Reliability Improvements Propel a Vegetable Producer

Its embrace of proactive TPR principles has helped this company become a market leader.

By Jane Alexander, Deputy Editor

A product-line diversification was an important economic move for a major vegetable producer.

Despite its potential, however, this diversification also meant the company would be starting from scratch in some respects: The new products would compete with those of some well-established giants in the industry. Company leaders realized early on that if the operation were to survive in the market and reach its desired goals, they needed to find a competitive edge. And they did.

Reliability improvement was identified as a valid option, with TPR (Total Process Reliability) as the method of choice to propel the desired improvements. Marshall Institute was chosen to assist the company with these efforts.

Burdened by a reactive culture

As with other food processors, production is king at this vegetable producer’s operations. The company’s plants once reflected a run-to-failure, highly reactive mentality and operated within non-existent or broken systems. The maintenance shop was cluttered, dirty and inefficient. There was little pride in daily work and no facility-wide maintenance vision. Turnover was a problem for maintenance tradesmen, and “bad blood” between operations and maintenance was a fact of life.

“Before we began TPR, we had zero planning and scheduling, were more than 85% reactive and had no measurements in place by which to objectively gauge performance,” says the company’s Maintenance Manager. “As a result, there was a run-to-failure philosophy in most areas by default.”

The TPR Coordinator was more explicit: “Reaction and production were first,” he says. “Everything else was second, which led to poor execution of work.” With little time to effectively execute, numerous temporary repairs were done. On the off chance a PM (Preventive Maintenance) was performed, it was on a weekend when equipment was down—making the PM seem like little more than an afterthought.

Excessive downtime on all production lines and repeat failures plagued the company’s plants. For example, one particular unit regularly had trouble sustaining a complete production cycle without some type of failure. A specific pump within this system frequently failed due to improper seal material or process-induced defects. Diaphragms on many production valves constantly self-destructed in such an unpredictable manner that some lines were lucky if a single SIP (Sterilization in Place) cycle could be achieved.

The environment was discouraging. The maintenance shop floor was covered in remnants of past disasters, and little effort went into preparing for the next inevitable failure. “We were living in a throwaway mode and always had to quickly acquire needed repair materials, including simple things such as nuts, bolts and taps,” says the site’s Reliability Engineer.

Costs were high, many of them unnecessary. Operating and maintenance systems were ineffective, inefficient and unreliable. Finger-pointing and frustration were rampant across the plants. There was no sense of partnership, ownership or shared reliability. From a strategic standpoint, communication between marketing and the plants was also poor. This meant that the ability to implement product or line changes based on captured market insight was limited.

Starting TPR

The decision to use TPR to help turn the company’s production, maintenance and engineering efforts into a competitive advantage wasn’t made lightly. After extensive research and deliberation, management concluded that the message, strategy and goals of this approach aligned with their own vision and goals, which included reducing costs and improving equipment uptime, quality of work life and workplace organization and appearance.

The TPR effort kicked off with a formal MEA (Maintenance Effectiveness Assessment) that reviewed the maintenance systems and practices, and identified key improvement areas. Findings provided a performance baseline and improvement recommendations, and allowed the TPR implementation team to establish realistic goals and a plan of action.

Given its comprehensive nature, the MEA revealed several critical issues, including insufficient PMs; a lack of predictive tools; a majority reactive work; and minimal scheduled work. It also found an inadequate work-order system that relied on blanket work orders; a lack of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs); and no evidence of operator “ownership” of equipment. The invaluable and objective findings from the MEA supported the reliability improvement business case and highlighted current unacceptable conditions. It was welcome insight. “We had a way forward,” says the TPR Coordinator and Improvement Driver.

Structured for success

The assessment findings corroborated plant management’s feelings that improvement in equipment reliability and maintenance practices and systems would strengthen the company’s market position. Ensuring a successful TPR implementation, though, called for development of a viable support structure. This included the creation of leadership and cross-functional implementation teams.

Initial training and team-formation tasks were scoped and executed. The combination of different functions and company levels within the TPR teams provided fair representation and effective decision-making. Team members, in turn, were challenged to create vision and mission statements, define roles and responsibilities, adopt goals and craft initial implementation plans.

Helping individuals better understand their roles in the overall TPR effort was an important benefit associated with the development of the support structure. As soon as roles were established, the company conducted the necessary on-the-job training and coaching to help personnel be successful. Training, including Planning and Scheduling, PM Optimization, Storeroom Control and TPR Coordinator workshops, built knowledge, expertise and self-confidence among the staff. It also helped generate enthusiasm for the process. Providing training for new positions like Planner Schedulers and TPR Coordinators was a critical part of this phase.

‘Quick wins’ and optimized systems

With leadership buy-in, an effective implementation structure in place and training underway, the next step in the TPR effort was to build trust in TPR from the shop floor up to management offices. Building confidence in a strategy—and a belief that it works—is vital if the strategy is to become part of the culture. Achieving “quick wins” (immediate improvements that highlight benefits of a process) is a key to culture change and long-term success of companywide efforts like TPR. These types of “wins” turn skeptics into believers and provide kindling to fire up workforce passion.

To achieve quick wins, Basic Equipment Care (BEC) workshops and 5S events were conducted. Participants saw immediate improvements in equipment uptime and reliability. Operators started taking ownership for their equipment and processes. The 5S events also improved workplace organization and productivity. Employees on the shop floor saw the positive TPR impact and began to rally behind the long-term initiative.

Quick wins alone, however, can’t sustain a reliability effort: They must be paired with business-system improvements. Since a company is only as effective as its systems, this vegetable producer worked hard to re-engineer its preventive-maintenance program, implement an effective planning and scheduling system, achieve better utilization of the internal management system, create a robust measurement system and improve communications.

Metric improvements

The initial MEA pointed to the fact that metrics and KPI collection and monitoring were an opportunity for improvement, and vital for TPR implementation. From that point, the company worked tirelessly to track and improve key metrics and, thus, ensure it was on course to achieve its goals. In addition to collecting KPI data, the TPR teams communicated progress to all employees by way of bulletin boards and LCD TVs. This information included OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness), 5S progress and other key measures. Results of the TPR effort were noteworthy (see Sidebar).

The achievements didn’t come without struggles. “Our TPR journey has not been quick or easy,” says the TPR Coordinator. “We’ve had to overcome obstacles and road blocks within our workforce.” Some of the main issues were associated with middle management’s initial lack of involvement, a strong aversion to change across the organization, a rudimentary maintenance approach and poor troubleshooting skills. Issues also plagued the internal systems, including an undeveloped and misused Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS); undocumented and unsustainable work processes; and poor workplace organization.

Staying true to the TPR course, however, allowed the vegetable producer to surpass its competitors in market share. This success can be strongly attributed to the drive and continued support of leadership at this company, which has a history of innovation. Without effective leadership, no large-scale organizational improvement initiative can survive. Senior management supported the TPR initiative from the start and showed complete openness to change. For example, the Vice President of Operations met personally with all levels in the organization to reinforce and reinvigorate the TPR message.

Open communication was also vital. Every person was reminded of his/her personal responsibility in driving higher production capacity and helping boost maintenance efficiency and effectiveness. The message was crystal clear.

Other success factors include improved PM coverage and scheduling: Employees keep workflow moving, minimize reactive habits and measure themselves. Key people are now fully invested in this company-wide journey.

Despite experiencing its share of setbacks on the way to success, the company says it would do little differently. “If we had the luxury of hindsight,” the Maintenance Manager explained, “we would have recognized the wasteful environment in which we were operating sooner, and sharpened our focus and drive to implement the changes we’ve since achieved.”

The company’s initial self-confessed “lofty goal” of implementing the foundation of its reliability improvements was 3-6 months. Now, nearly three years into its TPR program, the organization realizes the scale of its undertaking, and has become more realistic about the level of effort that will be required going forward.

A new attitude

Today, the company is clean and orderly. People take serious pride in their efforts and strive to do better than the previous day. Operators perform PMs, and the maintenance department has a more proactive mentality. Metrics are collected and shared. Production output and equipment uptime are increasing while unnecessary costs decrease. The positive impact on the business is evident. “This time last year,” the TPR Coordinator notes, “we would not have been able to produce as many cases for the cost”.

Planning and Scheduling has become a priority. Teamwork is developing, relationships are strengthening and better processes are in place. “Operators have become more involved with the general maintenance of their equipment, performing daily and weekly inspections and cleaning,” says the Maintenance Supervisor. “They now own their kits and PMs.” Preventive practices are becoming a part of everyday operations. Case in point: Operators have developed BEC (Basic Equipment Care) stations on their own. Just as important is the fact that communications have significantly improved. As the TPR Coordinator reports, everyone talks about failures—and how to prevent them.

“We are going down a path toward sustainment rather than run-to-failure,” says the Maintenance Supervisor. “There’s a better sense of structure and attention to the equipment and plant cleanliness. From upper management down to the operator and technician levels, everyone is now aware of our mission. It’s an entire culture change.”

The Plant Manager confirms that “the successes we have achieved through TPR have allowed us to keep up with our current demand, and at the same time delay a $40Mproduct-line addition. Without TPR, we would require the third line. But because of our current level of efficiency, we’re able to produce a wider product array while running more complex processing equipment.”

This market-leading vegetable producer has created a robust TPR implementation plan that has served them well. All organizational levels are witnessing the positive effects of the TPR initiative and are dedicated to the continued journey. MT

This article was prepared with the help of Marshall Institute’s Director of Training, Tom Furnival, and Senior Consultant, Nick Flynn.

Honing a Competitive Edge with TPR

How it paid off for this market-leading vegetable producer.

• Reactive maintenance decreased from 85% to 37% on average.
• Planned maintenance vs. unplanned maintenance increased from 10% to 38% on average.
• Maintenance work done on schedule increased from 21% to 72%.
• Skills training increased from 0 hours to 48.9 hours per technician.
• The company’s monthly maintenance budget was reduced by 25%.
• The company’s newly developed and implemented OEE tracking system documented an increase in OEE on one production line of between 10% and 30% (over one year, dependant on shift), and an increase of between 10% and 25% on another.
• Production of one product increased by 390,000 cases per month.