Or (T
Abstrac factors the man frequen conduc operati have po organiz attempt perform respond selected organiz Therefo perform Keywor Organiz
1. In Many several they r present manufa practic
*Corresp DOI: htt Print ISS Copyrig
The
rganizatio TPM) and
1School
ct. Market glob that influence nufacturing co ntly used is the ted in relation onal performa ositive and ne zation that influ ts to investigat mance. Rasch dents in perfor d automotive co zational culture ore by the imp mance.
rd: Total Pr zational cultur
ntroduction businesses in l new busines remain in th t. According acturing is ces in various
ponding author.
tp://dx.doi.org/1 SN: 1978-6956;
ght@2013. Publi
e Asian Journal
onal Cultu Operation
Mohd Norh of Technolog
2Colleg balization, com the success of mpanies to be e Total Preven n to the TPM ance. However egative impact uenced the imp te the influenc
model is used rming the diff ompanies loca e has influence plementation o
reventive Ma re, Rasch mode
n Asia have tr ss initiatives he market c g to Holweg the best m industries.
Email: mnorhas 0.12695/ajtm.20 Online ISSN: 20 shed by Unit Re
l of Technology
ure Influen nal Perfor
hasni Mohd A gy Manageme ge of Busines mpetitive produ
f the manufactu efficient in pr ntive Maintenan
but there is li r, the result of t on operation plementation of
e of organizat in this study d ficult items. Th ated at Norther
ed on the succe of TPM in ou
aintenance (TP el
ried to receiv to ensure tha competitive a g (2007) lea
manufacturin
[email protected] 013.6.2.2
089-791X.
esearch and Know
y Management
nce On To mance Us
Asaad1 and Ru ent and Logist ss, Universiti uct and service
uring compani roduction and l nce (TPM), ev imited research f the studies w nal performanc of TPM and op
tional culture o due to its abili he online ques rn Region of Ma
essful implemen tstanding orga TPM), Lean
ve at at an ng
Lean lean Main Produ impor mach capab
my
wledge
t Vol. 6 No. 2
otal Produ sing RASC
ushami Zien Y tics, Universi
Utara Malays es, high econo ies in global m lean tool may ven though the h in investiga was not consist
ce. Among th perational perfo
on the TPM im ity in interpreti
stionnaires we Malaysia. Resul ntation of TPM anizational cu
manufacturing
manufacturi tools suc ntenance (TP uctive Main rtant role in hines and in
bility.
(2013): 72-81
uctive Main CH Model
Yusoff2 iti Utara Mala
sia
mic crises are market. Therefo used to achiev ere are many s ting the effect tent, where TP e reason is th formance. Due mplementation ing and analyz ere distributed lts of the study M and operatio ulture can imp g, Operationa
ng consists o ch as Tot PM) (Greene ntenance (TP
n effectively n improving
ntenance Analysis
aysia
e the most criti ore it is critical
ve that. The m studies have be ts of the TPM PM practice m he culture of
to that this stu n and operatio
zing the ability d to 63 random y revealed that onal performan prove operatio al performan
of a number tal Preventi e, 2002). To PM) plays managing t g the machi
ical l to most een on may the udy nal y of mly the nce.
nal nce,
of ive otal an the ine
Mohd Asaad and Yusoff, Organizational Culture Influence On Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) and Operational Performance Using RASCH Model Analysis
However poor organisational competencies in managing the maintenance function effectively can severely affect competitiveness by reducing throughput, increasing inventory, and leading to poor due date performance (Ashayeri, 2007). According to Georgios and Prodromos (2008) organizational performance can be divided into two parts: financial performance and non-financial performance.
The operational performance is part of the non-financial performance and is defined as the measurement aspects organization output resulting from organizational processes (Voss, Ahlstrom, & Blackmon, 1997).
According to John (1999) many TPM implementation failed due to the culture of the organization. Organizational culture is defined as the values and beliefs that are practiced by all employees in an organization (Weese, 1996). According to Maddox (2009) the successful implementation of TPM, shall begin with the commitment and leadership of the management team to ensure the success of the program. Radnor and Walley (2008)
argues that a change in attitude not only to management but involve all employees in order to create lasting organizational change.
Therefore, this study is intended to determine the influence of organizational culture on the relationship TPM with operational performance.
2. Research Framework
After explaining the problem statement, the next step is to build a conceptual framework to guide research. Hence the conceptual framework of major importance in identifying the concept, the relationship between the variables and the direction of the relationship.
Figure 1: Research Framework shows the relationship between TPM, organizational culture and operational performance. The independent variable in this framework is TPM. On the other hand, the dependent variable is the performance of the operation.
Organizational culture is a moderator variable between TPM and operational performance.
Figure 1. Research Framework
2.1 . Research Methodology
Sample survey or population study is comprised of companies that manufacture products and automotive components adopting lean tools. These companies or the respondent are a supplier of components and products to
the automotive industry. This study only focused on the Northern Peninsular Malaysia only covering Perlis, Kedah, Penang and Perak. This is because most of the automotive companies operating in the area north of the peninsular and has the same type of manufacturing process. Respondents assigned
Operational Performance
Organizational culture
TPM
The Asian Journal of Technology Management Vol 6. No.2 (2013):72-81
a six-digit code to facilitate analysis. The first two digits indicate the number of respondents or organization is the location of the third digit, fourth digit indicates the number of years of operation, the fifth digit indicates the number of employees and sixth digits indicate the total turnover.
Based on the total sample, this study considers the results of tests on samples of this study may reflect the results of the overall study population. A total of 76 companies have been identified through the list of suppliers in the vehicle manufacturer. The sample size for population size 76 is 63 (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970; Sekaran, 2003). Thus a total of 63 were randomly selected and required to fill out an online questionnaire or online. Unit of analysis for this study is the organization and most of the respondents were CEOs, managers, engineers and executives.
This questionnaire is designed to assess the capacity of organizations in implementing TPM items to enhance operational performance and the influence of organizational culture on this relationship. It was developed based on extensive literature review and also expert opinion involving management representative in the organization. Before further research was conducted it is important to ensure the instrument used is valid and reliable. Due to the importance of reliable instrument, the instrument should represent what it is supposed to measure; hence the objective of this paper is to conduct an exercise to check the reliability of the instruments using Rasch Model.
These questions are divided into three variables, namely TPM as independent variables and the operational performance as the dependent variable and the culture of the organization as a moderator variable. The formation of this research question was to undergo two types of measurement validity, content validity and construct validity.
Content validity is to ensure that the measurement includes a series of items that emphasize concepts. Construct validity to test
all these questions the appropriateness of an item analysis to meet or fit the Rasch model.
Reliability test was conducted to measure the extent to which the indicator without bias (error-free) and ensure consistent measurement over time and include various items in the instrument (Sekaran, 2003). In the Rasch model reliability of the instrument can be seen through the items and reliability of person.
Most of the questions were mostly taken from previous studies and modified to suit the purposes of some, such as TPM (McLachlin, 1992), organizational culture (Cameron, Kim, Quinn, & Robert, 1999; Knapp, 2010) and operational performance (Ahmad &
Schroeder, 2003). TPM questions divided into two dimensions with B11.X code where the X indicates the number of dimensions Preventive Maintenance (1), and Equipment (2). While organizational culture questions divided into six dimensions with C.Y code where the value of Y indicates the number of dimensions of dominant feature (1), leadership organization (2) employee management (3), bonding organization (4), emphasis strategic (5) and success criteria (6). Similarly, the operating performance of questions it is divided into six dimensions with D.Z code where the Z indicates the number of dimensions of quality (1) cost (2), time (3), delivery (4), productivity (5) and flexibility (6). Six Likert scale measurement range (6 point Likert scales) used in this study. This is because the scale of measurement does not provide the range of 6 points midrange (midpoint) or neutral point (Tang, Shaw, & William, 1999).
2.2 . Rasch Model
Current practice of measuring performance is only counting the responses of priorities from the organizations. The rating is only an order of preference; which is continuum in nature and it is not linear and also do not have equal intervals which contradict with the nature of numbers for statistical analysis (A. A. Aziz, 2008). In Traditional Test, the scatter plot is applied to establish the best regression.
However prediction from ordinal response is
Moh
almost scale. T approa points to mak polatio Aziz, M
& Mas
In obta exist d and pre differe Since predict equatio can be probab predict Under have t (Aziz e than es the co
“best f reliable Wright Aziz constru measur focusin trait m expecte the co results reliabil
hd Asaad and Yu
t impossible d The normal s ach is to esta as best as po ke the requi on or extra-po Mohamad, A sodi, M., 2007
Figure 2. B
y aining the be differences be edicted point;
nce is referre there is alw tion model, t on (1) render e overcome bilistic mod
tion error into y = the Rasch ph to fit the Ra et al., 2007;
stablishing “b oncept of rel fit line” of t e repeatable t & Mok et et al. (20 ucting the m rement mod ng on the re measurement ed generation mmon expec being a rel lity takes its r
Yusoff, Organizat
due to absenc olution in lin ablish a line w
ossible; which ired predictio olation as nec A., Arshad, N
7) as shown in
Best fit line conc
= β0 + β1 m est fit line, h etween the ac
; that is on be d as error, e yi – ýi = ei ( ways errors in
the determini rs itself less by transform del by in o the equation β0 + β1m + hilosophy the asch model’s Bond & Fox best fit line”.
liability from the data into measuremen al, (2004) e 08). Rasch measurement d
del with of producibility
instead of n of the same
ctation on re liable test, th rightful place
tional Culture Inf
ce of interval near regressio which fits th h is then use ons by inter cessary (A. A N., Zakaria, S
n Figure 2.
cept
(1)
however, ther ctual point; y est fit line. Th (2)
nvolve in th istic model o reliable. Thi ming it into ncluding th n;
e (3) data collecte s specificatio x, 2007) rathe
Rasch move m establishin o producing nt instrumen extracted from
focuses o data to suit f errors. B of the laten f forcing th
raw score, i.
epeatability o he concept o e in supportin
nfluence On Tota
ls n he d r- A.
.,
re i, he
he of is a he
d n er es ng a nt m n a y nt he .e of of ng
validi Rasch allow specif i.e.
stoch items expre succe
or Eu keupa
This analy analy social the perfo 2007;
3. Fi The m Keda Perak popul indus Perak respo of m indus
Pena 6, 2
al Productive Ma Performa
ity rather tha h it is requir w for measure fically in a c
a positive hastically imp
s being easy o essed as the essful as;
where:
e uler’s number βn ayaan person δi study used t ysis because i ysis of quantit l sciences an
ability of rmance of di
; Saifudin et a inding and D majority of re ah (65%), foll k (9%). The lation in whi stry in the st k as that show ondents by sta manufacturin stries are loca
Figure 3. Num ang,
26%
Pera 9%
Maintenance (TPM ance Using RAS
an being in red to test w ement on linea
cumulative re response lies a positive or otherwise.
e ratio of a
= base of na r; 2.7183
n = per = item or tas the Rasch mo it is very app tative data, e nd also it is a each respo ifficult items al., 2010).
Discussion espondents ar
lowed by Pen e data obtain ich most of tate of Keda wn in the Figu ate. These pl ng activities ated in vendor
mber of responde Perlis, 0,
0%
k, 2,
%
M) and Operatio CH Model Analy
contentions.
whether the d ar interval sc esponse proce
to an ite e response to
Rasch Model an event bei
atural logarith rson’s abil
sk difficulty odel for furth propriate in t especially in t able to measu ondent in t s (Bond & Fo
re in the state nang (26%) a ned reflect t the automoti ah, Penang a ure 3 Number laces have a s and som r village areas
ents by state ,
Kedah, 15, 65%
onal ysis
In ata ale ess em all l is ing
hm lity
her the the ure the ox,
of and the ive and r of lot me s.
The Asia
There operati four organiz organiz obtaine industr years, more t Numbe
Figure the ma study Five c betwee compa ranging
21‐3 year 4, 17
an Journal of Te
are 12 orga ing between organization zations (2 zations (30 y ed reflect th ry has been
while 13% sa than 30 yea er of years in
Figure 4. Numb
5 Number o ajority of co had more th companies (2 en 51 to 15
nies (30%) g from 5 to 50
Figure 5 30
rs, 7%
30 years above 3, 13%
More than 150
person, 11, 48%
echnology Manag
anizations th 11-20 years ns (1-10 1-30 years years and abo e 52% of th operating b ay it has been ars as shown
operation.
ber of years in o
of Employees ompanies inv han 150 empl 22%) have 0 people an who hav 0 people.
. Number of Em 1‐
yea 4, 1 11‐2 years 12, 52 s
e,
%
Less than 5 person,
0, 0% pe
5 per 0
,
%
gement Vol 6. N
hat have bee s followed b
years), s) and ove). The dat he automotiv etween 11-2 n operating fo n in Figure
operation
s, showed tha volved in thi loyees (48%) an employe nd only seve e employee
mployees 10 ars, 18%
0 s, 2%
5‐50 erson, 7,
30%
1‐150 rson, 5,
22%
No.2 (2013):72-8
n y 4 3 ta ve 0 or 4
at is ).
ee n es
Sales 48%
earnin millio millio inform incom
In cla measu analy line w know beyon repro expre (Aziz The d Rasch progr In o collec Statis overa
81
turnover fo earning more ng between on and 17%
on to MYR mation is ex mes.
Fig
assical test th ures are fro ysis. However
with the con wn Item Res nd this measu
ducibility o essing the re z et al., 2007) data from the h Model sta ram, Winstep rder to ana cted fit the stic Table as all summary s
More t MYR,00
00 48%
or these com e than MYR2 MYR250, 0
% earned be R25 million xplained in F
gure 6. Sales inc
heory reliabil om Cronbach
r Rasch Mod ncept of mod
sponse Theo urement by f of measures eproducibility
.
e survey was atistical com p 3.68.2 (Bon alyze how g e Rasch mo
s per Table statistic.
Less than MYR250,0
0 0%
M M than
00,0 0
%
mpanies show 25 million, 35 00 to the 10 tween MYR n. The abo Figure 6 Sa
comes
lity and valid h-α and Fac del which is dern test theo ory (IRT) go focusing on t s rather th of raw scor
analyzed usi mputer softwa
nd et al., 200 good the d odel, Summa
1 provides t
n 00
MYR250,00 0 ‐ MYR10,000
,000 35%
MYR10,000 ,000 ‐ MYR25,000
,000 17%
wed 5%
0th R10 ove ales
dity ctor in ory oes the han res
ing are 07).
ata ary the
0 0
Moh
Mean SD Max Min Item R Person In Ras further reliabil reliabil indicat item p scale reliabil deemed showin validity is of ‘F that th person the ve constru valid d The m that th genera prescri item is item is deviati small s is at 0
hd Asaad and Yu Table 1.
Reliability:
n Reliability:
sch the reliab r in term of p lity. The pe lity index pro tes the reliabi placements re (Bond et lity index is d ‘Excellent’
ng the stabili y. Item reliab Fair’ reliabili he assessment ability and ery crucial t uct validity data (Andrich
ean item is at e organizatio l have the a ibed in the s located at s located at -1 ion of 0.55 lo spread within
.77 logit. Wh
Fi
Yusoff, Organizat
Summary Statis
M
bility issues person reliab erson reliabil ovided in the ility of person espectively al al., 2007).
s given at 0
’ reliability (F ity of the pe bility index is
ty (Fisher, 20 t tool can dis the difficult test as it de of the instr h, 1988; Bond t -0.13 logit.
n involved in ability to rea study. The m 1.08 logit an 1.02 logit wit
ogit which in n the data. The hile the maxim
igure 7. Expecte
tional Culture Inf
stics for TPM, O
MEASURE (Logit)
-0.13 0.55 1.08 -1.02 0.78
0.94 are discusse bility and item
lity and item above Table n ordering an long the log The perso 0.94 which i Fisher, 2007) erson respons
at 0.78 whic 007), inferrin scriminate th item. This i etermines th rument henc d et al., 2007)
This indicate n this study i ach the item most difficul nd the easies th the standar nferring to th e mean perso mum logit fo
ed Score ICC TP
nfluence On Tota Organizational Cu
d m m 1 nd it n is ), se h ng he is he ce ).
es in ms lt st rd he n or
perso perso which respo are re which in p gener data Meas Mean These to en analy (2007 Corr MNS stand Expec Cultu are in Confi the v All it data used.
PM, Organization
al Productive Ma Performa ulture and Opera
OUT.
MNSQ 0.82 0.26 1.42 0.50
on is 2.43 logi on is -0.48 log h indicate a ondents. The
espondents ab h indicates re performing th
rates useful i fit the mod sure correlat n Square (MN
e measures a nsure the dat ysis. The gu 7) the quality
should lies SQ should be dard should be
cted Score ure and Perfor n between two fidence Interv value is in the
tems are 95%
shows the fi
nal Culture and P
Maintenance (TPM ance Using RAS ational Performa
it and the min git and the ran a bigger spre data also sh bove the maxi
espondent’s e the items. R
information i del, the meas tion (PtMea
NSQ) and z are used as ‘ ta can be u uidelines giv
y control va s between 0
within 0.5 an e between -2 ICC TPM, rmance show o lines or con val Curve. Da
e trusted leve
% confident in it to the mod
Performance
M) and Operatio CH Model Analy ance
OUT.
ZSTD -0.6
0.9 1.4 -1.9
nimum logit nge is 3.97 lo ead among t hows that the
imum item lo excellent abil Rasch analy in ensuring t sures are Po Corr), Out -Standard Te quality contr used for furth
ven by Fish alue for Pt-M 0.40 and 0.8 nd 1.5 and the
and 2. Figure Organization wed that the d
nfidence interv ata showed th el of reliabili nterval betwe del and can
onal ysis
for ogit the ere ogit lity ysis the oint tfit est.
rol’
her her, Mea 80, e z-
e 7 nal ata val hat ity.
een be
The Asian Journal of Technology Management Vol 6. No.2 (2013):72-81
TABLE 1.0 Lean tools (TPM), OC and OP ZOU880WS.TXT Sep 23 15:27 2013 INPUT: 23 Person 269 Item MEASURED: 22 Person 29 Item 6 CATS WINSTEPS 3.69.1.16 ---
Person - MAP - Item <more>|<rare>
3 + | | | 123244 T|
092222 | | 2 + 233244 | 032233 | 182244 S|
| 192233 |
| C1.2 1 +T
072222 102243 113344 202222 212243 |
172344 223344 M| C3.4 C6.3
| C2.1 D1.2
042122 |S C1.1 C3.2 012244 |
082222 132132 | C5.3 C6.1 C6.2
0 022222 S+ B11.2.9 C2.3 D6.2 D6.3
062444 142134 |M C1.3 D2.5
154334 | B11.2.3 B11.2.5
162444 | B11.1.1 C5.4
| B11.1.2 B11.2.2 D1.3 D5.1
|S B11.2.4 B11.2.7 T|
-1 + B11.1.3 B11.2.1 D4.1
<less>|<frequ>
Figure 8: Map Variables TPM, Organizational Culture and Operational Performance
TPM Organization Culture Operation Performance
Average item:
‐0.03 logit Average person:
0.77 logit
Mohd Asaad and Yusoff, Organizational Culture Influence On Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) and Operational Performance Using RASCH Model Analysis
Figure 8 Map Variables TPM, Organizational Culture and Operational Performance shows the relationship between the person (respondent) with items (questions). Person position is on the left in map variable while item position on the other hand on the right.
Person position arranged from average levels (mean) where highest position shows the person the ability to answer those items. Top position show person can answer many items while the bottom person position can managed to answer a little item. The item on the right side of the variable map shows the level of difficulty of items. The item on the bottom left side of variable map shows the items easily to answer or to be implemented. To facilitate the analysis made, these items are rearranged according to TPM, organizational culture and performance of operations.
Thirteen person (respondent) was well above the average person (0.77 logit), two are on average and while nine person below average as shown in Figure 8 Map Variables TPM, Organizational Culture and Operational Performance. The highest ranking person is 123244 and the lowest person is 162444.
Based on the organization code shown person (162444) which is the lowest in the state of Kedah and has been in operation for 30 years, has more than 150 employees and achieved a turnover of over 25 million. Person (123244), which are at the top shows the organization's ability to perform the whole item. Based on that organization indicates this organization is in the state of Penang and has been operating between 21 to 30 years, has more than 150 employees and achieved a turnover of over 25 million.
One item TPM is on average (-0.03 logit ) and nine items are below average. The lowest items are B11.1.3 and B11.2.1 but the highest is B11.2.9 items. Item below 162444 person shows a simple question answered by all organizations. In total all items TPM below the average line can be easily implemented by 20 organizations (from 142134 to 123244 person).
All organizational culture items are above average except C5,4 This shows that these items are difficult to answer This shows that these items are difficult to answer by the organization. The lowest item is C5.4 and the highest is C1.2 items. Only six person can answer to all the items (092 222, 123244, 233244, 032233, 183244 and 193233). Based on that, five person had operates between 21 and 30 years and three of them have more than 150 workers with earnings over 25 million.
Although most organizations have different backgrounds, but it is easy to adopt the culture of the organization. To achieve the success that other organizations should strive to overcome.
There are four items operating performance was well above average and three items are below average. The easiest item to be addressed is related to the delivery DP4.1 while the most difficult item to be addressed is D1.2 to the quality. Most items are above average levels which showed operating performance items difficult to answer and illustrate the difficulty of achieving operational performance. However, 13 organizations ( from 123 244 to 223344 ) easily answer all the operating performance questions and it show that all organizations are concerned to achieve outstanding operational performance.
On the other organization (person 162444) is only able to answer questions (item D1.3, D5.1 and D4.1) showed low operating performance. Based on the organization code shown person (162444) which is the lowest in the state of Kedah and has been in operation for 30 years, has more than 150 employees and achieved a turnover of over 25 million.
This shows that even if the organization has a good background, but it is not able to achieve good performance. This is likely caused obstruction in the culture of the organization.
The operational performance is achieved by implementing all items TPM and operating performance and overcome obstacles that are present in the culture of the organization.
The Asian Journal of Technology Management Vol 6. No.2 (2013):72-81
However, to achieve outstanding operational performance, organizations must be able to answer all items organizational culture and items operational performance. There are six organizations (from 123244 to 192233 person) are able to implement TPM and good organizational culture and achieve outstanding operational performance.
4. Conclusion
The study conducted showed clearly that the TPM are tool that can improve operational performance. The successful implementation of TPM is not entirely dependent on the number of years of operation, number of employees and sales turnover. Success or failure in the implementation of TPM to excel in operational performance much influenced by the culture of the organization.
This is in line with the view of some researchers TPM (Halim Mad & Ramayah, 2010; Johnson, 2001; Park & Han, 2001) and also other lean tools (Al Smadi, 2009;
Charlene & Harold, 2002; John, 1999;
Taleghani, 2010) as Charlene (2002) opined that organizational culture is a big obstacle in the implementation of cellular manufacturing.
Organizational leadership is one of the most important factors in the lead role of organizational culture TPM implementation in the organization (Park & Han, 2001;
Taleghani, 2010).
In addition to the bond between the employee and the employee and employee-management needs to be improved from time to time. It can be done by improving the relationship between the employee and also through training programs. Some researchers say one of the main obstacles is the willingness of people to change, especially unionized organization (Hutchins, 2007). However, if organizations implement good labor management, it will increase employee motivation (Mahal, 2009) and motivate employees with successful TPM activities.
Researchers agree that the main obstacle to change is an issue that must be addressed by the organization in excellent shape
organizational culture. However, with a strategic emphasis and understand the criteria for success of an organization is able to form a good organizational culture and achieve excellence in operational performance. This study focuses on TPM one of the lean tools, it can be expanded as future research to determine the influence of organizational culture on the relationship between the other lean tools and operational performance.
Reference
Al Smadi, S. (2009). Kaizen strategy and the drive for competitiveness: challenges and opportunities. Competitiveness Review 19 (3):
203.
Ashayeri, J. (2007). Development of computer-aided maintenance resources planning (CAMRP): A case of multiple CNC machining centers. Robotics and Computer- Integrated Manufacturing 23 (6).
Aziz, A. A. (2008). Rasch Model fundalmentals: Scale construct and measurement structure. Kuala Lumpur.
Aziz, A. A., Mohamad, A., Arshad, N., Zakaria, S., & Masodi, M. (2007). Appraisal of Course Learning Outcomes using Rasch Measurement: A Case Study In Information Technology Education. International Journal of Systems Applications, Engineering &
Development 4 (1).
Charlene, A. Y., & Harold, J. S. (2002).
Cellular manufacturing for small businesses:
Key cultural factors that impact the conversion process. Journal of Operations Management 20 (5): 593.
Georgios, N. T., & Prodromos, D. C. (2008).
Enhancing performance through best HRM practices, organizational learning and knowledge management. European Business Review 20 (3): 185.
Greene, B. M. (2002). A taxonomy of the adoption of lean production tools and techniques. Ph.D., The University of
Mohd Asaad and Yusoff, Organizational Culture Influence On Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) and Operational Performance Using RASCH Model Analysis
Tennessee, United States -- Tennessee.
Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=765622
341&Fmt=7&clientId=28929&RQT=309&V Name=PQD
Halim Mad, L., & Ramayah, T. (2010).
Maintenance strategy in Malaysian manufacturing companies: a total productive maintenance (TPM) approach. Business Strategy Series, 11(6), 387-396. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1751563101109309 8
Holweg, M. (2007). The genealogy of lean production. Journal of Operations Management 25 (2): 420-437.
Hutchins, C. B. (2007). Five "S" improvement system: An assessment of employee attitudes and productivity improvements. Ph.D., Capella University, United States -- Minnesota. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=122173
8901&Fmt=7&clientId=28929&RQT=309&
VName=PQD
John, J. L. (1999). Use mathematical modeling to give your TPM implementation effort an extra boost. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 5 (1): 62.
Johnson, M. A. (2001). Work group satisfaction as a predictor of total productive maintenance (TPM) performance outcomes.
Ph.D., Wayne State University, United States - - Michigan.
Krejcie, R., & Morgan, D. (1970).
Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement 30, 607-610.
Mahal, P. K. (2009). Organizational culture and organizational climate as a determinant of
motivation. IUP Journal of Management Research 8 (10): 38-51.
McLachlin, R. D. (1992). Management initiatives and the implementation of Just-In- Time manufacturing by Canadian firms.
Ph.D., The University of Western Ontario (Canada), Canada.
Park, K. S., & Han, S. W. (2001). TPM--Total Productive Maintenance: Impact on competitiveness and a framework for successful implementation. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 11(4), 321-338. doi: 10.1002/hfm.1017
Radnor, Z., & Walley, P. (2008). Learning to Walk Before We Try to Run: Adapting Lean for the Public Sector. Public Money &
Management 28 (1): 13-20.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: a Skill Building Approach. New York: John Wiley.
Taleghani, M. (2010). Success and failure issues to lead lean manufacturing implementation. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 62, 618.
Tang, R., Shaw, J., & William, M. (1999).
Towards the identification of the optimal number of relevance categories. [Article].
Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50 (3): 254-264.
Voss, C. A., Ahlstrom, P., & Blackmon, K.
(1997). Benchmarking and operational performance: Some empirical results.
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 17 (10).
Weese, W. J. (1996). Do leadership and organizational culture really matter? Journal of Sport Management 10 (2): 197-206.
