Practical TPM and Maintenance Excellence – Part 5: Kaizen, Management Structure and the Learning Maintenance Organisation
In the previous article, we looked at the losses revealed by OEE and how Kaizen, 5 Why and other problem-solving tools help move from measurement to root causes and corrective action.
An individual observation still does not change the way work is done. Improvement starts when the observation is assessed, prioritised, investigated, implemented and followed up. What was learned must also return to the organisation for reuse.
In a factory, an observation may arise on the production line, in maintenance work or through daily production follow-up. It can be handled through a working group, an area group or another agreed Kaizen structure.
Mobile machinery maintenance works differently. Technicians work at different customer sites, on different machines, often alone or in small teams. The same management principle is needed, but information has to be collected and handled in a way that fits a distributed operating environment.
In this fifth article, Pentti Enlund describes the management structure of continuous improvement, the CIP process and the roles of the sponsor, facilitator and team. We also look at how the Kaizen structure used in factory maintenance can be applied to mobile machinery service.
Management structure for continuous improvement
Continuous improvement is not only a model for large factories. A smaller organisation also needs a structure that moves observations into handling, decisions and shared use.
In traditional TPM thinking, continuous improvement is often organised on several levels. The structure can include a steering group, focus groups, area groups and working groups. In a large factory this can make sense, because production, maintenance, quality, material functions and other support functions all work around the same production system.
The practical purpose of a Kaizen structure is to make sure an observation does not stay at the workstation. It needs a way forward, an owner, a decision and, where needed, a follow-up action. A smaller organisation can use the same principle without building the same level of organisational structure.
The two models below show different ways to apply the same principle. On the left is a management structure for a larger organisation. On the right is our own model, derived from Toyota practices and tested in everyday use over several years as an application for a more agile organisation.
In factory maintenance, this kind of structure can take the form of a regular improvement rhythm shared by production and maintenance. The issues brought into the process include downtime, recurring faults, quality deviations, safety observations, material problems and other disturbances that affect production capacity.
In mobile machinery maintenance, the same principle works in a different setting. An observation may come from a customer mine, construction site or terminal far from the rest of the organisation. Instead of a shared physical Kaizen board, a digital route is needed to bring the case to the service manager, service engineer, technical support, spare-parts function or, when needed, engineering.
Structure of the continuous improvement process – CIP
The continuous improvement process can be described through CIP stages. CIP stands for Continuous Improvement Process. Here it describes how an improvement idea or observation moves through the organisation from proposal to implementation, follow-up and feedback.
In a distributed service organisation, the CIP structure should remain a lightweight case-handling process. For each significant observation, at least the problem, situation, impact, proposal, owner, decision, implementation and learning should be recorded. This captures the core of CIP without requiring seven separate forms.
| CIP stage | Factory maintenance | Mobile machinery service |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Observation / idea | Abnormality on a machine, workstation or production line. The current situation is described clearly enough for handling. | Machine, customer site, symptom, conditions, impact and an initial assessment of the cause. |
| 2. Prioritisation | Safety, production interruption, quality, cost and recurrence determine urgency. | Safety, customer downtime, recurrence, spare-parts risk, cost and competence risk. |
| 3. Communication | Kaizen board, daily management, working group or another agreed handling channel. | Digital case list, service improvement rhythm, technical support or another shared handling channel. |
| 4. Status / follow-up | Owner, task, due date and status are made visible. | Open observation, owner, decision, next action, due date and status. |
| 5. Improvement completed | Change to the machine, process, standard, work method or material flow. | Work instruction, spare-parts solution, inspection point, training, customer guidance or technical modification. |
| 6. Feedback | The person who raised the observation and the working group are told the decision and next step. | The technician and, when appropriate, the customer are told what was done or why the issue remains on hold. |
| 7. Summary / learning in use | A working solution is standardised and applied more widely. | The solution is shared with other technicians, customer sites and machines of the same type. |
How an initiative moves through organisational levels
In a large factory organisation, an initiative may involve several functions: production, maintenance, quality, purchasing, engineering or finance. It is assessed at the organisational levels that are relevant to the solution. Not every idea needs to pass through every function, but responsibility and decision-making must remain visible.
In mobile machinery service, the chain is usually shorter. In a typical service organisation with around 40 technicians, an observation can move from the technician to the service engineer, then to a decision by the service manager and, when needed, to finance for a cost or investment assessment. After implementation, feedback goes back to the person who made the observation and the learning is shared with the organisation.
Roles of leaders, sponsors and the team
Successful implementation depends on recognising the factors behind the problem, understanding their significance and deciding whether more investigation is needed. The objectives must be clear. The support structure around the team also matters.
In a distributed service organisation, the roles can be lighter than in a large factory. The same person may sometimes cover more than one role, as long as responsibilities are clear.
| Role | Basic idea in factory maintenance | Application in mobile machinery service |
|---|---|---|
| Sponsor | Acts as the team’s safety net. Removes barriers and secures time, resources and decision authority. | Service manager, technical manager or business owner. |
| Responsible lead | Keeps the continuous improvement process moving and connections between functions open. | Service engineer, service manager or another named process owner alongside their normal role. |
| Facilitator | Helps the team structure the problem, collect observations and record decisions. Does not solve everything alone. | Technical specialist, senior technician, work planner or external specialist. |
| Team leaders and field experts | Bring practical knowledge and assess whether the solution works in real work. | Technicians, technical support, spare parts and, when needed, engineering or customer responsibility. |
The sponsor or facilitator may also prepare the review, follow the schedule, record actions, report progress and help develop the required measures and feedback practices. One responsibility is especially important in maintenance: what was learned must be captured for shared use. Otherwise, a good solution remains in the memory of one technician or one customer site.
Key performance indicators for success
A company must be able to meet the needs of its internal and external customers. In a traditional TPM environment, measures cover areas such as quality, cost, delivery, safety and morale. The same logic applies to mobile machinery service, but the measures have to reflect field-service work.
| Perspective | Factory maintenance | Mobile machinery service |
|---|---|---|
| Quality | Quality defects, disturbances, rework and lost production capacity. | Repeat visits, incorrect diagnoses, complaints and quality of customer reports. |
| Cost | Downtime, maintenance cost, spare parts and production loss. | Travel, waiting, wrong parts, warranty work and extra visits. |
| Delivery / service capability | Production throughput, timeliness and delivery capability. | Response time, lead time, first-time fix, spare-parts availability and restoration of machine capability. |
| Safety | Production and maintenance safety, including near misses. | Safety observations and unsafe work practices at customer sites and in changing conditions. |
| Morale and learning | Improvement proposals, participation and development of standards. | Documented solutions, shared learning, case reviews and reduced competence risk. |
The purpose of measurement is not to create more reporting. It should show whether an identified problem turns into a lasting improvement. In maintenance, a small mistake early in the process can create substantial waste later: the wrong part, poor preparation or unclear diagnostics can lead to another visit and longer downtime.
If the same problem can be solved only by one or two experienced people, the organisation has a competence risk. When the solution is documented and shared, that competence starts to spread.
Example from mobile machinery service
A mobile machine develops a recurring hydraulic fault. In the first case, the technician replaces the failed component and notices an unusual wear mark at the same time. The observation is recorded.
When a similar case later appears on another machine, technical support can connect the observations and assess whether they represent the same phenomenon. The spare-parts function checks the availability of the replacement part. If a common cause is confirmed, the solution may lead to an updated work instruction, a pre-check, a different spare-parts solution or a technical modification.
The first case repaired one machine. In the next case, the organisation can already use what it learned earlier.
Conclusion
In maintenance development, the biggest loss is not always the fault itself. It can also be the failure to learn from it.
If the observation, root cause, corrective action and achieved improvement remain in the memory of individual people, the same work will be repeated later. The real strength of Kaizen and TPM is that experience becomes shared organisational capital.
A good maintenance case does not end when the machine is running again. It ends when what was learned is available for the next similar situation.
With this article, we complete our discussion of the first TPM pillar, focused improvement. The series continues according to the TPM pillar structure.
In the next article, we move to Pillar 2: Autonomous Maintenance. Its aim is to enable machine operators to take independent care of basic equipment condition, understand normal machine behaviour and recognise abnormalities as early as possible. Autonomous Maintenance progresses through seven clearly defined stages, from initial cleaning to standardised inspection and maintenance routines.
At the same time, the traditional division of work between production and maintenance changes. The operator is not expected to replace the maintenance professional. The role is to prevent deterioration, detect changes earlier and take care of daily basic tasks. This allows maintenance professionals to focus on more demanding diagnostics, analysis and improvement work.
About the author
Pentti Enlund is a Value Engineering specialist. In this article series, he examines TPM, OEE and Kaizen through value, cost and production capacity: where performance is lost, where costs arise and how improvement work should be focused in practice.