Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 100, Issue 2, pp 449–462 | Cite as

Application of AHP for Ranking of Total Productive Maintenance Pillars

  • Dnyandeo Dattatraya ShindeEmail author
  • Ramjee Prasad


Total Productive Maintenance—TPM is widely being used in industries for manufacturing excellence. TPM is based on its eight pillars. Successful Implementation of TPM from its kick-off to final stage depends on in-depth knowledge of these pillars. The purpose of the paper is to rank eight pillars of TPM according to their importance with respect to four parameters: Productivity, Cost, Quality and Delivery in Time, by using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) a multiple criteria decision-making methodology. A pairwise comparison of TPM pillars is done by use of AHP method, by considering a case of automotive industries in India. Ranking of TPM pillars is proposed to set guidelines to decide the weightage of each pillar in terms of major factors to improve Overall Equipment Efficiency. This in terms will guide management to give proper preference and allocate fund at proper time to proper pillar. The ranking suggested suites for automotive sector and assembly lines. By varying the judgmental rating the new ranking can be obtained from the suggested guidelines on similar basis.


Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) Total productive maintenance (TPM) TPM pillars Ranking 


  1. 1.
    Ahuja, I. P. S., & Khamba, J. S. (2008). TPM: Literature review and direction. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 25(7), 709–756.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Madu, C. N. (1994). On the total productivity management of a maintenance float system through AHP applications. International Journal of Production Economics, 34(2), 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Attri, R., Grover, S., Dev, N., & Kumar, D. (2013). Analysis of barriers of total productive maintenance (TPM). International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 4(4), 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahuja, I. P. S., & Khamba, J. S. (2008). Strategies and success factors for overcoming challenges in TPM implementation in Indian manufacturing industry. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 14(2), 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Attri, R., Grover, S., & Dev, N. (2014). A graph theoretic approach to evaluate the intensity of barriers in the implementation of total productive maintenance. International Journal of Production Research, 52(10), 3032–3051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bon, A. T., & Lim, M. (2015). Total productive maintenance in automotive industry: Issues and effectiveness. In Proc. 2015 Int. Conf. Ind. Eng. Oper. Manag. Dubai, United Arab Emirates.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Narender, & Gupta, A. K. (2012). A review of total productive maintenance system. International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering, 1(1), 10–18.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahuja, I. P. S., & Khamba, J. S. (2007). An evaluation of TPM implementation initiatives in an Indian manufacturing enterprise. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 13(4), 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gupta, P., Vardhan, S., & Al Haque, S. (2015). Study of success factors of TPM implementation in Indian industry towards operational excellence: An overview. In Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM), 2015 International Conference.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aruldoss, M. (2013). A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications. American Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kodali, R., & Chandra, S. (2001). Analytical hierarchy process for justification of total productive maintenance. Production Planning & Control, 12(7), 695–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang, G. (2010). Research on total quality management based on AHP. In 2010 Second Pacific-Asia Conference on Circuits, Communications and System (PACCS), pp. 245–248.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buyurgan, N., & Saygin, C. (2008). Application of the analytical hierarchy process for real-time scheduling and part routing in advanced manufacturing systems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 27(3), 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Selection of new production facilities with the group analytic hierarchy process ordering method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7317–7325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bhushan, N., & Rai, K. (2004). Strategic decision making and the analytic hierarchy process. (1st ed., IX, p. 172). Springer.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336–14345.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering and TechnologySandip UniversityMahiravani, NashikIndia
  2. 2.Department of Business Development and TechnologyAarhus UniversityHerningDenmark

Personalised recommendations