bhd. has been studied. This
research showed that:
• For wire caging machine, the availability and the quality of the machines are found
to be 90.91% and 97% respectively which is good and well performed. However,
the only factor that affected the OEE score is performance which is only 61.58%
and considered as weak in comparison with both availability and quality.
• For top caging machine, the availability and the quality of the machines are
89.47% and 97% respectively. In this case also, the performance score of
17.71% is extremely low in comparison with both availability and quality and
remains as a critical concern.
• With the implementation of the suggested improvements, performance scores
are expected to be increased and eventually increase the level of OEE to
improve the productivity and eventually enhance company’s competitiveness
in the market.
• In this research, the data collection and improvement activities have been
compared for one month only due to some constraint from company. However,

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

 Performance Improvement using Analytical Hierarchy Process and . . . . 2241

it is recommended to evaluate the improvement for a period of at least three

months. As a conclusion the objective of this case study has successfully
completed for machine by collecting all the data for machine within this project.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their gratitude and special thanks to Dalia
Industries Sdn. Bhd. for giving the opportunity to collect data. In addition, authors
are also thankful to Prof. Ir. Dr. Md. Yusof Ismail for his support in this research.

Abbreviations
5S sort, set in order, shine, standardize, and sustain
AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process
AM Autonomous Maintenance
CNC Computerized Numerical Control
DMAIC Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control
ELECTRE Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (family of multi-
criteria decision analysis methods)
MCDM Multi criteria decision making
OEE Overall Equipment Effectiveness
PACE Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency
TPM Total Productive Maintenance
TEEP Total Effective Equipment Performance
TOPSIS Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
VSM Value stream mapping

References
1. Lu, B.; and Wang, S. (2017). Critical factors for berth productivity in
container terminal. (1st ed). Springer Singapore.
2. Hussain, Z. (2019). Developing a novel based productivity model by
investigating potential bounds of production plant: A case study. International
Journal of Production Management and Engineering, 7(2), 151-159.
3. Hussain, Z. (2019). Statistical analyses of productivity model parameters for
process improvement. Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal,
13(2), 157-167.
4. Hussain, Z. (2019). Optimizing productivity by eliminating and managing
rejection frequency using 5s and kaizens practices: case study. Independent
Journal of Management & Production, 10(6), 1952-1970.
5. Singh, J.; Singh, H.; and Singh, G. (2018). Productivity improvement using
lean manufacturing in manufacturing industry of Northern India. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(8), 1394-1415.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

2242 M. H. F. Al Hazza et al.

6. Yemane, A.; Gebremicheal, G.; Hailemicheal, M.; and Meraha, T. (2020).

Productivity improvement through line balancing by using simulation
modeling. Journal of Optimization in Industrial Engineering, 13, 153-165.
7. Khan, S.A.; Badar, M. A.; and Alzaabi, M. (2020). Productivity improvement
using DMAIC in a Caravan Manufacturing company. International Journal of
Productivity and Quality Management, 30(2), 234-251.
8. Muchiri, P.; and Pintelon, L. (2008). Performance measurement using overall
equipment effectiveness (OEE): literature review and practical application
discussion. International journal of production research, 46(13), 3517-3535.
9. Nakaiima, S. (1988). Introduction to total productive maintenance (TPM).
Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA, (translated into English from the original
text published by the Japan Institute for Plant Maintenance, Tokyo, Japan, 1984).
10. Ishigame, K. (2020). Enhancing learning through continuous improvement:
case studies of the toyota production system in the automotive industry in
South Africa. In Workers, Managers, Productivity: Kaizen in Developing
Countries (197-219). Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
11. Dogra, M.; Sharma, V.S.; Sachdeva, A.; and Dureja, J. S. (2011). TPM-a key
strategy for productivity improvement in process industry. Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology, 6(1), 1-16.
12. Tufail, M.S.; and Mehovic, H. (2007). Investigation of the ways to improve the
performance of a plant. Växjö University School of Technology and Design.
13. Suzuki, T. (1992). New directions for TPM. Productivity Press.
14. Sutoni, A.; Setyawan, W.; and Munandar, T. (2019). Total productive
maintenance (TPM) analysis on lathe machines using the overall equipment
effectiveness method and six big losses. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, 1179(1), 012089, Tasikmalaya, Indonesia.
15. Sayuti, M. (2019). Analysis of the overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) to
minimize six big losses of pulp machine: A case study in pulp and paper
industries. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. Aceh,
Indonesia, 536, 012061.
16. Martomo, Z.I.; and Laksono, P.W. (2018). Analysis of total productive
maintenance (TPM) implementation using overall equipment effectiveness (OEE)
and six big losses: A case study. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1931(1), 030026.
17. Nurprihatin, F.; Angely, M.; and Tannady, H. (2019). Total productive
maintenance policy to increase effectiveness and maintenance performance
using overall equipment effectiveness. Journal of Applied Research on
Industrial Engineering, 6(3), 184-199.
18. Badiger, A.S.; and Gandhinathan, R. (2008). A proposal: evaluation of OEE
and impact of six big losses on equipment earning capacity. International
Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking, 2(3), 234-248.
19. Dal, B.; Tugwell, P.; and Greatbanks, R. (2000). Overall equipment effectiveness
as a measure of operational improvement - A practical analysis. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(12), 1488-1502.
20. Nusraningrum, D.; and Setyaningrum, L. (2019), Overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE) measurement analysis for optimizing smelter machinery.
International Journal of Business Marketing and Management, 4(10), 70-78.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

 Performance Improvement using Analytical Hierarchy Process and . . . . 2243

21. Chikwendu, O.C.; Chima, A.S.; and Edith, M.C. (2020). The optimization of
overall equipment effectiveness factors in a pharmaceutical company. Heliyon,
6(4), e03796.
22. Stamatis, D.H. (2017). The OEE primer: understanding overall equipment
effectiveness, reliability, and maintainability. Florida: CRC Press.
23. Hansen, R.C. (2001). Overall equipment effectiveness: A powerful
production/maintenance tool for increased profits. New York: Industrial Press Inc.
24. Huang, S.H.; Dismukes, J.P.; Shi, J.; Su, Q.I.; Razzak, M.A.; Bodhale, R.; and
Robinson, D.E. (2003). Manufacturing productivity improvement using
effectiveness metrics and simulation analysis. International Journal of
Production Research, 41(3), 513-527.
25. Raguram, R. (2014). Implementation of overall equipment effectiveness
(OEE). Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 20(5), 567-576.
26. Ramlan, R.; Ngadiman, Y.; Omar, S.S.; and Yassin, A.M. (2015).
Quantification of machine performance through overall equipment
effectiveness. 2nd International Symposium on Technology Management and
Emerging Technologies, 407-411.
27. Godfrey, P. (2002). Overall equipment effectiveness. Manufacturing
Engineer, 81(3), 109-112.
28. Shakil, S.I.; and Parvez, M. (2020). Application of value stream mapping
(VSM) in a sewing line for improving overall equipment effectiveness (OEE):
A case study. Intelligent Manufacturing and Energy Sustainability, Springer,
Singapore, 249-260.
29. Dadashnejad, A.A.; and Valmohammadi, C. (2019). Investigating the effect of
value stream mapping on overall equipment effectiveness: A case study. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30(3-4), 466-482.
30. Tsarouhas, P. (2019). Improving operation of the croissant production line
through overall equipment effectiveness (OEE). International journal of
productivity and performance management, 68(1), 88-108.
31. Tsarouhas, P.H. (2019). Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) evaluation for
an automated ice cream production line. International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, 69(5), 1009-1032.
32. Musa, M.A.; Kasim, N.I.; Razali, A.R.; Saidin, W.; and Najmuddin, W.A.
(2015). Improvement of overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) through
implementation of autonomous maintenance in crankcase line. Applied
Mechanics and Materials, 761, 165-169.
33. Tomar, R.; and Soni, P.K. (2016). Analysis of performance by overall
equipment effectiveness of the injection moulding section of an automobile
industry. Methodology, 3(5), 379-381.
34. Singh, M.; and Narwal, M. (2017). Measurement of overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE) of a manufacturing industry: An effective lean tool.
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering and Research, 3(5),
268-275.
35. Khawarita, S.; Khalida, S.; Anizar, R.M.S.; Indah, R.; and Mangara, M.T.
(2018). Effectiveness of compressor machine by using overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE) method. In E3S Web of Conferences, 73, 05007.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)

2244 M. H. F. Al Hazza et al.

36. Shah, M.K.; Deshpande, V.A.; and Patil, R.M. (2017). Case study: Application
of Lean tools for Improving overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) &
productivity in panel shop of heavy fabrication industry. Proceedings of 2nd
international conference on emerging trends in mechanical engineering.
Gujarat, India. 4430-4447.
37. Nallusamy, S.; Kumar, V.; Yadav, V.: Prasad, U.K.; and Suman, S.K. (2018).
Implementation of total productive maintenance to enhance the overall
equipment effectiveness in medium scale industries. International Journal of
Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development, 8(1),
1027-1038.
38. Shinde, D.D.; and Prasad, R. (2018). Application of AHP for ranking of total
productive maintenance pillars. Wireless Personal Communications, 100(2),
449-462.
39. Siong, S.S.; and Ahmed, S. (2007). TPM implementation can promote
development of TQM Culture: Experience from a case study in a Malaysian
manufacturing plant. International Conference on Mechanical Engineering,
Dhaka, Bangladesh (1-6).
40. Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.; Khalifah, Z.; Zakwan, N.; and Valipour, A.
(2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications -
A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istraživanja, 28(1), 516-571.
41. Kalpande, S. D. (2014). OEE an effective tool for TPM implementation-A case
study. Asset Management & Maintenance Journal, 27(5), 46-48.
42. Saaty , T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
43. Zuashkiani, A.; Rahmandad, H.; and Jardine, A.K. (2011). Mapping the
dynamics of overall equipment effectiveness to enhance asset management
practices. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 17(1), 74-92.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology June 2021, Vol. 16(3)