systems

Article
Facing Challenges of Implementing Total Productive
Management and Lean Tools in Manufacturing Enterprises
Tomislav Slavina and Nedeljko Štefanić *

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia;
tslavina@croatianmint.hr
* Correspondence: nedeljko.stefanic@fsb.hr; Tel.: +385-98-317279

Abstract: Manufacturing companies are always looking for ways to outperform their competitors.
They are constantly trying to improve their efficiency and reduce costs. One method that improves
efficiency and maximises the availability of production equipment is total productive maintenance
(TPM), which is a lean optimisation philosophy tool that focuses on the optimisation of maintenance.
Although TPM is known for improving maintenance, there are many obstacles to its successful
implementation. Failure to properly implement TPM can result in additional costs and lost time, and
it can have a negative impact on employees. For these reasons, a survey was prepared and conducted
among several companies, each involved in a different field of work and having a different number
of employees. The main findings of this research are the key factors that can negatively impact the
implementation of TPM and lean tools in general, as well as suggestions for improvements that can
ensure their successful implementation and sustainability. An analysis was conducted based on the
size of each company as well as the job roles within them. The study covers issues that may arise
during the implementation of TPM and other lean tools at all levels of the hierarchy in an enterprise
and provides guidance on how to manage situations that may prevent the successful application
of TPM.

Keywords: implementation; TPM; lean; problems; sustainability

Citation: Slavina, T.; Štefanić, N.

Facing Challenges of Implementing
Total Productive Management and
1. Introduction
Lean Tools in Manufacturing
Enterprises. Systems 2024, 12, 52.
Total productive maintenance (TPM), as an aspect of lean principles for the opti-
https://doi.org/10.3390/
misation of production, is a valuable and constructive tool for improving the overall
systems12020052 quality of maintenance, thus increasing the lifetime, reliability, and efficiency of production
equipment. Workplace organisation, procedures, and maintenance times can be improved
Academic Editors: Rossella Pozzi and
significantly as well [1]. Defined another way, TPM is a plant improvement methodology
Violetta Giada Cannas
that enables continuous and rapid improvements to manufacturing processes through
Received: 24 December 2023 employee involvement, employee empowerment, and closed-loop measurement of the
Revised: 1 February 2024 results, and that is incorporated into the concept of preventive maintenance [2]. TPM’s
Accepted: 1 February 2024 implementation means striving towards a vision of the ideal manufacturing situation,
Published: 3 February 2024 a vision that encompasses zero breakdowns, zero defects, zero abnormalities, and zero
accidents [3].
However, if TPM is incorrectly implemented or maintained, it can have a negative
impact on maintenance procedures, workers’ motivation, and the reliability of production
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
equipment, as well as increase workloads. To properly introduce TPM into a company,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
not only must the steps for its implementation be respected but also the mental aspects
This article is an open access article
related to the workers who are included in the entire process [4]. With the successful
distributed under the terms and
implementation of TPM, the availability, efficiency, and reliability of production equipment
conditions of the Creative Commons
will increase, which are the three main indicators of equipment performance. Availability is
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
the proportion of time that the equipment can be used for its intended purpose. Reliability
4.0/).
describes how often equipment does not fulfil its intended purpose. Efficiency is the ratio of

Systems 2024, 12, 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12020052 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/systems

Systems 2024, 12, 52 2 of 18

the actual output of a machine (i.e., products of desired quality) to its rated output during
the time that it is operational [5]. The goal is to increase these properties without increasing
the workload, namely, by reorganising efforts more efficiently. With today’s requirements of
advanced production with minimum waste and considering the ever-growing competition,
manufacturers need to have quality and reliable equipment. The introduction of lean
principles can take up to two years, and a planned and structured approach is necessary, as
TPM is one of the more complicated lean tools.
Manufacturers throughout the world are faced with the challenge of increasing produc-
tivity while keeping humans in the loop in manufacturing industries. This task is becoming
even more difficult as robots become increasingly crucial to the manufacturing process by
means of emerging technologies, such as brain–machine interfaces and advances in AI.
These challenges can be addressed by the next industrial revolution, known as Industry 5.0.
In brief, the concept of Industry 5.0 refers to humans and robots working as collaborators
rather than competitors [6]. The lean approach to innovation management facilitates the
smooth implementation of Industry 5.0 applications. Applying lean principles to prod-
uct/service development may play a significant role in fostering innovation and long-term
organisational learning. It is important to find the right balance between defining norms as
guidelines and giving engineers the freedom to pursue unconventional solutions [7].
Lean tools need to be implemented strategically, professionally, and with the right
approach for workers to achieve the most benefits from their implementation, especially if a
company has not yet introduced similar philosophies. Therefore, a survey was prepared to
identify the key factors that obstruct the implementation and success of TPM and lean tools
in general. The survey was distributed to several companies that had different numbers of
employees and were involved in different areas of production. The aim of the study was to
pinpoint key factors that can have negative impacts on the introduction of lean principles
and TPM and lead to the failure of their implementation, as well as to provide guidelines
on how to avoid such obstacles during the planning, execution, and maintenance of the
introduced philosophies.

Literature Review
Expertise and a structured methodology are crucial for the successful introduction and
beneficial utilisation of lean and TPM (total productive maintenance) tools in a production
plant. Nakajima [8] notes that a number of industries have tried to implement total
productive maintenance; however, only a handful achieve an output or utilisation rate of
up to 60–90%.
The primary focus of Mandahire’s [9] study revolved around achieving a balance
between the machines utilised by operators, the operators themselves, and the human re-
sources strategy employed to facilitate this equilibrium. The study revealed that companies
aiming to implement TPM to increase profits and productivity should not solely concentrate
on their machines or equipment; instead, they must also prioritise their workforce.
Manihalla et al. [10] concluded that the selection and implementation of specific TPM
tools are key factors contributing to the success of an implementation program. It is
essential to assess the current performance and condition of equipment before initiating
the implementation of lean’s pillars. They also recognised that TPM’s implementation is a
continuous process and that it is not possible to achieve returns immediately.
Abhishek et al. [11] identified the key enablers of TPM. In their research, the intensities
of the identified enablers were quantified to demonstrate their influence on TPM’s imple-
mentation. Their findings suggest that it is imperative to ensure the robust implementation
of maintenance programmes, such as preventive maintenance, autonomous maintenance,
and mobile maintenance, to successfully implement TPM in an organisation.
From an examination of surveys in the literature, Poduval et al. [12] concluded that
although there is a substantial body of work dedicated to TPM and the advantages of
its implementation, there is a notable lack of emphasis on analyses of the challenges. A
Systems 2024, 12, 52 3 of 18

common issue observed was that many companies implement TPM at a superficial level,
leading to productivity gains that often do not fully realise their maximum potential.
Munir et al. [4] investigated the key factors that can negatively impact the imple-
mentation of TPM. There are numerous crucial factors that contribute to its successful
implementation. Structured training for TPM coordinators and team members, supported
by adequate financial resources, should be provided. Furthermore, it is important to es-
tablish a system for measuring both performance and economic benefits as part of the
implementation process. The active participation of top management and their ability
to effectively communicate with employees at all organisational levels are indispensable
prerequisites for the successful implementation of TPM.
Xiang et al. [13] conducted a study in which they proposed a “light” TPM implemen-
tation model suitable for small- and medium-sized enterprises. The advantage of their
“light” model is that it requires a small sum of capital investment and resources. The model
comprises three primary steps:
1. Plan: a preliminary assessment and alignment of the objectives are conducted to begin.
2. Improve: focused maintenance efforts are directed at enhancing the factors that
influence equipment OEE (overall equipment effectiveness).
3. Sustain: a sustainability system is implemented to ensure that the improvements
made are maintained, preventing a return to the previous state.
They concluded that the use of a systematic and structural approach to the implemen-
tation of TPM is key to its success. The model’s feasibility was confirmed by its successful
implementation within a small- or medium-sized manufacturing enterprise (SME).
Pačaiova et al. [14] presented a comprehensive framework for implementing TPM
based on the PDCA (plan–do–check–act) cycle. One unique aspect of the study was its
evaluation of how the occupational health and safety (OHS) pillar impacts the stability of
the TPM framework. The methodology used involved a detailed analysis of each step in
the TPM’s implementation, enhanced by the integration of suitable tools to align TPM with
ISO 9001:2015 [15]. Their findings shed light on the critical role of management support
in the successful implementation of TPM’s pillars, including autonomous maintenance.
Additionally, the authors highlighted that the often underestimated 5S tool not only plays a
fundamental role in TPM but is also significant in the integration of management practices
within an organisation.
The primary objective of a study by Chaurey et al. [16] was to delve into TPM’s
attributes, barriers, and critical success factors (CSFs) within a framework of effective
implementation. Notably, the research reveals a deficiency in TPM implementation models
tailored specifically for the manufacturing sector. It underscores the absence of large-scale
empirical research in this domain. In response, the study calls for the development of a
dedicated TPM model suited to manufacturing and identifies key factors gleaned from the
existing literature that can facilitate overcoming the challenges in TPM’s implementation.
Necas [17] recognised that education plays a crucial role in the successful implementa-
tion of a maintenance management process within the TPM framework. Various aspects
of education and training within the system were proposed, including the engagement of
both internal and external educational and training entities, the selection of suitable venues,
and ensuring the availability of necessary technical and material resources.
A study by Manihalla et al. [18] highlighted the critical importance of investing in
employee training at various management levels during lean and TPM implementation
processes in small- and medium-sized enterprises. Employee training was identified as the
most significant factor influencing TPM’s implementation in these SMEs. To promote the
adoption of TPM strategies and use of their long-term benefits, it is essential to conduct
awareness programmes, educational campaigns, and training sessions aimed at motivating
the management at SMEs to embrace these practices. These efforts can play a key role in
enhancing the overall success of TPM’s implementation in SMEs.
From the literature review, it can be concluded that some aspects are recognised as be-
ing key for implementing TPM: education, importance of employees, role of management,
 the adoption of TPM strategies and use of their long-term benefits, it is essential to conduct
awareness programmes, educational campaigns, and training sessions aimed at motivat-
ing the management at SMEs to embrace these practices. These efforts can play a key role
in enhancing the overall success of TPM’s implementation in SMEs.
Systems 2024, 12, 52 From the literature review, it can be concluded that some aspects are recognised 4 of as
18
being key for implementing TPM: education, importance of employees, role of manage-
ment, use of a structural approach, a measurement system, and lean as the basis. On the
other
use of hand, some authors
a structural approach,agree that there is asystem,
a measurement notableandlacklean
of emphasis on analysing
as the basis. the
On the other
challenges of implementing TPM; this study fills this research gap. Also,
hand, some authors agree that there is a notable lack of emphasis on analysing the chal- some authors
pointed
lenges ofout that there isTPM;
implementing a lack of study
this a universal model
fills this for implementation
research gap. Also, some in industrial
authors en-
pointed
terprises.
out that there is a lack of a universal model for implementation in industrial enterprises.

2. Materials and Methods

2.
After the
After the literature
literature review,
review,aaquestionnaire
questionnairewas was designed
designed toto cover
cover all
all aspects
aspects that
that can
can
have
have negative impacts on the implementation
implementation of of lean tools
tools and
and TPM.
TPM. The
The companies
companies that
that
the
the survey
surveywas
wassent
senttotorange
rangefrom small
from smallto to
large in size.
large TheThe
in size. responses that that
responses indicated a lacka
indicated
of familiarity
lack withwith
of familiarity the topic werewere
the topic discarded.
discarded.After checking
After the the
checking credibility of the
credibility data,
of the an
data,
analysis
an analysiswaswas
performed
performed according to the
according sizesize
to the of the company
of the company as well as the
as well hierarchy
as the of
hierarchy
positions within it. A block diagram of the methodology is shown
of positions within it. A block diagram of the methodology is shown in Figure 1.in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Block
Block diagram
diagram of
of the
the methodology.
methodology.

When
When preparing
preparingaasurveysurveytoto collect valuable
collect valuable scientific data,
scientific oneone
data, must mustkeepkeepin mind that
in mind
there are rules
that there that must
are rules be followed
that must for the
be followed forsurvey to betocredible.
the survey To beTo
be credible. more
be morebeneficial,
bene-
aficial,
survey needs needs
a survey to be prepared following
to be prepared established
following guidelines.
established WithWith
guidelines. the development
the develop-
of information
ment and communication
of information and communication technologies and the
technologies andincreasing number
the increasing of users
number who
of users
successfully apply these technologies in their daily work, web
who successfully apply these technologies in their daily work, web surveys have become surveys have become the
most efficient means of gathering information from a large number
the most efficient means of gathering information from a large number of companies. The of companies. The
questions
questions or or statements
statements must must be be clear,
clear, the
the overall
overall time
time needed
needed to to complete
complete the the survey
survey
must
must notnot be
be too
too long,
long, and
and the
the research
research must
must have
have aa clear
clear deadline.
deadline. TheThe survey
survey must must start
start
with
with aa brief
brief introduction
introduction explaining
explaining why why itit is
is being
being conducted.
conducted. Lastly,
Lastly, ifif the
the survey
survey is is also
also
conducted online, a digital format must be considered so that it is accessible
conducted online, a digital format must be considered so that it is accessible to all possible to all possible
participants
participants [19].
[19].
The
The following
followingstepsstepswere
wereperformed
performed ininthethe
creation
creation of the survey:
of the determination
survey: determination of theof
research problem, statements, and necessary data, and whether a
the research problem, statements, and necessary data, and whether a web survey was suit- web survey was suitable
for
ableconducting
for conducting the research;
the research;assessment
assessment of ofthethe
possible
possiblecoverage
coverageand andsampling
sampling issues,
issues,
concluding
concluding whether a web survey could reach the target population; determination of
whether a web survey could reach the target population; determination of the
the
scales to be used; creation of a draft survey upon which the web survey
scales to be used; creation of a draft survey upon which the web survey was to be created; was to be created;
determination
determination of of the
the research
research schedule;
schedule; determination
determination of of the
the sample’s
sample’s design;
design; preparation
preparation
of the messages for the respondents; programming of the web survey and making the
of the messages for the respondents; programming of the web survey and making the
necessary changes to the design; pretesting the survey and, if necessary, making corrections;
necessary changes to the design; pretesting the survey and, if necessary, making
starting the web survey and reaching out to contacts; monitoring the implementation of
the research; and closing the survey [20].
The survey consisted of twenty-seven statements grouped into three categories: knowl-
edge of lean tools; introduction of lean tools; and maintenance or sustainability of lean
tools. Determining participants’ knowledge of lean tools is important to obtaining their
level of understanding of the topic. The introduction of lean tools consisted of statements
related to their implementation (education, machines, methods, personnel, etc.). Finally,
Systems 2024, 12, 52 5 of 18

the survey included a set of statements concerning the sustainability of TPM and lean
tools to obtain insight into what actions (and their suitability) are taken to preserve the
quality of the TPM and lean tools that are introduced. Participants evaluated the statements
using a scale from one to five, with one meaning total disagreement and five meaning
complete agreement with the given statement. The participants’ level of agreement on
specific statements determined which aspects have the most influence on the introduction
or sustainability of TPM and lean philosophies. The statements used in the survey are
provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Survey statements/questions.

Category 1 Statement No. Knowledge of Lean Tools

1 I am familiar with lean systems.
2 I am familiar with 5S.
3 I am familiar with TPM.
4 I am familiar with Kanban.
Category 2 Statement No. Introduction of Lean Tools
5 It was expertly and correctly introduced, and it will be useful.
6 Sufficient knowledge held by people in charge of its implementation.
7 Sufficient experience by people in charge of its implementation.
8 Sufficient support from the director/management.
9 Organisational structure was adequate for implementation.
10 Performed within a reasonable timeframe.
11 I am aware that implementation can be expensive.
12 TPM performed on suitable equipment.
13 Education was of sufficient quality.
Category 3 Statement No. Sustainability of Lean Tools
14 Teamwork is satisfactory.
15 Communication is satisfactory.
16 Tasks are well aligned with the activities of TPM and lean tools.
17 There is enough time.
18 Sufficient qualified persons.
19 I believe that my job security is not threatened because of lean.
20 There is no resistance to change.
21 I consider myself an important part.
22 Superiors are understanding and patient enough.
23 TPM and lean tools are considered as essential as other jobs.
24 Lean activities are not performed only before an audit
25 An audit is a good use of time.
26 I believe that the enterprise benefits from TPM and lean tools.
27 Time spent on lean activities is a good investment.

The statements were formed to cover all aspects that can influence the quality of imple-
menting lean tools. The statements were written by authors with expertise in the field and
experience with implementation in actual manufacturing companies. The authors included
areas that they think are crucial to establishing lean philosophies. Therefore, the authors
divided the questions into three categories. The first category is related to understanding
the level of knowledge of the respondents on a given topic. The second category covers
the factors concerning preparation, education, team selection, and implementation. The
final category focuses on aspects such as the continuation of the performance of tasks,
communication, and audits. To obtain different perspectives, the survey asked participants
to state which position in the company they occupied so that the data could be examined at
the hierarchy level.
As mentioned, the purpose of the survey’s first category was to determine respondents’
knowledge of the topic. If it was not sufficient, the survey was not used, as the data would
not benefit the research. The survey was sent to four different companies. Because of
Systems 2024, 12, 52 6 of 18

anonymity, the companies are named Company 1, Company 2, Company 3, and Company 4.
A total of 36 usable responses were received. Company 1 has 50 employees, and their work
focuses on innovative solutions in automation and robot technology. They make automatic
lines for various packing and assembly applications, providing custom solutions according
to a customer’s demands. Lean tools had been in use for 12 months. Some of the tools
that they implemented are 5S, Kaizen, and TPM. Company 2 has 150 employees and is in
the business of providing engineering solutions. Their employees are mostly engineers
who design products, and they have a small manufacturing facility for making prototypes.
They had been practicing lean tools for two years. Company 3 has 500 employees, and
their area of expertise is the development, design, production, testing, and servicing
of power transformers. They started introducing lean tools seven years ago and were
among the first big companies in Croatia to implement an extensive lean program. They
use 5S, Kaizen, TPM, SMED (single minute exchange of dies), and visual management.
Finally, Company 4 is counted as having 800 employees, and they produce semi-finished
electromechanical products. They started a lean programme five years prior. They formed
a separate department for the introduction of lean tools, and they practice 5S, Kaizen,
TPM, SMED, visual management, Six Sigma, and zero waste. All of the companies have
experience with a lean philosophy, some less and some more. Answers were received by
those in various positions within the companies, ranging from managers, team leaders,
and technologists to direct operators in production. Table 2 shows the number of usable
responses per company and per worker group type.

Table 2. Number of usable responses per company and per worker group.

Company Number of Usable Surveys Worker Group Type Number of Surveys

Company 1 9 Manager 6
Company 2 13 Leader 10
Company 3 8 Technologist 13
Company 4 6 Operator 7

3. Results
3.1. Analysis of Data
Before presenting the results of a survey, their credibility must be determined, and
an analysis of the data themselves needs to be conducted. Thus, an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and Cronbach’s alpha were performed on the received answers. ANOVA is
one of the most widely used statistical techniques, with applications in areas that include
biology, medicine, industry, and finance [21]. The ANOVA test has long been a valuable
tool for researchers conducting studies on multiple experimental groups and one or more
control groups [22]. The main goal of an ANOVA is to identify whether the null hypothesis
is accepted or rejected. A null hypothesis is the proposition that a study’s findings will not
demonstrate an effect when subjected to a scientific experiment. If the null hypothesis is
true, there will be no differences between the intervention and control groups at the end of
the study [23]. An ANOVA uses the F-test to statistically evaluate the equality of the means.
The F-value is the ratio of the between-group variation and the within-group variation. The
given F-value is compared with the critical value of the F ratio derived from the table for
a given significance level. The significance level determines the risk of concluding that a
difference exists where there is no actual difference. The most common significance level of
0.05 was used. If the given value of F is greater than the F ratio obtained from the tables,
we can reject the null hypothesis with a 95% confidence level, as shown in Figure 2.
 nificance level of 0.05 was used. If the given value of F is greater than the F ratio obtained
from the tables, we can reject the null hypothesis with a 95% confidence level, as shown
in Figure 2.
• F calculated > F ratio at 0.05 significance level: reject the null hypothesis with a 95%
Systems 2024, 12, 52 7 of 18
confidence level;
• F calculated < F ratio: accept the null hypothesis.

Figure
Figure 2. Visualisation
2. Visualisation ofacceptance
of the the acceptance or rejection
or rejection of a of a null
null hypothesis.
hypothesis.

•Equation
F calculated > F ratio
(1) describes howat the
0.05value
significance level: reject
of F calculated the null hypothesis with a 95%
is obtained:
confidence level;
𝑠 2𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠
• F calculated < F ratio: accept the null
𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 = hypothesis. (1)
𝑠 2𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠
Equation (1) describes how the value of F calculated is obtained:
where:
𝑠 2𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠 = standard deviation s2 between
between
groupsgroups;
2
Fcalculated = 2 (1)
𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠 = standard deviations within groups [24].
within groups
Equation (2) describes how to calculate the standard deviation:
where:
𝑛 2
∑ (𝑥𝑖 −𝑥̅ )
s2 between groups =𝑠standard
2
= 𝑖=1 deviation between groups; (2)
𝑛−1
2
s within groups = standard deviation within groups [24].
where:
Equation (2) describes how to calculate the standard deviation:
𝑛 = number of variables;
𝑥𝑖 = individual result; 2
2 ∑in=1 ( xi − x )
𝑥̅ = arithmetic mean of the results sof =the group; (2)
n−1
𝑛 − 1 = degrees of freedom [24].
In this case, n represents the number of questions, x_i represents the answer of one
where:
respondent
n = to one ofof
number questions, 𝑥̅ represents the arithmetic mean of the total number
thevariables;
of answers
xi = individual result;for a specific company, and the degrees of freedom is the
to each question
number xof=variables
arithmetic(questions)
mean of theminus one.
results of After the F-value was calculated for each of
the group;
the companies in the study, the values
n − 1 = degrees of freedom [24]. obtained were compared with the critical value of
In this case, n represents the number of questions, x_i represents the answer of one
respondent to one of the questions, x represents the arithmetic mean of the total number
of answers to each question for a specific company, and the degrees of freedom is the
number of variables (questions) minus one. After the F-value was calculated for each of
the companies in the study, the values obtained were compared with the critical value of
F_0 obtained from the table of the critical values for the F distribution for given degrees of
freedom. The values were as follows:
1. Fcalculated 1 = 2.0837 > F0 ratio 1 = 1.4591.
2. Fcalculated 2 = 4.1361 > F0 ratio 2 = 1.4591.
3. Fcalculated 3 = 3.7868 > F0 ratio 3 = 1.5543.
4. Fcalculated 4 = 5.8746 > F0 ratio 4 = 1.4591.
It was concluded that the null hypothesis is rejected, the results of the study are
credible, and there is a difference among the populations.
Another approach to the verification of data is to use the Cronbach’s alpha (α) and
McDonald’s omega (ω) coefficients. Cronbach’s alpha is the most common estimate of the
Systems 2024, 12, 52 8 of 18

internal consistency of responses on multi-item bipolar scales [25]. It can be defined as

measuring the extent to which item responses (i.e., answers to survey statements) correlate
with each other. In other words, Cronbach’s alpha estimates the proportion of variance that
is systematic or consistent in a set of survey responses. Often, when skew items are present,
it is preferable to use the omega coefficient, as it is more robust than the alpha. Therefore,
both coefficients were calculated. Equation (3) describes how to calculate Cronbach’s alpha:
!
N σx2 − ∑iN=1 σYi
2
α= (3)
N−1 σx2

where:
N = number of survey items in the scale;
σx2 = variance of the observed total scores;
2 = variance of item i for person Y [26].
σYi
The value of Cronbach’s alpha is usually expressed as a number between 0 and 1. A
value of 0 means there is no consistency in the measurements. The closer the Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient is to 1.0, the greater the internal consistency of the items on the scale. An
acceptable range is between 0.70 and 0.90, or higher [26].
Omega estimations are based on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A CFA model fits
the data first, and then the omega is calculated based on the factor loadings and the error
variances [27]. Equation (4) describes how to calculate McDonald’s omega:

( ∑ λ i )2
ω= (4)
( ∑ λ i )2 + ∑ θ i

where:
λi = factor loadings for item i;
θi = error variance of item i [27].
The coefficients were calculated using the freeware software “JASP 0.18.3.0.” An
analysis was conducted for each individual group of participants (i.e., each company). The
results of the analysis are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega values for the individual sets of data.

Set of Data Cronbach’s Alpha (α) McDonald’s Omega (ω)

Company 1 0.875 0.882
Company 2 0.865 0.875
Company 3 0.746 0.755
Company 4 0.716 0.720

The cutoff for both coefficients is 0.7. All of the above scores are considered reliable.
Because all of the Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients are greater than
0.70, it can be concluded that the data from the surveys are consistent.

3.2. Results
For a better understanding of the given data, the results were grouped both by com-
pany and by hierarchical position within the company. This way, it can be observed whether
the size of the company and the hierarchical position had any influence on the perception
of challenges during the implementation and maintenance of TPM and lean philosophies
in general. First, the results were filtered by company. Company 1 is a small enterprise
that focuses on innovative solutions in automation and robot technology. Company 2 is a
medium-sized company that provides engineering solution services. Companies 3 and 4
are large enterprises with over five hundred employees. The goal was to determine whether
Systems 2024, 12, 52 9 of 18

the size of an enterprise influenced the perception of potential problems and challenges
related to the implementation of lean tools and TPM.
The survey participants were also asked to provide information about their role at the
company, so in the second part of the data analysis, the data were grouped according to job
function within the company. It is beneficial to see the potential drawbacks from different
points of view. As shown in Table 4, the data were grouped into four categories based on
roles (i.e., hierarchical levels): operators, technologists, leaders, and managers.

Table 4. Overview of the roles in the companies and the groups in which they were categorised.

Function Same Group Category

Operators Operator, worker, manipulator, production employee.
Technologists Technologist, designer, operating engineer, engineer.
Leaders Leader, head of department.
Managers Manager, director, supervisor, executive.

For better results of the data analysis, answers such as operator, worker, manipulator,
and production employee were grouped under the “operators” category. Operators’ points
of view are crucial for understanding the challenges of implementation, because most
often it is this level that performs the time-consuming lean tasks, such as data collection,
organising, cleaning, and autonomous maintenance. Roles such as technologist, designer,
and operating engineer were grouped under “technologists.” Individuals in this group are
often those who are well educated and among the first to help operators understand the
principles. Leaders and heads of departments were all grouped under the hierarchical level
of “leaders.” They are the decision-makers in a department, often also educated alongside
technologists, or they decide who is going to receive the training. Leaders coordinate
tasks with the leaders of other departments. Finally, managers, directors, supervisors,
and executives were grouped in the “managers” category, which is the highest level of
management in an enterprise. They make strategic decisions and are expecting to be
briefed on the results of the implementation of lean tools and TPM. They are usually only
introduced to the lean philosophy in the form of the vision and goals related to lean tools
and TPM.
The numbers below the x-axis (representing statements) are the sums of all of the total
answers (each on a scale from one to five) for a selected group. Because a different number
of surveys were received from each company, the values were normalised for comparison.
The higher the number, the higher the level of agreement with each statement. On the
contrary, the lower the number, the lower the level of agreement with a statement. The
lowest cumulative answers of the individual groups are emphasised below, and the results
are shown in Figure 3.
For Company 1, these were statements Q19 (job security is not threatened by lean),
Q23 (lean tools are considered as important as other activities), Q24 (lean activities are not
performed only before an audit), and Q20 (there is no resistance to change). Employees
at Company 1 (a small enterprise) expressed worry about job safety when performing
lean tasks. This can result in poor job performance, the masking of real problems, hiding
true results, and conducting lean tasks only before an audit, as recognised by the workers
themselves. Management must assure employees that their job is not threatened by lean
processes. On the contrary, the aim of lean activities is to ease the workload. The fact that
employees at the small company did not recognise the importance of lean tools is a failure
of the training program. The employees of Company 1 also thought that there was a certain
amount of resistance to change, which is common when implementing new practices but
can be reduced using correct implementation methods.
Systems 2024,12,
Systems2024, 12,52x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 10
ofof1918

Figure3.
Figure 3. Results
Results compared
compared by
by company.
company.

For Company
Company 2 is a1,medium-sized
these were statementsenterprise Q19 (jobapproximately
with security is not 150 threatened
employees.by lean),
Their
Q23 (lean tools are considered as important as other activities),
primary business is the provision of engineering solution services. Employees at Company Q24 (lean activities are not
2 had the lowest level of agreement concerning statements Q25 (an audit is a good useatof
performed only before an audit), and Q20 (there is no resistance to change). Employees
Company
time), Q12 1(performed
(a small enterprise)
on suitable expressed
equipment),worryand about
Q16 job safety
(lean when performing
activities lean
are well aligned
tasks. This can result in poor job performance, the masking of
with other tasks). The employees of this medium-sized enterprise did not recognise audits real problems, hiding true
results,
as and conducting
an important part of TPMlean tasks only practices
and lean before aninaudit,general.as recognised
It may appear by the workers
that once a
themselves.
system Management
is established, theremust
is noassure
need for employees that theirand
regular reviews jobchecks.
is not threatened
However, by lean
auditing
processes.
any systemOn is the contrary,
crucial the aim the
for ensuring of lean activities
stability, is to easeand
continuity, the quality
workload. The fact that
of implemented
employeesAatcommon
practices. the smallconsequence
company didof not a recognise
lack of audits the importance of lean tools
is that employees tendistoa become
failure
of the training program. The employees of Company 1 also thought
complacent in performing their tasks, inevitably leading to a significant drop in quality. that there was a cer-
tain amount of resistance to change, which is common when
Additionally, employees at Company 2 believed that TPM was not conducted on suitable implementing new practices
but can be reduced
equipment. This could using correcta implementation
indicate lack of strategic methods.
selection of equipment suitable for TPM
Company 2 isTypically,
implementation. a medium-sized enterprise
a pilot project with approximately
is developed 150 employees.
at the beginning Theirto
of activities
primary business
demonstrate is the provision
TPM principles with aof engineering
suitable solution services.
and compatible system. ThisEmployees
approach at Com-
allows
pany
for the2 philosophy
had the lowest to belevel of agreement
understood in anconcerning statements Q25 (an
easy and comprehensive way,audit is asuitable
using good
use of time),
equipment as Q12 (performed
an example. Theon suitable
third majorequipment),
concern raised andby Q16 (lean activities
employees in the are well
medium-
aligned with other tasks). The employees of this medium-sized
sized company was that the lean activities were not aligned with their regular workloads. enterprise did not recog-
nise issue
This auditscanas an
ariseimportant
in medium- part of andTPM and lean enterprises,
large-sized practices in general. It may
particularly appear
when that
multiple
once a system is established, there is no need for regular reviews
trainers and departments are involved. In such cases, it becomes crucial to synchronise and checks. However,
auditing any
activities system
to ensure is crucialamong
alignment for ensuring the stability,
all workers involved.continuity, and quality of imple-
mented practices.
Employees at A common3 consequence
Company had the lowest of level
a lackofofagreement
audits is that
withemployees
statementstend to
Q25 (an
become
audit is acomplacent
good use ofintime),performing their tasks,on
Q12 (performed inevitably leading to a significant
suitable equipment), drop in
Q24 (lean activities
quality.
are Additionally,
not performed only employees
before anat Company
audit), and Q192 believed that TPM
(job security wasthreatened
is not not conducted on
by lean).
suitable equipment. This could indicate a lack of strategic selection
As did employees at the medium-sized enterprise, employees of this large-sized enterprise of equipment suitable
for TPM implementation.
expressed their biggest concerns Typically, a pilot
about project
lean audits is developed
and their at the beginning
benefits. This isofanother
activ-
ities to demonstrate TPM principles with a suitable and compatible
example of why an emphasis on auditing practices during training is vital. Educators must system. This approach
allows
take thefortimethetophilosophy
explain thetorole be of
understood
audits in the in an easy and comprehensive
sustainability of implemented way, using
practices.
suitable equipment
Employees must beas an example.
included in theThe third
audit major concern
process raised by employees
so that everybody involved in the lean
medium-sized
activities company
is audited wasonce
at least thatandthe lean
is anactivities were not aligned
auditor themselves. with their to
It is important regular
clarify
workloads.
during This that
training issuean canaudit
arise is
in not
medium-
used and large-sized
to “catch” enterprises,
someone particularly
not performing when
planned
Systems 2024, 12, 52 11 of 18

activities but as a tool to increase the success of established processes. In connection

with the questioned importance of the audits, employees of this large-sized enterprise
thought that lean and TPM activities were only performed before audits. This is a cause
for concern. Lean activities should not be performed for the sole purpose of passing an
audit. If this is the case, the leaders of those processes must be reminded and, if needed,
retrained. Interestingly, even though employees at Company 3 did not consider lean and
TPM activities important, as indicated by the statement that most activities are only done
before audits, they still perceived them as threats to their job security if they did not engage
in them. This is a failure of implementation, and its effect is the opposite of the intention.
Company 4 is also a large enterprise, with 800 employees. They had the lowest
agreement with statements Q23 (lean tools are considered as important as other activities),
Q17 (there is enough time), Q19 (job security is not threatened by lean), and Q20 (there
is no resistance to change). People at this large-sized company did not see lean tools as
important for the company as other everyday tasks and activities. Also, they thought there
was not enough time provided for these activities. It is often the case that lean activities are
added on top of the daily tasks of workers. In the process of planning implementation, time
for additional activities must be included as well. Leaders need to take into account the
amount of time needed for these activities and adjust workloads accordingly. Job security
was also an issue at this company, and people thought there was great resistance to change.
This is often the case at companies with a higher average age and with workers who have
been at the company for multiple decades. Some of them have performed their tasks for
years in the same way. It is natural to feel resistance to change. It is the responsibility of an
educator to thoroughly explain the benefits of lean and TPM practices.
When the results were compiled for all of the companies, the least agreed upon
statements were Q19 (job security not threatened by lean), Q23 (lean tools considered as
important as other activities), and Q25 (an audit is a good use of time). An overview of the
statements with the lowest levels of agreement among the companies is shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Overview of the statements with the lowest levels of agreement.

Company Lowest Agreement Second Lowest Third Lowest

Company 1 Q19, Q23 Q24 Q20
Company 2 Q25 Q12 Q16
Company 3 Q25 Q12, Q24 Q19
Company 4 Q23 Q17 Q19, Q20

Another approach to examining the results is to filter the data according to the job
position within a company. This way, different opinions and points of view can be examined
with respect to the hierarchical level. Therefore, data were evaluated according to operators,
technologists, leaders, and managers. As with the comparison by company, these data
were also normalised to compare the results among the groups. The results are visually
presented in Figure 4.
Operators indicated less agreement with statements Q19 (job security is not threatened
by lean), Q23 (lean tools are as essential as other activities), and Q24 (lean activities are
not performed only before an audit). Naturally, operators were most concerned about
job safety because it was not within their control. Their performance depends on an
evaluation by their leaders and managers. However, when it comes to lean activities and
tasks, the operators do not recognise their importance and usually perform them before
checks and audits. It is the responsibility of technologists and leaders during training and
implementation processes to avoid such outcomes.
Technologists showed less agreement with statements Q19 (job security is not threat-
ened by lean), Q25 (an audit is a good use of time), Q12 (performed on suitable equipment),
and Q16 (activities of lean are well aligned with other tasks). The results indicate that tech-
nologists share concerns about job security and find audits to not be a valuable use of time.
This contradiction is notable because technologists are typically the most knowledgeable
Systems 2024, 12, 52 12 of 18

about the desired lean tools and philosophies. It is possible that their opinion is linked
to the third-lowest agreed-upon statement, suggesting that the implementation of these
practices is not conducted on suitable equipment. This may occur if technologists are not
responsible for selecting the equipment on which the pilot project is executed. Although it
seems obvious, the selection of equipment or part of a production line for the pilot project
Systems 2024, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
must always be performed by the personnel that are most educated about the tool12that of 19
is
going to be introduced, and there are examples where this has not been the case.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Results of the survey grouped according to position within the company.

Leaders
Operators showed less agreement
indicated less agreement with with
statements Q24 (lean
statements Q19 activities
(job securityare not performed
is not threat-
only before an audit), Q25 (an audit is a good use of time), Q12 (performed
ened by lean), Q23 (lean tools are as essential as other activities), and Q24 (lean activities on suitable
equipment), and Q23
are not performed only(lean toolsanare
before as essential
audit). as other
Naturally, activities).
operators wereItmostis concerning
concernedthat the
about
leaders also
job safety recognise
because thatnot
it was lean activities
within theirare performed
control. Their more actively, depends
performance mostly before
on anaudits.
eval-
Because
uation byinternal auditsand
their leaders aremanagers.
friendly, meaning
However,their when purpose
it comesistotolean
sustain goodand
activities practices,
tasks,
they are always
the operators doannounced.
not recogniseTherefore, it wouldand
their importance be usually
beneficial to perform
perform them unannounced
before checks
internal audits. It would provide a better picture of the status
and audits. It is the responsibility of technologists and leaders during training of a lean tool’s performance.
and imple-
Another
mentation concern
processes of the leaders
to avoid wasoutcomes.
such that an audit itself was not a good use of time. Often,
lean is imposed on leaders
Technologists showedby management,
less agreement with which expects results.
statements Q19 (jobBecause
securityleaders are not
is not threat-
often the ones performing the tasks, it is easy for them to underestimate
ened by lean), Q25 (an audit is a good use of time), Q12 (performed on suitable equip- these activities, as
recognised
ment), and in Q16 the(activities
survey. of lean are well aligned with other tasks). The results indicate
that technologists share lower
Managers showed concernslevels of agreement
about job security with
andthe statements
find audits to Q25 not be(ana audit
valuableis a
good use of time), Q12 (performed on suitable equipment), and
use of time. This contradiction is notable because technologists are typically the mostQ10 (implementation of
lean tools was performed within a reasonable amount of time). For executives,
knowledgeable about the desired lean tools and philosophies. It is possible that their opin- the results
of
iontheir investment,
is linked rate of savings,
to the third-lowest and return
agreed-upon on investment
statement, timethat
suggesting are the
usually the most
implementa-
important. High-level management often only understands the philosophy
tion of these practices is not conducted on suitable equipment. This may occur if technol- superficially,
just enough
ogists are nottoresponsible
decide whether to invest.
for selecting theManagement
equipment onalso thought
which that project
the pilot time spent on
is exe-
audits was not so useful and, in their opinion, it was not performed
cuted. Although it seems obvious, the selection of equipment or part of a production line on suitable equipment.
It is interesting to note that their third-lowest level of agreement was on the statement
for the pilot project must always be performed by the personnel that are most educated
related to lean and TPM tools being implemented within a reasonable time frame. Often,
about the tool that is going to be introduced, and there are examples where this has not
the implementation of lean tools can take up to two years (depending on the size of the
been the case.
enterprise, the number of personnel involved, the scope of the implementation, and the
Leaders showed less agreement with statements Q24 (lean activities are not per-
number of lean tools being implemented). So, management, in this case, showed concern
formed only before an audit), Q25 (an audit is a good use of time), Q12 (performed on
suitable equipment), and Q23 (lean tools are as essential as other activities). It is concern-
ing that the leaders also recognise that lean activities are performed more actively, mostly
before audits. Because internal audits are friendly, meaning their purpose is to sustain
good practices, they are always announced. Therefore, it would be beneficial to perform
unannounced internal audits. It would provide a better picture of the status of a lean tool’s
Systems 2024, 12, 52 13 of 18

about the time span of the implementation. Therefore, when planning the introduction
of lean tools, it is crucial to prepare and present a period, timeline, or Gantt chart to
investors. Establishing clear milestones and time-bound goals is essential for maintaining a
transparent dashboard to monitor activities. This approach helps prevent issues related
to execution deadlines for specific activities or the entire project. Table 6 provides an
overview of the statements with the lowest level of agreement according to job position
within a company.

Table 6. Overview of statements with the lowest level of agreement.

Job Position Lowest Agreement Second Lowest Third Lowest

Operators Q19, Q23 Q20, Q24 Q13, Q17, Q18, Q27
Technologists Q19, Q25 Q12 Q16
Leaders Q24, Q25 Q12, Q23 Q19
Managers Q25 Q12 Q10

4. Discussion
There are many factors that can negatively impact the introduction and sustainability
of TPM and other lean tools. However, only a few of the most critical are emphasised here
based on the answers provided. The least agreed-upon statement regarded audits as a
good use of time. An internal audit is defined as an activity designed to add value and
improve an organisation’s operations [28]. Another definition of lean auditing is that it is
an approach to managing an auditing process and organisation (one that provides auditing
services) that supports the concept of ongoing improvement, a long-term approach to
work aimed at systematically achieving changes and improving audit quality, including
efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency [29].
Although an audit is a key tool for maintaining the quality of lean tools and ensuring
the sustainability of implemented philosophies, employees at all levels failed to see this.
Audits, which ensure a constant level of quality in the lean philosophy, are as important as
all of the previous steps in its implementation. It is important to clarify during the training
phase why an audit is being held and to ensure that all levels of the hierarchy participate
in its preparation and performance such that everybody involved in lean activities is,
at least once, an auditor themselves or is being audited. Because many answers in this
study indicated that lean and TPM activities were conducted only before an audit, it may
be beneficial to conduct some unannounced audits. For a successful internal audit, it
is important to have a supportive control environment, as the authors of [30] showed a
statistically significant positive correlation between the perceived usefulness of an internal
audit and a higher level of a supportive control environment. Under these conditions,
therefore, the managers and audit committee see internal audits as more effective, and
the perceived usefulness expected from an internal audit is higher. For an audit to be
conducted successfully, established steps need to be followed. Dobrowolski, Sulkowski,
and Adamisin [29] developed a set of instructions: specify the audit value and identify the
value stream, flow, pull, and perfection.
Another aspect upon which employees did not agree is that TPM was performed on
suitable equipment. At all levels, there was uncertainty about whether the optimisation
was conducted on the right set of machines. It is important to choose production equipment
and infrastructure in accordance with the demands of the lean production system. When
selecting the first pieces of equipment to showcase lean, it is important to analyse whether
the equipment is easy to operate and maintain. In addition, factors such as error proofing,
reliable maintenance, the safety of the operators, and support should be considered [31].
One way to start is by developing a pilot project using the piece of equipment or machine
that is most compatible with TPM optimisation. In this way, employees can clearly see
the benefits of TPM and lean activities, especially if they are just being introduced to
these philosophies, which they can later apply to the more complicated machines. The
fact that the study shows that there were significant concerns about whether the right
Systems 2024, 12, 52 14 of 18

equipment was selected for TPM’s implementation can indicate a lack of strategic selection
of suitable equipment. This may occur if technologists are not responsible for selecting the
equipment on which the pilot project is executed. Although it seems obvious, the selection
of equipment or part of a production line for the pilot project must always be performed by
the personnel who are the most educated about the tool being introduced, and there are
examples where this is not always the case.
Job security was recognised as the next key factor that can negatively impact the
introduction and sustainability of lean activities. Participants mostly expressed their
concern that if they did not participate in lean activities, their jobs could be endangered.
This can lead to routine work of low quality, or it can lead to a state in which workers do
the bare minimum just to get by. Lean can also have an impact on fears concerning its
transformation of the workplace and effects on employment [32]. Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Needs groups basic human needs into a hierarchy. They are physiological (i.e., food and
clothing), safety (i.e., job security), love and belonging needs (i.e., friendship), esteem, and
self-actualization [33]. It is no wonder that one of the biggest concerns of the employees
was job security, as this is, according to Maslow, the second human need in the hierarchy.
Therefore, it is important that employees are not threatened in this way by lean tools.
Educators must find a way to motivate employees to use lean tools that are not based
on fear but on their own benefit. Educators can study McClelland’s needs and theory
of motivation model, which attempts to explain how the needs for achievement, power
(authority), and affiliation affect people’s actions in a management context [34]. Motivators
are intrinsic factors that increase employees’ job satisfaction, whereas hygiene factors are
extrinsic factors for the prevention of employees’ dissatisfaction [35].
Another aspect that should be highlighted is the feeling by employees that lean
activities are not as important as other work tasks. That is often the case in companies
with a higher average age and with workers who have been at the company for multiple
decades. Some have performed their tasks for years in the same way. It is natural to feel
resistance to change. Lean activities should not be considered separate jobs but rather
integrated systems of existing tasks with the aim of optimising material and information
flow, but leaders need to take into account the amount of time needed for these activities
and adjust the workload accordingly.
On the other hand, the most positive answers were provided for the statements that
the enterprise will benefit from using lean tools and that time spent on performing lean
activities in production is a good investment. This shows that although employees may
have some doubts, they recognise that, in the end, it will be beneficial for the enterprise
in the long run. The survey also showed that one of the most recognised lean tools is
5S. It can be a good starting point for the introduction of lean in general because it is a
simple and cost-effective method for the organisation, optimisation, and standardisation of
the workplace.
When data were analysed at the company size level, it was evident that workers at
the small enterprise were concerned about job security while performing lean tasks. This
apprehension may lead to suboptimal job performance, obscuring actual issues, concealing
true outcomes, and conducting lean tasks shortly before audits, as acknowledged by the
employees themselves. The employees of the medium-sized enterprise did not recognise
audits as an important part of TPM and lean practices in general. It might appear that once
a system is established, there is no need for regular reviews and checks. However, auditing
any system is crucial to ensuring the stability, continuity, and quality of implemented
practices. A common consequence of lacking audits is that employees tend to become
complacent in performing their tasks, inevitably leading to a significant drop in quality.
Additionally, employees at Company 2 believed that TPM was not conducted on suitable
equipment. This could indicate a lack of strategic selection of equipment suitable for TPM
implementation. Like the employees at the medium-sized enterprise, the employees at
the large-sized enterprises also expressed that their biggest concerns were related to lean
audits and their benefits. This serves as another example of why the emphasis on auditing
Systems 2024, 12, 52 15 of 18

practices during training is vital. Educators must take the time to explain the role of audits
in the sustainability of implemented practices. Individuals at the other large-sized company
did not perceive lean tools as crucial for the company compared with other routine tasks
and activities. Additionally, they believed that insufficient time was allocated for these
activities. It is a common occurrence for lean activities to be perceived as an additional
burden on top of the daily responsibilities of workers. During the planning phase of
implementation, adequate time for these supplementary activities must be factored in.
The data were also observed at the level of position within a company. Operators often
failed to recognise the significance of lean and TPM tasks, and they typically executed these
tasks just before checks and audits. It is the responsibility of technologists and leaders to
prevent this by emphasising the importance of these tasks during the education and imple-
mentation processes. Technologists expressed concerns about job security and perceived
audits as not being a valuable use of time. The latter is significant, as technologists usually
possess the most knowledge about the desired lean tools and philosophies. It is possible
that their viewpoint is correlated with their third-lowest agreed-upon aspect, indicating
that the implementation of these practices is not conducted on suitable equipment. This
situation may arise if technologists are not involved in selecting the equipment for the pilot
project’s execution. Leaders recognised that lean activities were performed more actively,
mostly before audits. Often, lean is imposed on leaders by the management, which expects
results. Because leaders are often not the ones performing the tasks, it is easy for them to
underestimate these activities, as recognised in the survey. Management did not find the
time spent on audits to be particularly useful or that lean and TPM tools were implemented
within a reasonable period of time. Implementing lean tools can often extend up to two
years, depending on the enterprise’s size, the number of personnel involved, the scope of
implementation, and the number of lean tools to be implemented. Therefore, management
in this case expressed concern about the implementation’s time span. Establishing clear
milestones and time-bound goals is essential for maintaining a transparent dashboard to
monitor activities.
It was recognised that the Industry 4.0 (I4.0) paradigm can help reduce the negative
impact of some of the aspects mentioned in the study. I4.0 refers to the fourth industrial
revolution, characterised by the integration of digital technologies, automation, and data
exchange into manufacturing processes. It involves the use of technologies like the In-
ternet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence, and big data to create “smart factories” for
more efficient and interconnected industrial production. There is a positive correlation
between lean automation (LA) and operational performance within an Industry 4.0 en-
vironment. The integration of LA technologies positively impacts productivity, delivery,
inventory management, and quality—all crucial performance indicators [36]. The authors
of the study [37] emphasised the transformative effect of I4.0 on production dynamics,
replacing conventional forecast-based planning with real-time planning and dynamic
self-optimization. The study notes the importance of IoT devices in collecting data for
predictive maintenance and underscores the empowering effect of Digital Twins (DT) on
TPM. A study [38] suggests that VR, as part of I4.0, can serve as a substitute for physical
boards in guiding operators and training them for maintenance objectives. This has the
potential to enhance educational and training outcomes. The core concept in the study [39]
centres on the introduction of network-linked intelligent systems within I4.0, aiming to
achieve self-regulating production processes. The authors of [40] emphasise the role of
data science in I4.0, transforming real-time data into meaningful knowledge. This includes
activities such as collecting, checking, transforming, and restructuring data, highlighting
the significance of data-driven decision-making.
The transparency of data and its ready availability are key benefits offered by Industry
4.0. The ease of accessing real-time data through integrated systems reduces the laborious
task of manually filling out forms for overall equipment efficiency (OEE) calculations,
which can raise employee motivation and satisfaction. This streamlined data availability
makes decision-making more accurate and timely. The simulation capabilities of Indus-
Systems 2024, 12, 52 16 of 18

try 4.0 play a pivotal role in gaining insights into suitable equipment selection for TPM
implementation. By employing simulations, manufacturers can assess the compatibility
of equipment with lean philosophies, contributing to informed decision-making in the
implementation process. IoT, an integral component of Industry 4.0, enables the retrieval
of real-time data crucial for monitoring equipment performance. This real-time data are
essential for ensuring the continuous improvement of equipment efficiency and aligning
with TPM principles. The integrated functions, simulations, and real-time data collection
within Industry 4.0 positively impact employee satisfaction. Eliminating the need for
manual data collection enhances the efficiency of work processes, contributing to a more
satisfying and productive work environment. The integration of Industry 4.0 technologies
offers promising solutions to the challenges identified in lean manufacturing. From en-
hancing operational performance through automation to real-time planning, virtual reality
applications, self-regulating production, and leveraging data science, these technologies
pave the way for a more efficient and adaptive manufacturing landscape. Adopting In-
dustry 4.0 principles can contribute to overcoming obstacles and ensuring the successful
implementation and sustainability of lean tools and TPM practices.
Every factor identified by this research should be carefully considered before the
implementation of TPM tools, and appropriate actions must be taken to prevent potential
drawbacks in the introduction or sustainability of implemented practices.

5. Conclusions
The aim of this study was to recognise key factors that can negatively impact the intro-
duction and sustainability of TPM and lean tools in general. To achieve this, a survey was
developed that consisted of twenty-seven statements divided into three main categories:
knowledge of lean tools, implementation process of lean tools, and sustainability of lean
tools. The survey was conducted with four companies, ranging from fifty employees to
eight hundred employees. Employees could agree or disagree with the statement using
a scale ranging from one to five, with one meaning they did not agree and five meaning
they fully agreed with the individual statement. For the provided answers, an analysis
of variance and Cronbach’s alpha were performed to ensure the data obtained were cred-
ible. Answers were analysed by individual group (i.e., company) and by position in the
company’s hierarchy (i.e., operators, technologists, leaders, and managers). For better data
analysis results, functions such as operator, worker, manipulator, and production employee
were all grouped under the operators category; technologist, designer, and operating engi-
neer were grouped under technologists; leaders and heads of departments were grouped
under the leaders hierarchical level; and, finally, managers, directors, supervisors, and
executives were grouped in the managers category.
After the analysis of the answers, four key factors were recognised that could nega-
tively impact TPM and lean tools in general. These are a lack of recognition of the benefits
of an internal audit, equipment selection, job security, and not giving enough attention to
lean tasks (compared with other job activities). Recommendations were provided on how to
reduce the impact of these factors and prevent their negative influence. On the other hand,
some positive aspects were also recognised. Employees at all levels expressed the belief
that the enterprise would, in the end, benefit from the implementation of lean tools and
that the time invested in them was time well spent. This shows that employees recognised
the benefits, and if the training and implementation were conducted strategically in a
structured and careful manner, there was enough will to perform the tasks. Also, because
successful implementation depends on the support of management, it is positive that those
in management positions also recognise the benefits that lean may have for optimisation.
To achieve this, while planning the introduction of lean tools, it is important to prepare and
present a timeframe, timeline, or Gantt chart to managers or investors. Establishing clear
milestones and time-bound goals is essential for maintaining a transparent dashboard to
monitor activities. This approach helps prevent issues related to execution deadlines for
specific activities or the entire project.
Systems 2024, 12, 52 17 of 18

I4.0 addresses challenges in lean manufacturing by integrating technologies such as

IoT, AI, and big data. LA within I4.0 correlates positively with operational performance,
impacting productivity, delivery, inventory, and quality. Studies emphasise I4.0′ s trans-
formative effects on planning, maintenance, and employee training. Intelligent systems
in I4.0 aim for self-regulating production, while data science transforms real-time data
into meaningful knowledge. The transparency and availability of data offered by I4.0
streamline OEE calculations, reduce manual tasks, and boost employee satisfaction. Simu-
lation capabilities aid in equipment selection for TPM, ensuring compatibility with lean
philosophies. Adopting the principles of Industry 4.0 shows potential for overcoming
challenges and ensuring the effective implementation and long-term success of lean tools
and TPM practices.
However, this study is only applicable to manufacturing enterprises. Also, only
responses from participants with prior knowledge of the topic were included. This criterion
was applied to ensure that the collected data reflected a level of familiarity with the subject
matter, enhancing the relevance of the study’s findings.
For future research, there is the possibility of examining in depth all of the factors
mentioned that can have negative impacts and defining a strategic model for the imple-
mentation of TPM and other lean tools that is universally applicable to manufacturing
enterprises of all sizes. The provision of education and the use of a strategic approach are
key to the fully successful implementation of TPM and sustainable lean tools.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, T.S. and N.Š.; methodology, T.S.; software, T.S.; validation,
T.S. and N.Š.; formal analysis, T.S.; investigation, T.S.; resources, T.S.; data curation, T.S.; writing—
original draft preparation, T.S.; writing—review and editing, T.S.; visualisation, T.S.; supervision,
N.Š.; project administration, T.S.; funding acquisition, T.S.. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data is available upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ng, K.C.; Goh GG, G.; Eze, U.C. Barriers in total productive maintenance implementation in a semiconductor manufacturing
firm: A case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management,
Hong Kong, China, 10–13 December 2012.
2. Ramakrishnan, V.; Nallusamy, S. Implementation of total productive maintenance lean tool to reduce lead time—A case study.
Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 2017, 8, 295–306.
3. Suryaprakash, M.; Prabha, M.G.; Yuvaraja, M.; Revanth, R.R. Improvement of overall equipment effectiveness of machining
centre using tpm. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 46, 9348–9353. [CrossRef]
4. Munir, M.A.; Zaheer, M.A.; Haider, M.; Rafique, M.Z.; Rasool, M.A.; Amjad, M.S. Problems and Barriers Affecting Total Productive
Maintenance Implementation. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2019, 9, 4818–4823. [CrossRef]
5. Andras, I.; Nan, M.S.; Kovacs, I.; Cristea, D.; Tomescu, L.C. Research regarding the OEE (overall equipment effectiveness)
assessment of the coal open pit mines production system. Ann. Univ. Petroşani Mech. Eng. 2006, 8, 139–146.
6. Nahavandi, S. Industry 5.0—A Human-Centric Solution. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4371. [CrossRef]
7. Ozkeser, B. Lean innovation approach in Industry 5.0. Eurasia Proc. Sci. Technol. Eng. Math. 2018, 2, 422–428.
8. Nakajima, S. Introduction to Total Productive Maintenance (TPM); Productivity Press: Portland, OR, USA, 1988.
9. Madanhire, I.; Mbohwa, C. Implementing successful Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) in a manufacturing plant. In Proceed-
ings of the World Congress on Engineering, London, UK, 1–3 July 2015; Volume 2.
10. Manihalla, P.P.; Gopal, R.C.; Rao, S.T.; Javaraiah, R.M. A survey on factors affecting total productive maintenance (TPM) in service
industries. AIP Conf. Proc. 2019, 2080, 60005.
11. Jain, A.; Singh, H.; Bhatti, R.S. Identification of key enablers for total productive maintenance (TPM) implementation in Indian
SMEs. Benchmarking Int. J. 2018, 25, 2611–2634. [CrossRef]
12. Poduval, P.S.; Pramod, V.R.; Jagathy Ray, V.P. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and its application in analyzing factors
inhibiting implementation of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). Int. J. Qual. Reliabil. Manag. 2015, 32, 308–331. [CrossRef]
13. Xiang, Z.T.; Feng, C.J. Implementing total productive maintenance in a manufacturing small or medium-sized enterprise. J. Ind.
Eng. Manag. 2021, 14, 152–175. [CrossRef]
Systems 2024, 12, 52 18 of 18

14. Pačaiová, H.; Ižaríková, G. Base Principles and Practices for Implementation of Total Productive Maintenance in Automotive
Industry. Qual. Innov. Prosper. 2019, 23, 45–59. [CrossRef]
15. International Organization for Standardization. Quality Management Systems—Requirements (ISO Standard No. 9001:2015).
2015. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9001:ed-5:v1:en (accessed on 31 January 2024).
16. Chaurey, S.; Kalpande, S.D.; Gupta, R.; Toke, L.K. A review on the identification of total productive maintenance critical success
factors for effective implementation in the manufacturing sector. J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 2023, 29, 114–135. [CrossRef]
17. Necas, L. Training and practice to ensure implementation of the TPM system. MM Sci. J. 2020, 2020, 4124–4127. [CrossRef]
18. Manihalla, P.P.; Gopal, R.C.; Rao, S.T.R.; Jayaprakash, R. A survey approach to study the influence of management factor in
implementing TPM in selected SMEs. AIP Conf. Proc. 2020, 2236, 50001.
19. Žmuk, B. The most common problems and challenges in conducting business web surveys. Oeconomica Jadertina 2019, 9, 52–60.
[CrossRef]
20. Tuten, T.L. Advanced Methods for Conducting Online Behavioural Research; Gosling, S.D., Johnson, J.A., Eds.; American Psychological
Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; pp. 179–192.
21. Payne, R.; Harding WS, A.; Murray, D.A.; Soutar, D.M.; Baird, D.B.; Glaser, A.I. A Guide to ANOVA and Design in GenStat; VSN
International: Hempstead, UK, 2022.
22. McHugh, M.L. Multiple comparison analysis testing in ANOVA. Biochem. Medica 2011, 21, 203–209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Travers, J.C.; Cook, B.G.; Cook, L. Null Hypothesis Significance Testing and p-values. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pr. 2017, 32, 208–215.
[CrossRef]
24. Kim, H.-Y. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing means of more than two groups. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2014, 39, 74–77.
[CrossRef]
25. VVaske, J.J.; Beaman, J.; Sponarski, C.C. Rethinking Internal Consistency in Cronbach’s Alpha. Leis. Sci. 2017, 39, 163–173.
[CrossRef]
26. Adeniran, A.O. Application of Likert Scale’s Type and Cronbach’s Alpha Analysis in an Airport Perception Study. Sch. J. Appl.
Sci. Res. 2019, 2, 1–5.
27. Orcan, F. Comparison of Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega for ordinal data: Are they different? Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ.
2023, 10, 709–722. [CrossRef]
28. Definition of Internal Auditing, IIA Global. 2015. Available online: https://na.theiia.org/standardsguidance/mandatory-
guidance/Pages/Definition-of-Internal-Auditing.aspx (accessed on 12 December 2023).
29. Dobrowolski, Z.; Sulkowski, L.; Adamisin, P. Innovative ecosystem: The role of lean management auditing. Mark. Manag. Innov.
2022, 13, 9–20. [CrossRef]
30. Barišić, I.; Tušek, B. The importance of the supportive control environment for internal audit effectiveness—The case of Croatian
companies. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2016, 29, 1021–1037. [CrossRef]
31. Mohammadi, Z.; Shahbazi, S.; Kurdve, M. Critical factors in designing of lean and green equipment. In Proceedings of the
Cambridge International Manufacturing Symposium, (CIM Conference), Cambridge, UK, 11–12 September 2014.
32. Manyika, J.; Lund, S.; Chui, M.; Bughin, J.; Woetzel, J.; Batra, P.; Ko, R.; Sanghvi, S. Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transitions in a
Time of Automation; McKinsey Global Institute: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2017; Volume 11.
33. Cadiat, A.; Pichère, P. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Understand the True Foundations of Human Motivation; 50 Minutes: New York,
NY, USA, 2015.
34. McClelland, D.C. Human Motivation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1988.
35. Herzberg, F. One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review: Boston, MA, USA, 1976; Volume 40,
pp. 53–62.
36. Rossini, M.; Costa, F.; Tortorella, G.L.; Valvo, A.; Portioli-Staudacher, A. Lean Production and Industry 4.0 integration: How Lean
Automation is emerging in manufacturing industry. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 60, 6430–6450. [CrossRef]
37. Ciano, M.P.; Dallasega, P.; Orzes, G.; Rossi, T. One-to-one relationships between Industry 4.0 technologies and Lean Production
techniques: A multiple case study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 59, 1386–1410. [CrossRef]
38. Mayr, A.; Weigelt, M.; Kühl, A.; Grimm, S.; Erll, A.; Potzel, M.; Franke, J. Lean 4.0–A conceptual conjunction of lean management
and Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP 2018, 72, 622–628. [CrossRef]
39. Kovacs, G.; Kot, S. New Logistics and Production Trends as the Effect of Global Economy Changes. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 14,
115–126. [CrossRef]
40. Pozzi, R.; Cannas, V.G.; Ciano, M.P. Linking data science to lean production: A model to support lean practices. Int. J. Prod. Res.
2022, 60, 6866–6887. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.