Friday, August 8, 2025

Technical Drawings - Important Guidelines - Process Planning and Industrial Engineering

Lesson 66 of Industrial Engineering ONLINE Course.

Lesson 67. Selection of Metal Removal Processes - Initial Steps - Process Planning and Process Industrial Engineering

4. Technical Drawings


1 Drawing

1.1Dimensioning Dimensioning from datum
1.2 Redundant dimensioning
1.3 Stackup of tolerances by arithmetic method
1.4 Geometric tolerances
1.5 Geometric tolerances interpretation
1.6 Surface roughness
1.6.1 Definition of surface finish methods

2.Production Drawing Tolerances

Process planners have to understand the functional requirements of the design and can suggest design changes that make production easy and economical.

2.1 Tolerancing in production
Any dimension and its surface finish are not achieved in one production operation. Therefore, each production operation are to be specified with a tolerance such that the sum of all the tolerance results in the tolerance specified for the component at the end of the  final operation.

2.1.1 Process to meet geometric tolerances

Causes of geometric deviations

1. Fixturing: Multiple fixturing increases deviations.
2. Machine accuracy and rigidity
3. Tool accuracy
4. Tool deflection
5. Cutting temperature
6. Vibrations in machine tool and cutting tool
7. Material heterogeneities
8. Kinematics

Hence careful choice and combination of machine tools, cutting conditions, tooling and fixtures and production operation level of tolerance strategies are required to achieve the tolerances specified in component drawing.

2.1.2 Production tolerancing
2.2 Tolerances in forming operations

3 Short Review of Statistical Tolerancing
3.1 Process Capability






1 Drawing

Basics of Engineering Drawings - Reading Drawings

___________



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9eqr6EBMP9cOZHwSjGeAKA
_____________

1.1 Dimensioning  from datum

For the dimensions of parts that would assemble, the dimensioning should originate at a datum. The datum is indicated in the drawing.

1.2 Redundant dimensioning

In a given direction, a surface should be indicated by one and only dimension.

_____________

_____________


_____________

_____________

1.3 Stackup of tolerances by arithmetic method

For examples in case of step turning with multiple steps, the interval tolerance of the result is equal to the sum of the tolerances of the components in length.

1.4 Geometric tolerances

The geometrical tolerances of form and positions are defined in the ISO standard for Tolerances for Form and Position (ISO Standard 111, 1983)

Terminology of Geometric Tolerances

Category                                     Characteristics

Form                                 Flatness

Orientation                        Perpendicularity

Location                            Position

Runout                              Circular Runout

Profile                                Profile of a line

1.5 Geometric tolerances interpretation

___________________


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXqYOKF7Q7U
___________________


___________________


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NArW09DFhf8
___________________

___________________


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEIX0gIa5Tk

Channel  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFw3UXCq7iG3LBh4JyK5d0A
___________________

1.6 Surface roughness

1.6.1 Definition of surface finish methods

Surface Finish Parameters used in industry today.

1. Arithmetic Average Roughness

2. Geometric Average Roughness

3. Peak-to-Valley Roughness Height

4. Ten-Point Height

5. Bearing Length Ratio

6. Peak Count

Related Articles

Surface Finish - Industrial Engineering and Productivity Aspects

Surface Finish, Integrity and Flatness in Machining


2.Production Drawing Tolerances

Process planners have to understand the functional requirements of the design and can suggest design changes that make production easy and economical.

2.1 Tolerancing in production
Any dimension and its surface finish are not achieved in one production operation. Therefore, each production operation are to be specified with a tolerance such that the sum of all the tolerance results in the tolerance specified for the component at the end of the  final operation.

2.1.1 Process to meet geometric tolerances

Causes of geometric deviations

1. Fixturing: Multiple fixturing increases deviations.
2. Machine accuracy and rigidity
3. Tool accuracy
4. Tool deflection
5. Cutting temperature
6. Vibrations in machine tool and cutting tool
7. Material heterogeneities
8. Kinematics

Hence careful choice and combination of machine tools, cutting conditions, tooling and fixtures and production operation level of tolerance strategies are required to achieve the tolerances specified in component drawing.



2.1.2 Production tolerancing - Feasibility

Halevi gave the example of set up with fixture repeatability of 0.1 mm and the machine accuracy of 0.02 mm. When the counterbore is made this machine and fixture, the length of the internal minor diameter will come 20 + or - 0.04.  It is acceptable because the required dimension is  20 + or - 0.1 mm.

The total length of the work piece is 70 mm, minor bore is 20 mm and counter bore length is 30 mm. So the length of the uncut portion is 20 mm and with this present errors it will come out to be 20 + or - 0.14. Acceptable because required dimension is 20 + or - 0.15.

But if machine accuracy is 0.03 mm, the resulting dimension tolerance will be 20 + or - 0.16. Not acceptable. Hence it is important to know the error quantities and see whether the machine and accessories in combination can produce the part to the specification or not.





2.2 Tolerances in forming operations


Halevi has given the example of a die working on a sheet metal blank.  He says errors or tolerances achieved are of three types.

1. Tool dependent dimensions.
2. non-tool-dependent and
3. non-tool dependent dimensions in the direction of the closing the tool (travel of the punch).

Machine accuracy is estimated by type three errors. Improvement of machine accuracy and jigs and fixtures will minimize type 2 errors. Tool accuracy has to be improved for type 1 errors.

3 Short Review of Statistical Tolerancing
3.1 Process Capability

Manickavasagam Natarajan   
𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗿𝗮𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀??
Excellent Video to kick start your learning process 
Credit - GaugeHow® Mechanical Engineering YouTube channel 





Ud. 7.8.2025
Pub.23.7.2020







Thursday, August 7, 2025

Effective Industrial Engineering - Some Thoughts

 

Effective industrial engineering has to satisfy management about the contribution it made to the organization.

The prime contribution of IE has to be cost reduction through productivity improvement.

Productivity improvement is achieved through time reduction of capital assets and human resources and usage reduction of consumable items.

Reduction of machine time and man time have to be made through time studies. Time study was developed by F.W. Taylor to do this task. The purpose of time study is to measure the time taken being taken currently  by each element of the task and study each element to find opportunities for time reduction. The time study includes time measurement (or work measurement) and analysis for drivers of time at element level.

If the Time study is taken as  the highest level task, it will have many lower level studies.

Machine Capabilities

Manpower capabilities

Method study

Motion study

Machine Appropriateness Study etc.


Draft Comprehensive plan to make an industrial engineering department more effective


Here's an outline of a comprehensive plan to make an industrial engineering department more effective:


Plan to Enhance Industrial Engineering Department Effectiveness

This plan focuses on key pillars to ensure the Industrial Engineering (IE) department operates at its peak, delivering maximum value to the organization.


I. Define Vision, Mission, and Scope

Department Vision:


Establish a clear, concise vision statement that articulates the desired future state of the IE department (e.g., "To be the strategic partner in optimizing organizational processes, driving efficiency, and fostering innovation across all operations.").


Mission Statement:


Develop a mission statement detailing the department's core purpose and how it contributes to the overall organizational goals (e.g., "The IE department's mission is to apply scientific principles and analytical methods to design, improve, and integrate systems of people, materials, information, equipment, and energy, thereby enhancing productivity, quality, and cost-effectiveness.").


Clearly Defined Scope and Responsibilities:


Outline the specific areas of focus (e.g., process improvement, layout optimization, capacity planning, work measurement, supply chain analysis, quality control, ergonomics, data analytics).


Clarify roles and responsibilities within the department and its interfaces with other departments.


II. Strategic Alignment and Prioritization

Link to Organizational Goals:


Ensure all IE initiatives are directly aligned with the company's strategic objectives (e.g., cost reduction, market expansion, new product development, sustainability).


Regularly review and adjust IE priorities based on evolving business needs.


Stakeholder Engagement:


Identify key stakeholders (e.g., operations, finance, R&D, sales).


Establish formal channels for communication and collaboration to understand their needs and secure their buy-in for IE projects.


Project Prioritization Framework:


Implement a robust system for evaluating and prioritizing potential IE projects based on impact, feasibility, resource requirements, and strategic alignment.


Consider using tools like a weighted scoring model or a project portfolio management approach.


III. Product, Process, Facility and System Improvement and Optimization. - IE  Methodologies

Standardized Methodologies:


Adopt and standardize proven IE methodologies 

Time Study - F.W. Taylor

Motion Study - Gilbreth

Process Chart Analysis - Gilbreth - Augmented to Process Study

Method Study - Maynard

Operation Analysis - Maynard

Motion and Time Study (Work Measurement)

Work Study

Predetermined Motion Time Systems (MTM, Most, Modapts)

Process Charts - Man Machine Chart

Toyota Production System

SMED

Jidoka (Autonomated Machines)

Total Productivity Management

Productivity Measurement

Total Quality Management

Benchmarking

Lean Manufacturing

Six Sigma

Simulation

Theory of Constraints

DFMA

Principles of Industrial Engineering

Functions of Industrial Engineering

Focus Areas of Industrial Engineering

Machine Work Study


Provide training and resources to ensure consistent application.


Data-Driven Decision Making:


Emphasize the collection, analysis, and interpretation of operational data to identify bottlenecks, waste, and improvement opportunities.


Utilize statistical process control (SPC) and other analytical tools.


Continuous Process Mapping and Analysis:


Regularly map current-state processes to identify inefficiencies and design future-state processes.


Foster a culture of critical thinking about existing workflows.


IV. Applied Industrial Engineering - New Technology Integration

Software and Tools:


Invest in appropriate software for simulation (e.g., Arena, FlexSim), layout design (e.g., AutoCAD), data analysis (e.g., Minitab, R, Python), project management, and enterprise resource planning (ERP) integration.


Automation and Digitalization:


Explore opportunities to automate data collection, reporting, and routine analytical tasks.


Leverage digital twins or advanced analytics for predictive insights.


Knowledge Management System:


Implement a system to document best practices, project learnings, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and analytical models for easy access and reuse.


V. IE Talent Development and Culture

Skill Assessment and Development:


Conduct a thorough assessment of current IE staff skills and identify gaps.


Develop a continuous learning plan focusing on technical skills (e.g., advanced analytics, specific software), soft skills (e.g., communication, change management, leadership), and industry-specific knowledge.


Encourage certifications (e.g., Lean Six Sigma Black Belt).


Cross-Functional Training:


Provide opportunities for IE personnel to gain exposure to different departments and operational areas.


Mentorship and Coaching:


Establish mentorship programs within the department to foster knowledge transfer and professional growth.


Culture of Innovation and Continuous Improvement:


Encourage experimentation, problem-solving, and a proactive approach to identifying and addressing inefficiencies.


Recognize and reward contributions to improvement initiatives.


VI. IE Department Performance Measurement and Reporting

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):


Define clear, measurable KPIs for the IE department that reflect its contribution to organizational goals (e.g., cost savings realized, process cycle time reduction, productivity improvements, project completion rates, ROI of IE projects).


Regular Reporting:


Establish a cadence for reporting on project progress, achieved benefits, and departmental performance to senior management and relevant stakeholders.


Use dashboards and visual aids for effective communication.


Post-Implementation Review:


Conduct post-implementation reviews for major projects to assess actual impact versus planned benefits and identify lessons learned.


VII. Collaboration and Communication

Internal Departmental Collaboration:


Foster strong teamwork and knowledge sharing within the IE department.


Cross-Functional Partnerships:


Actively collaborate with other departments (e.g., Production, Quality, Supply Chain, IT, Finance) to ensure integrated solutions and successful implementation of improvements.


Effective Communication Strategy:


Develop a communication plan to keep all stakeholders informed about IE initiatives, progress, and successes.


Highlight the value and impact of IE work to build credibility and support.


VIII. Continuous Improvement of the IE Department Itself

Regular Departmental Review:


Periodically review the effectiveness of the IE department's own processes, tools, and structure.


Feedback Mechanisms:


Implement mechanisms for internal and external stakeholders to provide feedback on the IE department's performance.


Benchmarking:


Benchmark against leading IE departments in other organizations or industries to identify best practices and areas for improvement.


The above items are refined in each iteration of the presentations given to specific companies. Answering specific questions of the participants collected before the presentation is an important  value adding part of the interaction.


Industrial Engineering Activities in Shipyards of USA.

Survey done during 1988-89.


Engineering - Related  -  Machine Effort Industrial Engineering

Product Work Breakdown Structure

Value Engineering - Analysis

Manufacturing Engineering (Process Planning)

Flexible Manufacturing/Automation

Computer Integrated Manufacturing

Tools

Plant Engineering

Energy Management Conservation

Accuracy Control

Methods Improvement


Plant Layout

Plant Layout

Group Technology - Flow Lines or Assembly Lines


Measurement

Work Measurement

Engineering Economy

Human Resources Accounting


Techno-Economic Analysis

Capital Investment Analysis

Economics of Production


Use of Computing Facilities

Material Requirement Planning

Computer Simulation


Production Quantities - Batch Quantity Planning

Production Planning

Production Scheduling


Productivity Management

Preparation - Delivery   Oral - Written Reports

Project Management of Productivity Projects (Providing IE services to Projects)

Learning Curve Concepts

Developing and Communicating Standards


Miscellaneous

Psychology of Sales





Mathematical Analysis of Engineering Systems - Business Systems - Managerial Systems

Operations Reserach

Statistical Analysis


Human Effort Industrial Engineering

Human Factors/Ergonomics

Behavioral Science Application



What is your IE Methods/Techniques Portfolio?


Are You Using the Following Concepts and Related Methods/Techniques

Industrial Engineering - Some Important Concepts - A Presentation

https://nraoiekc.blogspot.com/2025/07/industrial-engineering-some-important.html



The  Career of the Industrial Engineer - Key Success Factors

https://nraoiekc.blogspot.com/2012/02/role-and-career-of-industrial-engineer.html



Key Success Factors


Be Flexible, but Focused. In whatever role industrial engineers play, they should strive to maintain a focus on value-added work.

Apply Industrial Engineering Concepts to Real-World Problems.

Understand the “Big Picture”—How Change Initiatives Impact the Overall Organization. System thinking is a skill that every industrial engineer should possess. Understanding how a change can impact an organization is essential in truly having a positive impact on the bottom line. It is easy to perform a process improvement on a subsystem, but understanding and conveying how it benefits the whole organization is what’s really important.

Understand and Analyze the Current Processes Accurately. To understand current processes an industrial engineer must live the day-to-day reality of the shop floor. (*To analyze accurately, first monitor new knowledge continuously. Collect catalogues and brochures related to all elements of all resources being used in your organization.)   

Manage Change. People manage all processes. If the people affected by the changes are not convinced of the solution, there are many ways in which they can contribute to its failure (IEs are the change agents. They evaluate the usefulness of all new commercial offerings related to various elements of resources being used in their organization).  

Follow Through on Implementation.  The goal of an industrial engineer is to create value. It is up to the industrial engineer to ensure that a measurement or tracking system is put into place, following a project implementation. Benefits as well as project costs should be tracked to the bottom line.

Be Creative. The ability to see current reality and generate new ideas is what brings the most value to any changing organization. (Creativity is combining the problem with an idea around in a novel way to solve the problem. Creativity comes out of knowledge of many possible solution ideas, the awareness of the problem to be solved and a thinking that tries to integrate the problem with the possible ideas. Creative people go on discussing the issue with many persons individually or in groups, read a lot, search a lot and think a lot.)

Communicate Clearly. To put ideas into practice, an industrial engineer must also possess excellent verbal and written communication skills. Most of the process improvements recommended by industrial engineers involve techniques or technologies that can be complex. These solutions could have a sizable impact on the business but may require significant investments. The ability to present recommendations to decision makers in a way that they can readily comprehend requires that industrial engineers work on creating clarity.

Lack of Appreciation for the Discipline. Industrial engineering is a discipline that needs to be continually sold. Industrial engineers have been grappling with the profession’s image for the last 50 years as evidenced by letters to the editor in the first issue of the Journal of Industrial Engineering in June 1949 about the necessity of selling industrial engineering.

Failure to Align with Key Business Challenges. Whether the business strategy involves growth or cost containment, industrial engineers need to position themselves to contribute the greatest value.

Failure to Evolve. industrial engineers have the responsibility of marketing themselves. Those who do a good job of this are likely to reap the benefits of new opportunities that appear on the landscape before other so-called experts are called in.


Important Key Success Factors can be arranged in a sequence.

Understand and Analyze  the Current Processes Accurately.
(Understand [Observe, Document and Study] and Analyze [Up-to-date Engineering Knowledge])
Be Creative.
Communicate Clearly.
Manage Change. 
Follow Through on Implementation.

This can also be expressed as:

Productivity Science - Productivity Engineering - Productivity Management


Productivity Science - Indicates the direction in which productivity will increase. It also indicates variables which are to be modified appropriately to get increase in productivity.

Productivity Engineering - Industrial engineers have to do primarily modifications in engineering elements of operations and processes. Then they have to redesign the work place layout and motion patterns of the operators to operate the machines and tools and to provide material inputs. As part of productivity engineering, industrial engineers have to develop engineering concepts and detailed engineering. Detailed engineering can be done by IE department personnel, or other engineering departments within the company or external engineering consultants.

The following activities are part of productivity engineering.

Understand and Analyze  the Current Processes Accurately.
(Understand [Observe, Document and Study] and Analyze [Up-to-date Engineering Knowledge])
Be Creative (in developing solutions). 

Productivity Management: Industrial engineering work needs to be managed like any other industrial or business activity.

Communicate Clearly.
Manage Change. 
Follow Through on Implementation.

The above three activities are part of productivity management task of industrial engineers.


Revolution Needed in Industrial Engineering to Make It More Effective

Prabhakar Deshpande

Published in Industrial Engineering (Volume 6, Issue 2)

2022

https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/10073883





One AI Summary on Effective Industrial Engineering


Effective Industrial Engineering focuses on configuring and optimizing complex processes, systems, and organizations by integrating principles from various disciplines to improve efficiency, productivity, and quality. This involves analyzing and designing systems, streamlining workflows, reducing costs, and enhancing service quality within various industries.  Configuring a systems involves specifying and integrating many components. Configuring is an engineering task. Optimization determines the values of the operating variables of each of these components. Normally each component has a range of operating values.

Key aspects of effective industrial engineering include:


Science based selection of system/process resources

Systems Thinking:

Viewing processes as interconnected systems of components to identify bottlenecks and areas for improvement. 

Data-Driven Decision Making:

Developing shop floor operating data and studying and analyzing the data utilizing various techniques including charts, graphs, advanced statistical analysis, operations research, and simulation modeling to make informed decisions about process optimization. 

Integration of People, Materials, Information, Equipment, and Energy:

Ensuring that all elements of a system are appropriately selected based on system requirement and integrating their work to make them work  efficiently to achieve optimal performance. 

Continuous Improvement:

Implementing strategies to constantly streamline workflows, reduce costs, and improve overall performance. 

Adaptability and Innovation:

Keeping up with the latest technologies and methodologies to address evolving challenges and opportunities. 

In essence, effective industrial engineering is about:

Making things work better: Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of processes and systems.

Making things work smarter: Utilizing data and analytical tools to make informed decisions and optimize performance.

Making things work together: Ensuring that all components of a system are appropriate and integrated and working towards a common goal.

Making things work sustainably: Optimizing resource utilization and minimizing environmental impact ( a new focus of businesses that IE has to satisfy.) 


Comprehensive plan to make an industrial engineering department more effective


Here's an outline of a comprehensive plan to make an industrial engineering department more effective:


Plan to Enhance Industrial Engineering Department Effectiveness

This plan focuses on key pillars to ensure the Industrial Engineering (IE) department operates at its peak, delivering maximum value to the organization.


I. Define Vision, Mission, and Scope

Department Vision:


Establish a clear, concise vision statement that articulates the desired future state of the IE department (e.g., "To be the strategic partner in optimizing organizational processes, driving efficiency, and fostering innovation across all operations.").


Mission Statement:


Develop a mission statement detailing the department's core purpose and how it contributes to the overall organizational goals (e.g., "The IE department's mission is to apply scientific principles and analytical methods to design, improve, and integrate systems of people, materials, information, equipment, and energy, thereby enhancing productivity, quality, and cost-effectiveness.").


Clearly Defined Scope and Responsibilities:


Outline the specific areas of focus (e.g., process improvement, layout optimization, capacity planning, work measurement, supply chain analysis, quality control, ergonomics, data analytics).


Clarify roles and responsibilities within the department and its interfaces with other departments.


II. Strategic Alignment and Prioritization

Link to Organizational Goals:


Ensure all IE initiatives are directly aligned with the company's strategic objectives (e.g., cost reduction, market expansion, new product development, sustainability).


Regularly review and adjust IE priorities based on evolving business needs.


Stakeholder Engagement:


Identify key stakeholders (e.g., operations, finance, R&D, sales).


Establish formal channels for communication and collaboration to understand their needs and secure their buy-in for IE projects.


Project Prioritization Framework:


Implement a robust system for evaluating and prioritizing potential IE projects based on impact, feasibility, resource requirements, and strategic alignment.


Consider using tools like a weighted scoring model or a project portfolio management approach.


III. Product, Process, Facility and System Improvement and Optimization. - IE  Methodologies

Standardized Methodologies:


Adopt and standardize proven IE methodologies 

Time Study - F.W. Taylor

Motion Study - Gilbreth

Process Chart Analysis - Gilbreth - Augmented to Process Study

Method Study - Maynard

Operation Analysis - Maynard

Motion and Time Study (Work Measurement)

Work Study

Predetermined Motion Time Systems (MTM, Most, Modapts)

Process Charts - Man Machine Chart

Toyota Production System

SMED

Jidoka (Autonomated Machines)

Total Productivity Management

Productivity Measurement

Total Quality Management

Benchmarking

Lean Manufacturing

Six Sigma

Simulation

Theory of Constraints

DFMA

Principles of Industrial Engineering

Functions of Industrial Engineering

Focus Areas of Industrial Engineering

Machine Work Study


Provide training and resources to ensure consistent application.


Data-Driven Decision Making:


Emphasize the collection, analysis, and interpretation of operational data to identify bottlenecks, waste, and improvement opportunities.


Utilize statistical process control (SPC) and other analytical tools.


Continuous Process Mapping and Analysis:


Regularly map current-state processes to identify inefficiencies and design future-state processes.


Foster a culture of critical thinking about existing workflows.


IV. Applied Industrial Engineering - New Technology Integration

Software and Tools:


Invest in appropriate software for simulation (e.g., Arena, FlexSim), layout design (e.g., AutoCAD), data analysis (e.g., Minitab, R, Python), project management, and enterprise resource planning (ERP) integration.


Automation and Digitalization:


Explore opportunities to automate data collection, reporting, and routine analytical tasks.


Leverage digital twins or advanced analytics for predictive insights.


Knowledge Management System:


Implement a system to document best practices, project learnings, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and analytical models for easy access and reuse.


V. Talent Development and Culture

Skill Assessment and Development:


Conduct a thorough assessment of current IE staff skills and identify gaps.


Develop a continuous learning plan focusing on technical skills (e.g., advanced analytics, specific software), soft skills (e.g., communication, change management, leadership), and industry-specific knowledge.


Encourage certifications (e.g., Lean Six Sigma Black Belt).


Cross-Functional Training:


Provide opportunities for IE personnel to gain exposure to different departments and operational areas.


Mentorship and Coaching:


Establish mentorship programs within the department to foster knowledge transfer and professional growth.


Culture of Innovation and Continuous Improvement:


Encourage experimentation, problem-solving, and a proactive approach to identifying and addressing inefficiencies.


Recognize and reward contributions to improvement initiatives.


VI. Performance Measurement and Reporting

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):


Define clear, measurable KPIs for the IE department that reflect its contribution to organizational goals (e.g., cost savings realized, process cycle time reduction, productivity improvements, project completion rates, ROI of IE projects).


Regular Reporting:


Establish a cadence for reporting on project progress, achieved benefits, and departmental performance to senior management and relevant stakeholders.


Use dashboards and visual aids for effective communication.


Post-Implementation Review:


Conduct post-implementation reviews for major projects to assess actual impact versus planned benefits and identify lessons learned.


VII. Collaboration and Communication

Internal Departmental Collaboration:


Foster strong teamwork and knowledge sharing within the IE department.


Cross-Functional Partnerships:


Actively collaborate with other departments (e.g., Production, Quality, Supply Chain, IT, Finance) to ensure integrated solutions and successful implementation of improvements.


Effective Communication Strategy:


Develop a communication plan to keep all stakeholders informed about IE initiatives, progress, and successes.


Highlight the value and impact of IE work to build credibility and support.


VIII. Continuous Improvement of the IE Department Itself

Regular Departmental Review:


Periodically review the effectiveness of the IE department's own processes, tools, and structure.


Feedback Mechanisms:


Implement mechanisms for internal and external stakeholders to provide feedback on the IE department's performance.


Benchmarking:


Benchmark against leading IE departments in other organizations or industries to identify best practices and areas for improvement.


In a survey of America, companies by Sumanth found that many companies had formal productivity programs.


Productivity, Journal of NPC, had an article on Industrial engineering services in a 1988 issue.




ud. 7.8.2025

Pub. 16.7.2025


Tuesday, August 5, 2025

Draft - Why Some Factories Are More Productive Than Others - September 1986 - HBR

 


https://hbr.org/1986/09/why-some-factories-are-more-productive-than-others

|

Why Some Factories Are More Productive Than Others



by Robert H. Hayes and Kim B. Clark


From the Magazine (September 1986) -  HBR


Post


Post


Share


Save


Buy Copies


Print

The battle for attention is over. The time for banging drums is long past. Everyone now understands that manufacturing provides an essential source of competitive leverage. No longer does anyone seriously think that domestic producers can outdo their competitors by clever marketing only—“selling the sizzle” while cheating on quality or letting deliveries slip. It is now time for concrete action on a practical level: action to change facilities, update processing technologies, adjust work-force practices, and perfect information and management systems.


But when managers turn to these tasks, they quickly run up against a stumbling block. Namely, they do not have adequate measures for judging factory-level performance or for comparing overall performance from one facility to the next. Of course, they can use the traditional cost-accounting figures, but these figures often do not tell them what they really need to know. Worse, even the best numbers do not sufficiently reflect the important contributions that managers can make by reducing confusion in the system and promoting organizational learning.


Consider the experience of a U.S. auto manufacturer that discovered itself with a big cost disadvantage. The company put together a group to study its principal competitor’s manufacturing operations. The study generated reams of data, but the senior executive in charge of the activity still felt uneasy. He feared that the group was getting mired in details and that things other than managerial practices—like the age of facilities and their location—might be the primary drivers of performance. How to tell?


Similarly, a vice president of manufacturing for a specialty chemical producer had misgivings about the emphasis his company’s system for evaluating plant managers placed on variances from standard costs. Differences in these standards made comparisons across plants difficult. What was more troubling, the system did not easily capture the trade-offs among factors of production or consider the role played by capital equipment or materials. What to do?


Another manufacturer—this time of paper products—found quite different patterns of learning in the same departments of five of its plants scattered across the United States. Although each department made much the same products using similar equipment and materials, they varied widely in performance over a period of years. Why such differences?


Our point is simple: before managers can pinpoint what’s needed to boost manufacturing performance, they must have a reliable way of ascertaining why some factories are more productive than others. They also need a dependable metric for identifying and measuring such differences and a framework for thinking about how to improve their performance—and keep it improving. This is no easy order.


These issues led us to embark on a continuing, multiyear study of 12 factories in 3 companies (see the appendix for details on research methodology). The study’s purpose is to clarify the variables that influence productivity growth at the micro level.


Appendix: Research Methods


There are three basic approaches for identifying the effects of management actions and policies on


...



The first company we looked at, which employs a highly connected and automated manufacturing process, we refer to as the Process Company. Another, which employs a batch approach based on a disconnected line-flow organization of work, we refer to as the Fab (fabrication-assembly) Company. The third, which uses several different batch processes to make components for sophisticated electronic systems, is characterized by very rapid changes in both product and process. We refer to it as the Hi-Tech Company. All five factories of the Process Company and three of the four factories of the Fab Company are in the United States (the fourth is just across the border in Canada). Of the three factories belonging to the Hi-Tech Company, one is in the United States, one in Europe, and one in Asia.


In none of these companies did the usual profit-and-loss statements—or the familiar monthly operating reports—provide adequate, up-to-date information about factory performance. Certainly, managers routinely evaluated such performance, but the metrics they used made their task like that of watching a distant activity through a thick, fogged window. Indeed, the measurement systems in place at many factories obscure and even alter the details of their performance.


A Fogged Window

Every plant we studied employed a traditional standard cost system: the controller collected and reported data each month on the actual costs incurred during the period for labor, materials, energy, and depreciation, as well as on the costs that would have been incurred had workers and equipment performed at predetermined “standard” levels. The variances from these standard costs became the basis for problem identification and performance evaluation. Other departments in the plants kept track of head counts, work-in-process inventory, engineering changes, the value of newly installed equipment, reject rates, and so forth.


In theory, this kind of measurement system should take a diverse range of activities and summarize them in a way that clarifies what is going on. It should act like a lens that brings a blurry picture into sharp focus. Yet, time and again, we found that these systems often masked critical developments in the factories and, worse, often distorted management’s perspective.


Each month, most of the managers we worked with received a blizzard of variance reports but no overall measure of efficiency. Yet this measure is not hard to calculate. In our study, we took the same data generated by plant managers and combined them into a measure of the total factor productivity (TFP)—the ratio of total output to total input (see the appendix for more details on TFP).


This approach helps dissipate some of the fog—especially because our TFP data are presented in constant dollars instead of the usual current dollars. Doing so cuts through the distortions produced by periods of high inflation. Consider the situation at Fab’s Plant 1, where from 1974 to 1982 output fluctuated between $45 million and $70 million—in nominal (current dollar) terms. In real terms, however, there was a steep and significant decline in unit output. Several executives initially expressed disbelief at the magnitude of this decline because they had come to think of the plant as a “$50 million plant.” Their traditional accounting measures had masked the fundamental changes taking place.


Another advantage of the TFP approach is that it integrates the contributions of all the factors of production into a single measure of total input. Traditional systems offer no such integration. Moreover, they often overlook important factors. One of the plant managers at the Process Company gauged performance in a key department by improvements in labor hours and wage costs. Our data showed that these “improvements” came largely from the substitution of capital for labor. Conscientious efforts to prune labor content by installing equipment—without developing the management skills and systems needed to realize its full potential—proved shortsighted. The plant’s TFP (which, remember, takes into account both labor and capital costs) improved very little.


This preoccupation with labor costs, particularly direct labor costs, is quite common—even though direct labor now accounts for less than 15% of total costs in most manufacturing companies. The managers we studied focused heavily on these costs; indeed, their systems for measuring direct labor were generally more detailed and extensive than those for measuring other inputs that were several times more costly. Using sophisticated bar-code scanners, Hi-Tech’s managers tracked line operators by the minute but had difficulty identifying the number of manufacturing engineers in the same department. Yet these engineers accounted for 20% to 25% of total cost—compared with 5% for line operators.


Just as surprising, the companies we studied paid little attention to the effect of materials consumption or productivity. Early on, we asked managers at one of the Fab plants for data on materials consumed in production during each of a series of months. Using these data to estimate materials productivity gave us highly erratic values.


Investigation showed that this plant, like many others, kept careful records of materials purchased but not of the direct or indirect materials actually consumed in a month. (The latter, which includes things like paper forms, showed up only in a catchall manufacturing overhead account.) Further, most of the factories recorded materials transactions only in dollar, rather than in physical, terms and did not readily adjust their standard costs figures when inflation or substitution altered materials prices.


What managers at Fab plants called “materials consumed” was simply an estimate derived by multiplying a product’s standard materials cost—which itself assumes a constant usage of materials—by its unit output and adding an adjustment based on the current variation from standard materials prices. Every year or half-year, managers would reconcile this estimated consumption with actual materials usage, based on a physical count. As a result, data on actual materials consumption in any one period were lost.


Finally, the TFP approach makes clear the difference between the data that managers see and what those data actually measure. In one plant, the controller argued that our numbers on engineering changes were way off base. “We don’t have anything like this level of changes,” he claimed. “My office signs off on all changes that go through this place, and I can tell you that the number you have here is wrong.” After a brief silence, the engineering manager spoke up. He said that the controller reviewed only very large (in dollar terms) engineering changes and that our data were quite accurate. He was right. The plant had been tracking all engineering changes, not just the major changes reported to the controller.




A Clear View

With the foglike distortions of poor measurement systems cleared away, we were able to identify the real levers for improving factory performance. Some, of course, were structural—that is, they involve things like plant location or plant size, which lie outside the control of a plant’s managers. But a handful of managerial policies and practices consistently turned up as significant. Across industries, companies, and plants, they regularly exerted a powerful influence on productivity. In short, these are the managerial actions that make a difference.


Invest Capital

Our data show unequivocally that capital investment in new equipment is essential to sustaining growth in TFP over a long time (that is, a decade or more). But they also show that capital investment all too often reduces TFP for up to a year. Simply investing money in new technology or systems guarantees nothing. What matters is how their introduction is managed, as well as the extent to which they support and reinforce continual improvement throughout a factory. Managed right, new investment supports cumulative, long-term productivity improvement and process understanding—what we refer to as “learning.”


The Process Company committed itself to providing new, internally designed equipment to meet the needs of a rapidly growing product. Over time, as the company’s engineers and operating managers gained experience, they made many small changes in product design, machinery, and operating practices. These incremental adjustments added up to major growth in TFP.


Seeking new business, the Fab company redesigned an established product and purchased the equipment needed to make it. This new equipment was similar to the plant’s existing machinery, but its introduction allowed for TFP-enhancing changes in work flows. Plant managers discovered how the new configuration could accommodate expanded production without a proportional increase in the work force. These benefits spilled over: even the older machinery was made to run more efficiently.


In both cases, the real boost in TFP came not just from the equipment itself but also from the opportunities it provided to search for and apply new knowledge to the overall production process. Again, managed right, investment unfreezes old assumptions, generates more efficient concepts and designs for a production system, and expands a factory’s skills and capabilities.


Exhibit I shows the importance of such learning for long-term TFP growth at one of Fab’s plants between 1973 and 1982. TFP rose by 96%. Part of this increase, of course, reflected changes in utilization rates and the introduction of new technology. Even so, roughly two-thirds (65%) of TFP growth was learning-based, and fully three-fourths of that learning effect (or 49% of TFP growth) was related to capital investment. Without capital investment, TFP would have increased, but at a much slower rate.



Exhibit I Capital Investment, Learning, and Productivity Growth in Fab Company’s Plant 2 1973–1982 These estimates are based on a regression analysis of TFP growth. We estimated learning-related changes by using both a time trend and cumulative output. The capital-related learning effect represents the difference between the total learning effect and the effect that remained one capital was introduced into the regression. The total capital effect is composed of a learning component and a component reflecting technical advance.


Such long-term benefits incur costs; in fact, the indirect costs associated with introducing new equipment can be staggering. In Fab’s Plant 1, for example, a $1 million investment in new equipment imposed $1.75 million of additional costs on the plant during its first year of operation! Had the plant cut these indirect costs by half, TFP would have grown an additional 5% during that year.


Everyone knows that putting in new equipment usually causes problems. Everyone expects a temporary drop in efficiency as equipment is installed and workers learn to use it. But managers often underestimate the costly ripple effects of new equipment on inventory, quality, equipment utilization, reject rates, downtime, and material waste. Indeed, these indirect costs often exceed the direct cost of the new equipment and can persist for more than a year after the equipment is installed.


Here, then, is the paradox of capital investment. It is essential to long-term productivity growth, yet in the short run, if poorly managed, it can play havoc with TFP. It is risky indeed for a company to try to “invest its way” out of a productivity problem. Putting in new equipment is just as likely to create confusion and make things worse for a number of months. Unless the investment is made with a commitment to continual learning—and unless performance measures are chosen carefully—the benefits that finally emerge will be small and slow in coming. Still, many companies today are trying to meet their competitive problems by throwing money at them—new equipment and new plants. Our findings suggest that there are other things they ought to do first, things that take less time to show results and are much less expensive.


Reduce Waste

We were not surprised to find a negative correlation between waste rates (or the percentage of rejects) and TFP, but we were amazed by its magnitude. In the Process plants, changes in the waste rate (measured by the ratio of waste material to total cost, expressed as a percentage) led to dramatic operating improvements. As Exhibit II shows, reducing the percentage of waste in Plant 4’s Department C by only one-tenth led to a 3% improvement in TFP, conservatively estimated.



Exhibit II Impact of Waste on TFP in Process Company Plants


The strength of this relationship is more surprising when we remember that a decision to boost the production throughput rate (which ought to raise TFP because of the large fixed components in labor and capital costs) also causes waste ratios to increase. In theory, therefore, TFP and waste percent should increase together. The fact that they do not indicates the truly powerful impact that waste reduction has on productivity.


Get WIP Out

The positive effect on TFP of cutting work-in-process (WIP) inventories for a given level of output was much greater than we could explain by reductions in working capital. Exhibit III documents the relationship between WIP reductions and TFP in the three companies. Although there are important plant-to-plant variations, all reductions in WIP are associated with increases in TFP. In some plants, the effect is quite powerful; in Department D of Hi-Tech’s Plant 1, reducing WIP by one-tenth produced a 9% rise in TFP.



Exhibit III Impact of Work-in-Process Reductions on TFP


These data support the growing body of empirical evidence about the benefits of reducing WIP. From studies of both Japanese and American companies, we know that cutting WIP leads to faster, more reliable delivery times, lowers reject rates (faster production cycle times reduce inventory obsolescence and make possible rapid feedback when a process starts to misfunction), and cuts overhead costs. We now know it also drives up TFP.


The trouble is, simply pulling work-in-process inventory out of a factory will not, by itself, lead to such improvements. More likely, it will lead to disaster. WIP is there for a reason, usually for many reasons; it is a symptom, not the disease itself. A long-term program for reducing WIP must attack the reasons for its being there in the first place: erratic process yields, unreliable equipment, long production changeover and set-up times, ever-changing production schedules, and suppliers who do not deliver on time. Without a cure for these deeper problems, a factory’s cushion of WIP is often all that stands between it and chaos.


Reducing Confusion

Defective products, mismanaged equipment, and excess work-in-process inventory are not only problems in themselves. They are also sources of confusion. Many things that managers do can confuse or disrupt a factory’s operation: erratically varying the rate of production, changing a production schedule at the last minute, overriding the schedule by expediting orders, changing the crews (or the workers on a specific crew) assigned to a given machine, haphazardly adding new products, altering the specifications of an existing product through an engineering change order (ECO), or monkeying with the process itself by adding to or altering the equipment used.


Managers may be tempted to ask, “Doesn’t what you call confusion—changing production schedules, expediting orders, shifting work crews, adding or overhauling equipment and changing product specifications—reflect what companies inevitably have to do to respond to changing customer demands and technological opportunities?”


Our answer to this question is an emphatic No! Responding to new demands and new opportunities requires change, but it does not require the confusion it usually creates. Much of our evidence on confusion comes from factories that belong to the same company and face the same external pressures. Some plant managers are better than others at keeping these pressures at bay. The good ones limit the number of changes introduced at any one time and carefully handle their implementation. Less able managers always seem caught by surprise, operate haphazardly, and leapfrog from one crisis to the next. Much of the confusion in their plants is internally generated.


While confusion is not the same thing as complexity, complexity in a factory’s operation usually produces confusion. In general, a factory’s mission becomes more complex—and its focus looser—as it becomes larger, as it adds different technologies and products, and as the number and variety of production orders it must accommodate grow. Although the evidence suggests that complexity harms performance, each company’s factories were too similar for us to analyze the effects of complexity on TFP. But we could see that what managers did to mitigate or fuel confusion within factories at a given level of complexity had a profound impact on TFP.




Of the sources of confusion we examined, none better illustrated this relationship with TFP than engineering change orders. ECOs require a change in the materials used to make a product, the manufacturing process employed, or the specifications of the product itself. We expected ECOs to lower productivity in the short run but lead to higher TFP over time. Exhibit IV, which presents data on ECO activity in three Fab plants, shows its effects to be sizable. In Plant 2, for example, increasing ECOs by just ten per month reduced TFP by almost 5%. Moreover, the debilitating effects of ECOs persisted for up to a year.



Exhibit IV Impact of Engineering Change Orders on TFP in Three Fab Company Plants


Our data suggest that the average level of ECOs implemented in a given month, as well as the variation in this level, is detrimental to TFP. Many companies would therefore be wise to reduce the number of ECOs to which their plants must respond. This notion suggests, in turn, that more pressure should be placed on engineering and marketing departments to focus attention on only the most important changes—as well as to design things right the first time.


Essential ECOs should be released in a controlled, steady fashion rather than in bunches. In the one plant that divided ECOs into categories reflecting their cost, low-cost ECOs were most harmful to TFP. More expensive ECOs actually had a positive effect. The reason: plant managers usually had warning of major changes and, recognizing that they were potentially disruptive, carefully prepared the ground by warning supervisors, training workers, and bringing in engineers. By contrast, minor ECOs were simply dumped on the factory out of the blue.


Value of Learning

If setting up adequate measures of performance is the first step toward getting full competitive leverage out of manufacturing, identifying factory-level goals like waste or WIP reduction is the second. But without making a commitment to ongoing learning, a factory will gain no more from these first two steps than a one-time boost in performance. To sustain the leverage of plant-level operations, managers must pay close attention to—and actively plan for—learning.


We are convinced that a factory’s learning rate—the rate at which its managers and operators learn to make it run better—is at least of equal importance as its current level of productivity. A factory whose TFP is lower than another’s, but whose rate of learning is higher, will eventually surpass the leader. Confusion, as we have seen, is especially harmful to TFP. Thus the two essential tasks of factory management are to create clarity and order (that is, to prevent confusion) and to facilitate learning.


But doesn’t learning always involve a good deal of experimentation and confusion? Isn’t there an inherent conflict between creating clarity and order and facilitating learning? Not at all.


Confusion, like noise or static in an audio system, makes it hard to pick up the underlying message or figure out the source of the problem. It impedes learning, which requires controlled experimentation, good data, and careful analysis. It chews up time, resources, and energy in efforts to deal with issues whose solution adds little to a factory’s performance. Worse, engineers, supervisors, operators, and managers easily become discouraged by the futility of piecemeal efforts. In such environments, TFP lags or falls.


Reducing confusion and enhancing learning do not conflict. They make for a powerful combination—and a powerful lever on competitiveness. A factory that manages change poorly, that does not have its processes under control, and that is distracted by the noise in its systems learns too slowly, if at all, or learns the wrong things.


In such a factory, new equipment will only create more confusion, not more productivity. Equally troubling, both managers and workers in such a factory will be slow to believe reports that a sister plant—or a competitor’s plant—can do things better than they can. If the evidence is overwhelming, they will simply argue, “It can’t work here. We’re different.” Indeed they are—and less productive too.


“Where the Money Is.”

Many companies have tried to solve their data-processing problems by bringing in computers. They soon learned that computerizing a poorly organized and error-ridden information system simply creates more problems: garbage in, garbage out. That lesson, learned so long ago, has been largely forgotten by today’s managers, who are trying to improve manufacturing performance by bringing in sophisticated new equipment without first reducing the complexity and confusion of their operations.


Spending big money on hardware fixes will not help if managers have not taken the time to simplify and clarify their factories’ operations, eliminate sources of error and confusion, and boost the rate of learning. Of course, advanced technology is important, often essential. But there are many things that managers must do first to prepare their organizations for these new technologies.


When plant managers are stuck with poor measures of how they are doing and when a rigid, by-the-book emphasis on standards, budgets, and exception reports discourages the kind of experimentation that leads to learning, the real levers on factory performance remain hidden. No amount of capital investment can buy heightened competitiveness. There is no way around the importance of building clarity into the system, eliminating unnecessary disruptions and distractions, ensuring careful process control, and nurturing in-depth technical competence. The reason for understanding why some factories perform better than others is the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks: “That’s where the money is.”




Recommended For You


Generative AI

Research: The Hidden Penalty of Using AI at Work


Leadership

Now Is the Time for Courage


Leadership Qualities

Why Leaders Should Bring Their Best Self—Not Their Whole Self—to Work


Podcast

How Leaders Undermine Their Own Authority

Readers Also Viewed These Items


HBR Guide to Better Recruiting and Hiring Toolkit

Book

Buy Now


The Activator Advantage: What Today's Rainmakers Do Differently

Book

Buy Now

Read more on Performance indicators or related topics Personal productivity and Operations and supply chain management

A version of this article appeared in the September 1986 issue of Harvard Business Review.


Robert H. Hayes is the Philip Caldwell Professor of Business Administration, emeritus, at the Harvard Business School.


Kim B. Clark served as dean of the faculty at Harvard Business School from 1995 to 2005. He also served as the fifteenth president of Brigham Young University–Idaho from 2005 to 2015 and Commissioner of Education for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 2015 to 2019. He is currently a Distinguished Professor of Management at Brigham Young University. He is the co-author of Leading Through: Activating the Soul, Heart, and Mind of Leadership (Harvard Business Review Press). 


Post


Post




Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) - Bibliography


JMAC TPM pages - guidance tips - pages to be collected


2022

Sundaram Auto Components bestowed with TPM Excellence Award for its Mysuru plant

Mysuru plant one of 25 manufacturing units globally to bag the honour for 2021.

February 2, 2022

Sundaram Auto Components Limited (SACL), a TVS Group Company and one of India’s leading plastic auto component manufacturers, has been recognised in the category, ‘Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) Excellence Award’- presented by Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM) for its Mysuru plant.    With this award, SACL joins the elite list of other 24 companies globally and six within India to be conferred this award.

https://www.manufacturingtodayindia.com/sectors/sundaram-auto-components-bestowed-with-tpm-excellence-award-for-its-mysuru-plant

 


2021

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128194263000059

https://www.4industry.com/overview-of-tpm-manufacturing/

Digital maintenance is discussed in the above article. You can download connected worker use case library - collection of case studies from the article.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JQME-09-2020-0098/full/html

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/maintenance-40-total-productive-tpm-emiro-v%C3%A1squez

https://turcomat.org/index.php/turkbilmat/article/view/3813

http://www.ieomsociety.org/singapore2021/papers/826.pdf

https://asq.org/training/total-productive-maintenance-tpmtqg

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03384467/document

https://publisher.uthm.edu.my/ojs/index.php/IJSCET/article/view/6293

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332550822_Application_of_Total_Productive_Maintenance_in_Service_Organization

https://www.scielo.br/j/gp/a/R7x6DPTx5QLgkjJWpXWJhpQ/

https://www.ciiblog.in/benefits-of-planned-maintenance-the-tpm-approach/

https://itegam-jetia.org/journal/index.php/jetia/article/view/740

https://www.egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/11700/1/Unit-18.pdf

https://www.jetir.org/view?paper=JETIR1405007

http://ijdri.com/me/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/18.pdf

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781315164809-73/total-productive-maintenance-implementation-way-improve-working-conditions-val%C3%A9rio-nunes

https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:proeco:v:95:y:2005:i:1:p:71-94

https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/items/87f6ff65-bfd6-4b5e-8264-c00976721a8c/1  phd thesis

https://tulip.co/library/suites/total-productive-maintenance-app-suite/

http://repository.sustech.edu/handle/123456789/26702

https://www.ejers.org/index.php/ejers/article/view/2376

https://search.proquest.com/openview/6c52cd3ea14e74ee0b7a04033ff56cfa/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y

https://riunet.upv.es/bitstream/handle/10251/180464/Saxena%20-%20Total%20productive%20maintenance%20TPM%20as%20a%20vital%20function%20in%20manufacturing%20systems.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

https://kuwaitjournals.org/jer/index.php/JER/article/view/10475

http://ijarsct.co.in/Paper1626.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/56914267/Total_Productive_Maintenance_in_RMG_Sector_A_Case_Burlingtons_Limited_Bangladesh

https://interpro.wisc.edu/courses/improving-equipment-uptime-and-performance-with-tpm/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01969722.2021.2018549

https://www.hcltech.com/sites/default/files/resources/brochure/files/2021/05/24/hcl_connected_asset_management_brochure.pdf

http://www.repository.rmutt.ac.th/dspace/bitstream/123456789/2846/1/RMUTT-151694.pdf

https://josi.ft.unand.ac.id/index.php/josi/article/view/529

https://www.routledge.com/TPM-Collected-Practices-and-Cases/Press/p/book/9781563273285

https://www.adlittle.com/en/insights/viewpoints/sustainable-and-highly-productive-supply-chain

https://www.frost.com/news/press-releases/abb-recognized-by-frost-sullivan-for-enabling-optimal-process-optimization-and-energy-efficiency-with-its-market-leading-electrification-of-desalination-solutions/


2020

https://www.machinemetrics.com/blog/total-productive-maintenance-iiot

https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/8347/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3590948

https://www.jiem.org/index.php/jiem/article/download/3286/957

https://www.plantengineering.com/articles/how-tpm-boosts-productivity-in-manufacturing/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tpm-l%C3%A0-g%C3%AC-total-productive-maintenance-minh-nguy%E1%BB%85n

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333115252_A_study_of_total_productive_maintenance_TPM_and_lean_manufacturing_tools_and_their_impact_on_manufacturing_performance

http://portal.amelica.org/ameli/jatsRepo/300/3001776015/html/index.html

https://www.ijesi.org/papers/Vol(9)i6/Series-1/E0906012941.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/40806097/Total_Productive_Maintenance_Practices_and_implementation_examples_from_Bottlers_Nepal_Limited

https://www.tetrapak.com/content/dam/tetrapak/publicweb/gb/en/services/documents/case-tps-CIP.pdf

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Total-Productive-Maintenance-Review%3A-A-Case-Study-Singh-Rastogi/f2be9514afeaf108ece0cd44b61612ff0f7b534c

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JQME-11-2020-0118/full/pdf

https://leanmanufacturing.online/total-productive-maintenance-in-supply-chain-management-part-1/

https://www.tvsts.com/tpm

https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v9i12/SR201122152147.pdf

https://www.ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR2001384.pdf

https://www.ijert.org/tpm-based-focused-breakdown-reduction-strategy-in-industry

http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/55476

http://arcnjournals.org/images/ASPL-IJMS-7-4-3.pdf

https://www.mscdirect.com/betterMRO/msc-generate-pdf/11051

https://daneshyari.com/article/preview/11263000.pdf

https://www.autocarpro.in/news-national/bajaj-auto%E2%80%99s-chakan-plant-bags-advanced-tpm-award-57036

https://www.mahindra.com/news-room/knowledge-centre/impact-stories/m-and-m-s-farm-equipment-sector-bags-advanced-special-award-for-tpm

https://www.industr.com/en/jishu-hozen-autonomous-maintenance-in-the-manufacturing-industry-2541742

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32322743/

https://jcgirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/5-JCGIRM-2015-Vol-2-issue-3-pp-67-79.pdf

http://journal.feb.unpad.ac.id/index.php/jbm/article/view/280

https://www.irjet.net/archives/V7/i3/IRJET-V7I3663.pdf

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315137971/autonomous-maintenance-seven-steps-masaji-tajiri-fumio-gotoh

https://www.austar.com.hk/index.php?c=skill&a=index&son_id=555&cate_id=223&id=60

https://repositorioacademico.upc.edu.pe/handle/10757/652482

https://newsstellar.com/article/the-complete-guide-to-calculating-total-manufacturing-costs-unleashed-software


December 2020

______________


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTb26nBuBU4

______________



1991 - 2000


https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13552519710167692/full/html

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02656710810890890/full/pdf?title=total-productive-maintenance-literature-review-and-directions

https://elsmar.com/pdf_files/TPM.pdf

https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jmce/papers/ICAET-2014/me/volume-3/8.pdf?id=7622

https://books.google.co.in/books/about/TPM_A_Route_to_World_Class_Performance.html?hl=fr&id=sqP9xmLgp5IC&redir_esc=y

http://psasir.upm.edu.my/8110/1/GSM_1998_23_A.pdf

https://www.ijert.org/research/lean-manufacturing-an-approach-for-waste-elimination-IJERTV4IS040817.pdf

http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/1999/1999cook.pdf

http://www.anpad.org.br/admin/pdf/gol493.pdf

http://www.egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/12470/1/Unit-6.pdf

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/7113953/7123067/07123145.pdf

https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Maintenance_Strategy.html?id=aA8hsS0867cC

https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/4603/1/Richard_M_Greenough_Thesis_1999.pdf

https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/CES/proceedings-pdf/CEC1997/99847/27/2370748/cec1997-4303.pdf

https://reliabilityweb.com/articles/entry/the_abcs_of_failure_getting_rid_of_the_noise_in_your_system

https://www.controlglobal.com/assets/Media/MediaManager/ReducingOperationsAndMaintenanceCosts.pdf

https://www.plant-maintenance.com/change.shtml

https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Gemba_Kaizen_A_Commonsense_Low_Cost_Appr.html?id=USZrSZXmYBkC&redir_esc=y    Masaki Imai

http://archives.digitaltoday.in/businesstoday/22071999/cover.html

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w7285/w7285.pdf

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Economic%20Studies%20TEMP/Our%20Insights/Manufacturing%20productivity/MGI_Manufacturing_productivity_Report.pdf

https://leanconstruction.org/uploads/wp/media/docs/Koskela-TR72.pdf

https://www.elsevier.com/books/maintenance-strategy/kelly/978-0-08-093839-4

https://www.sqa.org.uk/files/hn/d2580549.pdf

https://www.delphisuppliers.com/vendor_documents/delphi-h/BlueBook/02%20Manufacturing%20Engineering/2C%20Lean%20Equipment%20Design%20Guides/Lean%20Equipment%20Design%20Guide%202nd%20print.pdf

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780367807726/5s-operators-hiroyuki-hirano

https://dtek.karnataka.gov.in/storage/pdf-files/Syllabus%20C-15/MY%20C-15%205%20and%206.pdf

Diploma course in mech. full curriculum - Karnataka State.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc277695/m2/1/high_res_d/1002727156-kaynak.pdf

https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/11470/1/301664.pdf

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00251749510093888

https://www.ptonline.com/articles/15-ways-to-raise-blown-film-productivity-without-breaking-the-bank

http://scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8426&context=theses

https://research.library.mun.ca/1343/1/Wong_Daniel.pdf

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnabp296.pdf

https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/black-coal/benchmarking/tasmanasiapacific.pdf

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/productivity-plan-19095.html

https://irdproducts.com/assets/introductiontovibrationtechnology.pdf

https://www.nap.edu/read/6369/chapter/8


1981-1990

https://hbr.org/1986/09/why-some-factories-are-more-productive-than-others

https://books.google.com/books/about/New_Manufacturing_Challenge.html?id=6EHtJE8NHD0C

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb054835/full/pdf?title=productivity-measurement-in-a-manufacturing-company

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7228787

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1982/06/art1full.pdf

https://www.bls.gov/mfp/trends_in_multifactor_productivity.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25060699

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/18966/dot_18966_DS1.pdf?

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/manufacturing-innovation-lessons-from-the-japanese-auto-industry/

https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rp430.pdf   Analysis of new harvesting technology

https://www.treca.org/furn./margin/reliability_evaluation_of_engineering_systems_solution_pdf

https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/47254/2/Shein-A-1988-MPhil-Thesis.pdf   Shovel truck productivity

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED311650.pdf

https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/39114/LD5655.V856_1990.P563.pdf?sequence=1

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/30703977/w0722.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/3420/1/WP-90-032.pdf

https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/pub3/ayres_robert_1981_1/ayres_robert_1981_1.pdf  impact of robots

http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/14611/1/238684-VOL1.pdf



1971 - 1980


https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/ARMYCOE/COETM/tm_5_610.pdf

https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1154&context=up_press

https://hbr.org/1971/03/what-we-can-learn-from-japanese-management  

https://hbr.org/1980/03/let-first-level-supervisors-do-their-job

http://www.omdec.com/wikifiles/nowlanHeap.pdf

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1326454/FULLTEXT02.pdf

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/406/dot_406_DS1.pdf?

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED084361.pdf

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/19121/Thesis-1977-M515s.pdf?sequence=1  About sewing machine

https://www.ifn.se/wfiles/wp/wp017.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294322  About Taylor

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/35236/MIT-EL-78-041-06569951.pdf?sequence=1

https://www.hitachicm.us/includes/documents/brochures/KL-EN146NA-US_ZW50-80_04_21_G4_To_Print.pdf

https://web.njit.edu/~turoff/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf   Delphi method

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAM423.pdf

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/24516/rezai_soheil_197608_ms_100647.pdf






Ud. 5.8.2025

Pub. 8.2.2022

















Total Productivity Management (TPmgt) - David J. Sumanth - Book Information

 


Total Productivity Management (TPmgt): A Systemic and Quantitative Approach to Compete in Quality, Price and Time


David J. Sumanth

CRC Press, 27-Oct-1997 - Business & Economics - 424 pages


Poised to influence innovative management thinking into the 21st century, Total Productivity Management (TPmgt), written by one of the pioneers of productivity management, has been a decade in the making.

This landmark publication is the most extensive book available on the subject of total productivity management. At a time when downsizing and layoffs are the norm, this innovative and highly organized book shows you how to treat human resource situations with a caring, customer-oriented, yet competitive attitude through integration of technical and human dimensions. This book makes use of a set of proven models and provides a systematic framework and structure to link total productivity to an organization's profitability.

Total Productivity Management describes the tasks required of all constituents in an understandable format that they can relate to and by which regards can be realized for performance in all resource categories including direct labor, administrative staff, managers, professional personnel, materials, liquid assets, technologies, energy, and other areas.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mLAv09ocvTsC




Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Misconceptions about Quality, Technology, and Productivity

Problems with the "Partial Productivity Perspective"

Managerial Techniques Commonly Used in Decision-Making

Organizational Goals for Managerial Decision-Making

Importance of Management's Role in Increasing Productivity

Proposed Approach to Management Decision-Making

Relationship Between Total Productivity and Other Management Goals



2. The Need for "Total Productivity Management" (PTmgt)

Unique Factors Affecting Enterprises

Confused Emphases of the 1970's and 1980's

Continued Chaos of the 1990's

Challenges as Opportunities

Bridging the Technology Discontinuities

Social Changes

Family Unit-An Endangered Species

Technology, The Uncontrollable Monster

Ecological Imbalance

The "One-World Syndrome"

Summary


3. The Basic Concept and Management Philosophy of TPmgt

The "Total Productivity Perspective"

TPmgt: The Definition

TPmgt: The Concept and Philosophy

TPmgt: The Three-Legged Stool Analogy

TPmgt: The Conceptual Framework

TPmgt: The Integration Mindset of 3 Competitiveness Dimensions



4. The Systematic 10-Step Process© for TPmgt

Implementation of the Basic TPmgt

Implementation of the Comprehensive TPmgt

Mission Statement

TPM and/or CTPM Analysis

Management Goals

"Fishbone" Analysis

Action Plans

PQT Training

Implementation of Action Plans

Management Goals Achieved?

TPG

New Goals

Important Note on the TPmgt Implementation



5. Case Studies: Selected Applications

Banking

Consulting

Construction

Dry-Cleaning

Education

Healthcare

Insurance

Printing

Restaurant

Retailing

Tourism

Transportation

Utilities

Chemicals

Computer Peripherals

Electronics

Heavy Equipment

Machine-Tools Manufacturer

Medical Devices

Seafood Processing

Space Systems

6. Unique Features of TPmgt

Interdisciplinary Emphasis in Management Decision-Making

"People-Building" Emphasis, with Behavioral Thrust

Product/Service Unit Orientation (Instead of Functional Focus)

"Customer-Chain" Thinking

Systemic Perspective for Integration

Independence from Culture

Ability to Understand the Technology - Total Productivity Synergy

Ability to Understand and Affect the Quality - Total Productivity Linkage

Ability to Interlink the Dimensions of Competitiveness

Unique Features Compared to Other Management Philosophies

Comprehensiveness of Problem-Solving Approaches in Training

Comprehensiveness of productivity and Quality Improvement Techniques

Ability to Quantify the Impact on the BOttom Line

Reward Systems Based on Total Productivity Gainsharing

The PRacvtice of "Management is a Moral Issue"

Summary

7. Frontiers Beyond TQM and Reengineering

The TQM Wave-Where's it Headed?

The Reengineering Dynamite

The TPmgt Total Package?

8. Benefits of TPmgt

Customer Responsiveness

Quality-Competitiveness

Total Cost-Competitiveness

Team-Building and Accountability

Technology Planning

Investment Analysis

Acquisition and Merger Planning

Resource Budgeting and Allocation

Automatic "Profit-Targeting"

Compatibility with Well-Established Data-Collection Formats

9. Universality of TPmgt

Fundamental Similarities in Manufacturing and Service Enterprises

Principles of TPmgt

Rules for Maximum Success with TPmgt

10. Where To Go From Here?

Blueprint for Action

Need for Formal Education and Training in TPmgt

Expert System Tools for TPmgt

Videotape and Seminars on TPmgt

Appendix A: Historical Introduction to Quality

Appendix B: The TPM© Formulas

Index




Ud. 5.8.2025

Pub.3.3.2022

Total Factor Productivity & Total Productivity Measurement


Lesson 307 of IEKC Industrial Engineering ONLINE Course Notes.

Industrial Engineering Measurements - Online Course Module


Sumanth's total productivity model


https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mLAv09ocvTsC&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false


‘Productivity’  is the standard that indicates measures how efficiently the material, the labor, the capital and the energy can be utilized. Analysis and measurement of ‘Productivity’ can help to know the areas for taking corrective actions towards planning of business firm. 

Productivity is known as the relationship between output and all employed inputs measured in real terms. It refers to a comparison between what comes out of production and what goes into production that is the arithmetical ratio between the amount produced and the amount of all resources used in terms of manufacture. 

It may be measured for manufacturing organizations or their departments for which separate records are maintained.

The success of an industrial organization is determined by the level of efficiency in reducing cost and providing consumer services. Analysis and Measurement of Productivity can help to find out the areas where the corrective steps will have been taken in the way of planning of business firm. 

TOTAL PRODUCTIVITY MODEL  

Total Productivity Model developed by David J. Sumanth in 1979 considered 5 items as inputs. 

These are Human, Material, Capital, Energy and other expenses. 

This model can be applied in any manufacturing or service organization. 

Total Productivity= Total Tangible Output÷ Total Tangible Input. 

 Total tangible output= Value of finished units produced + partial units produced + Dividends from securities + Interests from bonds +Other incomes. 

 Total tangible inputs= Value of human inputs+ capital inputs+ materials purchased+ energy inputs + other expenses (taxes, transport, office expenses etc.)

Sumanth’s provided a structure for finding productivity at product level and summing product level productivities to total firm level productivity. 

The model also has the structure for finding partial productivities at the product level and aggregating them to product level productivities. 

Total Productivity= Total Tangible Output÷ Total Tangible Input

 = O1+O2+O3+O4+O5 / H+M+FC+WC+E+X 

Where,

O1 is value of finished units of output.

O2 value of partially completed units of output ,

O3 dividend income, 

O4 interest income ,

O5 other income. 

H human input, M material input , FC fixed capital input , WC working capital input, E energy input , and x other expense.

https://www.slideshare.net/anilp264/sumanths-total-productivity-model-29348562


A Case Study

Adapted from Edosomwan, J. A and David J. Sumanth. (1996). Productivity Measurement Guide: A Practical Approach for Productivity Measurement in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. (pp. 179-198)

Human partial productivity index

Employees       Measure                     January              October

Workers

Hourly paid      Units/$                       17.88                  24.14

                          P.P.I                             1.00                     1.35

Salaried             Units/$                         0.366                  0.354

                          P.P.I                             1.00                     0.967

Professionals

Hourly paid       Units/$                         2.438                   3.155     

                          P.P.I                             1.00                      1.294


The calculation procedure used:  Divide the units produced in the month by expenses paid to a category of human resource. This gives  Units/$. Then calculate index  with the first month as the base year.  

Comments made on various tables by the authors. (Tables for all resources will be added)

Human Productivity 
The human partial productivity index showed a trend that followed the output curve very closely. 
Two major areas of input in this category (salaried workers and salaried professionals) had not changed significantly during the periods.
The human partial productivity index for hourly  paid professionals did show very significant gains during the last several measurement periods due to decreases in input. 


Material Productivity 
The index showed a steady decline through the first seven measurement periods, and then, showed a dramatic improvement in productivity for the final periods. This was apparently caused by the way in 
which purchases of materials from source #1 was planned. These were planned at the beginning of the year, based on a then current forecast for total productivity demand. 
Through the year, as demand fell short of the forecast, the appropriate action would have been to curtail purchases of materials from all sources. Contracts that were in place between systems manufacturing and source #1, however contained a clause that froze the level of purchases for several periods. For this reason, material productivity declined until the orders could be reset to lower levels to more accurately 
reflect the lower demand for the product. 

Capital Productivity 
The working capital partial productivity was by far the major ingredient for capital productivity and represented a major input for total productivity. 
The index showed stable or improved productivity through the first six periods, but a dramatic drop in productivity was evident in the final periods. 
This, again, relates back to the problems with the controls on material inputs and the resulting increasing of material inventory until the inputs could be reduced. During the final four periods, a slight improvement was seen and this could be expected to continue, as this measurement will follow the trend of the material productivity index, lagging by several periods. The occupancy and depreciation productivity measurements followed the same basic trend as the output since they had a small degree of variance and output had a large variance. 

Other Expense Productivity 
This category of partial productivity included many diverse expense type inputs. It was apparent, that for certain items  partial productivity improved. For example, the travel and professional fees partial productivity improved during the last several periods primarily due to management attention. 
However, the stationery, telephone and education partial productivity measurements did not show any 
improvements.  

Total Productivity 
The total productivity index followed the trend of the capital partial productivity most closely. This is due to the large percentage of input the capital productivity represents, most of this input being in the form of working capital. The total productivity index followed very closely, the output level of the product. That is the productivity index showed decline when output is below the base period output and the index shows improvements when the output is above the base period level. 


Case Studies on Sumanth's Approach

See chapter 6 case studies in

Total Productivity Management (TPmgt): A Systemic and Quantitative Approach to Compete in Quality, Price and Time

David J. Sumanth
CRC Press, 27-Oct-1997 - Business & Economics - 424 pages

Poised to influence innovative management thinking into the 21st century, Total Productivity Management (TPmgt), written by one of the pioneers of productivity management, has been a decade in the making.
This landmark publication is the most extensive book available on the subject of total productivity management. At a time when downsizing and layoffs are the norm, this innovative and highly organized book shows you how to treat human resource situations with a caring, customer-oriented, yet competitive attitude through integration of technical and human dimensions. This book makes use of a set of proven models and provides a systematic framework and structure to link total productivity to an organization's profitability.
Total Productivity Management describes the tasks required of all constituents in an understandable format that they can relate to and by which regards can be realized for performance in all resource categories including direct labor, administrative staff, managers, professional personnel, materials, liquid assets, technologies, energy, and other areas.


Total Factor Productivity  



Multifactor productivityTotal, Annual growth rate (%), 2005 – 2022
Source: GDP per capita and productivity growth

Data table for: Multifactor productivity, Total, Annual growth rate (%), 2005 – 2022
https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/multifactor-productivity.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              ▾ 2005  ▾ 2006  ▾ 2007  ▾ 2008  ▾ 2009  ▾ 2010  ▾ 2011  ▾ 2012  ▾ 2013  ▾ 2014  ▾ 2015  ▾ 2016  ▾ 2017  ▾ 2018▾ 2019▾ 2020▾ 2021▾ 2022
Australia -0.54 -0.09 0.14   1.44 -1.44 0.31 0.22 0.80 0.69 -0.08 1.80 -0.19 0.91 -0.01 0.32 1.42 1.05 -0.59
Austria 1.59 2.10 1.98 -0.45 -2.16 0.98 0.67 0.27 -0.30 -0.18 0.62 -0.32 0.74 0.14 -0.65 -0.74 0.22 1.99
Belgium 0.51 -0.07 1.11 -1.46 -1.88 1.03 -0.93 -0.16 0.16 0.78 0.91 -0.37 -0.49 -0.13 0.38 0.20 0.11 1.11
Canada 1.15 0.31 -0.66 -0.99 -1.07 0.84 1.30 -0.37 0.93 2.09 -0.49 0.40 1.51 0.29 0.26 3.56 -2.67 -0.40
Denmark 0.71 0.83 -0.68 -2.24 -2.87 2.62 0.26 0.97 0.39 1.11 1.17 1.08 1.46 1.41 0.42 -0.39 1.58 -0.23
Finland 1.41 2.17 2.87 -1.49 -6.13 2.93 1.33 -1.86 -0.19 -0.11 0.57 2.25 2.34 -0.97 -0.09 -0.84 0.95 1.33
France 0.35 1.69 -0.64 -1.30 -2.00 0.90 0.75 -0.27 0.59 0.42 0.32 -0.11 1.47 0.07 0.03 -2.37 -0.08 -1.37
Germany 0.90 1.60 1.01 -0.34 -4.07 2.42 2.45 0.22 0.19 1.02 0.37 1.15 1.55 -0.06 0.35 -0.41 0.96 0.46
Greece -3.06 3.09 0.95 -2.68 -4.22 -2.99 -8.27 -5.47 -1.50 0.85 3.28 -2.37 1.74 -1.71 2.24 -0.40 1.08 1.39
Ireland 0.01 0.28 1.10 -4.14 1.20 3.26 0.66 -1.27 -2.90 4.25 -5.51 2.53 3.72 -5.32 4.92 8.63 6.75
Israel 0.94 2.56 0.86 -0.64 -1.63 2.57 2.45 -0.61 1.77 1.48 0.07 0.75 1.40 1.69 2.16 3.15 1.57 0.01
Italy -0.16 -0.39 -0.39 -1.27 -3.30 1.74 0.40 -1.40 -0.03 0.04 0.23 0.04 0.80 0.10 0.35 -0.60 1.09 0.49
Japan 0.92 -0.05 0.39 -1.04 -2.97 3.28 0.37 1.04 1.94 -0.05 1.51 0.05 0.89 0.38 0.22 -2.12 1.58 0.73
Korea 3.08 2.96 4.53 3.53 1.56 4.65 1.64 0.29 1.23 1.17 0.45 1.50 2.58 2.27 1.31 0.91 1.89 -0.25
Luxembourg 0.52 2.09 2.62 -5.24 -1.58 1.31 -2.21 -1.05 1.18 -0.61 -0.81 1.96 -1.68 -1.71 -0.75 2.19 -1.46 -2.06
Netherlands 1.58 1.14 0.25 0.12 -3.17 1.45 0.38 -0.80 -0.06 0.61 -0.26 0.05 0.82 0.07 -0.43 -2.22 1.99 1.07
New Zealand -1.05 0.08 2.35 -4.01 3.36 -1.38 0.99 2.33 -2.09 -0.22 1.76 -0.58 0.20 1.59 -1.02 0.33 1.58 -1.28
Norway 0.48 -1.07 -2.06 -3.69 -1.57 -0.33 -1.05 0.60 -0.09 0.43 0.90 0.16 1.42 -1.12 -0.97 -0.56 1.32 -0.42
Portugal -0.11 0.66 0.57 -0.73 -2.22 1.61 -0.15 -0.92 0.49 -0.69 0.24 0.33 1.05 0.08 1.12 -1.93 1.34 4.83
Spain -0.16 -0.01 0.17 -1.05 -0.31 0.86 -0.03 -0.29 0.01 0.16 1.12 0.67 0.94 -0.02 0.47 -3.27 -0.03 1.97
Sweden 1.59 2.14 -0.01 -2.51 -2.85 3.56 0.72 -1.23 0.25 0.88 2.27 -0.76 0.21 -0.17 1.32 -0.90 2.24 -0.38
Switzerland 1.36 1.72 1.07 0.20 -3.17 2.05 -0.60 -0.25 1.03 0.65 -0.71 0.37 0.76 1.82 0.15 -0.29 1.52 0.34
United Kingdom 0.65 1.16 0.97 -0.63 -3.44 2.02 -0.34 -0.77 0.22 0.30 1.29 -0.45 1.33 0.16 0.18 -2.22 -0.01 0.94
United States 1.39 0.30 0.49 0.08 1.07 1.99 -0.23 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.43 -0.02 0.52 0.77 0.68 1.07 1.57 -1.18

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3% #productivity increase every year will make #production double in 24 years from the same #resources.
Industrial Engineering increases prosperity of the society.

New Links





Ud  5.8.2025,  21.10, 15.10.2023, 13.2.2022
Pub: 26.1.2022