Specialization: Production Engineering and Logistics

Delft University of Technology

FACULTY MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING

Department Maritime and Transport Technology

Mekelweg 2 2628 CD Delft the Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15-2782889 Fax +31 (0)15-2781397 www.mtt.tudelft.nl

This report consists of 84 pages and 14 appendices. It may only be reproduced literally and as a whole. For commercial purposes only with written authorization of Delft University of Technology. Requests for consult are only taken into consideration under the condition that the applicant denies all legal rights on liabilities concerning the contents of the advice.

Specialization: Production Engineering and Logistics

Report number: 2013.TEL.7812

Title: Improvement of TPM implementation control at the Heineken Brewery Zoeterwoude

Author: M. Kramer Title ( Dutch): Verbetering van TPM implementatie beheersing bij de

Heineken Brouwerij Zoeterwoude Assignment: Master Thesis Confidential: Yes (December, 19, 2018) Initiator (university): Dr. ir. H.P.M. Veeke Initiator (company): Ir. A. Jacobs Supervisor: Prof. dr. ir. G. Lodewijks Date: December 5, 2013





Student: M. Kramer Assignment type: Master thesis

Supervisor (TU Delft): H.P.M. Veeke Creditpoints (EC): 35

Supervisor (Heineken): A. Jacobs Specialization: PEL

Report number: 2013.TL.7812

Confidential: Yes, until Dec., 19, 2018

Subject: Improvement of TPM implementation control at the Heineken Brewery

Zoeterwoude

Introduction

Heineken employs a global process improvement program based on the Total Productive

Management (TPM) philosophy. The goal of this program is to develop the Heineken

supply chain into a world class supply chain. To develop the Breweries to this level an

implementation program is set up. This program consists of three steps: Bronze, Silver and

Gold. In 2003 Zoeterwoude Brewery is amongst the first Breweries to implement this

program and the goal is to acquire the Bronze status in the prescribed period of 3-5 years.

Only recent, in 2013, the Brewery achieved the Bronze award. The 10 year implementation

duration far exceeds the intended duration.

Problem statement

After the Bronze phase the Zoeterwoude Brewery will start the implementation of Silver.

However, currently the root causes of the implementation duration exceedance of Silver

are not clear and if the process is not improved the Silver implementation is pruned to

suffer from implementation duration exceedance. Therefore, this research is initiated to

analyze and improve the TPM implementation process.

http://www.mtt.tudelft.nl/





Research question

Based on the performed analysis the root causes of the control issues are stated as; the

absence of a conformation and tuning function and the lack of overall project control.

Therefore, the final research question reads:

How can the brewery process of confrontation and tuning be designed so it provides clear

and realistic goals and how can the project control be designed so that implementation is

controlled as one project?

Research execution

Your research assignment composes of four elements. The first element is to model the

TPM processes using the Delft Systems Approach. The second element is to diagnose the

root cause of the implementation duration by combining the systems analysis findings and

observations of the Bronze phase. The third element is to (re)design the control processes

so that the root causes of the control issues are eliminated. The last element is to

demonstrate the working of the designed processes by performing a proof of concept. To

carry out these four elements relevant literature should be studied.

Graduation Professor Graduation Attendant

Prof. Dr. Ir. G. Lodewijks Dr. Ir. H.P.M. Veeke

http://www.mtt.tudelft.nl/

ii

i

Preface

This report is the result of my master thesis project, carried out to complete the Master of

Science program Production Engineering and Logistics at Delft University Of Technology. The

assignment is executed on behalf of the section Maritime and Transport Technology and

concerns the Total Productive Management implementation at the Heineken Brewery

Zoeterwoude.

I could not have finished this project without the comprehensive I have received. Therfore I

would like to express my gratitude towards the people who have contribute to the realization

of this thesis. To start with, I would like to thank Fons Jacobs for giving me the opportunity

do my research at the TPM office at the Zoeterwoude Brewery, always making time in his

busy schedule to exchange ideas and support I received throughout the project. I would like

to thank Hans Veeke for the patience and valuable feedback that was of great help to guide

me through this abstract subject. Besides the direct support for this thesis I also would like to

thank Hans Veeke for his role in providing the basis through the Production Engineering and

Logistics program. I would like to thank Professor Lodewijks for his critical edge and practical

questions, which were essential in composing a balanced research. Finally I would like to

thank my colleagues at the TPM office, Brewery Management and all other indirectly involved

Brewery Personnel members for always taking the time to answer my endless stream of

questions.

The Hague, December 2013

Michiel Kramer

ii

iii

Executive summary

After the turn of the millennium a global consolidation in the beer industry started. In 2012

the top 4 players in the market – including Heineken - represent 41% of the global market. In

order to maintain the position of an independent market leader in this turbulent market,

Heineken initiated a companywide improvement program called Total Productive Management

(TPM). Heineken’s TPM program is based on Efeso’s World Class Operational Management

(WCOM) and aims to develop Heineken’s operations into a world class supply chain. The

implementation of this program is divided in three sequential stages, respectively called

Bronze, Silver and Gold.

Due to the challenges of an internal free market model, Heineken’s flagship Brewery at

Zoeterwoude is highly motivated to improve the operational performance faster than other

Breweries. To realize this faster improvement the Zoeterwoude Brewery has the ambition to

be one of the frontrunners in the TPM program. Therefore, in 2003 the Zoeterwoude Brewery

was amongst one of the first Breweries to start the implementation of the TPM program. In

February 2013, Zoeterwoude has finished the Bronze phase. This first step took 10 years

instead of the intended 3 to 5 years.

Although Brewery Management does not directly consider exceedance of the prescribed

implementation period as a failure, it is conceived to be a problem that the intended

implementation duration was far exceeded. Now the Brewery is on the verge of starting the

Silver phase, Brewery Management has stated the need for a more controlled implementation.

Therefore the objective of this research is to analyze and improve the TPM implementation

process.

Total Productive Management Program

TPM is a continuous improvement philosophy originated in Japan with the ultimate goal of

creating excellent processes. The TPM philosophy is based on four principles:

Fewer losses lead to excellent processes

Improved operational standards lead to fewer losses

An improved problem solving capability lead to improved operational standards

Developing methods and skills lead to a better problem solving capability

The realization of TPM is carried out by so called Pillars. Each pillar is responsible for a focus

area of the realization, for example Safety, Health and Environment or Preventive

Maintenance. Each Pillar therefore is responsible for a part of the losses, standards, problem

solving capability and development of methods and skills.

The TPM Award System consists of three following phases (Bronze, Silver, Gold) that are

measured by four award criteria:

iv

Pillar guidelines audit score

Fulfilment of killer criteria

Heineken Manufacturing Star performance score

Shop floor indicator criteria

The pillar guidelines and the killer criteria describe how the Brewery improvement process

should be executed in terms of TPM. The difference between these two criteria is that the

pillar guidelines give substance for one focus area, for example quality or safety, and the killer

criteria apply to all the focus areas. The Heineken Manufacturing Star and the Shop Floor

Indicators describe what operational result should be obtained by employing the prescribed

method. The Heineken Manufacturing Star is a balanced scorecard based on the Brewery’s 23

most important KPI’s and the Shop Floor Indicators are operational indicators concerning the

process reliability, stability and quality.

Analysis of the Bronze phase

By reviewing the implementation of the Bronze status with the control criteria of in ‘t Veld it is

concluded that the project was not performed in a controlled way. The main control issues

that are found are:

Progress was determinate upon audit score

Brewery personnel had no knowledge of the intended target state

Killer criteria where not assigned

No steering on implementation duration

Available resources where easily allocated to operational problems

Low commitment to planning

Due to the lack of implementation control it was not possible to give an estimation of the

required effort and time. After reviewing the aspects that make up the project tension field

between quality, project duration and resources, it can be concluded that there was little

room for compromising on quality. Moreover, there was no commitment to milestone dates,

whilst the resource availability was under pressure from day to day operations. The

combination of these factors resulted in the exceedance of the intended implementation

duration.

System analysis of TPM implementation

In order to determine whether the found issues can be related the current design of TPM

implementation process, the process is analyzed using the Delft Systems Approach (DSA). It is

concluded that the TPM process at Heineken’s Zoeterwoude brewery consists of two

processes: TPM execution and TPM development. Through TPM execution the standards of

the operational processes are improved. TPM development is the process in which the

organization is equipped with methods and skills to improve the way TPM is executed. The

v

implementation of the TPM program, concerns the TPM development process, in other words

how to get the Brewery working in a TPM way.

Concerning the TPM development process two main systems deficiencies are found. The first

is that there is no confrontation and tuning function. The purpose of this function in the

innovation model is to tune the policy to the definitive goals. The second finding is that there

is no overall project control, making the individual executing pillars self steering.

Problem statement and research question

The problems observed during the implementation of the Bronze phase can be linked to the

main conclusions of the systems analysis through two problem statements. The first is that no

clear and realistic goals are set. The second is that Bronze implementation was not controlled

as one project. Based on these problem statements the main research question is stated as:

How can process of confrontation and tuning be designed so it provides clear and realistic

goals and how can the project control be designed so that implementation is controlled as one

project?

To answer this question two process elements have to be designed, a confrontation and

tuning process and the project control function.

Design of a Confront and Tune Process

The goal of the confront and tune function is to translate the generic criteria set by the

Corporate TPM office into clear and realistic goals for the specific Brewery. The SMART

method states that goals should be Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic and Time

bound. Based on these requirements the four process steps are defined; compare the as-is

and to-be situation, determine the acceptability, tune the gaps to the organizational structure

and schedule into a master plan.

These process steps have to be performed for each of the four TPM criteria, therefore the

substance of the step should differ for each of the criteria. Figure 1 shows the composition of

the sub steps and a brief description for the execution method. The tools to perform the

process are also incorporated in the design.

Through the execution of the confront and tune process the general criteria are transformed

into a scheduled overview of the actions that should be executed to perform TPM

implementation.

vi

Figure 1 Confrontation and tuning process summary

Design of Project Control

The second part of the design is the project control, which must ensure that the project is

managed as one project. To do so, the project control must consist of three aspects:

Steering function for the individual executing pillars

Coordination function between the pillars and

Result verification function

The first function, steering the pillars, is done by translating the agreed commitments into

standards for the pillars. These standards cover the aspects of quality, resources and time. To

fulfill this function a dashboard to monitor the progress and performance is developed. If one

of these indicators is of, an intervention in the implementation system is needed.

Although the coordination between and allocation of projects to pillars is primarily done in the

tuning phase, the project control process should be able to deal with deviations from the

original action plan. Therefore, the second function is to coordinate the activities between the

pillars. To fulfill this function alterations in the pillar year plans should be reported back to the

project control so the coordination can be ensured. To fulfill the function the project control

should receive quarterly pillar progress updates.

The last function of the project control is the result verification. From the tuning process a

projection of the performance increase is made. If the operational performance stays behind

or is ahead of schedule the project control should intervene by altering the standards. For this

function a dashboard is constructed to identify deviations from the expected performance

increase.

vii

Proof of Concept

To demonstrate the working of the designed process the concept is applied. Subject of the

proof of concept is the implementation of Silver phase at Zoeterwoude Brewery. Thereby

focus is on the proof of the confront and tune function, as project control can only be applied

throughout the course of implementation. From the proof of concept conclusions are made.

The following paragraph address the findings per process step.

Step 1: Current situation- By performing the confrontation of the as-is and to-be situation it is

found that the current way of working covers 43% of the pillar guidelines and 39% of the

required killer criteria for Silver status. To meet the performance criteria the Heineken

Manufacturing Star performance must be increased by 5,6% on average and the Shop floor

indicators with 10,2% on average.

Step 2: Acceptability - Through the assessment of the acceptability of the goals it is found

that 22% of the pillar guidelines pose an unacceptable effort/result ratio and will not be listed

for execution. With the exception of the absence rate, the HMS criteria are all considered

acceptable since they are feasible and in line with the long term vision of the operational

performance of the Brewery. The Shop Floor Indicators are also considered acceptable, with

the exception of the mean time between stops and the mean time between failure for the keg

lines.

Step 3: Tune to Organizational Structure – The pillar guidelines and killer criteria are tuned to

the organizational structure, which results in four Brewery wide projects: 1) Autonomous

maintenance; 2) Copy and share structure; 3) End 2 End optimization; and 4) operational

standard evaluation. The other killer criteria are allocated to a specific pillar.

Step 4: Master plan – The actions listed are scheduled into a master plan. Given the current

resource availability and quality scope, it is found that the best estimate for implementation

duration is 5 years. This implementation is strongly depended on the critical path off rolling-

out Autonomous Maintenance steps 4, which concern the allocation of technical and

technological tasks to the operators.

The proof of concept is concluded by addressing the business case of Silver TPM

implementation. The total cost of Silver TPM implementation are estimated at € 4.960.000

and the yearly revenues are estimated at € 2.138.000. Based on these estimations the net

present value of the project is € 6.523.000 which makes the project financially viable.

Through the net present value calculation it is can also be concluded that even if the project

cost are exceeded by 150% the project is still financially viable.

Evaluation of the execution of the designed process proofs that the process delivers an

comprehensive and practical overview of the goals and corresponding efforts. All stakeholders

agree that the process has greatly clarified the expectations of the project. Through the

viii

execution of the process Brewery Management was confronted, in advance, with a projected

duration of 8 years based on the current recourses. Based on this insight it is decided to

double the available man-hours for the implementation of Autonomous Maintenance step 4,

which is the critical path of Silver implementation, to complete the project in 5 years.

Furthermore, the Corporate TPM office have praised this method of working with its

accompanying tools. Therefore, it is expanded to all Heineken Peer breweries in Europe to

prepare and control Silver implementation.

Conclusions

The purpose of the research is to improve the control of TPM implementation at the Heineken

Brewery Zoeterwoude. Through the analysis of the Bronze phase and a system analysis the

root causes of the delay are found in the lack of clear and realistic goals through the absence

of a confrontation and tuning function and a lack of project steering control though the

absence of a central project control. Therefore the main research question arise of how to

redesign both elements to ensure clear and realistic goals and the that the implementation

could be managed as one project. The presented confrontation and tuning design has

demonstrated its function through the proof of concept. The project control jet has to prove

its function by applying it throughout the Silver project.

To conclude the research four recommendations are given to the Zoeterwoude Brewery

Management:

The goals must justify the means

Choose what not to do

Look into the savings potential at the support functions

Sharing of mistakes

ix

Samenvatting

In het jaar 2000 is er een wereldwijde consolidatie in de bier industrie gestart, waarbij in 2012

de grootste vier spelers – waaronder Heineken – 41% van de wereldmarkt representeerden.

Om de positie als onafhankelijke marktleider te behouden, initieerde Heineken in 2002 een

bedrijfsbreed verbeterprogramma. Dit programma heet Total Productive Management (TPM)

en is gebaseerd of Efeso’s Word Class Operational Management aanpak. Het doel van dit

programma is om Heineken’s supply chain te transformeren naar een supply chain van

wereldklasse. De implementatie van dit programma is verdeeld in drie sequentiële fases,

respectievelijk Brons, Zilver en Goud genaamd.

Door het vrije markt model dat gehanteerd wordt is Heineken’s vlaggenschip brouwerij in

Zoeterwoude erg gemotiveerd zijn operationele prestaties sneller te verbeteren dan de andere

brouwerijen. Om deze snelle verbetering te realiseren heeft de brouwerij Zoeterwoude de

ambitie om voorloper te zijn in het TPM programma. Daarom, was in 2003 deze brouwerij bij

de eerste lichting die van start ging met het implementeren van TPM. In februari 2013 heeft

de Brouwerij de bronzen fase voltooid. Deze stap heeft 10 jaar geduurd in tegenstelling to de

verwachte 3 tot 5 jaar.

Ondanks het brouwerij management deze overschrijding van de voorgeschreven

implementatie duur niet direct als een mislukking beschouwd, wordt het wel als een probleem

beschouwd dat deze overschrijding niet van te voren werd verwacht. Nu de brouwerij op het

punt staat te starten met de implementatie van de Zilveren fase, heeft het brouwerij

management de behoefte uitgesproken van een beter beheerste implementatie van deze fase.

Daarom is het doel van dit onderzoek om het TPM implementatie proces te onderzoeken en te

verbeteren.

Het Total Productive Management Programma

TPM is een continue verbeter filosofie die afkomstig is uit Japan met het hoogste doel om

excellente processen te creëren. De TPM filosofie is gebaseerd op vier principes:

Het verminderen van verliezen leid tot excellente processen

Verbeterde operationele standaarden leiden tot minder verliezen

Een verbeterd probleem oplossend vermogen leidt tot verbeterde standaarden

Het ontwikkelen van methoden en vaardigheden leid tot een beter probleem

oplossend vermogen

Het realiseren van TPM wordt uitgevoerd door zogenoemde pilaren. Elke pilaar is

verantwoordelijk voor aandachtsgebied van deze realisatie, bijvoorbeeld veiligheid of

preventief onderhoud. Iedere pilaar is binnen dit aandachtsgebied voor een deel van de

x

verliezen, de operationele standaarden, het probleem oplossend vermogen en het ontwikkelen

van de methoden en vaardigheden.

Het TPM award system bestaat uit drie opvolgende fases (Brons, Zilver, Goud) die gemeten

worden doormiddel van vier type criteria:

Pilaar richtlijn audit score

Voldoen aan de killer criteria

Heineken Manufactoring Star score

Werkvloer indicator criteria

De pilaar richtlijnen en de killer criteria beschrijven hoe het verbeterproces uitgevoerd zou

moeten worden in termen van TPM. Het verschil tussen deze twee criteria is dat de pilaar

richtlijnen invulling geven aan een aandachtsgebied terwijl de killer criteria van toepassing zijn

op de gehele brouwerij. De Heineken Manufactoring Star score en de werkvloer criteria

beschrijven werk operationeel resultaat behaald moet worden. De Heineken Manufactoring

Star is daarbij een balanced score card gebaseerd op de 23 belangrijkste brouwerij KPI’s,

zoals productiviteit en ziekteverzuim. De werkvloer indicatoren zijn operationele indicatoren op

het gebied van proces betrouwbaarheid, stabiliteit en kwaliteit.

Analyse van de Bronzen Fase

Door de implementatie van de bronzen fase te beoordelen aan de hand van de beheersings

criteria van in ’t Veld is geconcludeerd dat het project niet op beheerste wijze is uitgevoerd.

De belangrijkste beheersings problemen die gevonden zijn:

De voortgang werd bepaald aan de hand van de audit score

Het brouwerij personeel (initieel) geen kennis van de beoogde doelen

De killer criteria zijn niet toegewezen

Geen sturing op implementatie duur

De beschikbare middelen werden snel toegewezen aan operationele problemen

Beperkte toewijding aan planning

Door het gebrek aan implementatie beheersing was het niet mogelijk om een schatting te

geven over de benodigd inspanning en tijd. Door te kijken naar de aspecten die waaruit het

project spanningsveld bestaat tussen kwaliteit, project duur en middelen kan worden

geconcludeerd dat er beperkte ruimte was om toe te geven op kwaliteit. Bovendien was er

weinig toewijding aan de duur van de projecten terwijl de beschikbare middelen onder druk

stonden van de dagelijkse operatie. De combinatie van deze factoren heeft geleid tot de

overschrijding van de implementatie duur.

xi

Systeem analyse van TPM implementatie

Om te bepalen of de gevonden problemen toegeschreven kunnen worden aan het huidige

TPM implementatie proces, is dit proces geanalyseerd aan de hand van de Delftse

Systeemkunde. Er is geconstateerd dat het TPM proces op de Brouwerij bestaat uit twee deel

processen: TPM uitvoering en TPM ontwikkeling. Doormiddel van TPM uitvoering worden de

operationele standaarden verbeterd. TPM ontwikkeling is het proces waarbij de organisatie

uitgerust wordt met de methoden en vaardigheden zodat het TPM uitvoeringsproces wordt

verbeterd. De implementatie van het TPM programma heeft betrekking op het TPM

ontwikkelingsproces.

Wat betreft het TPM ontwikkeling proces zijn twee problemen geïdentificeerd. Ten eerst dat

er geen confrontatie en afstemmingsstap aanwezig is. Het doel van deze stap in het innovatie

model is om het beleid af te stemmen en te komen tot definitieve doelen. Ten tweede is er

geen overkoepelende project beheersing aanwezig waardoor de individuele pilaren zelf

sturend zijn.

Probleemstelling en onderzoeksvraag

De problemen zoals ervaren tijdens de Bronzen fase kunnen gerelateerd worden aan de

conclusies van de systeem analyse door middel van twee probleemstellingen. De eerste is dat

er geen heldere en haalbare doelen gesteld zijn. De tweede is dat de implementatie niet

beheerst is als een project. Op basis van deze probleemstellingen is de onderzoeksvraag

gesteld als:

Hoe kan het confrontatie en afstemmingsproces ontworpen worden zodat deze voorziet in

heldere en haalbare doelen en hoe kan de projectbeheersing ingericht worden zodat TPM

implementatie beheerst wordt als een project?

Om deze vraag te beantwoorden moeten er twee proces elementen ontworpen worden, een

confrontatie en afstemmingsproces en een projectbeheersings functie.

Ontwerp van het confrontatie en afstemmingsproces

Het doel van het confrontatie en afstemmingsproces is om de generieke criteria, zoals deze

zijn opgesteld door Heineken’s centrale TPM organisatie, te vertalen in heldere en haalbare

doelstellingen voor de specifieke brouwerij. De SMART methode stelt dat doelen Specifiek,

Meetbaar, Acceptabel, Realistisch en Tijdgebonden moeten zijn. Aan de hand van deze eisen

zijn er vier processtappen gedefinieerd voor het confrontatie en afstemmingsproces; vergelijk

de as-is en to-be situatie, bepaal de aanvaardbaarheid, stem de criteria af op de organisatie

structuur en plan de activiteiten in een master plan.

Deze processtappen moeten uitgevoerd worden voor de vier type criteria, vandaar dat de

invulling van de processtappen specifiek dienen te zijn voor elk van de criteria. Figure 2 geeft

de samenstelling van de sub processen en een korte beschrijving van alle processtappen

xii

weer. De benodigde tools om deze processen uit te voeren zijn ook bij het ontwerp

inbegrepen.

Figure 2 Confrontatie en afstemmingsproces samenvatting

Doormiddel van de uitvoering van het confrontatie en afstemmingsproces zijn de generieke

criteria getransformeerd tot gepland overzicht van alle benodigde acties om de TPM

implementatie uit te voeren.

Ontwerp van de projectbeheersing

Het tweede onderdeel van het ontwerp is de projectbeheersing die er voor moet zorgen dat

de implementatie als een project beheerst wordt. Om hieraan te voeldoen moet de

projectbeheersing bestaan uit drie aspecten:

Aansturen van de uitvoerende individuele pilaren

Verzorgen van de coördinatie tussen de pilaren

Verifiëren van behaalde resultaten

De eerste functie, het aansturen van de pilaren, gebeurt door de eisen te vertalen in

standaarden voor de pilaren. Deze standaarden omvatten de kwaliteit, de beschikbare

middelen en de duur. Om aan deze functie te voldoen is er een dashboard ontwikkeld om de

voortgang en de behaalde resultaten te kunnen monitoren. Indien een van deze indicatoren

afwijkt, zal ingegrepen moeten worden door middel van de aansturing.

Ondanks er coördinatie tussen de pilaren voornamelijk vindt tijdens het afstemmingsproces

zal gedurende de uitvoering de projectbeheersing afwijkingen moeten coördineren. Om deze

functie te kunnen vervullen zullen periodiek afwijkingen van de planning gerapporteerd en

afgestemd moeten worden.

De laatste functie die de project beheersing vervuld is het verifiëren van de behaalde

resultaten. Vanuit het afstemmingsproces wordt een verwachte verbetering van de

xiii

operationele resultaten aangeleverd. Indien deze resultaten niet bereikt worden zal er in de

implementatie ingegrepen moeten worden doormiddel van de standaarden. Om afwijkingen te

kunnen signaleren is een dashboard gemaakt waar de resultaten gevolgd kunnen worden.

Proof of concept

Om de werking van het ontworpen proces aan te tonen is het proces toegepast op de Zilveren

fase van TPM implementatie bij de bouwerij Zoeterwoude. Hierbij licht de focus op het

aantonen van het confrontatie en afstemmingsproces aangezien de projectbeheersing alleen

aangetoond kan worden gedurende de uitvoering. De volgend paragrafen zullen de conclusies

van het proof of concept weergeven per processtap.

Stap 1: Huidige situatie – Door het vergelijken van de as-is en to-be situatie is gevonden dat

huidige werkwijze 43% van de pilaar richtlijnen en 39% van de killer criteria voor Zilveren

TPM status afdekken. Om te voldoen aan de doelstellingen met betrekking tot de operationele

resultaten zal de Heineken Manufactoring Star prestatie gemiddeld met 5,6% en de werkvloer

indicatoren met 10,2% verbeterd moeten worden.

Stap 2: Aanvaardbaarheid – Door de aanvaardbaarheid van de criteria te beoordelen is

gevonden dat 22% van de pilaar richtlijnen een onacceptabele inspanning/resultaat

verhouding heeft en niet zullen worden uitgevoerd. De Heineken Manufactoring Star criteria

zijn, met uitzondering van het ziekteverzuim, allen acceptabel aangezien deze haalbaar zijn en

in lijn zijn met de lange termijn visie van de brouwerij. De werkvloer indicatoren zijn, met

uitzondering van de gemiddelde tijd tussen stops en de gemiddelde tijd tussen storingen voor

de fustlijnen, acceptabel.

Stap 3: Afstemming op de organisatiestructuur – De pilaar richtlijnen en killer criteria zijn

afgestemd op de organisatiestructuur. Dit heeft geleid tot vier brouwerij brede projecten: 1)

Autonoom onderhoud; 2) Kopieer en deel structuur; 3) End-2-end optimalisatie; en 4)

evaluatie van operationele standaarden. De andere killer criteria zijn toegewezen aan een

specifieke pilaar.

Stap 4: Master plan – De benodigde acties zijn gepland in een master plan. Gegeven de

huidige beschikbare middelen gewenste kwaliteit niveau is de beste schatting dat Zilveren

TPM implementatie 5 jaar zal duren. Deze implementatie duur is sterk afhankelijk van het

kritieke pad van het implementeren van autonoom onderhoud stap 4, welke de verplaatsing

van technische en technologische taken naar de operator betreft.

Vanuit de bevindingen van het proof of concept kan de business case van Zilveren TPM

implementatie opgesteld worden. De totale kosten van de implementatie worden geschat op €

4.960.000 en de verwachte jaarlijkse besparing wordt geschat op € 2.138.000. Aan de hand

van deze cijfers is de netto contante waarde van het project berekend op € 6.523.000,

waardoor de TPM implementatie een financieel gunstig project is. Met behulp van de netto

xiv

contante waarde berekening kan ook geconcludeerd worden dat zelfs als de kosten 150%

hoger uitvallen, het project financieel haalbaar is.

Met behulp van de proof of concept is aangetoond dat het proces een uitgebreid en concreet

overzicht verschaft van de doelen en benodigde inspanning voor de Zilveren fase. De

betrokkenen zijn het er over eens dat door middel van dit proces een beter inzicht is gekregen

in het project. Door de uitvoering van het proof of concept is het brouwerij management, van

te voren, geconfronteerd met een verwachte implementatie duur van 8 jaar. Op basis van dit

inzicht is besloten de beschikbare manuren voor de implementatie van Autonoom onderhoud

stap 4 te verdubbelen om in staat te zijn het project in 5 jaar te kunnen afronden. Bovendien

heef het de centrale TPM organisatie de aanpak en de bijbehorende tools geprezen. Mede

daarom is deze werkwijze uitgebreid naar alle referentie brouwerijen in Europa om de Zilveren

TPM implementatie voor te bereiden en te beheersen.

Conclusies

Het doel van het onderzoek is om de beheersing van TPM implementatie te verbeteren bij de

Heineken Brouwerij Zoeterwoude. Doormiddel van de analyse van de Bronzen fase en de

systeem analyse zijn de factoren geïdentificeerd die de oorzaak zijn van de overschrijding van

de implementatie duur. De problemen zijn geformuleerd als een gebrek aan heldere en

haalbare doelstellingen en een gebrek aan overkoepelende project beheersing. Om deze

problemen te op te lossen is een herontwerp gemaakt van de project beheersing, bestaande

uit een confrontatie en afstemmingsproces en een overkoepelende implementatie beheersing.

Het confrontatie en afstemmingsproces heeft zijn functie bewezen door middel van het proof

of concept. De project beheersing zal zijn functie moeten bewijzen gedurende de

implementatie van de Zilveren fase.

Ter afsluiting van het onderzoek zijn er drie aanbevelingen aan het Brouwerij Management:

Het doel moet het middel rechtvaardigen

Kies bewust wat niet te doen

Bekijk het besparingspotentieel bij de ondersteunende functies

Deel mislukkingen

xv

Contents

Preface ............................................................................................................................. i

Executive summary .............................................................................................................. iii

Samenvatting....................................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xvii

List of tables ...................................................................................................................... xix

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Supply Chain Profile Heineken ........................................................................... 1

1.2 Heineken’s Total Productive Management Program .............................................. 2

1.3 Heineken Brewery Zoeterwoude ........................................................................ 5

1.4 Research objective ........................................................................................... 7

1.5 Report Outline ................................................................................................. 8

2 Analysis of the Bronze Implementation .......................................................................... 11

2.1 TPM Award System ........................................................................................ 11

2.2 Analysis of Implementation of Bronze............................................................... 14

2.3 SWOT Analysis .............................................................................................. 16

2.4 Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................... 18

3 System Analysis of TPM................................................................................................ 19

3.1 Systems Definition ......................................................................................... 19

3.2 TPM System in Delft Systems Approach ............................................................ 22

3.3 System Analysis Findings ................................................................................ 25

3.4 Concluding remarks ....................................................................................... 26

4 Problem Definition and Research Question ................................................................... 27

5 Process Design: Confront & Tune .................................................................................. 31

5.1 Function and Requirements ............................................................................. 31

5.2 Process steps ................................................................................................ 33

5.3 Process and Tool Design ................................................................................. 35

5.4 Concluding remarks ....................................................................................... 43

6 Process Design: Project Control .................................................................................... 45

6.1 Functions of Project Control ............................................................................ 45

6.2 Process and Dashboard Design ........................................................................ 47


xvi

7 Proof of Concept: Confront and Tune Process ................................................................. 51

7.1 Tuning of Pillar Guidelines ............................................................................... 51

7.2 Tuning of Killer Criteria ................................................................................... 54

7.3 Tuning of HMS Criteria ................................................................................... 60

7.4 Tuning of Shop Floor indicator criteria .............................................................. 66

7.5 Business case of Silver ................................................................................... 70


8 Conclusions and recommendations .............................................................................. 77

8.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 77

8.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 80

9 References ................................................................................................................. 82

Appendixes ........................................................................................................................ 85

B: Scientific Research Paper ................................................................................ 86

B: Contact Information ....................................................................................... 77

C: Detailed Company Profile Heineken .................................................................. 78

D: Operations at the Zoeterwoude Brewery ........................................................... 84

E: Organizational Structure of the Zoeterwoude Brewery ........................................ 87

F: Description of TPM Execution .......................................................................... 90

G: Description of TPM Organizational Structure...................................................... 95

H: TPM Implementation Frameworks ................................................................... 100

I: Operational Results Since TPM Implementation ................................................ 104

J: Proof of Concept Interview Overview .............................................................. 106

K: Acceptability of Pillar Guideline Gaps ............................................................... 107

L: Comparison As Is and To Be Situation Killer Criteria .......................................... 110

M: Tuned Actions per Executing Organ ................................................................ 111

xvii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Confrontation and tuning process summary ............................................................. vi

Figure 2 Confrontatie en afstemmingsproces samenvatting ................................................... xii

Figure 3 Global Presence of Heineken ................................................................................. 1

Figure 4 Companies using Solving Efeso’s WCOM TPM Approach ............................................ 2

Figure 5 TPM Premises and Organisation ............................................................................. 4

Figure 6 TPM Implementation Phases .................................................................................. 5

Figure 7 Heineken Head Office and Brewery Zoeterwoude ..................................................... 5

Figure 8 Production Cost of Heineken Breweries ................................................................... 7

Figure 9 Report Outline ..................................................................................................... 8

Figure 10 Characterization of Bronze, Silver and Gold TPM Organization .............................. 12

Figure 11 Calculation of Benchmark Score ........................................................................ 13

Figure 12 Categorization of Award Criteria ........................................................................ 14

Figure 13 Project Tension Field Triangle ........................................................................... 15

Figure 14 SWOT analysis bronze ..................................................................................... 18

Figure 15 Systems Black Box .......................................................................................... 19

Figure 16 Rich Picture of TPM Activities and Stakeholders .................................................. 20

Figure 17 Subsystems in Rich Picture; TPM Execution and TPM Development ....................... 21

Figure 18 Total Model .................................................................................................... 23

Figure 19 TPM Development Subsystems ......................................................................... 23

Figure 20 Innovation Model for TPM Development ............................................................ 24

Figure 21 Control Structure of Pillar Plans......................................................................... 25

Figure 22 Tuning process steps and intermediate products ................................................. 34

Figure 23 Tune process sub processes ............................................................................. 34

Figure 24 Tool for comparing the as is and to be situation for pillar guidelines ...................... 36

Figure 25 Map Ease and Effect ........................................................................................ 37

Figure 26 Tool for comparing the as is and to be situation and the acceptability ................... 37

Figure 27 Pillar responsibility overview ............................................................................. 38

Figure 28 Master plan template ....................................................................................... 38

Figure 29 Tool for comparing the as is and to be situation for killer criteria .......................... 39

Figure 30 HMS gap calculation sheet ............................................................................... 41

Figure 31 Part of the SFI gap calculation sheet ................................................................. 42

Figure 32 Confront and tune process summary ................................................................. 44

Figure 33 Control process design ..................................................................................... 47

Figure 34 TPM implementation progress dashboard ........................................................... 49

Figure 35 Characterization of pillar guidelines gaps ........................................................... 52

Figure 36 Example of calculation of priority ...................................................................... 52

Figure 37 Ease and Effect Zoeterwoude ........................................................................... 53

xviii

Figure 38 Priority Distribution ......................................................................................... 53

Figure 39 Pillar guidelines responsibility focussed improvement .......................................... 54

Figure 40 Characterisation of Killer Criteria ....................................................................... 55

Figure 41 Example of a pillar activities summary ............................................................... 57

Figure 42 Delivery schedule of completed AM machines ..................................................... 58

Figure 43 Part of master plan ......................................................................................... 58

Figure 44 Autonomous maintenance step 4 planning ......................................................... 59

Figure 45 Current performance and target Vision 2015 versus Silver criteria ......................... 62

Figure 46 Historical cost leadership performance compared to Silver criteria......................... 63

Figure 47 Capital Placement per Production Volume .......................................................... 63

Figure 48 Historical customer satisfaction performance compared to Silver criteria ................ 64

Figure 49 Historical social responsibility performance compared to Silver criteria .................. 64

Figure 50 Historical org. and people development performance compared to Silver ............... 65

Figure 51 Historical cost leadership performance compared to Silver criteria......................... 65

Figure 52 Course of cost and revenue over time ............................................................... 72

Figure 53 Confrontation and tuning process summary ....................................................... 78

Figure 54 Systems black box........................................................................................... 87

Figure 55 Systems Total model ....................................................................................... 87

Figure 56 Detail model of TPM development ..................................................................... 88

Figure 57 Detail model implementing develop TPM methods .............................................. 88

Figure 58 Confrontation and tuning process steps ............................................................. 89

Figure 59 Confrontation and tuning process summary ....................................................... 89

Figure 60 Pictures of Heineken from the period between 1864 and 1889 ............................. 79



Figure 63 Company logo’s of major takeovers of Heineken between 2003 and 2013.............. 80

Figure 64 Graph of largest Brewers in the world................................................................ 81

Figure 65 Graph of largest beer brands in the world .......................................................... 82

Figure 66 Ownership structure of Heineken ...................................................................... 83

Figure 67 Main Processes at Zoeterwoude Brewery ........................................................... 84

Figure 68 Brew house interior and filtration area ............................................................... 85

Figure 69 Overview Main Packaging Hall .......................................................................... 86

Figure 70 Warehouse AGV and export handling dock ......................................................... 86

Figure 71 Functional Structure of Zoeterwoude Brewery .................................................... 87

Figure 72 Deployment of Waste ...................................................................................... 90

Figure 73 Illustrative example of Problem Solving Hierarchy ............................................... 91

Figure 74 Problem solving hierarchy ................................................................................ 92

Figure 75 Summary of minor stop reduction team route..................................................... 93

Figure 76 Execution securing methods ............................................................................. 94

xix

Figure 77 TPM Pillar Framework Heineken ........................................................................ 95

Figure 78 TPM Organization ............................................................................................ 99

Figure 79 European productivity performance since TPM implementation ............................ 104

Figure 80 OPI performance index since TPM implementation ............................................. 104

Figure 81 Productivity performance since TPM implementation .......................................... 105

Figure 82 Resource consumption since TPM implementation.............................................. 105

Figure 83 Operating expenses since TPM implementation.................................................. 105

List of tables

Table 1 TPM criteria in terms of SMART ................................................................................. 33

Table 2 Policy gaps per category ......................................................................................... 51

Table 3 Gaps on Killer Criteria ............................................................................................. 55

Table 4 Killer Criteria Allocated to Executive Organ Zoeterwoude Brewery ................................ 56

Table 5 Comparison of current required performance for Silver ................................................ 60

Table 6 Performance compared to the long term vision and the silver targets ........................... 61

Table 7 Yearly HMS performance targets .............................................................................. 66

Table 8 Mean Time Between Failures .................................................................................... 67

Table 9 Mean Time Between Stops ....................................................................................... 67

Table 10 First time right indicators.......................................................................................... 68

Table 11 Yearly SFI performance targets ................................................................................. 70

Table 12 Cost estimation of Silver TPM implementation ............................................................. 71

Table 13 Revenue estimation of TPM implementation ............................................................... 72

Table 14 Present value calculation of Silver TPM implementation ............................................... 73

Table 15 Heinkenen’s facts and figures and Revenue per region ............................................... 80

Table 16 Twelve step TPM implementation by Nakajima (1988) .............................................. 101

Table 17 The three phase TPM implementation by Hartmann (1992) ....................................... 102

Table 18 The 5-phase TPM implementation framework of Productivity Inc. (1999) ..................... 103

1

1 Introduction

This master thesis focuses on the implementation of a global process improvement program

at Heineken Zoeterwoude Brewery. To get an understanding of the context of this subject,

this chapter introduces the supply chain profile of the company Heineken (paragraph 1.1) and

the improvement philosophy called Total Productive Management (paragraph 1.2). Paragraph

1.3 outlines the specific challenges for Zoeterwoude Brewery which leads to the research

objective (paragraph 1.4). Finally an outline of the report is presented in paragraph 1.5.

1.1 Supply Chain Profile Heineken

Heineken produces over 250 international, regional, local and specialty beers or ciders. The

company prides itself on being the most international brewer in the world with over 165

breweries in over 70 countries (Heineken NV, 2012). The global presence of the company is

visualized in Figure 3. With a total production of 221 mln hectoliter (hl) of beer, a global

market share of 11% and a total revenue of € 18,3 billion, Heineken is the third largest

brewer in the world (Heineken NV, 2012). The largest brand in the portfolio is Heineken with

a total production volume of 27,4 mln hl and an estimated brand value of $ 3,9 billion

(Interbrand). A more detailed company profile of Heineken can be found in Appendix C, this

will cover Heineken’s history, key figures, brands and the organizational structure.

Figure 3 Global Presence of Heineken

In 2000 Heineken belonged, with SAB, Anheuser-Busch, InBev and Miller Brewing, to the top

4 players in the market and together they had a global market share of 22%. But after the

turn of the millennium a global consolidation of the beer industry started and the competition

2

increased. In 2012 Heineken still belongs to the top 4, with AB-InBev, SabMiller and China

Resources Enterprises who now together represent 41% of the market.

Heineken’s mission is to remain a large independent player in the global beer market. To

retain and strength their position the Fit to Fight program was initiated. An essential part the

Fit to Fight program is to develop Heineken’s supply chain in a world class supply chain. To

give substance to this goal Heineken started trials in 2000 with the Total Productive

Management (TPM) continuous improvement method. In 2002 the first tryouts where done

with a TPM implementation program. After just one year of try-outs TPM was adopted in the

Company Strategic Program and the decision was made for a complete TPM roll-out to all

Breweries. Jean-Francois van Boxmeer, CEO of Heineken, stated: “TPM is a program that

ultimately translates in higher productivity, fewer losses of raw materials, water, energy and a

better product. That is what we are looking for!”.

1.2 Heineken’s Total Productive Management Program

Heineken’s Total Productive Management (TPM) program is an interpretation of World Class

Operational Management (WCOM). As Figure 4 shows WCOM is especially popular with

European based multinationals.

Source: Solving Efeso company presentation

Figure 4 Companies using Solving Efeso’s WCOM TPM Approach

The WCOM approach consists of three elements: a centralized improvement agenda,

improvement tools and accompanying training. These elements are mainly derived from the

continuous improvement philosophy total productive maintenance, but also contain aspects

from lean and six sigma. To outline Heineken’s Total Productive Management program next

sections will address the principles of the total productive maintenance philosophy (section

3

1.2.1), the organizational structure (section 1.2.2) and the three phased approach (section

1.2.3).

1.2.1 Background: Total Productive Maintenance

Total Productive Maintenance, also abbreviated as TPM, was first introduced by the Japanese

company NipponDesco Co. Ltd, supplier of the Toyota Motor Company in the year 1971

(Levitt, 2010). Badury (2000) described TPM as follows: TPM is a maintenance philosophy

that aims at optimizing equipment effectiveness, eliminating break downs and promoting

autonomous maintenance by operators trough day-to-day activities involving the total

workforce. TPM is more than just a maintenance concept but rather an equipment centred

continuous improvement method (Ahuja & Khamba, 2008). This method has as a main focus

to continuously improve the overall equipment efficiency. Although the main focus of TPM is

the overall equipment efficiency, the ultimate goal is to have zero defects, zero accidents and

zero breakdowns (Nakajima, 1988). This ultimate goal represents a situation where all

equipment can be operated at 100% capacity 100% of the time. The main underlying driver

in the TPM is employee engagement (Levitt, 2010). By shifting the power from management

to the operator, the operator will feel ownership and accountability about the equipment.

Levitt (2010) depicted this ownership as follows: “In TPM the operator’s machine should be

like owning a 1967 Corvette. When you own one, you would know every sound inside out,

you are always thinking what would be best for the car and you would not mind to get your

hands dirty. True loving care which you would enjoy”.

1.2.2 Embedding TPM in the Organisational Structure

The ultimate goal of TPM is to increase business results by creating excellent processes, but

this is an hollow statement without the underlying essence of the TPM philosophy. The

explanation of the essence is done using the four main premises. These premises combined

with the goal of TPM, achieving better excellent processes, leads to the TPM philosophy

reasoning as stated in Figure 5.

Figure 5 also illustrates the organizational structure of the so called pillars. There are 9 pillars:

Safety, Health & Environment, Focussed improvement, Autonomous maintenance, Planned

maintenance, Progressive quality, Training & Education, Brewery logistics, Early equipment

management and New product introductions & customer value creation. Each pillar in its own

focus area eliminates assigned losses, improves assigned standards and improves the problem

solving capability by improving the methods and people. A detailed description of the pillar

responsibilities can be found in Appendix G.

4

Improved problem solving capability of organization

Improved standards

Fewer of losses

Improving methods and people

Excellent processes

Elimination of losses leads to

excellent processes

Improved standards lead to

fewer losses

An improved problem solving

capability leads to improved

standards

Developing methods and

people lead to an improved

problem solving capability

Organizational pillars

Figure 5 TPM Premises and Organisation

Participation in the program is obligatory, but roll out is in phases. The corporate TPM office

devises the content and criteria of the program, which is transmitted towards all Breweries.

Within the Brewery the pillars are responsible to implement their respective focus area. To

support the pillars there is a Brewery TPM office that provides the specific TPM knowledge to

the pillars.

1.2.3 Three Phase Roll-Out Program

The TPM program consist of three phases: Bronze, Silver and Gold. Each phase has its own

theme, objectives and evaluation criteria and comes with a set of organizational objectives

and operational requirements. Every Brewery starts with implementing Bronze and will only

start with Silver implementation after it is Bronze certified. A schematic overview of this

stepwise implementation program is illustrated in Figure 6. The Bronze phase can be

characterized as the TPM startup phase. In this phase the Brewery has to get acquainted with

the TPM method and has to create stability in its operational and non-operational processes,

hence restore basic conditions. The estimated timescale for the road to Bronze is 3-5 years. In

the Silver phase, the organization put the, now adapted, TPM method to use and demonstrate

an increased and extended problem solving capability. In the Gold phase the central objective

is to utilize the buildup problem solving ability as a competitive advantage and to become a

TPM World Class Brewery Organization.

5

Source: Brewery TPM Award Certification System presentation

Figure 6 TPM Implementation Phases

1.3 Heineken Brewery Zoeterwoude

In 1975 the Zoeterwoude Brewery was built to replace Heineken’s existing Breweries in the

Netherlands. With a technical production capacity of 15 mln hl and a total output of close to

10 mln hl, it is the largest Brewery of Heineken and the largest Brewery in Europe. Therefore

it is also considered the flagship Brewery of Heineken. Figure 7 shows the Brewery and the

adjacent office of Heineken Nederland and global supply chain.

Source: GSC audit presentation 2012

Figure 7 Heineken Head Office and Brewery Zoeterwoude

6

Operations at the Brewery roughly consist of three steps: brewing operations, packaging and

logistics. A detailed description of these production processes can be found in appendix D.

Since beer production is done in high volumes of a standardized product, all processes are

highly automated. Especially in brewing and logistics, the man-machine separation is high.

The high automation rate results in a high capital intensity: for Zoeterwoude Brewery the

capital placement is € 1,27 billion (Heineken Global Supply Chain Control, 2012).

The finished products from the Zoeterwoude Brewery are mainly destined to the United States

(67%) and Dutch market (22%). The export situation regarding the United States is an

exception on the predominantly local production within Heineken. The main reasons for

exporting are the relatively inexpensive transportation and the willingness of consumers to

pay a premium for imported beer. Transportation is relatively inexpensive since the

Zoeterwoude Brewery can distribute the products via the Rotterdam harbor and most of the

US population lives along the shoreline.

The supply organization of Heineken is based on a free supply and demand principle. This

means any Heineken regional sales organization may purchase products from every Brewery.

The combination of transportation cost and production cost determines the most interesting

source of supply. Due to the free marked approach, the right to exist for a Brewery is directly

linked to the ability to produce competitively. The competitive position of the Zoeterwoude

Brewery has become more important since Heineken took over the beer activities of beverage

producer FEMSA in 2011. Through this acquisition, three very large Mexican breweries

became Heineken Breweries. These Breweries are: Monterrey (8,9Mhl), Orizaba (8,5Mhl) and

Toluca (3,9Mhl). The Monterrey and Orizaba Breweries are the biggest breweries of Heineken

after Zoeterwoude. These breweries have a high operational competitiveness as is showed in

Figure 8. Besides the operational competitiveness these Breweries are geographically close to

the customer HeinekenUSA and therefore form a direct threat to the demand of the

Zoeterwoude Brewery.

7

Figure 8 Production Cost of Heineken Breweries

The fight for operational competitiveness is made more difficult by declining volume of the

Brewery’s largest customers (HeinekenUSA & HeinekenNL) and an increasing number of stock

keeping units (SKU’s). The declining production volume will put a stress on the capital

intensity of operations, since the capital intensity will not reduce when production volume

reduces.

1.4 Research objective

To improve the operational competitiveness the Zoeterwoude Brewery must improve their

performance faster than the competing Breweries. To realize this faster improvement the

Zoeterwoude Brewery has the ambition to be one of the frontrunners in the TPM program.

The Brewery Zoeterwoude has completed the first step of the three step TPM program in

February 2013. This first step however took 10 years instead of the intentded 3 to 5 years.

Although Brewery Management does not directly consider the exceedance as a failure, that

the longer implementation duration was not a deliberate choice. Now the Brewery is on the

verge of starting the Silver phase, Brewery Management has stated the need for a more

controlled implementation.

Currently 17 of the 134 participating Breweries achieved Bronze and none of them has yet

achieved Silver or Gold status. This means there is not yet found a best practice on how to

start implementation of the Silver phase in the Breweries. Therefore the objective of this

research is to identify the causes for the lack of control in TPM implementation and to

improve control by providing a process (re)design.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Oriza

ba

Monte

rrey

Tolu

ca

Zoete

rwoude

€ /

hl

Production cost

8

1.5 Report Outline

The remainder of this report consists of 7 chapters. A schematic overview of this outline is

presented in Figure 9. First part of the report focuses on the analysis of the Bronze project

(chapter 2) and a system analysis using Delft Systems Approach (chapter 3). The objective is

to find the root causes for the problems regarding TPM implementation. Based on the analysis

the research question is posed in chapter 4.

The second part of the report describes the design of the problem solution. This solution

phase consists of a confrontation and tuning process (Chapter 5) and a project control design

(Chapter 6). Chapter 7 demonstrates the working of the designed processes by initial tuning

of the Silver criteria for Zoeterwoude Brewery.

Finally chapter 8 concludes the research by answering the research question as posed in

chapter 4. In addition, recommendations for Zoeterwoude Brewery Management are

presented.

Figure 9 Report Outline

9

Part I – Analysis

10

11

2 Analysis of the Bronze Implementation

The objective of the first part of this research is to find the root causes for the issues

regarding TPM implementation. Paragraph 2.1 elaborates on the characterization of the award

system. To assess whether the implementation of TPM is executed in a controlled way, the

control criteria of in ‘t Veld are assessed in Paragraph 2.2. Finally Paragraph 2.3 presents a

SWOT analysis to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the

implementation of Bronze status.

2.1 TPM Award System

As stated in the introduction the TPM system consist of three phases. This paragraph outlines

what criteria need to be achieved in order to achieve the next status. Moreover, it briefly

describes how the project of Bronze implementation was addressed by Zoeterwoude Brewery.

2.1.1 Characterization of TPM Phases

The essence of the TPM program is to increase the problem solving capability by developing

people and methods. The level application of TPM standards can be classified in four levels:

No TPM standards used

Development to solve problems

Development to achieve business goals

Development to create competitive advantage

These TPM levels however cannot be directly linked to a specific phase since the level of TPM

required also depends on the process step. For a Beer brewer the primary process is to make

and package beer, the secondary process is to source raw materials and to deliver the

finished product and the tertiary processes are the supplier and customer processes. The

required TPM level to qualify for a certain type of certification depends on the process step

and the certification level. The bronze award represents achieving the application of TPM

standards to solve problems for the primary process. The Silver phase represents further use

of the application of standards for the primary process and widening the scope to the

secondary processes. The Gold phase in its turn again represents further improving the

existing TPM levels and widening to the tertiary processes. Figure 10 shows a graphical

representation of the characterization of the organizations.

12

Bronze TPM

organization

Silver TPM

organization

Gold TPM

organization

Silver TPM

organization

Gold TPM

organization

Gold TPM

organization

Silver TPM

organization

Gold TPM

organization

Gold TPM

organization

Supplier

process

connection

Source make Deliver

Customer

process

connection

Supply chain section

Le

ve

l o

f p

rob

lem

so

lvin

g

ca

pa

bilit

y v

ia T

PM

me

tho

ds

TPM methods are used to

solve problems


achieve business goals


create competitive advantage

No TPM methods used

Figure 10 Characterization of Bronze, Silver and Gold TPM Organization

2.1.2 Award Criteria

Within Heineken there is a companywide assessment method to monitor the progress and

achievement of TPM certifications. These assessments are done twice a year via global supply

chain audits. To achieve a certain level of TPM (Bronze, Silver or Gold) there are four types of

assessment criteria a Brewery all must pass: Heineken Manufacturing Star score (benchmark

score), Shop floor indicators, TPM audit score, Killer criteria.

Heineken Manufacturing Star - The Heineken manufacturing star (HMS) is a yearly and

global benchmark based on a balanced scorecard between all Heineken’s breweries on the 23

most important KPI’s. These KPI’s include OPI Nona’s (equivalent to Operational Equipment

Efficiency or OEE), Production productivity, water consumption, absent rate and taste tests.

These KPI’s are divided into five categories: Productivity and cost leadership, customer

satisfaction, social responsibility, organization and people development and quality. To

achieve Bronze award a Brewery has to achieve a score of 50 to 85 weighted average. To

grade the main process criteria a Brewery is rated a score from 0 to 100 in each category.

The score for one category is determinate by underlying KPI’s. For example Productivity and

cost leadership depends on the Operational Performance Indicators (equivalent to Operational

Equipment Efficiency) of bottle, can and kegs, the productivity of the Brewery in hectoliters

per FTE and the efficiency of raw materials.

The score from 0 to 100 is calculated by ranking the performance against the performance of

all other Heineken Breweries. The worst performing brewery sets the low mark and the best

performance sets the high mark. The score is the relative position from 0 to 100 on the

interval between the low and the high mark. In Figure 11 the relation between the absolute

KPI score and the benchmark score.

13

0 100

Best performer

Worst performer

Resulting benchmark score

50 100

Absolute KPI score

Figure 11 Calculation of Benchmark Score

Shop Floor Indicators - The shop floor indicators (SFI) are Mean Time Between Failure

(MTBF), Filler Mean Time Between Stop (MTBS) and First Time Right (FTR) of Packaging,

Production, Finished product, Micro and laboratory. The MTBF is a measure for reliability, the

MTBS is a measure for speed losses and FTR is a measure for production quality. To achieve a

certain level the Brewery must comply with all predefined performances.

TPM Audit Score - The TPM audit score is a measure for the quality and progress of TPM

implementation for the focus area of each pillar. Twice, a year TPM audits are held at all

Breweries by the Corporate TPM office. The requirement for the TPM audit score is for Bronze

78, whereas the Zoeterwoude Brewery achieved an audit score of 81 on the Bronze scale. The

audit score consists of multiple elements, however the required workload for each element

can highly differ.

Killer criteria - The killer criteria represent an additional list of TPM elements – not

dedicated to a pillar - that have to be fully in place. These killer criteria are the most essential

and are comprised of elements of all pillar areas. If only one would not be in place, the

Brewery could not pass for the certification.

In Figure 12 the criteria are grouped in operational targets and targets for TPM development.

The targets for TPM development describe how the improvement process should look like and

the targets for operational performance describe to what results they should lead. The reason

for setting operational and development targets is to ensure that the right methods are used

in right maturity of improvement. For example if a Brewery has developed all methods but

lacks the operational improvement, the less advanced tools are better suitable for the basic

improvements of operational performance. On the other hand a Brewery that meets the

operational performance criteria but has not developed TPM up to the required level, should

further increase the performance using the less advanced tools.

14

Figure 12 Categorization of Award Criteria

2.2 Analysis of Implementation of Bronze

The expected duration for implementation of the Bronze status was estimated at 3-5 years,

however it took Zoeterwoude Brewery over 10 years to achieve the goal. Moreover, no

reliable estimation could be given of the time that was required to reach Bronze status. This

indicates a lack of control. To identify possible control issues the control criteria of in ‘t Veld

are used. These criteria state that in order for a process to be executed in a controlled matter

at least three essential elements have to be in place. These essential elements are:

1. The target state of the system has to be known

2. The system has to be able to reach the target state

3. There have to be possibilities to influence the system behaviour and the relation

between the interference and the resulting system behaviour have to be known

Following sections address whether the criteria were met during the implementation of Bronze

at Zoeterwoude Brewery.

2.2.1 Target State has to be Known

Zoeterwoude Brewery started as one of the first Breweries with the implementation of TPM

program in 2003. At that moment, the program was bought from Efeso and therefore not

dedicated to the specific needs of the organization. This means that in the early days the

consultants of Efeso were involved to run the program at the Brewery. Their role was to

explain the principles and to train the pillars. With the support of Efeso each pillar made steps

towards the ultimate goal of excellent processes. The activities that were required to achieve

the next step, were defined by the pillars individually. As the Bronze project was new to the

organization, the people involved had no idea what to expect from the journey. Moreover,

during the implementation phase at the Brewery the development of the policy was in full

swing and the target state was only known in 2011, 8 years after the Zoeterwoude Brewery

started implementation. Therefore a proper expectation of the effort (resources and time)

could not be comprised. Another issue regarding the targets state is a mismatch between the

killer criteria and the organizational structure. The pillar policies state the pillar responsibilities

15

and the killer criteria state collective responsibilities. As these criteria employ multiple parties,

the responsibilities and contribution of every pillar to the killer criteria should be clearly

outlined. During the implementation of the Bronze phase the work was not divided and

effectively there was no executing party employed for the realization of the killer criteria.

2.2.2 Ability to Reach the Target State

Although the goals are ambitious and effort might differ, each Brewery must be able to

achieve the different phases of the TPM program. However, measurement of the progress

should be questioned. During the Bronze phase progress was measured using audit scores.

These audits were conducted by delegates from the corporate TPM office and members of

Efeso. They checked whether the way of working is in line with the defined criteria. As the

element of the audit score can differ a lot in required work load, this score is considered not

to be representative for the progress made. As a result the Brewery estimated three times in

a row Bronze would be achieved in the next year. This has increased the perception that the

project duration is not under control.

2.2.3 Possibilities to Influence the System

A project can be influenced in three aspects, quality, duration and resources. A common way

of describing the tension field of these elements is in a triangle. Figure 13 gives a

representation of the tension field triangle (Gardiner & Steward, 2000). The posed triangle

indicates that project managers have three levers to influence project results: reduce the

scope or quality of the deliverable, move the milestone date or apply additional resources.

Usually a mix of these levers while managing a project. This concept is used to review the

implementation duration of Bronze award at Zoeterwoude Brewery.

Quality / scope

Duration Resources

Project tension field

Figure 13 Project Tension Field Triangle

Quality & Scope - The quality and scope aspects are embedded in the TPM program in

terms of minimum required audit scores and performance requirements. If the required level

of quality is not met the Brewery cannot advance to the next phase. Therefore the quality

aspect has not been an aspect upon which could be compromised. One way of compromising

16

on the quality aspect is window dressing. An example of window dressing is when a week

before the audit a line will be cleaned with the sole purpose of giving the impression this is

regularly done. Although window dressing is done outside and inside Heineken the

Zoeterwoude Brewery has always been determined to deliver the required quality. With

regards to the scope of the project,

Resources – The required man hour for implementation far outweighs the usage of financial

resources. The resources are allocated by the Brewery management team. However they

have to divide the resources among all activities of the Brewery: disturbances to the primary

process, short term improvement activities and long term improvement activities. The

allocation is guided by prioritizing the activities in a prio-chart. Generally, the priority is layed

first upon disturbances in the primary processes, secondary in short term improvement and

third upon the long term improvement. The TPM development falls under long term

improvement and therefore if disturbances occurred the priority was easily lowered and

resulting in a low resource availability.

Duration - As stated in the introduction there is an indicated timeframe available for each

phase. However the Brewery never committed to an implementation duration. Therefore the

barrier of stretching the implementation duration is relatively low. The master plan served

more as a visualization of the sequential steps rather than an actual planning.

2.3 SWOT Analysis

Previous paragraph has reviewed the three criteria that define whether the implementation is

done in a controlled manner. In this paragraph we categories these findings, added with non

control related issues, in strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. For each of the 4

elements a top 3 has been defined.

2.3.1 Strengths

In line with the ultimate objective of the TPM program, the operational results of Zoeterwoude

Brewery have improved during the implementation of the Bronze status. Appendix I gives an

overview of operational performance increase in operational performance since the adaption

of TPM for European operations in general and the Zoeterwoude Brewery in specific.

Highlights are 52% productivity increase, 12% overall equipment efficiency increase and a

reduction of operating expenses per hectoliter of 28%. Through these achievements the

performance criteria of Bronze even have been exceeded. Thereby, during the project

implementation, the Brewery always gave realistic insight in the performance. It is considered

to be a strength of the project as for many organizations the temptation is to pretend better

in order to achieve the award as soon as possible. A third strength is the strong focus on

engagement of employees. Often it is faster to implement something without engaging all

17

employees in the process. However, in that case the result of the implementation is less

sustainable and a fallback is eminent.

2.3.2 Weaknesses

Throughout the Bronze project the audit score was the main indicator to determine how far

the phase has advanced. However, the audit score does not provide insight in the activities

that still have to be done. Due to this lack of insight the no accurate completion date could be

determinate, even in the last three years of implementation. In addition, there was no to

limited collaboration between pillars. The pillars each perused their own goal rather than

collectively achieving Bronze. As a result, it was difficult to estimate the workload for the

operators on implementation of TPM and the workload could easily increase. By planning too

many activities approximately 60% of all planned activities were actually completed.

2.3.3 Opportunities

As all breweries in the program are working on the similar or even the same challenges, it

would be an opportunity to share knowledge. It is perceived that sharing experience and best

practices would have prevented the Breweries to invent the wheel. The second opportunity is

related to the embedding of the TPM program in the long term vision of the Brewery. As the

vision coincides with the goals of the TPM program, emphasizing the common objectives

could lead to a higher allocation of resources towards the TPM program. The last opportunity

identified by the Brewery is that most, not all, operators have the ability to perform more

complex tasks than they currently do.

2.3.4 Threats

The most important threat to the project is the dependency on the relative priority compared

towards other projects at the Brewery. If management decides other projects, for example

the introduction of new products, are more important than the introduction of TPM, the

resources are striped from the TPM project. The second threat, for meeting the estimated

project duration is the changing criteria. During the Bronze phase the Corporate TPM office

kept changing the criteria up to 2011. By changing the criteria the Brewery was chasing a

moving target. The last threat is high management rotation speed. Since the Zoeterwoude

Brewery is a breeding ground for Heineken managers worldwide, middle managers average 2

years on one function. Management team members also rotate every 5 years. Due to this high

rotation a constant fighting the drain of knowledge about the project takes place. An added

disadvantage is that the Brewery management horizon is no longer than 5 years while the

project of Bronze took twice that.

18

2.4 Concluding Remarks

The TPM Award System consists of three following phases (Bronze, Silver and Gold) that are

measured by four award criteria: Heineken Manufacturing Star, Shop Floor Indicators, TPM

Audit Score and Killer Criteria. For each phase, for each of the criteria a different score needs

to be achieved. By reviewing the implementation of the Bronze status with criteria of in ‘t Veld

it was concluded that the project was not performed in a controlled way. The control related

issues that are found:





Available resources where easily allocated to ad hoc problems


As a result it was not possible to give an estimation of the required effort and time, which led

to the exceedance of the implementation duration.

In Figure 14 the control and general findings of the Bronze phase are categorized according to

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

No insight in progress

Cooperation between pillars

Planning to many activities

Dependent on priority

Changing criteria

Management rotation

Strengths Weaknesses

Opportunities Threats

Operational results

No window dressing

Strong focus on engagement

Knowledge exchange (Breweries)

Strong cost reduction vision

Operator knowledge level

Figure 14 SWOT analysis bronze

19

3 System Analysis of TPM

Chapter 2 has identified the main issues as experienced during the Bronze phase. The

purpose of the systems analysis is to identify process deficiencies. The findings of both

analysis are used to diagnose the root causes for the experienced issues in chapter 4. In the

systems analysis the first step in the analysis is defining the systems boundaries (paragraph

3.1). Paragraph 3.2 discusses how the defined system can be pictured in terms of the Delft

Systems Approach (DSA). Finally in paragraph 3.2 the findings about the system deficiencies

are addressed.

3.1 Systems Definition

A black box is used to determine the scope of the systems analysis. A black box visualizes a

system we know nothing about except its interaction with the environment. The black box of

this system analysis is represented in Figure 15. Since the goal of TPM is to achieve world

class performance the function of the black box is to transform the current performance into a

world class performance. Therefore, the main transformation is improve using TPM.

Improve using TPM

Performance anno 2003

World class performance

PerformanceRequirements

Figure 15 Systems Black Box

To gain insight of the activities and stakeholders inside the black box of TPM a rich picture is

used. A rich picture is a method of the soft systems methodology and aims to map complex or

unclear problems (Checkland & Holwell, 1997). The rich picture of TPM processes is visualized

in Figure 16. In this figure the actors, who do something are blue, the interactions are black

and the environments are white and grey.

In the rich picture five main entities are identified: First this is Heineken HQ, representing the

global executive board of Heineken. Secondly, there is Heineken’s Global TPM office which

responsible for the development of the program. Then Heineken Nederland Supply which

represents the group of which the Zoeterwoude Brewery is a part together with the Brand

Brewery, Heineken’s Den Bosch Brewery and the Vrumona soda plant. The fourth entity is the

Heineken OpCo’s, representing the customers of the Heineken Nederland Supply and the

place the finished products the of the Brewery go to. The last and most important entity in

the rich picture is the Zoeterwoude Brewery. Within the Zoeterwoude Brewery, there are four

sub groups distinguished. First entity is the shopfloor, representing the workfloor where the

20

actual production activities are performed. The other groups are the improvement teams, the

pillars and the TPM office.

Heineken Nederland

SupplyHeineken OPCO’s

Corporate TPM office

Heineken HQ

Brewery

Zoeterwoude

TPM office

Coordinator

Support staf

Shop floor

Machines

Pillars

Pillar leader

Pillar members

OperatorsMechanics

Facilitators

Impro

vement teams

Train

Provide TPM knowledge

Create standards

and systems

Operate via

standards

Mai

nta

in v

ia

stan

dar

ds

TPM is our w

ay of

working

TPM is our way of working

Customer / Supplier

Products

Pro

duct

ion c

ost

Pillar members

Pro

blem

solvin

g kn

ow

-

how

Improved

standard

Translate Objectives

Losses

Audit

TPM

Obje

ctives

Managing

Man

aging

Managing

Give

award

Figure 16 Rich Picture of TPM Activities and Stakeholders

21

By drawing the rich picture it becomes clear that the TPM activities can be distinguished in

two categories: TPM execution and TPM development. The path of these cycles is represented

in the simplified rich picture represented in Figure 17.

Corporate TPM office

TPM

off

ice

Shop floor

Pillars

Impro

vement teams

Brewery

Zoeterwoude

Losses

Direct

ing

Improved standard

TPM excecution

cycleTPM Method implementation

cycle

Obje

ctiv

es

Coordinated

Objectives

Standardized methods/

systems

Audits

Standardized methods/

systems

Figure 17 Subsystems in Rich Picture; TPM Execution and TPM Development

TPM Execution – TPM execution concerns the continuous improvement of standards. The

goal of this system is to improve the shop floor processes by eliminating waste. The cycle that

is executed concerns the identification of losses, finding solutions for the problem through the

use of teams that are equipped with the TPM means and methods and finally translating the

solutions through standards back to the shop floor. The system is indicated with the red cycle.

TPM Development –The TPM development system concerns equipping the organization

with the means and methods to perform the execution of TPM in a better way. The cycle that

is performed starts with Heineken’s Corporate TPM-office who defines how the Brewery TPM

process should look like in the form of objectives. These objectives are transmitted to the

local TPM organization, in this case the TPM-office of the Zoeterwoude Brewery. The TPM

office accompanies the objectives with the TPM and specific organization knowledge to

translate these objectives to the pillars. These pillars implement the objectives for the

22

improvement teams and the shop floor. The green cycle is closed by the audits on the TPM

development on the shop floor and in the improvement teams.

3.2 TPM System in Delft Systems Approach

The TPM system has defined as two interacting subsystems. The Delft System approach

states that every function can be interpreted in from three angles, whereby the DSA offers

three models (Veeke, Ottjes, & Lodewijks, 2008):

Steady state model – a function model for a one-aspect system in a steady state

equifinality;

Proper model – represents a multi-aspect system in steady state equifinality;

Innovation model - a model that describes non-repetitive, break-through innovation

through a growth processes

Each model is used in a specific case therefore it has to be determinated which model should

be selected to represent the TPM processes. The first system adressed, the TPM execution

system, is part of the one aspect system of producing using TPM methods. Therefore it can be

represented by a steady state model. The TPM development system however is part of a non-

repetitive breakthrough process. Therefore TPM development should be represented by an

innovation process. The actual operational process of producing beer is in this case reduced to

a data generating box. The input of this box is the standards as produced by the TPM

execution and the result is the operational performance reported in KPI’s.

In ‘t Veld (1998) states that the steady state model and the innovation model can be

combined into one model, which he calls the total model of a one aspect system. This

elaborated model is represented in Figure 18.

TPM execution

Operational proceses

TPM development

Environment



Operational

standards

Operational

performance

Implemented TPM methods

23

Figure 18 Total Model

Although the two subsystems are close linked to each other, problems in Chapter 2 mainly

point to the TPM development system, not to the TPM execution system. Therefore the

remainder of this analysis focuses on the TPM development system. As the TPM program

consist of three phases, the development of TPM actually consists of three sub systems,

developing bronze, silver and gold TPM methods. Therefore, the TPM development system

should be divided into three subsystems. The resulting model describing these subsystems is

represented in Figure 19. In this model the three development phases are separated by

valves. The subject of the transformation is the organization, represented in purple. So the

organization can advance to the implementation of the next level of methods when the award

criteria are met.

Develop bronze

TPM methods

Develop silver TPM

methods

Develop Gold TPM

methods

Bronze award

criteria

Silver award

criteria

Gold award

criteria

Organization

anno 2005 Bronze

organization

Silver

organization

World class

brewery

organization

Implemented Bronze TPM methods

Environment

Implemented Silver TPM methods

Environment

Implemented Gold TPM methods

Environment

Figure 19 TPM Development Subsystems

Although the criteria for each phase differ, each phase operates through the same model. The

elaborated TPM development model is represented in Figure 20.

24

Execute TPM

TPM policy

Implemented TPM method

Implement

Make policy

and set

evaluation criteria

Explore environment

and define objectives

Environment

Policy

evaluation

TPM Objectives

Innovation

process

control

and policy

verification

i

m

m

i

Perfromance

anno 2003

Performance

at Bronze

level

Bronze

criteria

Program

criteria

Figure 20 Innovation Model for TPM Development

Figure 20 consists of two areas. The grey area represents the activities/processes performed

by the corporate TPM office. These processes are applicable for all Heineken breweries and

will not be addressed. The blue area represent the processes performed by a single Brewery,

which is in this research Zoeterwoude Brewery. The input to the brewery is the policy in terms

of the pillar guidelines and killer criteria. The policy is set by the corporate TPM office and

consists of the required score for each of the criteria. This is documented in a comprehensive

manual. Next the implementation process is initiated where the pillars interpret the policy and

transform to actions. This process is in itself again an innovation process with the following

steps:

Define project objectives

Develop method or system

Run a pilot project

Roll-out the working method and train personnel

As stated in the analysis the pillars are the main executing parties of TPM implementation. If

the process of implement of Figure 20 is elaborated, 9 parallel implementation and control

processes are found. These individual pillars progress is managed using pillar year plans.

These pillar year plans state the activities the pillar wants to achieve in the current year. The

input of this pillar are the criteria as composed by the Corporate TPM office. Pillar plans are

used to monitor progress and initiate projects in the planned moment.

25

To initiate projects, the pillar initiates an assignment letter. This assignment letter describes

the outline of the project, team members, time frame, constraints and desired goals. Besides

the practical information the assignment letter also describes the intermediate deliverables for

progress control. Figure 21 visualizes the control process of the individual pillars.

Figure 21 shows that the project control of the pillar year plans is quite elaborate however it

only covers one year of one pillar. In the bronze phase there was no structured higher form of

control over the pillars.

Pillar route

a

Project assignment letter

(project goals)

Implement TPM methodsTPM policy

Implemented

TPM

methods

Initiate pillar

year plan

Initiate project

Pillar year plan

Compare

Evaluate project

Evaluate progress

Intervene

Deviation from plan

a

Compare

aa

Deviation

from goals

Project goals

Pillar year plan

Figure 21 Control Structure of Pillar Plans

3.3 System Analysis Findings

Now the TPM implementation system has been modelled in the DSA the process designed can

be addressed. Two main findings are made; first the absence of the confront and tune

function and secondly there is no pillar transcending control upon implementation.

Confront and Tune – In the theory of in ‘t Veld the innovation process should include a

confrontation and tuning process step. The innovation model of the DSA describes that the

process after the policy is made, is the confront and tune process. The purpose of this process

is to come to bring together the policy and the reality. In Figure 20 the innovation process of

TPM implementation is described, this process does not include this process step.

Overall implementation control – In the theory of the DSA, each system should be

controlled by a higher echelon of control through requirements. The purpose of this

requirements is to ensure a system peruses the right goals. In Figure 21 the steering of the

implementation of TPM methods by the pillars is presented. This figure makes clear that the

26

upon this process no requirements are set. Effectively the pillars are self steering without

overall implementation control.

3.4 Concluding remarks

purpose of the systems analysis is to identify process deficiencies. The system analysis the

system is modeled using the Delft System Approach. The Delft Systems Approach provides

three models to interpret processes. In this case the steady state and innovation model is

used. Through this system analysis two main deficiencies are found. First, that the TPM

development process, which is modeled using the innovation model does not contain a

confront and tune function. Second, that there is no overall implementation control, meaning

the individual pillars are effectively self steering.

27

4 Problem Definition and Research Question

The review of the Bronze phase in Chapter 2 has brought up several problems that were

experienced during the implementation of TPM and led to the implementation duration of 10

years. From the systematic review of the current process design it was concluded that two

essential steps are missing. In this chapter, it is discussed whether the findings can be related

to deficiencies in the process design. This is done by elaborating on two statements.

Implementation of Bronze Lacked Clear and Realistic Goals – The first problem

statement is that throughout the Bronze phase the project had no clear and realistic goals.

This can be linked to the systems lack of an confront and tune function. Related issues as

found in the analysis of the Bronze phase are:

Criteria evolved throughout the project

Many actions were initiated, but not completed



no accurate time estimation of the Bronze phase could be given

Implementation is not Controlled as a Single Project - The second problem statement

is that during the Bronze phase the implementation was not controlled as a single project.

This problem statement can be linked to the finding of the system analysis that the individual

pillars where not steered by an overall project control. The related issues as found in the

analysis of the Bronze phase are:

No dedication to project duration or milestones




Available resources where easily allocated to ad hoc problems

Moving Forward to Implementation of Silver

Although the Bronze and Silver phase differ, both are executed using the same process. As

Zoeterwoude Brewery is on the verge of starting Silver implementation, the TPM

implementation process should be improved in order to overcome issues experienced with

Bronze. To address both problems the research question is stated as:

How can the process of confrontation and tuning be designed so it provides clear and

realistic goals and how can the project control be designed so that implementation is


28

The second part of this report will address the design of both confront and tune process

(chapter 5) and the project control process (chapter 6). In chapter 7 a proof of concept is

given, by applying the design on the implementation Silver policy at Zoeterwoude Brewery.

29

Part II – Design

30

31

5 Process Design: Confront & Tune

From the analysis it is concluded that the TPM implementation process lacks a confrontation

and tuning function which resulted in unclear and unrealistic goals. In this chapter a process

design for the confront and tune function is composed that can provide clear and realistic

goals. To come to the process design first function of the tuning process will be described in

paragraph 5.1. In paragraph 5.2 substance is given to this function by determining the

process steps. The detailed process design and tools for all are processes presented in

paragraph 5.3.

5.1 Function and Requirements

When designing a process the first step is to determine what the required transformation

process comprises about. The main function of the confront and tune process is to transform

the input into the desired output. In this paragraph the required transformation process of the

confront and tune process is described. To do so first the input is characterized in paragraph

5.1.1. In paragraph 5.1.2 the desired output is described.

5.1.1 Process Input

The process input is the documentation provided by the Corporate TPM office, called Brewery

TPM certification award system, states the criteria and guidelines for Silver TPM certification.

As stated in chapter 2, this consists of four elements. The Pillar guidelines, killer criteria,

required Heineken Manufacturing Score (HMS) and required Shop floor indicators (SFI). The

first two, the pillar guidelines and the killer criteria are about the “how”, describing how the

brewery should operate. The HMS and SFI criteria are about the required operational

performance by implementing the guidelines. To deepen the understanding of the input the

principle of SMART goals will be used. SMART states that goals should be Specific,

Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic and Time bound. The following paragraphs address the four

elements individually. The SMART method is commonly used to address all aspects of well

formulated goals.

Pillar Guidelines - The pillar guidelines consists of 387 guidelines divided among 11 pillars.

These guidelines present how the brewery should operate and are generic for all Heineken

Breweries. To give an example of these guidelines, three random guidelines of the Preventive

Maintenance pillar are listed.

There is a visual system in place to plan and distribute work orders.

A database of all breakdown analysis is used to deploy breakdowns to generic

components and 4M resulting in identified common problems and subsequent

improvement activities.

Maintenance documentation and manuals are controlled via a 5S system.

32

The pillar guidelines are specific, since they state who should do what. The guidelines are in

itself not measurable, however through the TPM audits that are held yearly they the quality is

measured. These audits asses the guidelines in measurable criteria. For the guidelines it is not

known whether they are acceptable for the specific Brewery, since the guidelines are generic

for all Breweries. Finally, the guidelines do not contain any indication of duration or sequence

therefore they are not time bound.

Killer Criteria -The second element of the guidelines are the killer criteria which list the key

elements of the silver. There are a total of 45 killer criteria. These are in contrast to the pillar

guidelines not assigned to a specific pillar but are criteria for the whole brewery. To give an

example of these guidelines, three random guidelines are listed.

Long term vision for the Brewery with respect to performance, systems and structure

and organization is defined

Robust system is established to horizontally expand (as appropriate) counter-

measures / solutions / ideas across the Brewery coming from teams / Kaizens /

RCFA's / Suggestion scheme / tags etc. (internal and external transfer)

There is a systematic compliance check and action plan to follow-up on non-

compliances

The killer criteria are not specific, since it is not expressed who should execute the killer

criteria. More so, the overlap between the killer criteria and the pillar policies is not known

resulting in an unclear overview of what should be done. The killer criteria are measurable

through the TPM audits just as the pillar guidelines. It is however not known whether they

are acceptable for the Zoeterwoude Brewery. Finally as presented in the documentation

the criteria are also not time bound.

Heineken manufacturing star criteria - The HMS score is the combination of a

benchmark and a balanced score card based on the 23 most important brewery KPI’s as

presented in chapter 2. The criteria of the HMS is a minimum score that has to be achieved by

implementing the guidelines.

In terms of SMART, the HMS criteria are specific and measurable. However it is not known

whether the criteria are acceptable nor realistic. Finally since the how criteria are not time

bound the result is also not time bound.

Shop floor indicator criteria - The shop floor indicators are KPI’s related to the operational

processes. The criteria of the in terms of the SFI consist of the Mean time between stops,

Mean time between Failure and the shop floor First time right indicators. The criteria states

the minimal requirement for these indicators.

33

In terms of SMART, the SFI criteria are specific and measurable. But just as the HMS criteria

they it is not known whether they are acceptable or realistic. Furthermore this result is also

not time bound.

SMART overview - To conclude this paragraph an overview of the four elements and the

situation regarding the SMART principle is provided in Table 1. It should be noted that

although the pillar guidelines, the HMS criteria and the SFI criteria are specific, there is no

insight in the current situation regarding these items.

Table 1 TPM criteria in terms of SMART

Specific Measurable Acceptable Realistic Time bound

Pillar guidelines Yes Yes No Yes No

Killer criteria No Yes No Yes No

HMS criteria Yes Yes No No No

SFI criteria Yes Yes No No No

5.1.2 Process Output

The desired output of the process are as stated in the research question are clear and realistic

goals. In other words the desired output is that all four criteria’s are formulated SMART. This

means that there is one set of clear, realistic, acceptable and scheduled activities that could

be executed so that a set of realistic and desirable results can be achieved.

5.2 Process steps

To give substance to the function as described in paragraph 5.1 in this paragraph the process

is elaborated in required sub steps. To determine clear and realistic goals four questions have

to answered:

What is the difference between the described and current situation?

Of this difference what is acceptable for our situation?

Who should address the acceptable difference?

What is a realistic action plan?

To answer these questions, the key elements of the transformation function have been

addressed as known/specific, feasible/realistic/desirable/acceptable and scheduled/time

bound. Therefore the process steps are stated as: Compare the as is and to be situation,

determine acceptability, tune to organizational structure and schedule in master plan. Figure

22 gives an overview of the process steps and the resulting intermediate products.

34

Figure 22 Tuning process steps and intermediate products

The process as visualized in Figure 22 shows that the process input are the Silver criteria. The

criteria are in the first process step compared to the as is situation. After this comparison a

gap between the as is and to be situation is acquired. By performing this process step insight

is gained in what should be done. This gap is than assessed on acceptability. By performing

this process step the criteria are remained that will have to be adressed. After determining the

acceptability, the acceptable gaps remain. The next process step is to tune the pillar

guidelines and the killer criteria to the organizational structure. By performing this tuning the

desirable actions per executing organ are acquired. Hence answering the question who should

do what. The last step is to schedule the actions into a master plan. The scheduling results in

a master plan for the implementation phase and specific goals throughout the project.

The criteria however consist of four elements, the pillar guidelines, killer criteria, HMS criteria

and SFI criteria. The content of the process steps however can differ for each of the pillar

guidelines, killer criteria, HMS criteria and SFI criteria. Therefore the process steps should be

broken down in sub step for all inputs. Figure 23 shows the process broken down in sub

processes.

Figure 23 Tune process sub processes

From Figure 23 it can be derived that there no process required for the tuning of the HMS and

SFI criteria since these operational results concern the entire implementation process. The last

irregularity is the scheduling of the pillar guidelines and killer criteria. Since this is an

conjoined and iterative process step it is represented as one process.

35

5.3 Process and Tool Design

In the previous paragraph it is concluded that there are four main process steps and four

inputs. As a result a total of 12 sub processes are required. In this paragraph these processes

are given substance on how they should be performed and the required tools for the process.

The following paragraphs are arranged according the inputs, with in paragraph 5.3.1 the

process for the pillar guidelines, in paragraph 5.3.2 the process for the killer criteria, in

paragraph 5.3.3 the process for the HMS criteria and in paragraph 5.3.4 the process for the

SFI criteria.

5.3.1 Pillar Guidelines Process

The first process which is elaborated is the pillar guidelines process. The pillar process

consists of comparing the as is and to be situation, determining the acceptability, tuning to

the organizational structure and scheduling into a master plan.

Compare As Is and To Be Situation Pillar Guidelines - The first process step for the

pillar guidelines is to assess situation, by comparing the as is and the to be situation. Since

the to be situation is stated in 387 individual guidelines, for all guidelines the as is and the to

be situation need to be addressed. The guidelines represent a qualitative guideline and

therefore interviews are used to address the current situation. To acquire the best insight of

the as is and to be situation the interviews should be arranged with the pillar leader of the

respective field, TPM coordinator and the TPM facilitator of the respective field. The pillar

leader has the broadest insight in the as-is situation, the TPM coordinator has the broadest

insight in the to-be situation and the TPM facilitator who has general insight in both the as-is

and the to-be situation.

During these interviews the two main questions are answered for all pillar guidelines. The first

question, is there a difference between the as-is and to-be situation. There are two possible

answers for this question are yes or no. If there is a difference between the as-is and to-be

situation, the second question is asked. This second question is what is the status of this gap.

For this question there are four categories: No development, in development, not executed

consistently or integration is needed between processes. To give an insight in these

categories for all four an example will be given from the Progressive Quality pillar policy.

“There is a program in place to hand over advanced quality tasks to the operators”.

Since there is no program the gap characterization is no development.

“5S is used in the labs”. There are elements developed however this project has not

finished yet, therefore this gap is characterized as being in development.

“Single defect analysis is performed on a routine basis for all internal and external

complaints”. There is a system in place in which this should be done, however this

36

process is not executed in a consistent matter and is therefore categorized as not

executed consistently.

“Logistics quality issues are deployed in a systematic way to single loss mode”. In this

case there are multiple systems in place, for the brewery and for logistics. Therefore

the gap is characterized as in need of integration.

To ease and document this process an excel tool is composed. In this excel all guidelines,

arranged by pillars, are represented. In this excel all guidelines are copied and fields are

provided to collect the answers. Figure 24 shows a part of this excel.

Figure 24 Tool for comparing the as is and to be situation for pillar guidelines

Determine Acceptability of Pillar Guidelines - To assess the acceptability a priority score

is calculated. For this calculation two factors are taken into account. First whether the policy is

in line with the long term vision of the Brewery (Vision 2015) and second whether the pillar

guideline has “value for money”. The value for money component is expressed through an

ease and effect estimation.

The first aspect, whether it is in line with the brewery long term vision, answers the question:

is this policy helping us achieve what we want to achieve. The long term vision of the brewery

states that the they wants to achieve the following: Zero accidents, Number one in quality,

service and new product introductions, productivity of 13,5 K hl /FTE and 14,5 €/hl production

and distribution cost. To asses this criteria for all pillar guidelines which are not fully in place

the question is asked whether the aim of the policy is in line with the goals of Vision 2015.

The answer could be given in three categories, yes, indirect and no.

The second aspect, “value for money”, answers the question whether the policy is the easiest

way of achieving result. To assess this an ease & effect analysis is performed. This is a tool

commonly used within Heineken. In this analysis an estimation is made of the effort of the

project (ease) and an estimation of the result (effect) is made. Logically the most preferred

# Description RequirementGap [Y/N]

No de v -

e l opme nt

I n De v -

e l opme nt

Not Cons.

e x e c ut e d

I nt e r gr a t i

on ne e de d

From a safety perspective the FI Pil lar is responsible for changeover

and start-up activities confirming that there is no time reduction to the

detriment of the safety. Risk assessments are performed for all

activities and the Safety Pillar approves the changeover procedures.

Energy; FI Pil lar Step 5 is related to energy and water consumption

reduction. Energy is always a risk factor, therefore it is confirmed that

Improvement Teams consider safety related aspects and improve visual

management and knowledge about risks.

DCS Boards always contain information related to Safety (e.g. Safety

Pyramid data, description of last occurred event…). Progressively DCS

also includes the following items: Safety events (accidents, incidents,

near misses). Major safety events occurred in other plants. Behavioural

aspects. New modifications done on machines and procedures. Safety

improvement opportunities. New or pending Safety tags. Rewarding of

good performance, ideas, teams, etc. The FI Pil lar allocates specific

time dedicated to Safety activities.

General loss analysis for the most important Brewery KPIs (including

Brewery logistics) is deployed.

Targets are clearly cascaded to the other Pillars with respect to

aligning Pillar KPIs and deliverables with the Brewery priorities.

Production cost deployment (up to loss mode) is in place with clear

priorities, also displaying savings.

There is a clear l ink between these KPIs, Pil lars and planned activities

to close the gaps.

1 FI Pillar contribution

to Safety

Terug naar Dashboard Gap category

2 Loss and Cost

Deployment, Cascade

of Targets to the

other Pillars

37

policy is one that has great effect with high ease. For the ease as well as the effect an

estimation is asked by the experts in the categories low, medium and high.

A priority score is calculated on a scale from 0 to 100. The ease & effect are associated with

the priority score as stated in Figure 25. The ease & effect score is multiplied by the factor

from the vision. When a policy is in line with the vision the factor is 1 if the policy is indirect

contributing to the vision the factor is 0,5 and if the policy does not contribute to where the

brewery wants to go, the factor is 0.

40 60 80

60 80 100

20 40 60

Low HighMedium

Lo

wH

igh

Me

diu

m

Ease

Effect

Figure 25 Map Ease and Effect

The acceptability criteria are assessed in a second interview with the TPM coordinator, the

pillar leader and the TPM facilitator. To document the process of determining the desirability,

the excel that is used for the comparison of the as is and to be situation is expanded with

another four columns. The first three columns house the criteria for the determination of the

priority score. The last column is used to show the calculated priority score. The resulting tool

for the documentation is represented in Figure 26.

Figure 26 Tool for comparing the as is and to be situation and the acceptability

# Description RequirementGap [Y/N]

No de v -

e l opme nt

I n De v -

e l opme nt

Not Cons.

e x e c ut e d

I nt e r gr a t i

on ne e de d

I n l i ne

wi t h

v i si on

Ea se Ef f e c tP r i or i t y

sc or e

From a safety perspective the FI Pil lar is responsible for changeover

and start-up activities confirming that there is no time reduction to the

detriment of the safety. Risk assessments are performed for all

activities and the Safety Pillar approves the changeover procedures.

Energy; FI Pil lar Step 5 is related to energy and water consumption

reduction. Energy is always a risk factor, therefore it is confirmed that

Improvement Teams consider safety related aspects and improve visual

management and knowledge about risks.

DCS Boards always contain information related to Safety (e.g. Safety

Pyramid data, description of last occurred event…). Progressively DCS

also includes the following items: Safety events (accidents, incidents,

near misses). Major safety events occurred in other plants. Behavioural

aspects. New modifications done on machines and procedures. Safety

improvement opportunities. New or pending Safety tags. Rewarding of

good performance, ideas, teams, etc. The FI Pil lar allocates specific

time dedicated to Safety activities.

General loss analysis for the most important Brewery KPIs (including

Brewery logistics) is deployed.

Targets are clearly cascaded to the other Pillars with respect to

aligning Pillar KPIs and deliverables with the Brewery priorities.

Production cost deployment (up to loss mode) is in place with clear

priorities, also displaying savings.

There is a clear l ink between these KPIs, Pil lars and planned activities

to close the gaps.

1 FI Pillar contribution

to Safety

Terug naar Dashboard DesirabilityGap category

2 Loss and Cost

Deployment, Cascade

of Targets to the

other Pillars

38

Tune Pillar Guidelines to Organizational Structure - The process of tuning the pillar

guidelines to the organizational should result in an overview for each executing party of what

their respective contribution is to the project of silver. Since the pillar guidelines and the killer

criteria contain an overlap, the overlap needs to be identified. Therefore in this process it is

assed which pillar guidelines make are related to which killer criteria. In the tuning of the killer

criteria to the organizational structure the remainder of this process is addressed.

Resulting from the tuning process is an overview of what the responsibility is of each pillar. In

this overview the projects of the specific pillar is shown among the priority score. The

template of this overview is shown in Figure 27.

Figure 27 Pillar responsibility overview

Schedule Pillar Guidelines in Master Plan - As a result of the previous steps all the

actions of the individual pillars are mapped so that every pillar knows what they have to do in

the project. Furthermore these actions are prioritized through the acceptability step. With this

knowledge the pillar leaders can schedule the activities in a master plan. The Pillar leaders will

first individually estimate what projects are feasible to get done in a certain year assuming the

current amount of resources. After all the individual master plans are composed the resulting

overall master plan is assessed on feasibility with Brewery management and the Corporate

TPM office. This is an iterative process to ensure a feasible and coordinated plan.

Figure 28 Master plan template

Action type Description prio score Supporting project Support phase

Killer criteria responsibilities

Added actions

Contribution to other killer criteria

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Organisation and

Change

Management

Driving System

Focussed

Improvement

Safety, Health &

Environement

39

5.3.2 Killer Criteria Process

The criteria process which is elaborated is killer criteria process. Since the killer criteria share

characteristics with the pillar guidelines there are also similarities in the processes. The killer

criteria process consists of comparing the as is and to be situation, determining the

acceptability, tuning to the organizational structure and scheduling into a master plan.

Compare as is and to be situation killer criteria - Although the killer criteria have a

different scope than the pillar guidelines the as is situation can be compared to the to be

situation in a similar matter. Therefore the killer criteria are also assessed by interviews. Again

it is first determinate whether there is a gap between the as is and the to be situation and

secondly the gap is classified in one of the four gap categories. Part of the used

documentation tool for this process step is presented in Figure 29.

Figure 29 Tool for comparing the as is and to be situation for killer criteria

Determine acceptability Killer Criteria - In the process for the pillar guidelines, the

overlap between the, already prioritized, pillar guidelines and the killer criteria are

determinate. By averaging the underling desirability the desirability of the killer criteria is

found. By assessing the underlying projects a more accurate estimation is made since

otherwise most killer criteria would be classified as high effort, high effect. Therefore no

further determination of the desirability of the killer criteria is needed.

Tuning the Killer Criteria to the Organizational Structure - As stated in chapter 2 the

killer criteria are criteria cover the entire brewery. However, the brewery as a whole is not an

executing party in the TPM organizational structure. Therefore the killer criteria should be

tuned so that they can be assigned to a specific executing party. There are two possibilities,

either the killer criteria can be allocated to a specific pillar or a new executing party should be

set up in the form of a project team. The favorable option is to allocate the responsibility to

an existing pillar. However some killer criteria projects are so large and multi disciplinary that

the responsibility is to large for any single pillar. In that case the killer criteria will be

categorized as a Brewery wide project. A killer criteria will be allocated to a certain pillar if the

majority of the underling projects are owned by the pillar. A killer criteria is marked as a

Step Description Requirement

Complete roll-out for all machines/equipment in the whole plant including Brewing, Utilities and

Warehouse equipment (e.g. automatic loading)Gap [Y/N] No dev-elopment In Dev-elopment Not Cons. executed Intergration needed

Exceptional Large

projectContr. To other ELP

In line with vision

2015Ease Effect Priority score killer overlap

CILT OTIF (execution) monitoring systems fully established via DCS Yes High

AM Pillar focuses to reduce overall CILT time based on bottlenecks / priorities IndirectMedium

5S completed in whole area of the plant including 3rd parties zones No Low

5s (advanced) is used in key areas for the optimization of the workplace, processes and activities

There Is a demonstrable performance improvement via 5s e.g. MTTR, service time, quality testing time

…There is a systematic compliance check and action plan to follow-up on non-compliancesHeiQuest - all questionnaires assigned and answered. The resulting actions have been planned

100% actions completed for critical "non=compliances" (Safety, Product integrity and Global recipe

Related) and 90% actions completed for the rest of "non-compliances"

Category Desirability Tune

AM steps 1-3

5S

Compliance

Maintain the basic

conditions established

Gap category

40

Brewery wide project if the underling guidelines are owned by a diversity of pillars and is of

large scale.

As a result of the tuning function of the pillar guidelines and the killer criteria, all required

activities are allocated to executing parties. All the executing parties receive an overview of

their activities in the form of a pillar summary. These responsibilities are added to the

responsibility overview as presented in Figure 27. Also responsibility overviews are made for

the brewery wide projects presenting the killer criteria and the underlying projects.

Schedule Killer Criteria in Master Plan - Equal to the scheduling of the pillar activities the

killer criteria are scheduled by the pillar leaders first based on the current available resources.

After the initial individual pillar plannings are comprised they are collected in a central master

plan. Since most likely the duration of each pillar plan will differ and the individual plans are

coordinated the scheduling has to be performed as an iterative process to come to a realistic

master plan in terms of feasibility.

5.3.3 Heineken Manufacturing Star Criteria Process

The third process which is elaborated is HMS criteria process. The HMS criteria process

consists of: Comparing the as is and to be situation, determining the acceptability and

scheduling into a master plan process steps.

Compare As Is and To Be Situation HMS Criteria - The HMS criteria are expressed as a

benchmark score rather than in the required KPI targets upon which it is based. Therefore to

determine the as is and the to be situation the required underlying KPI’s need to be

calculated. To calculate the gap between the as is and the to be situation the file as

represented in Figure 30. By filling in the calculation sheet the gap between the as is and to

be situation is expressed. These figures used to fill the sheet are from the central Heineken

Controlling department.

41

Figure 30 HMS gap calculation sheet

Determine Acceptability of HMS Criteria - As the gap regarding the HMS score is

expressed, the next step is to determine whether acceptable. A target is acceptable if it is

feasible and desirable. A target is feasible if the projected result can be accomplished by

implementing the Silver TPM measures. A target is desirable if the result is in line with what

the Brewery wants to achieve.

Although no black or white answer can be given regarding the feasibility. The best estimate is

provided by looking into three aspects. First what the gap size is in relation to the historical

performance and increase. Secondly the technological limits of the brewery are taken into

account for underling KPI’s inherit in the breweries installations. Last the assessment criteria

is the expert opinion of the Brewery Management about the impact of Silver upon the

operational performance.

To determine the desirability of the HMS criteria the required operational performance is

compared to the long term vision of the Brewery. If the HMS criteria do not match the need of

the Brewery there is no need for perusing this target and the target is not considered

desirable. The long term vision of the Brewery as defined in Vision 2015, this vision includes

the targets for the 23 most important KPI’s. To determine whether the HMS Silver criteria is

desirable the targets of the vision are calculated using the sheet as presented in Figure 30.

Schedule HMS Criteria in Master Plan - The last step in the HMS criteria process is to

schedule the expected performance results in time. Of key importance is to determine the

expected trend line of improvement. There are two aspects influencing this trend, first the

problem solving capability of the organization, secondly the ease upon which improvement is

acquired. The first element, the problem solving capability of the organization is estimated to

Low High Weight Required KPI Actual KPI (1/12 tm 12/12)

Required

HMS Score

Actual HMS

Score (2012)

Percentage

HMS

difference

OPI NONA Bottle (%)OPI NONA Can (%)OPI NONA keg (%)Production productivity (Hl/FTE/YR)Extract losses (%)One way packaging material losses (%)

Packaging Conformance to Schedual (%)

Water consumption (hl/hl Pr)Electricity consumption (kWh/Hl Pr)Thermal Energy consumption (MJ/Hl Pr)Non-recycled industrial Waste (kg/hl)Eco care indicator (%)

Absence rate (%)Accident factor (Accident/100FTE)corporate TPM audit (%)

Taste score Fresh (%)Taste test 3 month (%)FTR Beer production (%)FTR Packaging (%)FTR Finished product (%)FTR Microbiology (%)Justified Complaints Bottle/Can (Comp/100mln)Justified Complaints keg (Comp/1000)

Productivity and Cost leadership

Customer satisfaction

Quality

Gap [Y/N]

Social responsibility

Organisation & people development

42

be linear since each year the problem solving capability can be developed. The ease upon

which the improvement is acquired. This trend is estimated to be negative linear. Since both

underlining functions are linear the resulting improvement is estimated to be linear as well.

Therefore, the HMS targets can be scheduled by interpolating the current situation and the

Silver target.

5.3.4 Shop Floor Indicator Process

The last process which is elaborated is SFI criteria process. Since the SFI criteria are

comparable to the HMS criteria there are many similarities between the SFI and HMS process.

The SFI criteria process consists of comparing the as is and to be situation, determining the

acceptability, and scheduling into a master plan.

Compare As Is and To Be Situation SFI Criteria – Since the criteria for the SFI are

expressed in direct targets, these targets only have to be compared to the current

performance. To calculate the gap a tool is used. Figure 31 shows part of this calculation tool.

By filling in the calculation sheet the gap between the as is and to be situation is expressed.

The SFI data can be derived from the existing reporting data.

Figure 31 Part of the SFI gap calculation sheet

Determine Acceptability of SFI Criteria - The acceptability is dependent on the feasibility

and desirability of the targets. The feasibility can be determinate, just as with the HMS

criteria, by assessing three aspects. First whether the gap size in relation to the historical

performance. Secondly by assessing the technological limits of the equipment. Third by

determining whether it is expected that by implementing the policy the projected result will be

acquired.

There is no long term vision for the SFI indicators, in contrast to the HMS criteria, therefore

the evaluation criteria for desirability are different than for the HMS score. In this case the

desirability is determinate on the (financial) benefit of the improvement compared to the

Required Actual ( 1/ 12 - 12 / 12 )

Percentage

diference

1112

212235178182

6

41429

1112

212235178182

6

41429

KEG

Laboratory

Finish Product

Production

Packaging

FTR

Micro

Gap [Y/N]

Returnable bottle

OW Bottle

Canning

Filler MTBS (MIN)

Line MTBF (HRS)

KEG

Canning

OW Bottle

Returnable bottle

43

effort that is needed to realize the performance increase. If the benefit for the brewery does

not out way the effort the SFI is considered undesirable.

Schedule SFI Criteria in Master Plan - The last step in the SFI criteria process is to

schedule the expected performance results of the implementation of the guidelines. Just like

with the HMS criteria scheduling the problem solving capability and the ease of improvement

are presumed linear. Therefore the increase pattern of the SFI criteria are estimated to be

linear and can be scheduled by interpolating the current and target state.

5.4 Concluding remarks

In this chapter the function of the confrontation and tuning function is determinate as to

transform the TPM criteria into SMART goals for the implementation process. To serve this

function four sub steps have to be performed. These sub steps are: Compare the as is and

the to be situation, determine acceptability and tune to the organizational structure and

schedule in a master plan.

These sub steps have to be performed on all the four types of inputs, the pillar guidelines, the

killer criteria, the HMS criteria and the SFI criteria. Since the nature of these inputs is different

specific processes and tools have to be designed for the sub processes. Figure 32, which is

represented on the next page, gives a summary for all the designed sub processes.

44

Figure 32 Confront and tune process summary

45

6 Process Design: Project Control

Two problem statements are diagnosed regarding TPM implementation control. In chapter

5 the conformation and tuning process is addressed. In this chapter the problem statement

regarding project control is addressed. In other words in chapter 5 we think before we do,

in chapter 6 we control while we do. Through the absence of overall project control TPM

implementation is not controlled as a single project. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter

is to design a project control so that Silver implementation can be controlled as one

project. The first step in the design is to determine the functions of the project control, this

is presented in paragraph 6.1. In paragraph 6.2 the functions are translated in a control

design.

6.1 Functions of Project Control

Process or project control consist of two types of control: Function and process control

(Veeke, Ottjes, & Lodewijks, 2008). The purpose of the function control is to translate the

requirements into measurable standards and to monitor the results so that the system can

meet its requirements. The role of the process control is to deal with disturbances in the

system and to ensure the process executes the standards.

Through the analysis in chapter 3 it is found that the process control of TPM

implementation is arranged at pillar level and is functioning properly. However the function

control or pillar transcending control is absent. As a result the requirements or in this case

commitments are not used to steer the pillars. The pillar transcending control serves three

functions:

Translate the commitment in to standards for the pillars

Verify whether the projected result is achieved

Coordination between the pillars

These functions are addressed individually in the next paragraphs.

6.1.2 Implementation Steering

The process of translating the requirements, or in this case the commitments, into the

standards is necessary to steer the process towards its target. In chapter 2 it is concluded

that the main variables in project are the quality (or scope), the available resources and

the time. Therefore the function control is devise the requirements into standards in for

these three categories. Therefore, the steering function is to translate the time, quality and

resources requirements in time quality and resources standards. These three categories

are elaborated in the following paragraphs.

46

Time - The implementation duration is depended on the amount of projects that are

implemented each year. Therefore the standard for time is expressed through the plan

that is provided for each individual pillar. The current way of working is through the pillar

plan. However the pillar plans are currently used for internal (pillar) control. So the output

standard is the pillar year plan, which states all the activities the pillar will perform in a

certain year. The input requirement of time is the commitment the Brewery has agreed

upon with the Corporate TPM office. The main item in this commitment is the date upon

which the brewery will attain a certain level.

Resources - The most important resource required for TPM are the pillar employee man-

hours. The allocation of the attention throughout the Brewery is done by assigning a

priority. The priority of TPM implementation with regard to other Brewery projects is

determinate outside the system. However the function control determinates the priority

between TPM projects within the system. Therefore the given recourses should be

allocated using a priority between the underling projects. The resulting standard based on

this prioritization is the pillar member overview. This overview shows which employees are

assigned to each pillar. By intervening in this standard the number of pillar members can

be assigned to a pillar or brewery wide project according the prioritization.

Quality - The standards for quality are the based upon the quality standard as used for

the TPM audit. So the quality requirements are already transformed into measurable

standards. However the function control can decide to deviate from the standard. In that

case the existing scope or quality can be tightened or loosened. So the used standards are

the TPM audit standards.

6.1.2 Implementation Coordination

The goal of coordination is ensuring a harmonic cooperation between different organs

while executing a process. By the composition of the master plan this coordination is

initially done. However due to disruptions deviations of the year plan can occur. In the

function control the deviation of the plan need to be re-coordinated between the pillar

plans. This is especially important for project concerning multiple pillars.

6.1.3 Result Verification

The last function the function control has is to verify the operational results. The function

control has to intervene when the implemented methods do not deliver the desired results.

In the confront and tune process the intended operational improvement is scheduled. If

the operational results deviate from the projected improvement the function control should

take action upon the standards as described in paragraph 6.1.1.

47

6.2 Process and Dashboard Design

In paragraph 6.1 it is described that the function of the project control consist of three

elements; translating commitments into standards for the implementation process,

coordinating deviations from the initial plan and verification of the projected operational

improvement. In this paragraph substance will be given to these functions by creating the

process design. This process design consist of a process design in the DSA (paragraph

6.2.1). In paragraph 6.2.2 possible alternatives for the intervention are presented. Finally

the tools required for the project control are composed in paragraph 6.2.3.

6.2.1 Project Control Process Design

The project control is a spider in the TPM implementation web. Figure 33 shows the

interrelations of the control function with all other elements.

Implement TPM methods

Agreed

requirements

Project control

Pro

du

ce

usin

g

TP

M m

eth

od

s

m

Realization of

requirements

Operational

performance

Fin

isch

ed

pro

du

cts

Master plan

Tuned pillar

guidelines &

brewery wide

projects

Implemented

methods

Ra

w

ma

teria

ls

Pillar year

plans

Progress and

deviations of

plan

Figure 33 Control process design

The interrelations as shown Figure 33 consist of the master plan as composed in the

confront and tune process as described in chapter 5. Second interaction are the agreed

requirements and the realization of the requirements. This is the interaction with the

Corporate TPM office which serves as innovation process control. These requirements are

translated into the standards as described in chapter 6.1.1 in terms of the pillar year plans,

the assigned pillar members and the quality standards. The realization and especially the

deviation of these standards are the return. These standards are the interaction with the

implementation process. The last input of the project control are is the operational

performance. Measured in the 23 most important KPI’s and the Shop floor indicators.

48

The executing organ for the project control is the brewery TPM steering committee. The

steering committee consist of the pillar leaders, who are also the brewery management

team, and the TPM coordinator. For the steering committee to fulfill the function a meeting

structure is required. Suggested is that the steering committee holds quarterly scheduled

meetings. However in between meetings can be scheduled when irregularities in the

implementation call for it.

6.2.2 Intervention Possibilities

In the analysis it is concluded that Brewery Management structurally chosen the

intervention method of moving the milestone date and thereby a longer implementation

duration. However there are in two other levers which could be used and should be

considered.

The first alternative option is to reduce the scope ore extend of the implementation. The

primary measure of the quality of implementation are the operational results. In the

Bronze phase the Brewery surpassed the HMS criteria in all fields. So one could argue the

quality or scope of the implementation is to extensive. Therefore it is a feasible option to

reduce the scope. Examples of diminishing the scope are reducing the number of A & B

machines that need to be on AM level 4 or choosing the most simple method of fulfilling

the audit criteria. Downside of course is that the Brewery will not utilizes the full

improvement potential.

The second alternative is to apply more resources. It is presumed that in the Silver phase

again the long term development of TPM implementation must give way to the short term

improvement and operational disturbances. However if Brewery management is convinced

that the TPM development is worth the investment, which they do, it should be considered

to employ more resources to do the development. This could be done by either expanding

the TPM office personnel or to employ temporary workers to deal with the operational

disturbances. Although this goes against the current policy of structurally reducing the

number of FTE’s in the Brewery it is an option when not willing to compromise on the time

or quality.

Since every situation is different no best option can be provided. However, when a

compromise must be made throughout the project a weighted decision between the three

should be taken.

6.2.3 Progress Monitoring Tool

In the analysis of chapter 2 it is addressed that during the Bronze phase there was a lack

of progress insight. Therefore the objective of the control tool is to provide this insight.

The progress is dependent on the criteria aspects. Therefore the tool consist of the HMS,

49

SFI, audit score, killer criteria and pillar guidelines. The resulting progress tool is

represented in Figure 34. This tool is linked to the developed sheets in chapter 5 so that

the dashboard is up to date at each moment. Elementary of this dashboard is that it

represents the progress in terms of actions rather than the required audit score.

Figure 34 TPM implementation progress dashboard


In this chapter it is concluded that the function of the project control consist of three

aspects; a steering function for the individual pillars, a coordination function between the

pillars and the function of result verification. The party responsible for the project control is

the steering committee which consist of the pillar leaders

The function of steering is done by translating the agreed commitments into standards for

the pillars. These standards cover the aspects of quality, resources and time. To fulfill this

function the Steering committee is handed the tools to monitor the progress, set the

priority and vivificate the performance increase. If one of these indicators is of, an

intervention in the implementation system is needed.

The second function is to coordinate the projects between. Primarily this is done in the

tuning phase however the project control is responsible for dealing with the deviations.

Therefore deviation from the pillar year plan should be reported back to the project control

so the coordination can be ensured. To fulfill the function the project control should

receive quarterly pillar progress updates.

Req. Act. Required

Productivity and cost leadership 80 71 Line MTBF 36 / 36 / 36 / 100

Customer satisfaction 80 81 Filler MTBS 60 / 60 / 120 / 60

Social responsibility 90 95 FTR % 95 / 90 / 90 / 90 / 90

Organisation and People Development 80 49

Quality 80 79

Req. Act. Items Act.

Total TPM Audit Score 80 52 9 2

Driving system 81 51 2 1

Organisation and Change Management 80 60 1 0

Pillars Average 80 34 15 6

Brewery Logistics and OpCp P&EEM, EPM Pillars 70 22 7 1

2 0

5 2

4 1

Items Act. Items Act.

Driving System 12 4 33 15

Organisation and Change Management 31 8 40 9

Safety, Health & Environement Pillar 87 61 24 5

Focussed Improvement Pillar 29 8 14 4

Preventive Maintenance Pillar 74 34 9 1

Autonomous Maintenance Pillar 34 7

Embedded 'Vision to Action'

Heineken Manufactoring Star

99 / 72 / 86 / 80 / 98

6 / 10 / 7 / 5

42 / 74 / 67 / 28

Audit Score

Shop floor indicators

Get the vision right

Maintain basic conditions

Actual

Killer Criteria

New prod. Intr. & Consumer value eng.

Project & Early equip. man.Pillar

Brewery Logistics Pillar

Progressive Quality Pillar

Training & Education Pillar

Leverage systematic improvement

TPM Vision Implementation

Expand TPM to new disciplines

Expand level of detail in existing pillars

Learn from others copy & share with pride

Problem solving and shop floor excelence

50


projection of the performance increase is made. If the operational performance stays

behind or is ahead of schedule the project control should intervene by altering the

standards.

51

7 Proof of Concept: Confront and Tune Process

To demonstrate the working of the in designed processes, in this chapter a proof of

concept is presented. The proof of concept is done on the initial confrontation and tuning

of the Silver TPM policy and goals at the Zoeterwoude Brewery. The proof of concept does

not cover the control process since the program needs to be in progress to proof it’s

working. The demonstration is separated in the four processes with the tuning of the pillar

guidelines in paragraph 7.1, the killer criteria in paragraph 7.2, the HMS criteria in

paragraph 7.3 and the SFI criteria in paragraph 7.4. Based on the findings of the proof of

concept in paragraph 7.5 the business case of Silver TPM implementation will be

addressed.

7.1 Tuning of Pillar Guidelines

The tuning of the pillar guidelines consists of the process steps as defined in chapter 5. For

the pillar guidelines the process steps consist of the comparison of the as is and to be

situation (paragraph 7.1.1), the determination of the acceptability (paragraph 7.1.2), the

tuning to the organizational structure (paragraph 7.1.3) and the scheduling in a master

plan (paragraph 7.1.4).

7.1.1 Comparison of As-Is and To-Be Situation of Pillar guidelines

Through the interviews all 381 policy items are assessed. Table 2 gives an overview of the

amount of policies and the amount of gaps per category. A total of 156 items ( 0 ) are

already covered in the current brewery processes and the amount of policies upon which

there is a difference between the as-is and to-be situation is 225 ( 60%).

Table 2 Policy gaps per category

Category No of

items

No of

gaps

Driving System 12 8

Organization and change management 31 23

Safety, Health an d Environment 85 24

Focused improvement 29 21

Planned Maintenance 75 40

Autonomous Maintenance 30 23

Training & Education 32 18

Progressive Quality 40 31

Brewery Logistics 24 19

Project & Early Equipment Management 14 10

NPI's & Customer value engineering 9 8

381 225

52

In the interviews the characterization of the gap is also determinate. Figure 35 gives a

chart of the characterization of gaps. It should be noted that one gap can have multiple

characteristics, for example in development can coincide with not consistent consequently

or integration needed can coincide with not executed consistently. Therefore the total

amount of this chart is greater than 381. From the diagram it is notable that there is a

relatively large fraction of gaps due to the lack of consistent execution. A complete

overview of all pillar guided lines and their respective status is presented in appendix I.

Figure 35 Characterization of pillar guidelines gaps

7.1.2 Acceptability of Pillar Guidelines

The second process step is to determine the acceptability of the guidelines. Figure 36

presents an example of the priority determination. Appendix K gives an complete overview

of all the acceptability of all guidelines. However in this paragraph only the conclusions of

the acceptability assessment are discussed.

Figure 36 Example of calculation of priority

Pillar Current phase Summary of policyIn line with

vision 2015Ease Effect

Priority

score

AM Embedding of Use of visual management Yes High LowAM Embedding of Trainings include safety Yes Medium Medium 60

AM Embedding of Cilt is verified by PM/PQ/Safety/T&E and includes safety and Q points Yes Medium Medium 60

AM Embedding of Define clear roles and responsibilities for DCS Yes Low High 60

AM Method development for Safety in CILT Yes Medium Low 40

AM Method development for Safety pillar checks CILT safety Yes Medium Low 40

AM Method development for Identifing and developing AM champions Yes Low Medium 40


AM Embedding of AM pillar actively reduces CILT time Indirect Medium Medium 30

AM Method expansion of Pilot machine, owned by AM pillar, demonstrates best practices Indirect Low Low 10

AM Method development for AM 1-5 completed for A&B machines Yes Low High 60

AM Method development for Technical training AM step 4 Yes Low High 60

AM Method development for Technological training AM step 5 Yes Low High 60

AM Method expansion of Continuous MTBA and MTBF reduction by operators Yes Low High 60

AM Method development for Operators monitor process control limits Yes Low High 60

AM Method development for DCS facilitates AM steps 4 & 5 Yes Low High 60

AM Method expansion of AM 1-3 for entire brewery Indirect Low Medium 20

AM Embedding of Systematic tag analysis is performed Yes Low Low 20

BL Method expansion of Using VSM Yes Low High 60

BL Embedding of VSM activities are performed according to priorities Yes Low High 60

BL Method development for Use of internal and external benchmarking Yes High Low 60

BL Embedding of Optimization of product picking Yes High High 100

BL Method development for Standardized work for warehouse Yes High Medium 80

BL Method development for BL KPI's on DCS Yes Low Medium 40

BL Embedding of Relation BL and other pillars No High Low 0

BL Method development for Inventory management in cooperation with OpCo Plan pillar Yes High Low 60

BL Intergration of Flow optimalization in cooperation with OpCo RPM pillar Yes High Medium 80

BL Method development for Wharehouse flow optimalization in cooperation with OpCo FI pillar Yes High Medium 80

BL Method development for Zero loss culture No Low High 0

BL Method development for Link 5S and process improvements Yes Low Low 20

BL Method development for Reduction of losses between packaging and warehousing Yes Low High 60

BL Method development for End 2 End value stream mapping Yes Low High 60

BL Method development for Monitoring of standards via DCS Yes Low Medium 40

BL Method development for Use of BL triger points Yes Low Medium 40

BL Intergration of Common brewery and logistics KPI's Yes Low High 60

BL Method expansion of More multifunctional teams Yes Medium Medium 60

C&OM Embedding of Monitioring and specific coaching of problem solving tools Yes Medium High 80

C&OM Embedding of Shop floor indicators used for communication Yes Medium High 80

C&OM Method development for Leaders understand recognition Yes Medium High 80

C&OM Method development for HPO route is used for complex changes Yes Medium Medium 60

C&OM Embedding of Mature use of TPM tools Yes Medium Medium 60

C&OM Method development for People feel ownership of the problem solivng tools Yes Low High 60

C&OM Method development for Develop T&E into PD Indirect High Medium 40

C&OM Method expansion of Define IT improvement stratgy Yes Medium Low 40

C&OM Method development for Communication plan well designed and executed Yes Medium Low 40

C&OM Method development for Leadership development Yes Medium Low 40

C&OM Method development for Reward and recognition system Yes Medium Low 40

C&OM Embedding of Brewery vision is key input for pillar plans Indirect High Low 30

C&OM Embedding of Auditing used to help pillars and teams further Indirect Medium Medium 30

C&OM Embedding of Drive zero loss culture Indirect Medium Medium 30

C&OM Method development for Intergration of operational systems Indirect Low Medium 20

C&OM Method development for Reduction of operational administration losses Indirect Medium Low 20

C&OM Method development for Future organizational vision in terms of WCBO No Low Medium 0

C&OM Method development for Roadmap to become a high performing organization No Low High 0

C&OM Embedding of Yearly review of vision No Medium Medium 0

C&OM Method development for Effective horizontal expantion system Yes Medium Medium 60

C&OM Method development for Copy posibilites are reviewed before starting teams Indirect High Medium 40

C&OM Embedding of Copy with pride Indirect Medium Medium 30

C&OM Method development for Copy and share with pride on pillar level Indirect Medium Low 20

DS Method expansion of HMS KPI's are cascaded to shop floor indicators Yes Medium High 80

DS Embedding of Regular close the loop with clear countermeasures Yes High Medium 80

DS Embedding of Effective DCS for all pillars Yes Medium High 80

DS Embedding of Reports to global are OTIF Yes Medium Low 40

DS Method development for Detailed loss deployment based on technological limits Indirect Medium Medium 30

DS Method expansion of HMS and HLS KPI's are under TPM No Medium Medium 0

DS Method expansion of Quarterly reporting of savings No High Low 0

53

First it is concluded that no less than 78% of all policy items contribute directly to the long

term goals of the Brewery. Since the Vision contains a wide array of goals (best in

productivity, quality, service, safety and environmental aspects) it would be notable if

policies would not contribute to one of these fields. Most of the indirectly contributing

guidelines are related to training of personnel.

The distribution of the second aspect, the Ease & Effect is represented in Figure 37. In this

figure the two elements show a contrasting pattern. The Ease tends to be estimated

relatively low and the effect tends to be estimated relatively high.

Figure 37 Ease and Effect Zoeterwoude

The resulting priority distribution is represented in Figure 38. From this figure it can be

concluded that there is a small amount of high-ease-high-effect with a priority score of

100. There is a large fraction of 74% which have a priority score of 80, 60 or 40. The so

called tail, which consist of less interesting items is 22% and constitutes of the priority

scores of 30, 20 and 0.

Figure 38 Priority Distribution

47% 38% 15% 20% 35% 45% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Low Medium High

Ease & effect distribution

Ease

Effect

4%

17%

40%

17%

5% 9% 9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

100 80 60 40 30 20 0

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Priority score

Priority distribution

54

7.1.3 Tuning Pillar Guidelines to the Organizational Structure

To tune the pillar guide lines to the organizational structure, first the overlap between the

pillar guidelines and the killer criteria is determinate. By determining the overlap it is

concluded that 51 of the 225 pillar guidelines have a direct overlap with the killer criteria.

These guidelines are thereby not allocated to a pillar first linked to the killer criteria. This

killer criteria will, in the killer criteria tuning process, be either allocated to a pillar or

marked as a brewery wide project.

Resulting from this first step is an overview of the guidelines per pillar, representing what

guidelines each pillar should pursue. In Figure 39 an example of a pillar responsibility

overview is given.

Figure 39 Pillar guidelines responsibility focussed improvement

7.1.4 Scheduling pillar guidelines in a master plan

Through the previous steps the pillars each composed an overview of the guidelines for

their respective pillar. The priority, effort estimation and the current situation are also

known for each of the guidelines through the execution of previous steps. This information

is handed over to the pillar leaders. The pillar leaders will have to make an initial

scheduling of these activities. For this step the approach is to balance the load of the

activities within the norm of three years. Since the pillar guidelines are only part of the

workload it is in this stage, assessing the feasibility of the planning regarding the resources

is useless in this stage. The iterative process of comprising a feasible master plan will

therefore proceed when the killer criteria are known in paragraph 7.2.4.

7.2 Tuning of Killer Criteria

The tuning of the killer criteria consists of the process steps consist of the comparison of

the as is and to be situation (paragraph 7.2.1), the determination of the acceptability

(paragraph 7.2.2), the tuning to the organizational structure (paragraph 7.2.3) and the

scheduling in a master plan (paragraph 7.2.4).


Method development for Changeover safety incorporation and approval 100

Embedding of Energy teams consider and improve safety 80

Embedding of Safety on DCS board 80

Embedding of Cascading of targets to other pillars 60

Intergration of Bottom up and top down DCS 60

Intergration of Planned down standards monitored using trigger point 40

Intergration of Recording non production time activities 40

Method development for Strategy for non production time activities 40

Intergration of Evidence of organizational loss reduction 40

Method development for Labour losses are identified for 80% of workplaces 40

Method development for Measuring and improving MTBT 40

Method development for Consistent calculation of savings 40

Method development for 10-12 zero losses year 40

Embedding of Copying of good practices 60 Copy and share culture all

Method development for Effective DCS 60 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding

Method development for End 2 End changeover improvement plan 40 End 2 End optimalization defining and approval of to be situation

Embedding of End 2 end value stream mapping 20 End 2 End optimalization defining and approval of to be situation

Method development for Loss analysis for logistics deployed 60 End 2 End optimalization defining and approval of to be situation

Intergration of Volume deployment in coorperation with logistics 60 End 2 End optimalization Roll-out

Method expansion of MCRS intergration 60 End 2 End optimalization roll-out

Method expansion of Changeover coordinition with OpCo plan pillar 40 End 2 End optimalization roll-out


Mapping is complete for the Brewery KPI's to shop floor level including Packaging, Brewing, Utilities and Support Functions e.g. Packaging OPI % to MTBF, MTBA, MTBT … at machine level, defect loss%

to FTR

Pillar policy responsibilities

Added supporting actions

55

7.2.1 Compare As-Is and To-Be Situation of Killer Criteria

Through the interviews all 45 killer criteria items are assessed.

Table 3 gives an overview of the amount of policies and the amount of gaps per category.

A total of 12 items ( 30%) are already covered in the current brewery processes and the

amount of policies upon which there is a difference between the as-is and to-be situation is

32 ( 70%).

Table 3 Gaps on Killer Criteria

Figure 40 gives a chart of the characterization of killer criteria items. From Figure 40, it is,

again, notable that there is a relatively large fraction of gaps due to the lack of consistent

execution. A complete overview of killer criteria items and their respective status is

presented in appendix L.

Figure 40 Characterisation of Killer Criteria

Killer criteria categoriesNo of

criteria

No of

gapsMaintain the basic conditions established 9 7Get the Vision Right - Performance & Future Organization 2 1Embedded the "Vision to action" Planning Cycle & execution 1 1Leverage the "systematic" improvement processes established 15 9Further improve competency towards problem solving & mastering shop floor

excellence7 6

Learn from other, copy & share with pride 2 2Expand level of detail in existing Pillars 5 3Expand TPM to new disciplines 4 3

45 32

13

13

7

12

Characterisation of killer criteria

Fully in place

No development

In development

Not executed consistently

Intergration needed

56

7.2.2 Acceptability of Killer Criteria

The acceptability of the killer criteria is determinate using the acceptability of the

underlying pillar guidelines and a check with the pillar leaders using interviews. The

underlying pillar guidelines of the killer criteria show an average priority score 62 and no

priority score under 40. The most frequent combination is high effort with high effect.

Based on this, all killer criteria are considered acceptable. To verify this statement, the

acceptability of the killer criteria is questioned in the interviews. In these interviews the

acceptability is confirmed. It would be remarkable if not all killer criteria are considered

acceptable since the killer criteria form the key aspects of the TPM program and these are

obligatory to comply to.

7.2.3 Tune to Organizational Structure

The overlap between the pillar guidelines and the killer criteria is mapped in the tune

process step of the pillar guidelines. The next step is to separate the killer criteria in the

ones that can be allocated and the ones that are classified as a brewery wide project.

From this separation four Brewery wide projects are distinguished. These projects are:

Implementation of Autonomous maintenance step 4

Implementation of copy & share system

Implementation of End 2 End optimization

Effective follow-up of deviation of operational standards

These four projects are large and require a large and require a large degree of

coordination, therefore a separate project team will be setup for these projects containing

pillar members of all the affiliated pillars. Besides these four brewery wide projects there

are the killer criteria that can be allocated to the pillars. An overview of the amount of

killer criteria that are allocated to each pillar is represented in Table 4.

Table 4 Killer Criteria Allocated to Executive Organ Zoeterwoude Brewery

Executive organKiller criteria

resp.

Autonomous maintenance 2

Copy & Share culture 3

End 2 end optimalization 1

Effective followup of standard deviation 6

Organization and change Management 0

Driving System 3

Safety, health and environment 2

Focussed improvement 1

Preventive maintenance 5

Autonomous Maintenance 4

Training and education 2

Brewery logistics 1

Project and early equipment management 1

New product introductions and CVE 1

32

57

Now that the killer criteria are tuned to the organizational structure all actions are assigned

to an executing organ. To complete the tuning step each of the organs is handed a

summary of their responsibilities. Figure 41 shows an example of a pillar summary, in this

case of the focused improvement pillar.

Figure 41 Example of a pillar activities summary

The pillar summary consists of three parts. First the killer criteria responsibility above.

Secondly the prioritized pillar activities this pillar is responsible for and last the activities for

which the pillar is responsible that contribute to one of the Brewery wide projects. A

complete overview of all pillar summaries can be found in appendix M.

7.2.4 Schedule in Master Plan

Last step in confrontation and tuning of silver policy is the scheduling in the master plan.

In this step not only the killer criteria are scheduled, also the iterative process of

combining all pillar plans in a master plan is executed.

First the planning of the killer criteria. Most killer criteria are allocated to a pillar, these

killer criteria are scheduled as a project in the individual pillar plan, similar to the

scheduling of the pillar guidelines. The other killer criteria are the Brewery wide projects.

These projects are scheduled separately.

A special attention is given to the scheduling of Autonomous maintenance step 4 since this

project represents about half of all efforts that have to be made through the silver project.

A detailed planning for the implementation of AM step 4 is represented in Figure 44. This

planning is based on the following premises:

12 weeks execution duration per machine

12 weeks preparation duration per machine

























to FTR



58

Pilot per machine category 24 weeks

Preparation and execution sequentially scheduled

No two machines per line in execution

Balanced workload

The throughput time per machine of 12 weeks is considered feasible when 10 employees

are made available 4 hours a week to perform the execution. The resulting delivery

schedule of completed machines is represented in Figure 42.

Figure 42 Delivery schedule of completed AM machines

The presented schedule is the result of multiple iteration cycles. Initially the

implementation of AM step 4 was estimated to take 8 years while most individual pillar

plans where estimated to take ~ 5 years. Based on this conclusion Brewery Management

has decided to increase the man-hours available from 20 to 40 hours. Due to this

increased resource allocation the resulting implementation duration is estimated at 5 years.

Figure 43 shows part of the resulting 5 year master plan.

Figure 43 Part of master plan

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Completed AM machines

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Robust deployment and improvement Team / activity planning is

emb3edded on Brewery and Pillar level.

HMS KPI's are cascaded to shop floor indicators Effective DCS for all pillars The need to use "advanced tools" is clearly defined at the start up of the

improvement team

Regular close the loop with clear countermeasures Quarterly reporting of savings Detailed loss deployment based on technological limits 100% actions completed for critical "non=compliances" (Safety, Product

integrity and Global recipe Related) and 90% actions completed for the

rest of "non-compliances"

Reports to global are OTIF HMS KPI's are cascaded to shop floor indicators HMS and HLS KPI's are under TPM

Priorities include logistics cost

Communication plan well designed and executed Develop T&E into PD Drive zero loss culture Mature use of TPM tools Reward and recognition system

Yearly review of vision Develop problem solving capability Monitioring and specific coaching of problem solving tools People feel ownership of the problem solivng tools

HPO route is used for complex changes Future organizational vision in terms of WCBO Roadmap to become a high performing organization Define IT improvement stratgy

Brewery vision is key input for pillar plans leadership agenda introduction Shop floor indicators used for communication

Consistent calculation of Savings MTBF MTBA MTBT Measuring and improving MTBT

10-12 zero losses/year Changeover safety incorp and approval Cascading of targets to other pillars Recording non production time activities

Energy teams consider and improve safety Bottom up and top down DCS Startegy for non production time activities

Safety on DCS board Panned down standards monitored using trigger points Evidence of organizational loss reduction

Labour losses are identified for 80% of workplaces

Start Ownership of RT&TL of minor stop process End Ownership of RT&TL of minor stop process Start ownership of Operator of minor stop process End ownership of Operator of minor stop process LOTO incl maintenance full finished

Start Quality of reporting stoppages Cont. Quality of reporting minor/long stops Support of LOTO Support of LOTO Finish training of maint. Pers. Capabilities

Support of LOTO Support of LOTO Start training material and training execution of maint. Pers. Capabilities Start training material and training execution of maint. Pers. Capabilities

Incorporation of safety procedures (HeiQ) Incorporation of safety procedures (HeiQ)

Implementation Restore Basic Condition V graph lines RBC-V - line

11-12-21-22-81-82-9

Parameter control incl in WPO boards and management. V graph lines ,

machine speed settings

Start recording maint. Pers. Capabilities (ANAGO) Gap maint.+ start training materials & training Pers. Capabilities Support AM. Reduction lubrication tasks, Automatic lubrication 9 Cont. BDA quality deployment ,4M deployment analysis

Analyses Restore Basic Condition V graph lines RBC-V

Implementation Restore Basic Condition V graph lines RBC-V - line 3-

5-7 Support line technicians in flow as operator Start with PM deployment logistics, step 3-4

Support AM. Reduction lubrication tasks, Automatic lubrication 6-8

Support AM. Reduction lubrication tasks, Automatic lubrication 11-12-21-

22-3-41-42-7 Cont. BDA quality deployment ,4M deployment analysis

Cont. BDA quality deployment ,4M deployment analysis Support line technicians in flow as operator Start with PM deployment logistics, step 1 &2

Start intergration logistics CS&L Cont. BDA quality deployment ,4M deployment analysis

Start with PM deployment logistics, step 1

AM 4: Multipacker pilot AM 4: Multipacker AM 4: Fillers AM 4: Packers AM 4: Expansion (100% A & B) T&E: Train operators AM step 4 (practical training)

T&E: Develop training for TL > AM step 4 AM 4: Labeler AM 4: Packers AM 4: Defoil & wrappers AM 5: Expansion T&E: Train trainers for practical AM step 4 training

AM 1 -3 Brewing Roll out AM 4: Fillers AM 5: Pilot > machine/area t.b.d. AM 5: Expansion T&E: Train operators AM step 4 (practical training) Training of AM step 5

T&E: Develop training for TL > AM step 4 Roll out of AM step4 training for TL AM 1- 3 Brewing roll out AM 1- 3 Utilities T&E: Train trainers for practical AM step 4 training WPO packaging : maintain & strengthen

WPO packaging : maintain & strengthen AM 1- 3 Brewing roll out AM 1-3 Utilities AM logistics roll out Training of AM step 5 PM: Continuous reduction of MTBA & MTBF

WPO guiding team AM strategy logistics AM Logistics roll out T&E: Train operators AM step 4 (practical training) WPO packaging : maintain & strengthen

Reduction of Lubrication time trough Kaizens per area T&E: Develop theoretical AM step4 training for operators T&E: Train operators AM step 4 (practical training) T&E: Train trainers for practical AM step 4 training PM: Continuous reduction of MTBA & MTBF

WPO rol cleaning education / analyse T&E: Train operators AM step 4 (practical training) T&E: Train trainers for practical AM step 4 training Training of AM step 5

Safety: CILT task adjusted with input from ORR teams T&E: Train trainers for practical AM step 4 training T&E: Develop training for AM step 5 (technological/energy) WPO packaging : maintain & strengthen

SafetY: Develop CILT check list for WPO rol keepers (from ORR team) WPO packaging : maintain & strengthen WPO packaging : maintain & strengthen PM: Continuous reduction of MTBA & MTBF

PM: Continuous reduction of MTBA & MTBF WPO: development of facilitating follow up of step 4 in WPO WPO: development of facilitating follow up of step 5 in WPO

Intensify cooperation AM -PM pilar through 2 weekly combined pillar

meetings Reduction of Lubrication time trough Kaizens per area Safety: CILT task adjusted with input from ORR teams

PQ: Verify CILT on PQ items >> pilot on modelmachine Safety: CILT task adjusted with input from ORR teams Safety: Improve CILT with checklist for WPO rol keepers

Safety: Improve CILT with checklist for WPO rol keepers PM: Continuous reduction of MTBA & MTBF

PM: Continuous reduction of MTBA & MTBF PQ: Verify CILT on PQ items

PQ: Verify CILT on PQ items

Loss related development Training programme problem solving competency Problem solving competences managed and deployed All personnel deploy ability to solve problems Approval of safety OPL's and SOP's

Training AM step 4 (technical) training Training AM step 4 (technical) training Job profiles compared to TPM WCBO All training start with safety issues

Develop leadership Develop leadership Q point and defect training (AM step 5) Q point and defect training (AM step 5)

Strategic long term workforce planning Monitoring training effectiveness Training of quality defects (AM step 5) Training of quality defects (AM step 5)

Individual training plans based on needs Horizontal expansion of OPL's and SOP's

Start ELR route for brewing Safety standardsfor training room QA/QX/QM brewing 50% NPI quality management of change SPC/CPK Packaging

Discuss supplier management with SCS Finish ELR for rel. brewing proc. Q points Brewing 50% SPC/CPK Brewing Qa/Qx/Qm 80% A&B mach. packaging

Making losses visual for brewing Finish ELR for rel. pack. Proc. QA/QX/QM brewing 80% Q-points 80% A&B mach. packaging

Qa/Qx/Qm micro & extract brewing Q points extract loss packaging Q points Brewing 80%

Q points micro & extract loss brewing Qa/Qx/Qm Micro Hyg. Pack. packaging Making losses visual for Packaging

Start ELR route for rel.pac. Proc. Q points Hyg. Pack packaging Qa/Qx/Qm 66% A&B mach. packaging

Qa/Qx/Qm 20% A&B mach. packaging Qa/Qx/Qm 40% A&B mach. packaging Q-points 66% A&B mach. packaging

Q-points 30% A&B mach.packaging

Pill

ars

Training &

Education Pillar

Autonomous

Maintenance

Focussed

Improvement

Progressive

Quality Pillar

Organisation and

Change

Management

Driving System

Preventive

Maintenance

59

Figure 44 Autonomous maintenance step 4 planning

2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

Preparation 8 6

Excecution 8 6

Preparation

Excecution 5 7, 8 11, 12

Preparation11, 2, 3,

75, 12 8 4, 6 43

Excecution 5, 12 8 4 43

Preparation 4 6

Excecution 4 6

Preparation2, 3, 4, 5,

7, 8

Excecution

Preparation2,3,4,5,6

,7,8

Excecution

Preparation 6 4, 9

Excecution 6 4, 9

PreparationBox/crat

e

Bottle/c

an

ExcecutionBox/crat

e

Bottle/c

an

Preparation 4, 6 11, 12, 9

Excecution 4, 6 11, 12, 9

Completed machines 0 0 0 1 3 4 4 12 17 23 31 37 39 43 49 56 56 64 65 71 73 76

Palatizer area

Box packers

Pallet defoil ezuipment

Cover equipment

Pasteurizors

Transport lanes

2013

3

Multipackers

Lablers

Fillers

Pallets

2, 3, 5, 7, 8

11, 12, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8

Pallets

2, 3, 5, 7, 8

3

2, 5, 7, 81

1,2,3,5,7,8

2, 3

11, 2, 3, 7

2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

2, 5, 7, 81

1, 2, 3, 5, 7,8

2017 20182014 2015 2016

60

7.3 Tuning of HMS Criteria

The tuning of the HMS criteria consists of the comparison of the as is and to be situation

(paragraph 7.3.1), the determination of the acceptability (paragraph 7.3.2) and the

scheduling in a master plan (paragraph 7.3.3).

7.3.1 Comparison of As-Is and To Be Situation of HMS goals

To confront the HMS score goals first the current situation is compared to the required

situation. An overview of this comparison is represented in Table 5.This table shows the

five HMS categories, their assosiated KPI’s, the calculation of the of the current situation

and the silver criteria. The last colum represents the percentage difference between the

current performance and the Silver target performance.

Table 5 Comparison of current required performance for Silver

Though this comparison it can be concluded that for the categories Customer satisfaction

and Social responsibility the current performance is already at the desired level. For the

quality category there is a difference of 1 percent. Last the categories Productivity & cost

leadership and Organizational & people development a significant improvement is required.

In the next paragraph these target states will be assesed on feasability.

Weight Low mark High markRequired

KPIActual KPI

(1/12 tm 12/12)

Required

HMS Score

Actual

HMS Score (2012)

Percentage

HMS

difference

80 71 -11%

OPI NONA Bottle (%) 37,5 30 75 66 64,6 80 77 -4%

OPI NONA Can (%) 3,75 45 85 77 69,5 80 61 -24%

OPI NONA keg (%) 3,75 40 85 76 56 80 35 -56%

Production productivity (Hl/FTE/YR) 45 9596 19192 17273 16852 80 75 -6%

Extract losses (%) 10 16 5 7,2 10,3 80 52 -35%

One way packaging material losses (%) - - - - 0,55 - - -

80 81 1%

Packaging Conformance to Schedual (%) 100 75 100 95 95,2 80 81 1%

90 95 6%

Water consumption (hl/hl Pr) 25 7 2,8 3,22 3,46 90 84 -7%

Electricity consumption (kWh/Hl Pr) 25 11,63 6,84 11,151 6,97 90 97 8%

Thermal Energy consumption (MJ/Hl Pr) 25 97,3 57,2 93,29 55,4 90 100 11%

Non-recycled industrial Waste (kg/hl) 25 3 0 0,3 0 90 100 11%

Eco care indicator (%) - - - - 53 90 - -

80 62 -23%

Absence rate (%) 25 7 1 2,2 6,9 80 2 -98%Accident factor (Accident/100FTE) 25 6 0 1,2 0,7 80 88 10%corporate TPM audit (%) 50 0 100 80 77 80 78 -3%

80 79 -1%

Taste score Fresh (%) 16,7 0 100 80 75,9 80 75 -6%Taste test 3 month (%) 16,7 0 100 80 54,8 80 55 -31%FTR Beer production (%) 12,5 0 100 80 71,8 80 72 -10%FTR Packaging (%) 12,5 0 100 80 98,5 80 98 23%FTR Finished product (%) 12,5 0 100 80 85,5 80 86 8%FTR Microbiology (%) 12,5 0 100 80 80,3 80 80 0%Justified Complaints Bottle/Can (Comp/100mln) 15,3 15 0 3 0,48 80 97 21%Justified Complaints keg (Comp/1000) 1,4 2 0 0,4 0,84 80 58 -28%

Quality

Category


Organisation & people development

Productivity and Cost leadership


61

7.3.2 Determining the Acceptability of the HMS criteria

A HMS criteria is acceptable if it is desirable and feasible. In this paragraph first the

desirability of the HMS goals is addressed, secondly for all the individual HMS criteria it is

determinate whether they are considered feasible.

Desirability of HMS Goals - The desirability of the HMS goals will be adressed by

comparing the goals TPM silver to the long term vision of the brewery. If the goals do not

help the Brewery towards where they want to go a target is nog acceptable. The long term

vision of the brewery is derived from the Heinkenen Nederlands Supply vision 2015. This

vision is translated into specific brewery targets. An overview of the brewery targets is

presented in Table 6

Table 6 Performance compared to the long term vision and the silver targets

From this overview it can be concluded that the for most items the Brewery targets

outreach the HMS silver goals. However since the HMS is a balanced scorecard, the criteria

wihtin a category can be compensated. Therfrore, the KPI’s have to be calculated in a HMS

score. Figure 45 shows the current HMS target versus the vision 2015 target and the silver

goal.

Key Performance Indicators

Actual

performance

2012

Target 2015 Target Silver

OPI NONA Bottle (%) 64,6 75,5 66,0

OPI NONA Can (%) 69,5 78,0 77,0

OPI NONA keg (%) 56,0 75,0 76,0

Production productivity (Hl/FTE/YR) 16.852 20.375 17.273

Extract losses (%) 10,3 7,5 7,2

One way packaging material losses (%) 0,55 0,36 -

Cust. Sat Packaging Conformance to Schedual (%) 95,2 95,0 95,0

Water consumption (hl/hl Pr) 3,5 2,5 3,0

Electricity consumption (kWh/Hl Pr) 7,0 7,1 7,1

Thermal Energy consumption (MJ/Hl Pr) 55,4 58,6 59,2

Non-recycled industrial Waste (kg/hl) - 0 0,2

Eco care indicator (%) 53,0 - -

Absence rate (%) 6,9 6,3 2,2

Accident factor (Accident/100FTE) 0,7 0,0 1,2

corporate TPM audit (%) 77,0 82,0 80,0

Taste score Fresh (%) 75,9 74,3 80,0

Taste test 3 month (%) 54,8 52,0 80,0

FTR Beer production (%) 71,8 95,0 80,0

FTR Packaging (%) 98,5 95,0 80,0

FTR Finished product (%) 85,5 95,0 80,0

FTR Microbiology (%) 80,3 95,0 80,0

Justified Complaints Bottle/Can (Comp/100mln) 0,5 5,0 3,0

Justified Complaints keg (Comp/1000) 0,8 0,8 0,4

Co

st le

ader

ship

Soci

al

resp

on

cib

ility

Org

. &

peo

ple

dev

el.

Qu

alit

y

62

Figure 45 Current performance and target Vision 2015 versus Silver criteria

From Figure 45 it can be derived that, with the exception of the organization and people

development score, the target is equal or greater than the siver criteria. Therefore, these

categrories are desirable. The organizational and people develipment criteria is not met

due to the absence rate target in the long term vision. Although the target is not in line

with the long term vision a lower abcense rate is desirable, since a lower abcence rate is

not a tradeoff. Therefore the silver criteria are all desirable.

It should be noted that the vision 2015 is more ambitious than the siver criteria so that the

Brewery should not take the silver criteria as goal but the long term vision.

Feasibility of HMS criteria - To assess the feasibility three aspects are taken in

consideration. First the historical performance is taken in consideration, secondly the

impact of the implementation of silver is taken in consideration and where applicable the

technological limits of the brewery are addressed. The overview of the historical

benchmark performance is given per category. For the benchmark score to improve, the

performance must improve faster than the peer breweries. For the benchmark score to

remain the same, the brewery performance must improve at the same pace as the peer

breweries. Last if the brewery performance improves at a slower rate than the peer group,

the benchmark score decreases. In the following paragraphs the HMS criteria are

addressed individually.

The first HMS criteria is productivity and cost leadership. Figure 51 shows the historical

performance of this criteria. The performance of productivity and cost leadership has

increased steeply in the years after 2005. However this steep increase has toned down in

the following years. In the year 2012 the required level has already been met. The

downfall in perfromance of 2013 is the introduction of new products. In 2013 the majority

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cost leadership



Org. & People devel.

Quality

HM

S sc

ore

Reeks1 Reeks2 Target 2013 Target Vision 2015

63

of produced products reseived a changed primary packaging and these intoructions have a

high impact on the performance. But the question is can the Zoeterwoude Brewery pick up

the increase and meet the required level?

Figure 46 Historical cost leadership performance compared to Silver criteria

To answer this question the technological possibilities of the Brewery should be addressed.

The Zoeterwoude Brewery is the most automated brewery of Heineken as can be

supported by the capital placement graph of Figure 47, which shows the capital placement

of the Zoetrwoude Brewery in relation to its peer Breweries.

Figure 47 Capital Placement per Production Volume

In Figure 47 it becomes clear that the Zoeterwoude Brewery has by far the highest capital

placement per preduction vollume of all large Heineken Breweries. This indicates a far

more industrialized production. Therefore the Zoeterwoude Brewery should be expected to

outperform the peer breweries and the criteria should be feasible.

The second criteria is customer satisfaction. Figure 48 shows the historical performance for

this criteria. For this process criteria the historical performance is above the current

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Zoet

erw

ou

de

€/

Hl y

ear

ly p

rod

uct

ion

Capital placement per production vollume

64

performance and the current performance is above the goal level. Besides this historical

improvement the focus of silver is to integrate the procurement, production and logistics

and thereby strongly improving the customer delivery quality. Therefore, the goal is

considered feasible.

Figure 48 Historical customer satisfaction performance compared to Silver criteria

The third criteria is the social responsibility. Figure 49 presents the historical performance.

The performance level of this category is historically very well and currently above the

desired level. Secondly the incorporation of the environmental aspects in the Safety,

Health and Environment pillar in the Silver phase will increase the focus of this category.

Therefore, this category is considered feasible.

Figure 49 Historical social responsibility performance compared to Silver criteria

The fourth criteria is organizational and people development. Figure 50 represents the

performance in this category. The category of organizational and people development is

historically and currently far under the desired level and therefore may be infeasible. When

we look back at the composition of this criteria it consist of 25% absence rate, 25%

accident rate and 50% TPM audit score. From these sub goals the accident rate and TPM

score are feasible. However absence rate is not. The target is based on a global

benchmark and the resulting target score is 2,2%. With the employment law of the

65

Netherlands, this target is completely infeasible, considering the current performance and

the 5,2% average absence rate in Dutch industry. Therefore the goal of organization and

people development has to be considered infeasible.

Figure 50 Historical org. and people development performance compared to Silver

The last criteria category is quality. Historically quality has been under the goal for Silver.

Due to the semi-process characteristic of the beer production the quality of the product is

enclosed in the quality of the equipment. One of the most important steps of Silver is the

roll-out of autonomous maintenance. The expectation is that this will not only lead to an

improved machine uptime but also an increased process quality. Therefore, this gap is

considered feasible.

Figure 51 Historical cost leadership performance compared to Silver criteria

From this paragraph it is concluded that, with the exception of the organization and people

development the HMS criteria are acceptable. The organization and people development is

unfeasible, and therefore unacceptable, due to the 2,2% absence rate target.

66

7.3.3 Scheduling of HMS Criteria

The required performance increase is estimated to follow a linear increase. Therefore, the

required increase can be calculated by interpolating the current performance and the

target. However this is not the case for performances currently exceeding the target. In

that case the performance level should be retained. The resulting performance targets are

represented in Table 7. The scheduled targets are the main input for the result verification

of the project control. The targets are the reference point upon which brewery

management should react if there is a deviation.

Table 7 Yearly HMS performance targets

7.4 Tuning of Shop Floor indicator criteria

For the SFI criteria the tuning process steps consist of the comparison of the as is and to

be situation (paragraph 7.4.1), the determination of the acceptability (paragraph 7.4.2)

and the scheduling in a master plan (paragraph 7.4.3).

7.4.1 Comparison of As-Is and To Be Situation of SFI Goals

To confront the set criteria first the current situation is compared to the required situation.

Table 5 gives an overview of the MTBF performance in relation to the Silver Goals. In this

overview it can be seen that with the exception of line 7, all bottle and can lines have a

MFBF that is greater than the goal of 36 hours. On average the surplus on these lines is

65% over these lines. The Kegs however is a different story. The 41/42 are the draft keg

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

OPI NONA Bottle (%) 64,6 64,88 65,16 65,44 65,72 66

OPI NONA Can (%) 69,5 71 72,5 74 75,5 77

OPI NONA keg (%) 56 60 64 68 72 76

Production productivity (Hl/FTE/YR) 16852 16936 17020 17104 17189 17273

Extract losses (%) 10,3 9,68 9,06 8,44 7,82 7,2

One way packaging material losses (%) 0,55 - - - - -

Packaging Conformance to Schedual (%) 95,2 95,2 95,2 95,2 95,2 95,2

Water consumption (hl/hl Pr) 3,5 3,4 3,4 3,3 3,3 3,2

Electricity consumption (kWh/Hl Pr) 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0 7,0

Thermal Energy consumption (MJ/Hl Pr) 55,4 55,4 55,4 55,4 55,4 55,4

Non-recycled industrial Waste (kg/hl) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eco care indicator (%) - - - - - -Absence rate (%) 6,9 5,96 5,02 4,08 3,14 2,2

Accident factor (Accident/100FTE) 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7

corporate TPM audit (%) 77 77,6 78,2 78,8 79,4 80

Taste score Fresh (%) 75,9 76,72 77,54 78,36 79,18 80Taste test 3 month (%) 54,8 59,84 64,88 69,92 74,96 80FTR Beer production (%) 71,8 73,44 75,08 76,72 78,36 80FTR Packaging (%) 98,5 98,5 98,5 98,5 98,5 98,5FTR Finished product (%) 85,5 85,5 85,5 85,5 85,5 85,5FTR Microbiology (%) 80,3 80,24 80,18 80,12 80,06 80Justified Complaints Bottle/Can (Comp/100mln) 0,48 0,48 0,48 0,48 0,48 0,48Justified Complaints keg (Comp/1000) 0,84 0,752 0,664 0,576 0,488 0,4

67

lines. The 9 is the regular keg line. The large difference on these lines is due to both the

relative low MTBF and the, in comparison to the bottle lines, high goal.

Table 8 Mean Time Between Failures

Table 6 gives an overview of the MTBS performance in line with the Silver goals. In this

overview it can be seen that all MTBS performance is significantly lower than the target.

The average difference is -87%, this indicates the MTBF should be increased by a

sevenfold to meet the MTBS goal.

Table 9 Mean Time Between Stops

Required Actual (1/12-

12/12)

Percentage

diference

36 72 99%

11 36 60 67%

12 36 83 131%

36 55 53%

21 36 74 106%

22 36 74 106%

3 36 57 58%

51 36 43 19%

7 36 29 -19%

81 36 48 33%

82 36 61 69%

36 67 86%

6 36 67 86%

100 28 -72%

41 100 19 -81%

42 100 23 -77%

9 100 41 -59%

Returnable bottle

OW Bottle

Canning

KEG

Category / line


12/12)

Percentage

diference

60 6 -91%

11 60 7 -88%

12 60 4 -93%

60 10 -84%

21 60 8 -87%

22 60 8 -87%

3 60 8 -87%

51 60 7 -88%

7 60 12 -80%

81 60 12 -80%

82 60 14 -77%

120 7 -94%

6 120 7 -94%

60 5 -92%

41 60 4 -93%

42 60 9 -85%

9 60 2 -97%

Returnable bottle

OW Bottle

Canning

Category / line

KEG

68

There is a catch to the MTBS registration. In the Zoeterwoude Brewery the filler

performance is monitored using an digital system called MES. This system registers all filler

stops throughout the year. Most Breweries however register the MTBS by sampling. The

practice is that an opperator has time to sample when the line is stable, so the sampling is

done at a favourable time.

The last of the Shop Floor indicators, the First Time right measures are evaluated in Table

10. From this table it can be seen that the FTR for packaging and the laboratory are above

the required level, the production, finished product and micro are below the goal.

The FTR for production which covers brewing. The FTR for brewing is calculated by

dividing the number of batches which pass all tests by the total number of batches. This

does not mean 20% of the beer is out of specification. Especially since the Zoeterwoude

Brewery can blend multiple batches so the resulting beer is within all specifications.

Table 10 First time right indicators

This means that for the Shop floor indicators goals there are gaps in all categories. For the

MTBF for kegs (-72%), for the MTBS in all categories (average -87%) and for the FTR in

production, finished product and micro (respectively -20%, -5% and -11%). For the FTR

indicator goals there are gaps in the categories Production (-20%), Finished product (-5%)

and Micro (-11%)

7.4.2 Acceptability of SFI Goals

A SFI is acceptable if it is feasible and desirable. In the following paragraphs both aspects

will be adressed.

Feasibility of SFI criteria - In contrast to the HMS, which is based on a relative

performance, the Shop Floor Indicators are based on absolute perfromance levels. If a

indicator is already on a certain level the performance is by definition feasible, therfore

only the gaps will be aderessed in terms of feasability. These gaps will be discussed in the

following paragraps.

First the feasability of the mean time between failures. In this category there are four lines

that do not meet their target. Line 7, lines 41/42 and line 9. First line 7, this is a

retrurnable bottle line, which has a gap of 19%. This line is already marked as in need of


12/12)

Percentage

diference

95 99 4%90 72 -20%90 86 -5%90 80 -11%90 98 9%

FTR category

PackagingProductionFinish ProductMicro Laboratory

69

MTBF improvement and is considered feasable. Lines 41/42 are the draft keg lines. These

lines are relatively new and are still very vulnarable for breakdowns. Furthermore the

extend of the gap is about 80%. Therefore the MTBF gap on these lines is considered

unfeasable. Last the feasability of line 9. This is the regular (50l) keg line. This line is a low

priority line since there is overcapacity and the direct labour on the line is low. Therfore

the cost of unplanned down is relatively low. Due to this low priority there is a substantial

room for MTBF improvement. Therefore the goal for the 9 is considered feasable.

The second categry is the MTBS. The measurement method of the MTBS at the

Zoeterwoude Brewery differs to the measurement technique upon which the target is

based. The reduction of minor stops is one of the focusses of the silver policy. However

gap towards the goal is on average 90%. It is considered infeasable that target will be

achieved.

Desirability of SFI Criteria - For the desirability of the Shop floor indicators the three

main categories will be discussed. First the MTBF, secondly the MTBS and last the FTR’s.

For the MTBF it is found that the target for the bottle and can lines is feasable but are

rather unambitious. Therfore this target is considered desirable but unambitious. For the

targets concerning kegs it is found that the 41/42 the target is unfeasable and therfore

automaticly undesirable. This leaves the target for line 9, the regular keg line, for which

the target is considered feasable. Line 9 is the not a priority line since the 50l keg demand

is far lower than the line capacity. Furthermore this line only needs 2 or 3 opperators.

Therfore by improving the MTBF and thereby improving the unplanned down the direct

operating cost will hardly be improved. This leads to the conclusion that currently the

improvement of the MTBF of line 9 is undesirable.

For the MTBS it is conlcuded that the target is unfeasable, however reducing minor stops is

one of the main focusses of silver and is one of the largest priorities of the Brewery.

Therfore improving the MTBS is highly desirable. Hovever the goal set for Silver is not

feasable and therefore the target is acceptable.

For the FTR improvement is also desirable. But the question is what is the limit of the

current machine park of the brewery in terms of FTR. Since the quality of the processes is

embedded in the quality of the machines it is desirable to reach the limit of what is

possible using the current equipement. When the FTR needs to be improved over the

technological limit of the machinepark the cost of FTR improvement are huge, and quicly

outway the economical benefit of the improved FTR. Currently te technological limitations

of the machinepark is not known therfore the desirability of the FTR can not be

determinated. So the desirability of the FTR needs to be determinated case by case.

70

7.4.3 Schedualing SFI Targets

The role of the scheduling of the SFI targets is equal to the targets of the HMS, to verify

the results. The SFI required performance increase is estimated to follow a linear increase.

Therefore, the required increase can be calculated by interpolating the current

performance and the target. However this is not the case for performances currently

exceeding the target, which are represented in green. In that case the performance level

should be retained. The resulting performance targets are represented in

Table 11 Yearly SFI performance targets

7.5 Business case of Silver

Through the execution of the confrontation and tuning process in the previous paragraphs

a broad insight is gained in the projected performance increase and required efforts of the

project. Based on this insight a business case can be calculated for Silver TPM

implementation. This case comprises of a cost estimation (paragraph 7.5.1), a revenue

estimation (paragraph 7.5.2) and a present value calculation (paragraph 7.5.3).

7.5.1 Cost of silver implementation

The estimated cost will be based on two aspects. First the man hour needed for

autonomous maintenance step 4. This aspect consists of the direct and support component

of the labor. The second aspect will comprise of the identified projects.

The required direct labor for AM step 4 is estimated upon € 13.400 per machine. This is

based upon the calculation that one machine takes 12 weeks to complete, 10 people are

involved in the process and they will spend 4 hours a week upon the project at € 28,- an

hour. The total AM step 4 implementation concerns 76 machines. For the implementation

of AM there is, besides the direct labor of the line personnel, also support required. This

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

11 60 60 60 60 60 60

12 83 83 83 83 83 83

21 74 74 74 74 74 74

22 74 74 74 74 74 74

3 57 57 57 57 57 57

51 43 43 43 43 43 43

7 29 30,4 31,8 33,2 34,6 36,0

81 48 48 48 48 48 48

82 61 61 61 61 61 61

6 67 67 67 67 67 67

Packaging 99 99 99 99 99 99

Production 72 75,4 79,1 82,7 86,4 90,0

Finish Product 86 86,6 87,5 88,3 89,2 90,0

Micro 80 82,2 84,2 86,1 88,1 90,0

Laboratory 98 98 98 98 98 98Firs

t Ti

me

Rig

ht

Mea

n t

ime

bet

wee

n f

ailu

re

71

support consist of training, overhead and specialist help. This component is estimated to

be equal to the direct labor component.

The second aspect are the other identified projects. In paragraph 7.1 and 7.2, 106 large

projects, 85 medium projects and 34 small projects are identified. For a large effort project

the estimation is that they will take 5 man, 30 weeks, hours a week at € 28,- an hour to

complete. For a medium project the estimation is that 5 man will take 20 weeks, 4 hours a

week. For a small project the required labor is estimated at 5 man, 10 weeks, 4 hours a

week. This results in a large project costing € 16.800, a medium project costing € 11.200

and a small project € .600.

In Table 12 the total cost are calculated in € x 1000. The calculated estimate cost is €

4.960.000.

Table 12 Cost estimation of Silver TPM implementation

7.5.2 Revenue estimation of Silver implementation

In the estimation of the cost only direct savings are taken into account. This direct savings

consist of the cost of equipment and the cost of personnel. Improvements that do not lead

to a direct cost saving, such as an improvement of quality or delivery reliability are not

taken into account.

The cost of equipment are calculated upon the improvement of OPI. In paragraph 7.3 it is

concluded that the projected improvement for the OPI is 1,4% for bottle lines, 7,5% for

canning lines and 20% for keg lines. To calculate the saving by this improvement data the

savings per unit are used from the savings list for Zoeterwoude. Upon request of Heineken

the details of this list are not enclosed in the report. From the savings list it is derived that

% of OPI improvement gives a non cash saving of € 140.000 for the bottling lines, €

26.000 for the can lines and € 20.000 for the keg lines.

The second aspect is the reduction of labor cost. The improvement of labor cost is

calculated using the productivity increase projection. From paragraph 7.3 it can be derived

that the projected productivity increase is 421 hl/FTE. The improvement of 1 hl/FTE equals

the € 3.200.

Number of units Cost per unit Cumulative project cost

AM step 4 76 13,4 1.018AM step 4 support 76 13,4 1.018Large projects 106 16,8 1.781Medium projects 85 11,2 952

Small projects 34 5,6 190

4.960

72

In Table 13 an overview of the revenue is estimated. The yearly savings are calculated at €

2.138.000.

Table 13 Revenue estimation of TPM implementation

7.5.3 Present value of Silver TPM implementation

The net present value of a project is used to determine whether a project is financially

beneficial. In a net present value calculation the projected cost and revenues are

discounted to estimate the value of the project.

To determine the project value firs the course of cost and revenue through the time have

to be determinate. The cost are divided equally among the 5 year duration of the project

and after these 5 years the cost are zero. The revenues are building linearly throughout

the project towards the yearly estimated savings. After the implementation is complete the

yearly profit will decay linearly over the course of ten years. The resulting course of cost

and revenue is represented in Figure 52.

Figure 52 Course of cost and revenue over time

Now the projected cost and revenues are known they have to be discounted. The discount

rate used for the net present value calculation is 7,6 . This is equal to Heineken’s

weighted average cost of capital. The resulting discounted cost and revenues are

represented in Table 14. The resulting net present value of Silver TPM is estimated at €

6.523.000. A net present value greater than zero indicated a financial beneficial project.

Projected performance increase Revenu per unit Cumulative yearly savingsOPI bottle (non cash) 1,4 140 196OPI can (non cash) 7,5 26 195OPI keg (cash) 20 20 400Productivity 421 3,2 1.347

2.138

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Cost and revenue course

Revenu

Cost

73

Table 14 Present value calculation of Silver TPM implementation

The estimation of the required effort, and thereby the cost, is highly precarious. It is

possible that the effort estimation can be highly inaccurate due to the uncertain character

of the projects Therefore, the project safety margin is calculated. In other words, how far

can I be off with my cost estimation before the project is not financially viable anymore?

Thought the discounted cost it can be calculated what the maximum cost are to make the

project financially beneficial. With a total project cost of € 12.406.000 the net present

value is zero. This means that even if the estimated project effort is exceeded with 150%

the project is still financially beneficial.


By performing the process it is found that currently the current way of working covers

43% of the pillar guidelines and 39% of the killer criteria. To meet the performance criteria

the HMS performance must be increased by 5,6% and the Shop floor indicators with

10,2% on average. Although the performance criteria concern a relatively small gap there

are two targets that are unfeasible, the absence rate target and the Mean Time Between

Stops. Through the assessment of the acceptability of the goals it is found that 22% of the

pillar guidelines pose an unacceptable effort/result ratio and will not be executed. The

performance criteria are however all acceptable however the long term vision of the

operational performance of the Brewery is more ambitious than the Silver criteria. In the

next step the pillar guidelines and killer criteria are tuned to the organizational structure

resulting in four Brewery wide projects; Autonomous maintenance, Copy and share

structure, End 2 end optimization and operational standard evaluation. In the last step the

actions have been scheduled. Through the scheduling it is found that the current best

estimate of the implementation duration is 5 years, assuming the current resource

availability and quality scope. This implementation is strongly depended on the critical path

off rolling-out Autonomous Maintenance steps 4, which concern the allocation of technical

and technological tasks to the operators. The business case of Silver TPM implementation.

The total cost of Silver TPM implementation are estimated at € 4.960.000 and the yearly

revenues are estimated at € 2.138.000. Based on these estimations the net present value

of the project is € 6.523.000 which makes the project financially viable. Through the net

present value calculation it is can also be concluded that even if the project cost are

exceeded by 150% the project is still financially viable.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 >2018

Discounted cost 992 922 857 796 740 0

Discounted revenu 0 397 739 1.030 1.276 6.645

Present value balance -992 -1.517 -1.344 -864 -123 6.523

74

Besides the contents of the proof of concept also conclusions about whether the process

delivered the intended result can be drawn. Important for the evaluation is the feedback

from those who have to work with the process. All stakeholders agree that the process has

greatly clarified the expectations of the project. Furthermore, the Corporate TPM office,

who functions as the innovation process control, have embraced this method of working

with its accompanying tools.

The method has also caught the attention of the Heineken Peer breweries in Europe who

have experienced similar problems during TPM implementation. Currently all European

peer Breweries have adapted the designed process and accompanying tools to prepare

and control silver implementation.

75

Part III – Conclusions and recommendations

76

77

8 Conclusions and recommendations

The Zoeterwoude Brewery has finished Bronze TPM implementation in February 2013.

During this first phase the TPM implementation multiple issues where experienced which

lead to an implementation duration of 10 years. The purpose of the research is to identify

the root courses of the problems and propose solutions for the problems. From the

analysis the root causes for this implementation duration are identified. Based on these

issues the research question was stated as follows:

To answer this research question, a design for the confrontation and tuning process

(chapter 5) and a design for the project control (chapter 6) has been composed. In the

conclusion, presented in paragraph 8.1, the main research question will be answered. The

final section will conclude this research by providing recommendations for the

management of the Brewery Zoeterwoude.

8.1 Conclusion

To answer the research question, the conclusion is divided in three parts. In 8.1.1 the

question how the confrontation and tuning process can be designed. In paragraph 8.1.2

the second part of the research question, how the project control can be designed, is

addressed. Finally, in paragraph 8.1.3 the findings of the proof of concept regarding clear

and feasible goals are presented.

8.1.1 Confrontation and tuning process design

The first part of the process design covers the confrontation and tuning function. The goal

of this function is to translate the generic criteria, as set by the Corporate TPM office for all

Breweries, into clear and realistic goals. The SMART method is employed to define criteria

clear and realistic goals. SMART states that goals should be Specific, Measurable,

Acceptable, Realistic and Time bound. Based on these outputs the process steps are

defined as; compare as-is and to-be situation, determine acceptability, tune to

organizational structure and the last step, schedule in master plan.

The process steps have to be performed for the silver criteria. However the silver criteria

consist of four categories, the pillar guidelines, killer criteria, required Heineken

Manufacturing Star score and Shop floor indicator criteria. Therefore the detailed design

How can the process of confrontation and tuning be designed so it provides clear and

realistic goals and how can the project control be designed so that implementation is


78

composes of methods and tools for each process step For each of the three phases the for

each of the criteria types. Figure 53 shows the composition of the sub steps and a brief

description for the execution method.


8.1.2 Project control design

The second part of the design covers the project control function. The project control must

ensure that the project is managed as one project. To do so, the project control consist of

three aspects, a steering function for the individual executing pillars, a coordination

function between the pillars and the function of result verification.

The first function, steering the pillars, is done by translating the agreed commitments into

standards for the pillars. These standards cover the aspects of quality, resources and time.

To fulfill this function the Steering committee is handed a dashboard to monitor the

progress, set the priority and verify the performance increase. If one of these indicators is

of, an intervention in the implementation system is needed.

The second function is to coordinate the projects between. Primarily this is done in the

tuning phase however the project control is responsible for dealing with the deviations.

Therefore deviation from the pillar year plan should be reported back to the project control

so the coordination can be ensured. To fulfill the function the project control should

receive quarterly pillar progress updates.


projection of the performance increase is made. If the operational performance stays

behind or is ahead of schedule the project control should intervene by altering the

standards.

79

8.1.3 Conclusions of tuning of Silver criteria

To demonstrate the working of the designed process the concept is applied to the

implementation of Silver phase at Zoeterwoude Brewery. Thereby focus is on the proof of

the confront and tune function, as project control can only be applied throughout the

course of implementation. From the case types of conclusions are drawn. The following

paragraphs describe the findings per process step.

Step 1: Current situation- By performing the confrontation of the as-is and to-be

situation it is found that the current way of working covers 43% of the pillar guidelines and

39% of the required killer criteria for Zoeterwoude to be awarded Silver status. To meet

the performance criteria the Heineken Manufacturing Star performance must be increased

by 5,6% and the Shop floor indicators with 10,2% on average. Although the performance

criteria concern a relatively small gap there are two targets that are considered unfeasible:

the absence rate target and the Mean Time Between Stops.

Step 2: Acceptability - Through the assessment of the acceptability of the goals it is

found that 22% of the pillar guidelines pose an unacceptable effort/result ratio and will not

be listed for execution. With the exception of the absence rate, the HMS criteria are all

acceptable since they are feasible and in line with the long term vision of the operational

performance of the Brewery. The acceptability of the Shop Floor Indicators

Step 3: Tune to Organizational Structure – The pillar guidelines and killer criteria are

tuned to the organizational structure, which results in four Brewery wide projects: 1)

Autonomous maintenance; 2) Copy and share structure; 3) End 2 End optimization; and 4)

operational standard evaluation. The other killer criteria are allocated to a specific pillar.

Step 4: Master plan – The actions listed are scheduled into a master plan. Given the

current resource availability and quality scope, it is found that the best estimate for

implementation duration is 5 years. This implementation is strongly depended on the

critical path off rolling-out Autonomous Maintenance steps 4, which concern the allocation

of technical and technological tasks to the operators.

Business case - The proof of concept is concluded by addressing the business case of

Silver TPM implementation. The total cost of Silver TPM implementation are estimated at €

4.960.000 and the yearly revenues are estimated at € 2.138.000. Based on these

estimations the net present value of the project is € 6.523.000 which makes the project

financially viable. Through the net present value calculation it is can also be concluded that

even if the project cost are exceeded by 150% the project is still financially viable.

Besides the contents of the proof of concept also conclusions about whether the process

delivered the intended result can be drawn. Important for the evaluation is the feedback

80

from those who have to work with the process. All stakeholders agree that the process has

greatly clarified the expectations of the project. Furthermore, the Corporate TPM office,

who functions as the innovation process control, have praised this method of working with

its accompanying tools. The method has also caught the attention of the Heineken Peer

breweries in Europe who have experienced similar problems during TPM implementation.

Currently all European peer Breweries have adapted the designed process and

accompanying tools to prepare and control silver implementation.

8.2 Recommendations

To finalize this report a set of recommendations are given to the Zoeterwoude Brewery

Management.

The goal must justify the means – The TPM program is an elaborate program with a

major corporate push behind it. Since high at corporate level the choice for TPM is made,

for underlying levels the means have become a goal on itself. Therefore it is tempting to

regard the development of TPM methods and skills or even the TPM award as target on its

own. However, TPM in itself is not a goal, operational improvement is the goal. So if the

goal does not justify the means it is recommended to start a dialogue with the Corporate

TPM office regarding the means.

Choose what not to do – The nature of the Zoetewoude Brewery is to have high

ambitions. This concerns all projects, not only TPM related projects. If Brewery

Management does choose what not to do, the choice what is done and what is proponed is

made by the one who is not able to deliver all projects. Therefore it is important to decide

what not to do. By limiting the amount of projects, the projects that are initiated receive

more attention and the risk of cutted-corners is far less. Furthermore, it is perceived that

people enjoy doing one thing proper far more than three projects hurried to completion.

Savings potential in support functions – The TPM program mainly focuses on the

operational personnel and throughout and the Bronze phase a lot of productivity

improvement is acquired on the shop floor. Currently, about 50% is operational personnel,

17% is overhead and 33% staff. Therefore, it might be interesting to address the savings

potential available in the non operational processes. Especially in the technical department

(120 FTE) and the quality department (37 FTE).

Sharing of mistakes – In the TPM program sharing knowledge is one of the key

elements. The importance of knowledge transfer within the Brewery, between Breweries

and through cross-fertilization through TPM audits is widely addressed. This transfer is

based on best-practices and successful project. However, one could learn equally from

81

sharing mistakes and failures. By sharing these mistakes another Brewery can be protected

from making the same mistake.

82

9 References

Ahuja, I., & Khamba, J. (2007). An evalutation of TPM implementation initiatives in an

Indian manufactoring enterprise. Journal of Quality Maintenance Engineering , Vol. 13, No.

4, 338-352.

Ahuja, I., & Khamba, J. (2008). Total productive maintainance: literature review and

directions. Int. J. of Quality & Reliability Management , Vol. 25, No. 7, 709 - 756.

Badury, B. (2000). Management of Productivity through TPM. Productivity Magazine , Vol

41, No 12, 240-251.

Bikker, H. ((unknown)). Analyse en ontwerp van de productorganisatie. Delft: Faculteit

Ontwerp, Constructie en Productie.

Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1997). Information, Systems and Information Systems.

Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1991). Soft systems methodology in action. New York City:

John Wiley and Sons Ltd .

Chowdhury, C. (1995). Nitee and HIDALCO give a new dimention to TPMq. Udyog Pragati ,

Vol. 22, No. 1, 5-11.

Gardiner, P., & Steward, K. (2000). Revisiting the golden triangle of cost, time and quality.

International Journal of Project Management , 251- 256.

Gits, C. (1990). Design of maintainance concepts. Int. J. of Production Economics , Vol 17,

No 8, 217 - 226.

Hartmann, E. (1992). Succesfully Installing TPM in a Non-Japanes Plant. Pittsburgh: TPM

Press Inc.

Heineken Global Supply Chain Control. (2012). Brewery Comparison System

(Manufactoring star). Zoeterwoude: Global Supply Chain Control.

Heineken NV. (2012). We are Heineken, corporate presentation. Zoeterwoude: Heineken

NV.

in 't Veld, J. (1998). Analyse van organizatie problemen. Houten: Educatieve Partners

Nederland BV.

Industry Forum. (2013, 4 15). Home, Practical Solutions, Total Productive Maintenance

(TPM). Retrieved from Industry Forum, Business excelence through inspired people:

http://www.industryforum.co.uk/practical-solutions/tpm/

83

Interbrand. (n.d.). ww.Interbrand.com. Retrieved 6 15, 2012, from

http://www.interbrand.com/nl/best-global-brands/2012/Best-Global-Brands-2012-Brand-

View.aspx

Ireland, F., & Dale, B. (2001). A study of total productive maintenance implementation.

Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering , Vol. 7, No. 1, 34-47.

Jeong, K., & Phillips, D. (2001). Operational efficiency and effectiveness measures. Int. J.

of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 21, No. 11, 1404-1416.

Jostes, R., & Helms, M. (1994). Total productive maintenance and its link to total quality

management. Manufactoring engineering , Vol. 110, No. 4, 63-66.

Koelsch, J. (1992). A dose of TPM: downtime needn't be a bitter pill. Journal of

Manufactoring Sytems , Vol. 21, No. 4, 83-191.

Labib, J. (1999). A framework for benchmarking appropriate productive maintenance.

Management Decision , Vol. 5, No. 1, 62-69.

Levitt, J. (2010). TPM reloaded. New York: Industrial Press Inc.

McKone, K., Roger, G., & Cua, K. (2001). The impact of total productive maintenance

practices on manufactoring performance. Journal of Operations Management , Vol. 19, No.

4, 123-144.

Nakajima, S. (1988). Introduction to Total Productive Maintenance. Portland: Productivity

Press.

Nidumolua, U., Biea, C. d., & Keulenb, H. (2006). Review of a land use planning

programme through the soft systems methodology. Land Use Policy 23 , 187–203.

Pintelon, L., & Gelders, L. (1992). Maintenance management decision making. Eur. J. of

Operation Research , Vol. 58, No. 3, 301-317.

Productivity Inc. (1999). Supporting and Maintaining Total Productive Maintenance.

Portland: Productivity Inc.

R.C. Gupta, J. S., & Chitale, A. (2001). Overall equipment effectiveness through total

productive maintenance. Prestige Journal of Management Research , Vol. 5, No. 1, 61-72.

Roozenburg, N., & Eekels, J. (1988). Productontwerpen, structuur en methoden. Utrecht:

Uitgeverij Lemma.

Suzuki, T. (1992). New direction for TPM. Cambridge: Productivity Press.

Teresko, J. (1992). Time bomb or profit center? Industry week , Vol. 2, 52-57.

84

Tripathi, D. (2005). Influence of experience and collaboration on effectiveness of quality

management practices. Int. J. of Productivity and Performance Management , Vol. 54, No.

1, 23-33.

Veeke, H., Ottjes, J., & Lodewijks, G. (2008). The Delft Systems Approach. London:

Springer-Verlag.

Willmott, P. (1994). Total quality with teeth. The TQM Magazine , Vol. 6, No. 4, 48-50.

Windle, W. (1993). TPM: more alphabet soup or useful plant improvement concept. Plant

Engineering , Vol. 47, No. 2, 62-63.

Wireman, T. (2004). Total Productive Maintenance. New York: Industrial press inc. .

85

Appendixes

A: Research paper

B: Contract information

C: Detailed company profile Heineken

D: Operations at the Zoeterwoude Brewery

E: Organizational structure of the Zoeterwoude Brewery

I: Operational results since TPM implementation

F: Description of TPM execution

G: Description of TPM organizational structure

H: TPM implementation frameworks

I: Operational results since TPM implementation

J: Proof of concept interview overview

K: Acceptability of pillar guideline gaps

L: Comparison as is and to be situation killer criteria

M: Tuned actions per executing organ

86

B: Scientific Research Paper

Improving control of TPM implementation at the Heineken Brewery Zoeterwoude

M. Kramer, H.P.M. Veeke, G. Lodewijks

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology

Delft, The Netherlands [email protected]

A. Jacobs TPM coordinator Brewery Zoeterwoude

Heineken Nederlands Supply Burgemeester Smeetsweg 1 2382 PH Zoeterwoude

Abstract

Heineken has employed TPM to improve the operational performance of their Breweries. At the Zoeterwoude Brewery the first of the three implementation stages took 10 years, far longer than intended. Therefore, improving the control of the implementation is required. By applying the Delft Systems approach, two main causes for this implementation are found. A lack of a confrontation and tuning function and no overall project control. To resolve the control issues the both processes are (re) designed and demonstrated by a proof of concept.

I. Introduction

After the turn of the millennium a global consolidation the beer industry started. In 2000 the top 4 players had a global market share of 22% and in 2012 the top 4 players represented 1 of the market. Heineken’s

mission was and is to remain an large independent player in the turbulent global beer market. To support this mission a companywide operational improvement program was initiated. The essence of this program is to develop Heineken’s operations into a world class supply chain by employing

the Total Productive Management (TPM) philosophy.

TPM is a continuous improvement philosophy originated from Japan with the ultimate goal of creating excellent processes. The TPM philosophy is based on four principles:

Fewer losses lead to excellent

processes Improved operational standards lead

to fewer losses An improved problem solving

capability lead to improved operational standards

Developing methods and skills lead to a better problem solving capability

The realization of TPM is carried out by so called Pillars. Each pillar is responsible for a

focus area of the realization, for example Safety, Health and Environment or Preventive Maintenance. Each Pillar therefore is responsible for a part of the losses, standards, problem solving capability and

developing methods and skills.

The implementation of TPM is divided in three sequential stages, respectively called Bronze, Silver and Gold. Among the first wave of Breweries to start the TPM program was the Heineken’s flagship Brewery at Zoeterwoude. In January 2013 the

Zoeterwoude Brewery achieved Bronze status after 10 years of implementation. This implementation duration far exceeds the 3 to 5 year expectation. To ensure a more controlled journey towards Silver, the control of implementation needs to be improved.

II. Method

To identify the underlying control problems, the TPM processes are analyzed using the Delft Systems approach (DSA)[1]. The first step of the DSA is to represent the TPM system in a black box. Figure 54 shows the representation of the Black box. The black box describes five process elements; the input, main transformation, output, process requirements and process performance. Since the ultimate goal of TPM is to create

87

excellent processes, the transformation is to improve the performance anno 2003 into a world class performance.

Improve using TPM



PerformanceRequirements

Figure 54 Systems black box

For elaboration on the transformation process the DSA offer three ways to approach the detailing process, the steady state model, the PROPER model and the innovation model. The steady state model is a function model for a one-aspect system in

a steady state equifinality, the proper model is a multi-aspect system in steady state equifinality and the innovation model is a model that describes non-repetitive, break-through innovation through a growth process. The improve function consist of both a steady state process and a innovation

process.

The steady state process describes the TPM execution process. TPM execution is the continuous improvement of the operational standards. Through the improvement of standards the operational performance, measured in KPI’s are improved. The innovation process covers TPM development. TPM development is the process in which the organization is equipped with methods and skills to improve the way TPM is executed. In other words TPM execution is the improvement process and TPM development

is the improvement process of the improvement process. In this representation the actual operational activities are merely a data generating process, which are fed with operational standard and report the operational performance.

In ‘t Veld described that the steady state model and the innovation model can be combined into one model, which he calls the Total model of a one aspect system[2].

Through the use of the relation between the steady state model and the innovation model as described in the total model, a elaboration can be made of the black box model. This elaborated model is represented in Figure 55. Through the total model the interrelation of the TPM development, TPM execution and

Operational processes is described.

TPM execution

Operational proceses

TPM development

Environment



Operational

standards

Operational

performance

Implemented TPM methods

Figure 55 Systems Total model

The next step is to further detail the model. Since the TPM program aims at the TPM development, this process is elaborated. Figure 51 shows the next aggregation level of TPM development. This process clearly identifies the three development phases. This model also incorporates role of the advancement criteria of each of the phases. Each of the three sub processes consist of the same break-through innovation growth process, each time developing a set of methods and skills upon the TPM execution process.

88

Develop bronze

TPM methods

Develop silver TPM

methods

Develop Gold TPM

methods

Bronze award

criteria

Silver award

criteria

Gold award

criteria

Organization

anno 2005 Bronze TPM

organization

Silver TPM

organization

Gold TPM

organization

Implemented Bronze TPM methods

Environment

Implemented Silver TPM methods

Environment

Implemented Gold TPM methods

Environment

Figure 56 Detail model of TPM development

To find the root cause of the control issues further elaboration is required. This

elaboration will employ the innovation model. The growth process consist of three sub steps; exploring the environment and define objectives, make policy and set evaluation criteria and implement. The first two sub steps are performed by the Corporate TPM office and the implementation stage is

performed by the Brewery. Besides the innovation process steps there are is a control and an evaluation process. Figure 57 shows the innovation process.

Execute TPM

TPM policy

Implemented TPM method

Implement

Make policy

and set

evaluation criteria

Explore environment

and define objectives

Environment

Policy

evaluation

TPM Objectives

Innovation

process

control

and policy

verification

i

m

m

i

Perfromance

anno 2003

Performance

at Bronze

level

Bronze

criteria

Program

criteria

Figure 57 Detail model implementing develop TPM methods

Based on the detail model of the development process, two findings are made.

First the innovation process lacks a confrontation and tuning function and second the implementation process does not have an overall project control. Both findings can be linked to issues as are experienced by throughout the Bronze project.

The absence of a confrontation and tuning

function relate to the lack of clear and realistic goals. The lack of clear and realistic goals, in turn, are one of the causes of the exceedence of the implementation duration. The absence of overall project control relate to the issue of the pillars that operate autonomously.

Based on this diagnosis, the research question is stated as: How can the brewery process of confrontation and tuning be designed so it provides clear and realistic goals and how can the project control be designed so that implementation is controlled as one project?

III. Process (re)design

The first part of the process design covers the confrontation and tuning function. The goal of this function is to translate the generic criteria, as set by the Corporate TPM office for all Breweries, into clear and realistic goals. The SMART method is employed to define criteria clear and realistic goals. SMART states that goals should be Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic and Time bound. Based on these outputs the process steps as represented in Figure 59 are defined.

89

Figure 58 Confrontation and tuning process steps

The process steps have to be performed for the silver criteria. However the silver criteria consist of four categories, the pillar guidelines, killer criteria, required Heineken

Manufacturing Star score and Shop floor indicator criteria. Therefore the detailed

design composes of methods and tools for each process step For each of the three phases the

for each of the criteria types. Figure 59 shows the composition of the sub steps and a brief description for the execution method.

The second part of the design covers the project control function. The project control must ensure that the project is managed as one project. To do so, the project control must consist of three aspects, a steering function for the individual executing pillars, a coordination function between the pillars and

the function of result verification. The first function, steering the pillars, is done by translating the agreed commitments into standards for the pillars. These standards

cover the aspects of quality, resources and time. To fulfill this function the Steering committee is handed a dashboard to monitor the progress, set the priority and vivificate the performance increase. If one of these indicators is of, an intervention in the implementation system is needed. The second function is to coordinate the projects between. Primarily this is done in the tuning phase however the project control is responsible for dealing with the deviations. Therefore deviation from the pillar year plan should be reported back to the project control so the coordination can be ensured. To fulfill the function the project control should receive quarterly pillar progress updates. The last function of the project control is the result verification. From the tuning process a projection of the performance increase is made. If the operational performance stays behind or is ahead of schedule the project control should intervene by altering the standards.


75

IV. Result

To demonstrate the working of the designed process it is performed in the form of a proof of concept. Since the project control can only

be proven throughout the course of implementation the proof of concept only covers the confrontation and tuning process. By applying the confrontation and tuning process the criteria for Silver are translated into clear and realistic goals. From the proof of concept two types of conclusions are drawn, the first regarding the actual goals acquired by the process and the second regarding the proof of the working of the process.

By performing the process it is found that currently the current way of working covers 43% of the pillar guidelines and 39% of the killer criteria. To meet the performance criteria the HMS performance must be increased by 5,6% and the Shop floor indicators with 10,2% on average. Although the performance criteria concern a relatively small gap there are two targets that are unfeasible, the absence rate target and the Mean Time Between Stops. Through the assessment of the acceptability of the goals it is found that 22% of the pillar guidelines pose an unacceptable effort/result ratio and will not be executed. The performance criteria are however all acceptable however the long term vision of the operational performance of the Brewery is more ambitious than the Silver criteria. In the next step the pillar guidelines and killer criteria are tuned to the organizational structure resulting in four Brewery wide projects; Autonomous maintenance, Copy and share structure, End 2 end optimization and operational standard evaluation. In the last step the actions have been scheduled. Through the scheduling it is found that the current best estimate of the implementation duration is 8 years, assuming the current resource availability and quality scope. This implementation is strongly depended on the critical path off rolling-out Autonomous Maintenance steps 4 and 5, which concern the allocation of technical and technological tasks to the operators.

The second purpose of the proof of concept is to prove the process actually delivers the clear and realistic goals. The Brewery management team has agreed upon the

goals and state that the process has greatly clarified the required actions toward Silver. Furthermore the Corporate TPM office have praised the applied method and

accompanying tools. The process has also caught the attention of the European Peer Breweries who are experiencing similar issues regarding the TPM implementation and most of the peer Breweries have adapted the process and tools.

V. Discussion

Literature states that the majority of TPM implementations fail [3][4][5] and the research of Mora states that only 10 percent of all TPM endeavors succeed [6]. The most heard argument for the failure is a company’s incompatibility with company culture and the resistance to change. Therefore, factors as leadership, communication, top management support and vision are mostly described as success factors for TPM implementation. However I will challenge this by stating this by stating that these success factors can only appear when it is clear what needs to be done.

It could be argued that the problems with TPM implementation is nothing more than project management basics of knowing where you want to go, how you want to go there and how to control the journey. However the complex nature of the project make these basics these questions harder than the average walk in the park.

Similar problems can be experienced with lean implementations and ERP implementations, which are also notorious for their failure rate. Both TPM implementation, lean implementation and software development share the characteristics of complexity, large scale projects and a large number of stake holders.

This research has provided a specific set of process steps and tools to ensure that the basic project management disciplines for the implantation of Heineken’s TPM framework. However the essence is to fulfill the basics of project management.

References

[1] Veeke, H., Ottjes, J., & Lodewijks, G. (2008). The Delft Systems Approach. London: Springer-Verlag.

76

[2] Veld, J. in ‘t. (1998). Analyse van organizatie problemen. Houten: Educatieve Partners Nederland BV.

[3] Wireman, T. (2004). Total Productive Maintenance. New York: Industrial press inc.

[4] Hartmann, E. (1992). Succesfully Installing TPM in a Non-Japanes Plant. Pittsburgh: TPM Press Inc.

[5] Levitt, J. (2010). TPM reloaded. New York: Industrial Press Inc.

[6] Mora, E. (2002), The Right Ingredients for a Successful TPM or Lean Implementation, available at: www.tpmonline.com

http://www.tpmonline.com/

77

B: Contact Information

M. (Michiel) Kramer

Graduation student Production Engineering and Logistics

E: [email protected]

T: +31 (0) 6 16429252

A: Herderinnestraat 7B

2512 CZ, Den Haag

Dr. ir. H.P.M. (Hans) Veeke

Assistant professor Production Engineering & Logistics TU Delft


T: +31 (0) 15 2782706

A: Mekelweg 2

2628 CD, Delft

Prof. dr. ir. G. (Gabriel) Lodewijks

Professor Transportation Engineering & Logistics TU Delft


T: +31 (0)15 27 88793

A: Mekelweg 2

2628 Delft

Ir. A. (Fons) Jacobs

TPM Coordinator and manager TPM office Heineken Zoeterwoude


T: +31 (0) 715457529

A: Burgemeester Smeetsweg 1

2382 PH Zoeterwoude

F.S. (Fleur) Pernet

Hr and Internship advisor Heineken Zoeterwoude


T: +31 (0) 715457089

A: Burgemeester Smeetsweg 1

2382 PH Zoeterwoude

mailto:[email protected]



78

C: Detailed Company Profile Heineken

Heineken’s ambition is to be a proud independent and responsible global brewer. This

ambition is mainly fuelled on two market trends. First, the ongoing global beer market

consolidation. In 2000 the top 4 brewers represented 23% of the world market, in 2012 the

top 4 brewers represent 52% of the world market and the expectation is that this market

consolidation is a continuing trend. Second: corporate responsibility, for Heineken this

includes promoting responsible consumption, being responsible to employees especially in

developing countries and environmental responsibility. This ambition represents the long-term

goals.

Besides the long-term goals, Heineken has a set of strategic mid-long term goals categorized

as strategic priorities. These priorities are:

Grow the Heineken brand

Be a Consumer-inspired, customer-oriented, brand-led organization

Capture the opportunities in emerging markets

Drive personal leadership

Leverage the benefit of world wide scale

Heineken’s history

On 15 February 1864 Gerard Adriaan Heineken bought a small steam-beer-Brewery named

“de Hooiberg” (translated: “the Haystack”). In this prosperous period business was booming

and after only three years a new Brewery was build at the Stadhouderskade in Amsterdam.

This Brewery is transformed in the interactive attraction, the Heineken Experience.

In 1869 Heineken made the switch from brewing “working class” dark-ale to the

“gentleman’s” clear pilsner and started researching beer making. By performing this research

the “Heineken’s A-yeast”, which gives Heineken Beer it’s flavor up to this day, was

developed. These changes led to a period of rapid growth with highlights as the opening of a

second Brewery in Rotterdam, winning a gold medal for beer quality and winning the “Grand

Prix” in on the world exhibition of 1889 (for which the Eifel tower was build). By 1889,

Heineken had developed to the biggest brewer of the Netherlands, with a production volume

of 200.000 hl, when 3.000 hl was average for a Brewery.

79

Source: We are Heineken Company presentation

Figure 60 Pictures of Heineken from the period between 1864 and 1889

After four decades of success decades three decades of turbulent times are confronted with

the First World War, the economic crisis of the thirties and the Second World War. Second-

generation Heineken director Dr. Henry Pierre Heineken (director 1914-1940) manages to

preserve the company and sets the first steps towards Heineken’s internationalization. This

internationalization starts with the acquisition of a Brussels Brewery in 1927 and with export

to Asia in 1929.

The biggest internationalization move however was export to the United States in 1933. After

the 13 years of prohibition, the ban on alcohol was lifted. Since only half of the breweries

survived prohibition, the demand for import beer provided a great chance. Heineken

immediately started export and was the first to deliver import beer in the US.



In the post war era, just delivering quality beer was not enough. Beer needed to be actively

sold. In 195 Alfred Heineken started the succesful global marketing campain “Beer Can

Travel”. During this period Heineken changed from a product oriented company to a market

oriented company. In 1968 Heineken took over the Amstel Brewery and gained a dominant

market position in the Netherlands. Three years later 80 ha. of land was purchased in

Zoeterwoude for the construction of a Brewery that could replace the current Heineken

breweries. In 1975 the Zoeterwoude Brewery was opened with a yearly production capacity of

13,5 million hl.


80


In the 80’s and 90’s Heineken developed its self towards a truly international brewer, with

leading marketing campaigns and opening many foreign breweries and building the Heineken

brand.

The last phase, between 2000 and 2012, is dominated by acquisitions. The four biggest

acquisitions are: Brau-Beteiligungs A.G. (2003), Scottisch&Newcastle (2008), FEMSA Cerveza

(2010) and Asia Pacific Breweries (2012). With these acquisitions Heineken acquired for

example the brands Fosters, Kronenbourg, Gösser, Sol and Tiger. The world market share of

Heineken has doubled in these last 10 years.


Figure 63 Company logo’s of major takeovers of Heineken between 2003 and 2013

Heineken anno 2012

With a total group beer volume of 221,4 mln hl, Heineken is the third largest brewer in the

world. Because of the relatively high transportation cost of beer, Heineken has breweries all

over the world, as can be seen inFigure 62. With over 165 breweries in over 70 countries

Heineken prides itself on being the world most international brewer in the world. One

exception on the local supply strategy is the United States, which is supplied from the

Netherlands. The main reasons for this exception are: one, US customers are prepared to pay

more for imported beer. Two, most of the population of the US lives along the shore, making

transportation via shipping relatively inexpensive. Besides the international footprint,

Heineken’s main market is Western Europe where 2,3 of the revenue is originated.

Table 15 Heinkenen’s facts and figures and Revenue per region

81

Source: Annual report Heineken 2012

H

e

i

n

e

k

e

n

’s ambition is to be a proud independent and responsible global brewer. This ambition is

mainly fuelled on two market trends. First, the ongoing global beer market consolidation. In

2000 the top 4 brewers represented 23% of the world market, in 2012 the top 4 brewers

represent 52% of the world market and the expectation is that this market consolidation is a

continuing trend. Second: corporate responsibility, for Heineken this includes promoting

responsible consumption, being responsible to employees especially in developing countries

and environmental responsibility. This ambition represents the long-term goals.


Figure 64 Graph of largest Brewers in the world

Heineken Brands

Since 1954, Heineken has been a brand-oriented brewer and nowadays the most valuable

assets are its brands. The Heineken beer brand is the by volume the most consumed beer

brand with 27,4 million hl. The Heineken brand is also the most valuable alcoholic beverages

brand in the world with an estimated value of close to $ 4 billion according to the 2011

Interbrand’s annual ranking. Besides Heineken there are over 250 international, regional, local

and specialty beers or ciders in portfolio.

355,6

279,2

221,2

121,4 80,3 67,3 55,6 55,4 45,4 28,9 28,9

0 50

100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Worldwide production per Company (in mln hl)

Heineken’s Facts & Figures

Revenue per region

Revenue 18,383 (mln €)

Western Europe 7,785 (mln €)

EBIT 2,912 (mln €)

America's 4,523 (mln €)

Net profit 1,696 (mln €)

Central & East Europe 3,281 (mln €)

Assets 35,979 (mln €)

Africa & Middle East 2,639 (mln €)

Group beer volume 221,4 (mln hl)

Asia & Pacific 527 (mln €)

Consolidated beer Vol. 171,7 (mln hl)

Number of Breweries >165

Employees 76,191

82


Figure 65 Graph of largest beer brands in the world

Heineken Organization

The Heineken company is part owned by the Heineken family, part owned by FEMSA and part

issued by stock in two layers. This ownership situation is illustrated by Figure 66. Here

Heineken N.V. is the company we consider Heineken, with all assets and activities. Heineken

N.V is owned by FEMSA, Public stock and for 50,005% by Heineken Holding N.V. Heineken

Holding N.V. is a holding firm without any activities and with assets in the form of Heineken

N.V. stock. Heineken Holding N.V. is owned by FEMSA, Public stock and L’Arche Green N.V.

L’Arche Green N.V. is for 88,55 owned by the Heineken family. This ownership situation

with Heineken N.V., Heineken Holding N.V. and L’Arche Green means that the Heineken

family had a controlling say in Heineken N.V. with a indirect ownership of 22,6% in the

company. The owned by FEMSA are a result of the takeover of the beer and beverages

division of FEMSA in 2010, this purchase is paid partly, in shares.

27,4

16,3

12,9 12 9,1 8,9 8,9 8,5 7,6 7,4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

World wide production per Brand (in mln hl)

83

Source: Annual report Heineken 2012

Figure 66 Ownership structure of Heineken

Heineken N.V. is the legal entity that holds all assets and activities. The Executive board,

consisting of the CEO and CFO, run Heineken N.V.. The supervisory board checks the

executive board. The executive board direct the regional management (for example: Western

Europe) and global functions (for example: Supply chain). The global functions assist the

worldwide operations in their discipline and the regional management coordinate all operating

companies (OpCo’s) in the region. An OpCo, for example Heineken Nederland, is a separate

business units with depending on the location, supply activities (Brewery, logistics etc.),

finance, commerce and business support.

The Supply organization of Heineken is based on a “free supply and demand principle”. This

means that every OpCo may purchase products from any Brewery. So for instance if the

production cost of a local Brewery exceeds the production cost plus transportation cost of

another Brewery the OpCo may switch. Another important factor in the supply chain is the

placement of capacity. This is decided by the Global Supply Chain function. Besides the

market conditions the major factor is again the production cost per hl of the Brewery. So if

the Brewery can produce against low cost, it will acquire more demand and more capacity,

hence the “free market approach” within Heineken.

84

D: Operations at the Zoeterwoude Brewery

The brewing operations roughly consists of three steps; brewing, fermentation and filtration.

As can be seen in Figure 67 the Brewery is organized according these functional areas. Next

to the main functional processes the Brewery is housing Heineken’s yeast production facilities

and the small scale research Brewery.

Brewery area

Bre

win

g ar

ea

Ferm

entin

g ce

llars

Pack

agin

g ar

eaW

areh

ousing

&

logi

stics

area

Utilities area Brewing operations(2.1.1)

Packaging(2.1.2)

Logistics(2.1.3)

Source: Google maps

Figure 67 Main Processes at Zoeterwoude Brewery

Brewing operations

The brewing process is the production of hopped wort. Hopped wort is a sugar rich extract

gained from multiple boiling and clearing steps of the water, malt and hops. The brewing

process is performed in a so-called brew-street, consisting of multiple, single purpose tanks.

Figure 7 shows the brew streets in the brew house. The Zoeterwoude Brewery has 6 separate

brewing streets able of a maximum of 36 brews a day with a size of approximately 1000 hl.

This brewing process is automated and can be performed 24 hours a day without direct

human intervention.

The second step of the brewing operations is the fermentation. The fermentation is the

process where yeast turns the sugars in the hopped wort to alcohol and aroma’s. This

fermentation process takes place in the so called cellars. The Zoeterwoude Brewery has 200

tanks on site for fermentation with a total volume of 860.000 hl.

85

The last step is filtration. After the hopped wort has been fermented the product is already

called beer. However, the clear pilsner beer, as is produced by Heineken, needs to be filtered

after fermentation. Therefore a set of 6 filtration streets, depicted in the filtration area, is in

place with an individual capacity of 600 hl/hour. After the filtration the clear pilsner is stored

in one of the 28 clear beer tanks ready for packaging.

Figure 68 Brew house interior and filtration area

Packaging

The second and largest department of the Zoeterwoude Brewery is the packaging

department. In this department, the beer is packaged into bottles, cans or keg’s. Packaging is

done by lines which include fillers, a pasteur, labelers, carton folders and carton packagers.

Most lines are dedicated to one specific type of packaging and can switch between labels and

cartons. In the Zoeterwoude Brewery 196 types of packaging combinations (or SKU’s) are in

use.

In the Brewery there are 13 lines; 7 one way bottle (export) lines with a total capacity of

570.000 bottles per hour, 2 returnable bottle (domestic) lines with a total capacity of 160.000

bottles an hour, 1 can line with a total capacity of 90.000 cans an hour, 1 keg (50l or 30l) line

with a total capacity of 1000 keg’s an hour and 2 draft keg lines with a capacity of 800 keg’s

an hour. Theoretically the packaging department is able of packaging 77.500 hl per day, the

equivalent of three Olympic size swimming pools. After the beer is packaged it goes off to be

automatically palletized

86

Figure 69 Overview Main Packaging Hall

Logistics

After the product is palletized, it is transported to the logistics area. The logistics area is

separated in two areas, domestic and export. The domestic area is a combination of returned

packaging material and finished product. In the domestic area, no forklifts are in place, 7

automated guided vehicles take care of all moves. The domestic logistics handles 19.000 truck

movements per year.

Figure 70 Warehouse AGV and export handling dock

The export logistics area handles the majority of the finished products and does not include a

return flow of packaging materials. In this area most pallets never touch the ground and are

directly placed in the container. Per year 50.000 containers are handled. Most of the

containers are destined for the Rotterdam harbor. These containers are trucked to the nearby

Alpherium container terminal and are shipped via inland vessel to the Rotterdam harbor.

87

E: Organizational Structure of the Zoeterwoude Brewery

The Zoeterwoude Brewery is, together with the breweries in Den Bosch, Wijlre (Brand) and

the Vrumona soda factory, part of Heineken Nederland Supply. Heineken Nederland Supply is

part of the OpCo Heineken Nederland. The Brewery itself is organized in functional

departments. These departments are the brewing department, the packaging department, the

logistics department, the technical department, the quality department, the TPM-office, the

Safety, Health and Environment (SHE) department and the Human resource department. An

overview of the functional organization is presented in Figure 71. In total the Brewery

employs 570 FTE.

Brewery manager(570 FTE)

Packaging department(350 FTE)

Safety health and env. Department

(3 FTE)

TPM Office(11 FTE)

HR department(4 FTE)

Brewing(37 FTE)

Technical department(120 FTE)

Quality department(36 FTE)

Logistics department(120 FTE)

Financial controller

Figure 71 Functional Structure of Zoeterwoude Brewery

Brewing department

The Brewing department divided in the sub departments Brewing, Filtration, Utilities and BIKE

(yeast). Brewing and filtration are concerned with all operations regarding the beer

production. This includes intake of raw materials, brew street operations, fermentation and

last filtration. Due to the high level of atomization, unassisted brewing is possible.

Other responsibilities of the brewing department include the operations of utilities and the

BIKE (yeast). This includes operating the combined heat and power plant, cooling for

fermentation, water and wastewater. The BIKE is responsible for the dried yeast production

for all Heineken Breweries worldwide.

88

Packaging department

The packaging department is, with 60% of all employees, the largest department in the

Brewery. The department is split in 5 product oriented divisions called rayons and a packaging

technology department. Each rayon consists of a set of packaging lines. Each rayon consists

of a rayon manager, multiple shift teams with its own shift leader and the rayon technicians.

The packaging technology department is responsible for in line technological and process

quality within packaging.

Logistics department

The logistics department of the Zoeterwoude Brewery is part of the Brewery as well as part of

the Customer Service & Logistics department of Heineken Nederland Supply. The Logistics

department is build up in three shifts and serves all internal logistics, meaning handling

packaging materials, waste and finished product.

Technical department

The technical department is responsible for maintaining al buildings, installations and

machines within the Brewery. To do that the Technical department consists of four sub

departments: Product oriented maintenance groups, the project department, the building

maintenance and the technical spare part inventory.

The product oriented maintenance groups are groups of mechanics responsible for the

maintenance of a certain machine category. There are four maintenance groups: bottling

lines, keg lines, brewing and utilities.

Besides the maintenance groups there is the project department which manages large

maintenance projects, the building maintenance department, which manages all

infrastructural maintenance and the inventory department, which manages all spare parts.

Quality department

The quality department is responsible for the product technology and quality so that the

quality of processes and products is secured. This includes mid and long term activities on

production technology, solving structural or complex problems regarding quality, in and

output quality checks, HACCP analysis and customer complaint handling.

Other staff functions

Human Resource, financial controlling and Safety, Health and Environment are smaller staff

functions within the Brewery. The Human Recourses department is responsible for all

personnel matters. The financial controller is part of the Brewery staff but also part of

financial controlling of the financial controlling department of the OpCo (HeinekenNL). Last

89

the Safety Health and Environment department, which is responsible for all activities related

to these matters.

TPM-office

The TPM office consists of a TPM manager, 5 TPM facilitators and 6 TPM support staff. The

role of the TPM office is to provide the knowledge and knowhow of the method to all levels of

the organization. Each member of the TPM office is trained as an expert in the TPM

methodology in the respective field. The TPM manager provides the knowhow on

management level and is member of the Brewery management team and guides the pillar

leaders. The facilitators are trained in the methodology and provide knowhow in the pillars as

pillar members, in improvement teams as team members and instruct smaller teams. The TPM

facilitators provide TPM knowhow to the operators and technicians via assistance and

education. One of the goals of TPM is to achieve a level of methodology expertise in the

organization itself that the knowhow support provided by the TPM office is not necessary

anymore and that the TPM office will become obsolete.

90

F: Description of TPM Execution

Performance Indicators

Within the TPM method the performance indicators are the anchor points of improvements,

they show how the processes are performing. By comparing these indicators to the theoretical

achievable value the total amount of losses within the processes is defined. Therefore within

TPM every improvement step starts with the slack in the performance indicators.

Evaluation and Deployment

The Performance Indicators show the total loss on operations. The losses are split over

different categories of waste. In the TPM philosophy, 16 types of waste are identified. These

wastes are divided in three categories, man, machine and resources.

The classification of these losses in an actual process is done via deployments. A deployment

is a systematical breakdown of a process to determine what needs to be solved. A

deployment is made in four steps, as illustrated. First a process is isolated. This process is

than broken down in value adding and non-value adding partitions. The non-value added

partitions are again broken down in types of waste. The greatest partition of waste is again

specified in causes.

An hypothetical example of an deployment can be made. Take a bottling line which could

make on average 100 cases an hour and is producing 65. The difference of 35 will now be

deployed in the machine waste categories, for example, 60% short stops, 30% and 10%

quality loss (scraped). Than the Short stops will be further deployed, for example, 40% no

bottles supply, 30% crown cork jams and 30% breakdowns. Than the most impact on the

performance can be made by solving the bottles supply.

Loss

Loss

type 1

Loss

type 2

...

Loss

type 2

...

Cause

1

Cause

2

...

Pro

cess

perf

orm

ance

Valu

e a

ddin

g

perf

orm

ance

Deploy proces Deploy loss Deploy causes Solve

Figure 72 Deployment of Waste

Problem Solving Hierarchy

91

Heineken’s TPM method not only describes how to determine what should be done but also

how it should be done. The main premise is that every employee should solve problems on

their own ability level. To classify the problem levels and required tools there is a problem

solving hierarchy. This problem solving hierarchy prescribes what level of problem should be

addressed in what matter. Like depicted Figure 73, the woman decides on the counter

measure, depending on the appearance of the husband coming home late.

Advanced

tools

Dedicated

route

12 step kaizen

Root-cause-failure analysis &

Break down analysis

Tags, One-point-learnings & Standard-

operating-procedure

Figure 73 Illustrative example of Problem Solving Hierarchy

Within Heineken’s TPM method the problem solving hierarchy is defined by 5 levels. An

overview of these levels is given in the following paragraphs.

92

Tags,

OPL &

SOP

RCFA&

BDA

12 step

kaizen

Dedicated

route

Advanced

tools

Pro

ble

m c

om

ple

xit

y

Problem and solution complexity,

(Required solution skills)

Operator &

Mechanic

Mechanic &

Technician

Supervisor TPM

Facilitator

Specialist

Kn

ow

led

ge

Ca

rrie

r

Figure 74 Problem solving hierarchy

Tags, One Point Learning and Standard Operating Procedures

The bottom of the hierarchy of tools, there are the Tags, One Point Learning (OPL) and

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). These are used for problems that are apparent and

obvious. The required skill to work with these tools is available by the machine operators and

line mechanics.

Root-Cause-Failure-Analysis and Break-Down-Analysis

On the second level are the Root-Cause-Failure-Analysis (RCFA) and Break-Down-Analysis.

These are standardized questionnaires/forms to determine the root cause of the problem and

a way of eradicating the root causes. The RCFA’s and BDA’s required skill is available by the

line mechanics and technician.

12 step Kaizen

The third step is a 12 step kaizen. Where the first two steps are based on “common sense”

the kaizen is the first step that requires data collection to solve the problem. The essence of

the 12 step kaizen is again a standardized 12 step route. For the realization of a kaizen

supervisors are the knowledge owners and can enclose different disciplines in problem

solving.

93

Dedicated Routes

The final step is specification of a dedicated route. This is for returning high complexity

problems. For these problems there is a standardized roadmap to solve the problem.

Examples of dedicated routes are Chang-Over-Time optimization, Team Efficiency

Improvement and Stock-reduction routes. Where a kaizen can be performed by a small team,

a dedicated route always requires a multi-disciplinary team including a TPM facilitator. The

TPM facilitator is trained for a certain set of routes. Figure 75 shows an example of how such

a route looks like.

Figure 75 Summary of minor stop reduction team route

Advanced Tools

The last step in the hierarchy are advanced tools. These are for complex problems for which

there is too few knowledge internally, help is called in from specialists. This can be specialists

within Heineken or an external specialist. Figure 1 gives a schematic overview of the problem

solving hierarchy.

Execution securing

The problem solving method has resulted in a proposed solution, a proper execution method

for the solution should be defined. For solutions there is also a hierarchy. This hierarchy

consists of four possible solution types: Poke-Yoke, Guiding aid, Visual aid or instructions.

94

The lowest order of solution insurance type are instructions. The highest level is called Poke-

Yoke. Poke-yoke is fool-proof and does not need manual intervention, this is considered the

best solution method. By implementing the solution, any change on a human error should be

eliminated. Like the top left picture shows, by creating a tunnel human error regarding rail

road crossing is eradicated. The picture on the right top shows the second level of the

solution hierarchy. The guiding aids give an active signal when manual intervention is needed.

On the third level (lower left), the signals give passive visual aids. The instructions are

presented on the location.

Poke-YokeGuiding aid

Visual aidInstructions

Figure 76 Execution securing methods

95

G: Description of TPM Organizational Structure

The main characteristics of the standardized improvement organization consist of a target

area oriented pillar framework, the role of the line organization and the role of the TPM

organization. The role of the line organization is to execute the improvement. The role of the

TPM organization is to facilitate all the tools and knowledge for the line organization.

The core of the TPM organization, at the Brewery, are the pillar-groups. These pillar-groups

consist of a vertical selection of the Brewery organization, resulting in a matrix-like

organization. The pillar-groups are responsible for the coordination of the improvement

projects and the improvement master plan in their respective field.

TPM Focus Areas

Heineken’s TPM philosophy is centered about 9 focus areas, commonly referred to as “Pillars”.

These pillars are: Safety Health & Environment, Focused Improvement, Preventive

Maintenance, Autonomous Maintenance, Training and Education, Progressive Quality, Brewery

Logistics, Project & Early Equipment Management and New Product Introductions & Consumer

Value Creation. The philosophy view is that by improving in these key areas, excellent

processes can be obtained.

The TPM method is often depicted of a framework based on a temple (Figure 77). These

pillars represent focus areas. Of this temple the fundament is 5S. 5S is Japanese method for a

clean and organized workplace, it represents shine, sort, standardize, straighten and Sustain.

Each focus area or Pillar sets about lifting TPM to the next level in each field. A short

description of the pillars is given in following paragraphs.

Figure 77 TPM Pillar Framework Heineken

96

Autonomous Maintenance

The autonomous maintenance pillar focusses on bringing machine ownership to the line in a

seven step program. These seven steps are:

Total clean out and restoring basic conditions

Countemeasures against sources of contamination & hard to acces areas

In line cleaning, inspection, lubrication & tighting

Inspection and maintenance standards

In line inspection

Creating autonomous maintenance standards

In line autonomous maintentance

Focused Improvement

The Focused improvement pillar mainly focuses on productivity improvement. To achieve

productivity improvements the following responsibilities are housed at the FI pillar:

Defining targets on volume and productivity

Deploying and attack machine productivity losses

Improving workforce saturation on macro level

Improving workforce saturation on micro level

Developing daily control systems

Training and Education

The Training & Education pillar is responsible for the reduction of losses caused by knowledge

levels. To achieve this, the following responsibilities are defined:

Defining training priorities

Training pilot projects

Assess skills

Building training structures

Implementing skill management

Improving training efficiency

Safety & Environment

The Safety and environment pillar focus is to improve corresponding systems. The

responsibilities for the S&E pillar are defined as:

Identifying safety priorities

Restoring machine standards regarding safety

Restoring safety discipline

Accident analysis

Preventing potential accidents

Improvement of ergonomics

Environmental aspects of operations

Preventive Maintenance

97

The preventive maintenance pillar is responsible for the structural improvement of

maintenance of the equipment. The responsibilities of the PM pillar are stated as:

Equipment assessment and categorization

Eliminate machine weak points

Build info management system

Build periodical maintenance system

Build preventive maintenance system

Assessment of planned maintenance system

Progressive Quality

The focus for the progressive quality pillar is structurally improving process and product

quality aspects. The corresponding responsibilities are:

Waste and claim analysis

Restoring quality system

Restoring known conditions

Reducing trough process improvement

Eradicating through advanced process standards

Introducing defect system

Brewery Logistics

The focus of the Brewery logistics pillar is product flow through the Brewery. The

responsibilities of the BL pillar are defined as:

Defining the supply chain

Mapping the value stream and deploying losses

Defining the desired/future state

Restoring basic logistics conditions

Creating material routes

Improving planning and info flow

Expanding customer and suppliers

Project & Early Equipment Management

The project and early equipment management pillar focuses on structurally improving all

aspects concerned with the specification, acquisition and installation of new equipment. The

corresponding responsibilities are:

Understanding the need for early equipment management

Running EEM pilot projects

Creating EEM frame

Improving the EEM system

Executing the EEM system

New Product Introductions & Consumer Value Creation

98

The NPI and CVC pillar focuses mainly on the execution of non-operational processes. The

responsibilities of this pillar include:

Understanding the value generation process

Finding out critical success factors and main drivers

Process value stream mapping and reengineering

Ranking business processes priorities

Value stream mapping and loss analysis and deployment

Streaming line process organization

Carrying out loss eradication

Managing information technology

Matrix structure

The central element of the TPM organization are the focus areas of improvement also called

pillars. These pillars are multi-disciplinary teams from all levels of the organization. A member

of the Brewery management team chairs every pillar. One could speak of a matrix type

organization, every member has a functional role (for example: Team lead packaging) and

has an improvement focus area (for example AM). Each Pillar decides the improvement

agenda for the specific field and directs the resulting improvement teams. Coordination

between the pillars is done by the TPM steering committee, which consists of all Pillar leaders.

The role of the TPM office is to provide TPM know how to all parties involved with TPM.

99

AM

FI

T&E

S&E

PQ

PM

BL

EEM

NPICVE

TPM

ste

ering c

om

mitte

e

Bre

win

g

Pack

agin

gRayon 1

Pack

agin

gRayon 2

Pack

agin

gRayon 3

Pack

agin

gRayon 4

Pack

agin

gRayon 5

Tech

nica

lD

epartm

ent

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Brewery management

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

Imp. Team

TPM

office

Figure 78 TPM Organization

Improvement Teams

The improvement teams are multi-disciplinary teams. Depending on the complexity of the

problem, the composition differs. For complex projects, the team consists of multiple Pillar

members, a TPM facilitator and multiple line organization members (operators, technicians

etc). For less complex teams the team consists of line organization members. The pillar than

just coordinates the team and the TPM facilitator only instructs the team members about the

project steps.

100

H: TPM Implementation Frameworks

Companies and TPM-organisations have been struggling for to develop the best possible

strategy for successful TPM implementation (Ahuja & Khamba, 2008). Although experts and

practitioners have acknowledged problems of a cookbook-style implementation format,

numerous implementation frameworks have been developed (Wireman, 2004). The main goal

of these implementation frameworks is to create a consistent and repeatable methodology.

Although there are numerous frameworks, three implementation frameworks will be

presented. First the 12 step framework developed by Nakajima. This framework is described

in Table 16. This framework is used by the JIPM and there for the most used (Wireman,

2004). The sequential steps support the development and implementation. The second

framework is the three phase developed by Hartmann. This framework is described Table 17.

This is a simplified and more practical framework based on the 12 step program of Nakajima.

The last framework is the five phase framework of Productivity Inc. This framework is

described in Table 18 This framework is also based on the 12 step program of Nakajima but is

more specified for TPM implementation as an enabler of lean manufacturing.

101

Table 16 Twelve step TPM implementation by Nakajima (1988)

12 step TPM implementation by Nakajima (1988)

1. Declaration by top management decision to introduce TPM Declare in TPM in-house seminar

Carried in organization magazine

2. Launch education and campaign to introduce TPM

Managers: trained in seminar/camp at each level

General employees: seminar meetings using slides

3. Create organizations to promote TPM

Create committees and sub-committees

4. Establish basic TPM policies and goals

Benchmarks and targets evolved

Prediction of effects

5. Formulate master plan for TPM development

Develop step-by-step TPM implementation plan

Framework of strategies to be adopted over time

6. Hold TPM kick-off

Invite suppliers, related companies and affiliated companies

7. Establishment of a system for improving the efficiency of production system

Pursuit of improvement of efficiency in production department

Improve effectiveness of each piece of equipment

Project team activities and small group activities (SGA) at production centers

Develop an autonomous maintenance (AM) program

Step system, diagnosis, qualification certification

Develop a scheduled maintenance department

Improvement maintenance, periodic maintenance, predictive maintenance

Conduct training to improve operation and maintenance skills

Group education of leaders and training members

8. Develop initial equipment management program level

Development of easy to manufacture products and easy to operate production equipment

9. Establish quality maintenance organization

Setting conditions without defectives, and its maintenance and control

10. Establish systems to improve efficiency of administration and other indirect departments

Support for production, improving efficiency of related sectors

11. Establish systems to control safety, health and environment

Creation of systems for zero accidents and zero pollution cases

12. Perfect TPM implementation and raise TPM

Sustaining maintenance improvement efforts

Challenging higher targets

Applying for PM awards

102

Table 17 The three phase TPM implementation by Hartmann (1992)

Three phase TPM implementation by Hartmann

Phase 1: Improving equipment to its highest required level of performance and availability (focused improvement) Determine existing equipment performance and availability (current OEE)

Determine equipment condition

Determine current maintenance performed on equipment

Analyse equipment losses

Develop and rank equipment improvement needs and opportunities

Develop setup and changeover improvement needs and opportunities

Execute improvement opportunities as planned and scheduled activity

Check results and continue with improvement as required

Phase 2: Maintaining equipment at its highest required level of performance and availability (autonomous maintenance, planned maintenance, quality maintenance) Develop planned maintenance, cleaning, lubrication requirements for each

machine Develop planned maintenance, cleaning, and lubrication procedures

Develop inspection procedures for each machine

Develop planned maintenance, lubrication, cleaning and inspection systems, including all forms and controls

Develop planned maintenance manuals

Execute planned maintenance, cleaning and lubrication as planned and scheduled activities

Check results and apply corrections to system as required

Phase 3: Establishing procedures to purchase new equipment and developing new processes with a defined level of high performance and low life cycle cost (maintenance prevention,

quality maintenance) Develop engineering specifications

Get feedback from production operations based on current equipment experience

Get feedback from maintenance operations based on current equipment experience

Eliminate past problems in new equipment and process technology design

Design in diagnostic capabilities with new equipment and processes

Start training on new equipment and processes early (prior to deployment)

Accept and deploy new equipment and processes only it they meet or exceed engineering specifications

103

Table 18 The 5-phase TPM implementation framework of Productivity Inc. (1999)

The 5 phase TPM implementation of Productivity Inc.

1. Plan

Establish TPM steering committee and appoint TPM champions

Assess equipment and management systems

Baseline critical equipment (focussed improvement)

Report out findings

Define improvement strategies

Deploy policy

2. Apply

Employee survey baseline

Launch autonomous maintenance

Maintenance support for autonomous maintenance (focussed maintenance)

Maintenance effectiveness planning and preparation (planned maintenance)

Restore model equipment (focussed improvement)

Deploy MP design feedback system (maintenance prevention)

Develop maintenance improvement system

Collect OEE Data (focussed improvement)

3. Deploy

Restore all target equipment (focussed improvement)

Continued maintenance support for autonomous maintenance

Roll out targeted maintenance systems improvements (planned maintenance)

Reduce specific losses on constraint equipment (focussed improvement)

Streamline design to install system (maintenance prevention)

4. Integrate

Identify and reduce chronic losses (focussed improvement)

Continue to redefine maintenance systems (planned maintenance)

Integrate with lean manufacturing

Conduct training in advanced improvement methods and technologies (focussed

improvement)

Integrate with lean management

Employee survey follow-up

Apply for productivity equipment management prize

5. Excel

Break organisational operating paradigms

Invest in R&D of new methods and technologies

Publish results of TPM activities

Celebrate TPM success

104

I: Operational Results Since TPM Implementation

Source: TPM presentation, Corporate TPM office

Figure 79 European productivity performance since TPM implementation

Figure 80 OPI performance index since TPM implementation

Productivity: + 52 % Expense savings: € 19,6 M

OPI nona : + 12%

Non expense saving: 1,7 M

105

Figure 81 Productivity performance since TPM implementation

Figure 82 Resource consumption since TPM implementation

Figure 83 Operating expenses since TPM implementation

Operating expenses: - 28 % Expense savings: € 25,1 M

Water cons: - 14 % Energy cons: - 23% Expense savings: € 0,5 M Expense savings € 3,5 M

Raw mat.s loss. + 15% Packaging mat. loss: + 3% Expense savings: € -0,9 M Expense savings: € -0,1 M

106

J: Proof of Concept Interview Overview

Interview date Attendees Goal

17-apr Jean Dohmen (Manager Brewing / Pillar leader FI) Asses current situation FI

Vera van Eldijk (TPM facilitator FI)

Fons Jacobs (TPM coordinator)

22-apr Anouk Blankhorst (Controler Logistics / Intrem pillar leader BL) Asses current situation BL

Vera van Eldijk (TPM facilitator BL)


1-mei Kees Horsman (Manager TD / Pillar leader PM) Asses current situation PM

Peter Zandvliet (TPM facilitator PM)


3-mei Pauwel van Nieuwenhove (Manager packaging / Pillar leader AM) Asses current situation AM

Mary Jose Ipskamp (TPM facilitator AM)


27-mei Carine Quataert (Manager BTD / Pillar leader PQ) Asses current situation PQ

Francien de Jongh (TPM facilitator PQ)


27-mei Viviane vander Meulen (Manager HR / Pillar leader T&E) Asses current situation T&E

Francien de Jongh (TPM facilitator T&E)


5-jun Godfried Meijer (Brewery director / Pillar leader SHE) Asses current situation SHE

Gerrianne Veenstra (TPM facilitator SHE)


20-jun Carine Quataert (Manager BTD / Pillar leader PQ) Asses link vision / ease / effect PQ



26-jun Kees Horsman (Manager TD / Pillar leader PM) Asses link vision / ease / effect PM


27-jun Jean Dohmen (Manager Brewing / Pillar leader FI) Asses link vision / ease / effect FI



28-jun Anouk Blankhorst (Controler Logistics / Intrem pillar leader BL) Asses link vision / ease / effect BL


1-jul Pauwel van Nieuwenhove (Manager packaging / Pillar leader AM) Asses link vision / ease / effect AM



8-jul Viviane vander Meulen (Manager HR / Pillar leader T&E) Asses link vision / ease / effect T&E



10-jul Godfried Meijer (Brewery director / Pillar leader SHE) Asses link vision / ease / effect SHE



15-jul Carine Quataert (Manager BTD / Pillar leader PQ) Asses link vision / ease / effect PQ



29-aug Kees Horsman (Manager TD / Pillar leader PM) Evaluating priorities score PM


30-aug Pauwel van Nieuwenhove (Manager packaging / Pillar leader AM) Evaluating priorities score AM


9-sep Jean Dohmen (Manager Brewing / Pillar leader FI) Evaluating priorities score FI


10-sep Godfried Meijer (Brewery director / Pillar leader SHE) Evaluating priorities score SHE


10-sep Bram Smits (Manager Logistics / Pillar leader BL) Evaluating priorities score BL

Anouk Blankhorst (Controler Logistics / Intrem pillar leader BL)


24-sep Godfried Meijer (Brewery director / Pillar leader SHE) End presentation and concencus

Pauwel van Nieuwenhove (Manager packaging / Pillar leader AM)

Carine Quataert (Manager BTD / Pillar leader PQ)

Viviane vander Meulen (Manager HR / Pillar leader T&E)

Kees Horsman (Manager TD / Pillar leader PM)

Jean Dohmen (Manager Brewing / Pillar leader FI)

107

K: Acceptability of Pillar Guideline Gaps



Priority

score

AM Embedding of Use of visual management Yes High LowAM Embedding of Trainings include safety Yes Medium Medium 60

AM Embedding of Cilt is verified by PM/PQ/Safety/T&E and includes safety and Q points Yes Medium Medium 60

AM Embedding of Define clear roles and responsibilities for DCS Yes Low High 60

AM Method development for Safety in CILT Yes Medium Low 40

AM Method development for Safety pillar checks CILT safety Yes Medium Low 40



AM Embedding of AM pillar actively reduces CILT time Indirect Medium Medium 30

AM Method expansion of Pilot machine, owned by AM pillar, demonstrates best practices Indirect Low Low 10

AM Method development for AM 1-5 completed for A&B machines Yes Low High 60

AM Method development for Technical training AM step 4 Yes Low High 60

AM Method development for Technological training AM step 5 Yes Low High 60

AM Method expansion of Continuous MTBA and MTBF reduction by operators Yes Low High 60

AM Method development for Operators monitor process control limits Yes Low High 60

AM Method development for DCS facilitates AM steps 4 & 5 Yes Low High 60

AM Method expansion of AM 1-3 for entire brewery Indirect Low Medium 20

AM Embedding of Systematic tag analysis is performed Yes Low Low 20

BL Method expansion of Using VSM Yes Low High 60

BL Embedding of VSM activities are performed according to priorities Yes Low High 60

BL Method development for Use of internal and external benchmarking Yes High Low 60

BL Embedding of Optimization of product picking Yes High High 100

BL Method development for Standardized work for warehouse Yes High Medium 80

BL Method development for BL KPI's on DCS Yes Low Medium 40

BL Embedding of Relation BL and other pillars No High Low 0

BL Method development for Inventory management in cooperation with OpCo Plan pillar Yes High Low 60

BL Intergration of Flow optimalization in cooperation with OpCo RPM pillar Yes High Medium 80

BL Method development for Wharehouse flow optimalization in cooperation with OpCo FI pillar Yes High Medium 80

BL Method development for Zero loss culture No Low High 0

BL Method development for Link 5S and process improvements Yes Low Low 20

BL Method development for Reduction of losses between packaging and warehousing Yes Low High 60

BL Method development for End 2 End value stream mapping Yes Low High 60

BL Method development for Monitoring of standards via DCS Yes Low Medium 40

BL Method development for Use of BL triger points Yes Low Medium 40

BL Intergration of Common brewery and logistics KPI's Yes Low High 60

BL Method expansion of More multifunctional teams Yes Medium Medium 60

C&OM Embedding of Monitioring and specific coaching of problem solving tools Yes Medium High 80

C&OM Embedding of Shop floor indicators used for communication Yes Medium High 80

C&OM Method development for Leaders understand recognition Yes Medium High 80

C&OM Method development for HPO route is used for complex changes Yes Medium Medium 60

C&OM Embedding of Mature use of TPM tools Yes Medium Medium 60

C&OM Method development for People feel ownership of the problem solivng tools Yes Low High 60

C&OM Method development for Develop T&E into PD Indirect High Medium 40

C&OM Method expansion of Define IT improvement stratgy Yes Medium Low 40

C&OM Method development for Communication plan well designed and executed Yes Medium Low 40

C&OM Method development for Leadership development Yes Medium Low 40

C&OM Method development for Reward and recognition system Yes Medium Low 40

C&OM Embedding of Brewery vision is key input for pillar plans Indirect High Low 30

C&OM Embedding of Auditing used to help pillars and teams further Indirect Medium Medium 30

C&OM Embedding of Drive zero loss culture Indirect Medium Medium 30

C&OM Method development for Intergration of operational systems Indirect Low Medium 20

C&OM Method development for Reduction of operational administration losses Indirect Medium Low 20

C&OM Method development for Future organizational vision in terms of WCBO No Low Medium 0

C&OM Method development for Roadmap to become a high performing organization No Low High 0

C&OM Embedding of Yearly review of vision No Medium Medium 0

C&OM Method development for Effective horizontal expantion system Yes Medium Medium 60

C&OM Method development for Copy posibilites are reviewed before starting teams Indirect High Medium 40

C&OM Embedding of Copy with pride Indirect Medium Medium 30

C&OM Method development for Copy and share with pride on pillar level Indirect Medium Low 20

DS Method expansion of HMS KPI's are cascaded to shop floor indicators Yes Medium High 80

DS Embedding of Regular close the loop with clear countermeasures Yes High Medium 80

DS Embedding of Effective DCS for all pillars Yes Medium High 80

DS Embedding of Reports to global are OTIF Yes Medium Low 40

DS Method development for Detailed loss deployment based on technological limits Indirect Medium Medium 30

DS Method expansion of HMS and HLS KPI's are under TPM No Medium Medium 0

DS Method expansion of Quarterly reporting of savings No High Low 0

108



Priority

score

AM Embedding of Use of visual management Yes High LowDS Embedding of Priorities include logistics cost Yes Medium High 80

FI Method development for Changeover safety incorporation and approval Yes High High 100

FI Embedding of Energy teams consider and improve safety Yes Medium High 80

FI Embedding of Safety on DCS board Yes High Medium 80

FI Embedding of Cascading of targets to other pillars Yes Medium Medium 60

FI Intergration of Bottom up and top down DCS Yes Low High 60

FI Intergration of Planned down standards monitored using trigger point Yes Low Medium 40

FI Intergration of Recording non production time activities Yes Low Medium 40

FI Method development for Strategy for non production time activities Yes Low Medium 40

FI Intergration of Evidence of organizational loss reduction Yes Low Medium 40

FI Method development for Labour losses are identified for 80% of workplaces Yes Low Medium 40

FI Method development for Measuring and improving MTBT Yes Low Medium 40

FI Method development for Consistent calculation of savings Yes Low Medium 40

FI Method development for 10-12 zero losses year Yes Low Medium 40

FI Method development for Loss analysis for logistics deployed Yes Medium Medium 60

FI Intergration of Volume deployment in coorperation with logistics Yes Low High 60

FI Embedding of Copying of good practices Yes Low High 60

FI Method development for Effective DCS Yes Low High 60

FI Method expansion of MCRS intergration Yes Low High 60

FI Method expansion of Changeover coordinition with OpCo plan pillar Yes Medium Low 40

FI Method development for End 2 End changeover improvement plan Indirect High Medium 40

FI Embedding of End 2 end value stream mapping Indirect Medium Low 20

PM Method expansion of Technical speed loss deployment Yes High High 100

PM Method development for Speed loss reduction Yes High High 100

PM Method development for Manintenance trains CILT standards Yes Low High 60

PM Maintenance leads minor stop reduction Yes Low High 60

PM Embedding of Maintenance personell training plan Yes Medium Medium 60

PM Method development for PM step 4 for A & B Machines Yes Low Medium 40

PM Embedding of Tag analysis Indirect Medium Medium 30

PM Method development for Safety management embeded in Pillar roles Yes low Low 20

PM Method development for Task hand-over from PM to AM Indirect Medium Low 20

PM Embedding of Ongoing maintenance and opporator development No Medium Low 0

PM Method development for MTTR deployed for routine tasks No Low Low 0

PM Method development for CBM system strategy No Low Low 0

PM Method development for Relation spare part management and MTTR No Low Low 0

PM Method expansion of Effective BDA's Yes Medium High 80

PM Method development for Task hand-over from PM to AM Yes Low High 60

PM Method development for Task hand-over from PM to AM Yes Low High 60

PM Method development for Execution of BDA's Yes Low High 60

PM Method development for Effective BDA's Yes Low High 60

PQ Embedding of Basic condition of quality control system Yes Medium High 80

PQ Method development for Operator usage of SPC Yes Medium High 80

PQ Method expansion of Quality management of change Yes Medium High 80

PQ Embedding of Claims are deployed to process and machine level Yes Low High 60

PQ Method development for Quality suppliers assurance system Yes Low High 60

PQ Method development for Management of GSC-specifications Yes Low High 60

PQ Method development for Intergration of quality system and TPM Yes Low High 60

PQ Method development for Understanding of SPC for zero defects Yes Low High 60

PQ Method development for Documentation and updating quality standards Yes Low High 60

PQ Method expansion of Advanced analysis of proces conditions and defects relation Yes Low High 60

PQ Method development for Advanced analysis to prevent defects Yes Low High 60

PQ Method development for Quality task impact on operator saturation Yes Low High 60

PQ Method expansion of SPC development Yes Medium Medium 60

PQ Method expansion of Bottom up projects and follow-up Yes Low High 60

PQ Method development for Quarterly material balances Indirect High Medium 40

PQ Method expansion of 5s useage lab Yes Medium Low 40

PQ Embedding of Zero loss culture Indirect Medium Medium 30

PQ Method development for Monitoring of zero losses Indirect Low High 30

PQ Method development for Safety by bottle losses reduction Yes Low Low 20

PQ Intergration of Reduction of detection failures Yes Low Low 20

PQ Method development for Waste deployment No High Low 0

PQ Method development for Process capability measurement No Low Medium 0

PQ Method development for Deployment of logistical quality issues Yes Low Low 20

PQ Method development for Single defect analysis for all complaints Yes Medium Medium 60

PQ Method development for Process control system development Yes Medium Medium 60

109



Priority

score

AM Embedding of Use of visual management Yes High LowPQ Method development for Horizontal expantion of improvements Indirect Medium Low 20

PQ Method development for Q-points for all A & B machines Yes Low High 60

PQ Method development for Quality task handover program Yes Low High 60

PQ Method development for Identification and hand-over of Q points Yes Medium High 80

PQ Method development for Operator Q-point inspection Yes Low High 60

PQ Intergration of DCS secures products conform standards Yes High Medium 80

SHE Method development for Additional awareness campaignes Yes Medium High 80

SHE Method development for Safety reward and recognition system Yes Medium Medium 60

SHE Embedding of Active internal correction Yes Low High 60

SHE Method expansion of Safety champions training Yes Medium Medium 60

SHE Method expansion of Safety champions identification Yes Medium High 80

SHE Embedding of Safety champions spread culture Yes Low High 60

SHE Method expansion of Temporary workers receive safety training Yes High High 100

SHE Embedding of PPE included in SOP Yes High Medium 80

SHE Method development for Internal golden safety rules are formally subscribed Yes High Medium 80

SHE Embedding of ORR role out plan Yes Low High 60

SHE Poka yoke and permit systems for high risk activities Yes Medium Medium 60

SHE Embedding of ORR completed for 50% of site Yes Low High 60

SHE Embedding of Unique LOTO locks Yes Medium High 80

SHE Embedding of LOTO training Yes Medium High 80

SHE Embedding of Effective LOTO Yes Medium High 80

SHE Embedding of Safety approval of shop floor changes Yes Medium High 80

SHE Embedding of Intergration of audits Yes Medium Medium 60

SHE Method development for Contractor safety evaluation Yes Medium High 80

SHE Embedding of Contractor selection includes safety Yes High High 100

SHE Method development for Environtemental pyramid Yes Medium High 80

SHE Method development for Enviromental expert training Yes Low Medium 40

SHE Method development for Environmental training contractors and visitors Yes Low Low 20

SHE Embedding of Direct reporting of near misses, incidents and accedents Yes Medium High 80

SHE Embedding of Zero tolerance on ORR standards Yes High High 100

T&E Method development for Safety standards for training room Yes Low High 60

T&E Embedding of Calibration development for maintenance personel Yes Medium Medium 60

T&E Embedding of Strategic long term workforce planning Yes Low High 60

T&E Method development for Individual training plans based on needs Yes Low High 60

T&E Method development for Job profiles compared to TPM WCBO Yes Low High 60

T&E Embedding of Monitoring of training effectiveness Yes Low High 60

T&E Method development for Develop leadership No High Low 0

T&E Method development for Training program for problem solving competency No High Low 0

T&E Embedding of Loss related development in line with priorities No Medium Medium 0

T&E Method development for Q point and defect training Yes Low High 60

T&E Method development for Training of quality defects Yes Medium Medium 60

T&E Method development for AM step 4 (technical) training Yes Medium Medium 60

T&E Embedding of Operatiors and technicians Q-point training Yes Low High 60

T&E Method development for Horizontal expantion of OPL's and SOP's Yes Low Medium 40

T&E Method development for AM step 4 training material Yes Low Medium 40

T&E Method development for Training packages for AM Indirect Medium Low 20

110

L: Comparison As Is and To Be Situation Killer Criteria

Killer criteria category Description Killer criteriaFully in

place

Complete roll-out for all machines/equipment in the whole plant including Brewing, Utilities and

Warehouse equipment (e.g. automatic loading)No

CILT OTIF (execution) monitoring systems fully established via DCS No

AM Pillar focuses to reduce overall CILT time based on bottlenecks / priorities No

5S completed in whole area of the plant including 3rd parties zones No

5s (advanced) is used in key areas for the optimization of the workplace, processes and activitiesNo

There Is a demonstrable performance improvement via 5s e.g. MTTR, service time, quality testing time …No

There is a systematic compliance check and action plan to follow-up on non-compliances Yes

HeiQuest - all questionnaires assigned and answered. The resulting actions have been planned Yes

100% actions completed for critical "non=compliances" (Safety, Product integrity and Global recipe

Related) and 90% actions completed for the rest of "non-compliances" No

Vision and Mission to

the next level

Long term vision for the Brewery with respect to performance, systems and structure and organization is

definedYes

KPI's and shop floor

indicators

Mapping is complete for the Brewery KPI's to shop floor level including Packaging, Brewing, Utilities and

Support Functions e.g. Packaging OPI % to MTBF, MTBA, MTBT … at machine level, defect loss% to FTR No

Embedded the "Vision

to action" Planning

Cycle & execution

Effective Driving

System

Robust deployment and improvement Team / activity planning is emb3edded on Brewery and Pillar level.

No

The BDA system is at mature level. All breakdowns according to " seriousness level" are analyzed using

RCFA with clear countermeasures and improvement actions implemented and driven by MCRS/DCS No

Qty of BD's / RCFA's per month and reoccurrence trend for the entire Brewery with cascade to Brewing,

Packaging lines, …, is recorded and monitoredYes

The MTBF is measured, recorded and displayed for all lines and individually for key machines Yes

Systematic deployment of BD's & WCA root caused (including 4M) is preformed as routine and 2M's issued

monthly to T&E pillar of skill competences gaps as technology levelNo

The Minor stoppage / Assist Reduction System is at a mature level. Minor Stoppages / Assists are recorded

(via sampling method) and analyzed according to the MTBA strategyNo

MTBA is measured, recorded and displayed for all key machines Yes

Minor stoppages are analyzed using sampling method, RCFA and Kaizen approach No

Improvement activities are also linked to the future role of Operator (strategy). "Freeing" time for "added

value" tasksYes

Improvement actions are implemented and driven by MCRS / DCS Yes

MTBA focus is followed by MTBT improvement to support resource allocation in conjunction with FI pillarNo

The Defect Analysis System is at mature level - there is an effective system to record and monitor defects.

Defects are analyzed using RCFA with clear countermeasures and improvement actions implemented and

driven by MCRS / DSC

No

Qty of DAS's / FCFA's per month and reoccurrence trend for entire Brewery is recorded and monitoredNo

Systematic deployment of defect root causes (including 4M) is performed as routine and 2M's issued

monthly to T&E Pillar of skill, competences gapsNo

Das is fully integrated in DSC meeting with trigger point(s) and monitoring period defined Yes

"Horizontal explanation system and execution is embedded in das process and effective No

All personnel are deploying the ability to solve problems at their level No

Problem solving competences are managed and continually deployed via the T&E pillar No

The " use" of TPM tools is at a mature level -the concept of "hierarchy of tools" is extensively applied

everywhere with respect to problem solving and best use of resources and the majority of improvements

are done by Kaizens and RCFA's

No

The need to use "advanced tools" is clearly defined at the start up of the improvement team No

Further improve People Engagement, shop floor language, monitoring & assessing behaviors Yes

Utilze advanced Visual Management & Poke Yoke technique No

Strategy for wet floor and noise reduction with connection to business needs and priorities is defined with

action planNo

Robust system is established to horizontally expand (as appropriate) countermeasures / solutions / ideas

across the Brewery coming from teams / Kaizens / RCFA's / Suggestion scheme / tags etc. (internal and

external transfer)

No

Copy with pride is effective to remove heavy teams and obvious Kaizens No

FI: Crew optimization & resource saturation via Pillars Steps 3 & 4, Advanced DCS Yes

AM: Complete roll-out of Steps 1-3 for entire site, Steps 4 & 5 for A & B machines No

PM: PM standards complete for all A & B machines. Mature system for BDA & MS No

T&E: From T&E to People Development including leadership, behaviors and HR processes Yes

SAF: BBS fully operational, ORR completed for 50% of the plant No

Establish the Brewery Logistics Pillar Yes

Develop Safety Pillar to Safety, Health & Environment Pillar No

With your OpCo establish P&EEM & EPM (NPI, CVE) Pillars with clear operational link to your BreweryNo

Fully expand 5S to administration functions & processes (offices) No

Systematic Breakdown

Analysis (BDA) System

& MTBF

Systematic Minor

Stoppage / Assist

Reduction System

(MTBS, MTBA …

leading to MTBT for

saturation

improvement)

Systematic Defect

Analysis System (FTR)

Leverage the

"systematic"

improvement

processes established

AM steps 1-3

5S

Compliance

Maintain the basic

conditions established

Get the Vision Right -

Performance & Future

Organization

Competence of the

organization towards

problem solving

(improvement)

including application

and hierarchy of TPM

tools

Expand level of detail

in existing Pillars

Take next steps in the

FI, AM, PM, PQ, T&E

and SAF Pillars

Expand TPM to new

disciplines

Brewery Logistics, SHE

Pillar, OpCo level

P&EEM, EPM

(including CVE) and

TPM in offices

Mastering shop floor

excellence

Further improve

competency towards

problem solving &

mastering shop floor

excellence

Learn from other, copy

& share with pride

Learn from Others,

Copy with Pride and

Best Practice

management

111

M: Tuned Actions per Executing Organ

Overview organization and change management

Overview driving system


Embedding of Monitioring and specific coaching of problem solving tools 80

Embedding of Shop floor indicators used for communication 80

Method development for Leaders understand recognition 80

Method development for HPO route is used for complex changes 60

Embedding of Mature use of TPM tools 60

Method development for People feel ownership of the problem solivng tools 60

Method development for Develop T&E into PD 40

Method expansion of Define IT improvement stratgy 40

Method development for Communication plan well designed and executed 40

Method development for Leadership development? 40

Method development for Reward and recognition system 40

Embedding of Brewery vision is key input for pillar plans 30

Embedding of Auditing used to help pillars and teams further 30

Embedding of Drive zero loss culture 30

Method development for Intergration of operational systems 20

Method development for Reduction of operational administration losses 20

Method development for Future organizational vision in terms of WCBO 0

Method development for Roadmap to become a high performing organization 0

Embedding of Yearly review of vision 0

Method development for Effective horizontal expantion system 60 Copy and share culture all

Method development for Copy posibilites are reviewed before starting teams 40 Copy and share culture all

Embedding of Copy with pride 30 Copy and share culture all

Method development for Copy and share with pride on pillar level 20 Copy and share culture all


-




Method expansion of HMS KPI's are cascaded to shop floor indicators 80

Embedding of Regular close the loop with clear countermeasures 80

Embedding of Effective DCS for all pillars 80

Embedding of Reports to global are OTIF 40

Method development for Detailed loss deployment based on technological limits 30

Method expansion of HMS and HLS KPI's are under TPM 0

Method expansion of Quarterly reporting of savings 0

Embedding of Priorities include logistics cost 80 End 2 End optimalization Defining and appoval of goals

Added responsibilities


The need to use "advanced tools" is clearly defined at the start up of the improvement team

Robust deployment and improvement Team / activity planning is emb3edded on Brewery and Pillar level.

100% actions completed for critical "non=compliances" (Safety, Product integrity and Global recipe Related) and 90% actions completed for the rest of "non-

compliances"


112

Overview Safety, Health and Environment

Overview Focused Improvement


Method expansion of Temporary workers receive safety training 100

Embedding of Contractor selection includes safety 100

Method development for Additional awareness campaignes 80

Method expansion of Safety champions identification 80

Embedding of PPE included in SOP 80

Method development for Internal golden safety rules are formally subscribed 80

Embedding of Unique LOTO locks 80

Embedding of LOTO training 80

Embedding of Effective LOTO 80

Embedding of Safety approval of shop floor changes 80

Method development for Contractor safety evaluation 80

Method development for Environtemental pyramid 80

Method development for Safety reward and recognition system 60

Embedding of Active internal correction 60

Method expansion of Safety champions training 60

Embedding of Safety champions spread culture 60

Embedding of ORR role out plan 60

Poka yoke and permit systems for high risk activities 60

Embedding of ORR completed for 50% of site 60

Embedding of Intergration of audits 60

Method development for Enviromental expert training 40

Method development for Environmental training contractors and visitors 20

Embedding of Zero tolerance on ORR standards 100 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding

Embedding of Direct reporting of near misses, incidents and accedents 80 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding

Strategy for wet floor and noise reduction with connection to business needs and priorities is defined with action plan



BBS fully operational, ORR completed for 50% of the plant

Develop Safety Pillar to Safety, Health & Environment Pillar


























to FTR



113

Overview Preventive Maintenance

Overview Autonomous Maintenance

Action type Description prio score

Method expansion of MTBS deployment 100

Method development for MTBS reduction 100

Method development for CILT management & sustainment (am/pm proces) 60

Maint. leads minor stop reduction deployment & improvement 60

Embedding of Maintenance personell training plan 60

Embedding of Tag analysis 30

Method development for Safety management embeded in Pillar roles 20

Embedding of Ongoing opp. Development BDA/MSAS 10

Method development for MTTR deployed for routine tasks 0

Method development for CBM system strategy 0

Method development for Relation spare part management and MTTR 0

Prerequisite Repporting quality X

Method development for PM step 4 for A & B Machines 40 AM 4 roll-out

Method development for Task hand-over from PM to AM 60 AM 4 roll-out



Method expansion of Effective BDA's 80 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding

Method development for Execution of BDA's 60 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding

Method development for Effective BDA's 60 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding


The Minor stoppage / Assist Reduction System is at a mature level. Minor Stoppages / Assists are recorded (via sampling method) and analyzed according to the MTBA strategy



PM standards complete for all A & B machines. Mature system for BDA & MS

Minor stoppages are analyzed using sampling method, RCFA and Kaizen approach

Remarks


Embedding of Use of visual management 60

Embedding of Trainings include safety 60

Embedding of Cilt is verified by PM/PQ/Safety/T&E and includes safety and Q points 60

Embedding of Define clear roles and responsibilities for DCS 60

Method development for Safety in CILT 40

Method development for Safety pillar checks CILT safety 40

Method development for Identifing and developing AM champions 40

Method development for Identifing and developing AM champions 40

Embedding of AM pillar actively reduces CILT time 30

Method expansion of Pilot machine, owned by AM pillar, demonstrates best practices 10

Method expansion of AM 1-3 for entire brewery 20 AM 1-3 All

Method development for AM 1-5 completed for A&B machines 60 AM step 4 & 5 All

Method development for Technical training AM step 4 60 AM step 4 Method development

Method development for DCS facilitates AM steps 4 & 5 60 AM steps 4 & 5 Method development

Method development for Technological training AM step 5 60 AM step 5 Method development

Method expansion of Continuous MTBA and MTBF reduction by operators 60 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding

Method development for Operators monitor process control limits 60 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding

Embedding of Systematic tag analysis is performed 20 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding




Fully expand 5S to administration functions & processes (offices)

Utilze advanced Visual Management & Poke Yoke technique

There Is a demonstrable performance improvement via 5s e.g. MTTR, service time, quality testing time …

5s (advanced) is used in key areas for the optimization of the workplace, processes and activities

5S completed in whole area of the plant including 3rd parties zones

AM Pillar focuses to reduce overall CILT time based on bottlenecks / priorities

CILT OTIF (execution) monitoring systems fully established via DCS

MTBA focus is followed by MTBT improvement to support resource allocation in conjunction with FI pillar

114

Overview Training and Education

Overview Progressive Quality


Embedding of Strategic long term workforce planning 60

Method development for Individual training plans based on needs 60

Embedding of Monitoring of training effectiveness 60

Method development for Develop leadership 60

Method development for Training program for problem solving competency 60

Embedding of Loss related development in line with priorities 60

Method development for Approval of Safety OPL's and SOP's 0

Method development for All trainings start with safety issues 0

Method development for Safety standards for training room 0

Method development for Job profiles compared to TPM WCBO 0

Embedding of Calibration development for maintenance personel ?

Method development for Q point and defect training 60 AM step 5 Roll-out

Method development for Training of quality defects 60 AM step 5 Roll-out

Method development for AM step 4 (technical) training 60 AM step 4 Roll-out

Embedding of Operatiors and technicians Q-point training 60 AM step 5 Roll-out

Method development for Horizontal expantion of OPL's and SOP's 60 Copy and share culture roll-out

Method development for AM step 4 training material 40 AM step 4 Method development

Method development for Training packages for AM 40 AM 4 & 5 Method development

Problem solving competences are managed and continually deployed via the T&E pillar

All personnel are deploying the ability to solve problems at their level





Embedding of Basic condition of quality control system 80

Method development for Operator usage of SPC 80

Method expansion of Quality management of change 80

Embedding of Claims are deployed to process and machine level 60

Method development for Quality suppliers assurance system 60

Method development for Management of GSC-specifications 60

Method development for Intergration of quality system and TPM 60

Method development for Understanding of SPC for zero defects 60

Method development for Documentation and updating quality standards 60

Method expansion of Advanced analysis of proces conditions and defects relation 60

Method development for Advanced analysis to prevent defects 60

Method development for Quality task impact on operator saturation 60

Method expansion of SPC development 60

Method expansion of Bottom up projects and follow-up 60

Method development for Quarterly material balances 40

Method expansion of 5s useage lab 40

Embedding of Zero loss culture 30

Method development for Monitoring of zero losses 30

Method development for Safety by bottle losses reduction 20

Intergration of Reduction of detection failures 20

Method development for Waste deployment 0

Method development for Process capability measurement 0

Method development for Quality task handover program 60 AM 5 method development

Method development for Q-points for all A & B machines 60 AM 5 Roll-out

Method development for Identification and hand-over of Q points 80 AM 5 roll-out

Method development for Operator Q-point inspection 60 AM 5 Embedding

Method development for Horizontal expantion of improvements 20 Copy and share culture All

Method development for Deployment of logistical quality issues 20 End 2 End optimalization defining and approval of goals

Intergration of DCS secures products conform standards 80 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding

Method development for Single defect analysis for all complaints 60 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding

Method development for Process control system development 60 Effective followup of standard deviation Embedding


-



Documents

Specialization: Production Engineering and Logistics