OEE Industry Standard
OEE Industry Standard
OEE Industry Standard
STANDARD
VERSION 2.0 AUGUST 2003
@ [email protected]
www.BlomConsultancy.nl
Content
Preface
Section 1:
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
Section 2:
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
Section 3:
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Scope
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
13
13
14
15
19
20
22
Speed definitions
24
24
24
24
25
26
Section 4:
Quality definitions
27
Section 5:
Discussion issues
28
30
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
2 / 30
Preface
Just scrape the barrel was the title of a recent cover story about organizations published in
Intermediair, a professional Dutch journal read by many managers. We dont need to pump
more money into it, we should work more efficiently, is what several politicians said.
Productivity can only be increased by making massive investments into ICT, is another
frequently heard statement. For reasons of efficiency, maintenance is being outsourced, is
another favorite saying.
When you look for a deeper meaning behind these types of slogans, you will first encounter
an enormous confusion of concepts. What is actually meant by efficiency, effectiveness, and
productivity? And is it indeed true that improvements in this area always involve large
investments, or is that precisely not the right thing to do?
Efficiency
The amount of
resources needed to
execute the process
Process
Machine
Line
Effectiveness
The ratio between
the actual and the
theoretical output
Productivity
The ratio between
efficiency and
effectiveness
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
3 / 30
Goldrath (The Goal) defines productivity as: the extent in which a company generates
money. The goal of a production company is therefore not to reduce expenses but to
generate as much money as possible!
Increasing output
We strangely look less often at the output side the effectiveness of the equipment.
Apparently, the output is more or less considered to be as it is. However, every line
manager knows that the installation will spontaneously start to run better simply by standing
beside it and giving it attention. When you check the logbooks, there are days that, on
occasion, the installation produced spectacular amounts of good output.
It happened to go well that day
Ask the team how that happened and you will hear a precise run-down of all elements that
went right that day. The raw materials arrived on time and were of the correct quality, the
installation kept on running and was set correctly, the right people were present, it was not
too warm, etc., etc. This is often regarded as a fluke and nobody is wondering how you could
create a similar situation a second time. That is strange actually, for if it can happen once,
why should it not be possible to happen again. And if it can happen a second time, why not
always? Usually, a whole series of Yes, buts will follow
Suppose you would write down those Yes, buts and turn them into a list of action items.
What would that give us?
To be able to answer that question, we will have to dive a little deeper into the world of
Effectiveness.
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
4 / 30
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
5 / 30
In a three-shift system it means that the installation runs for 90% x 24 hrs = 21:36 hrs at 95%
speed with 99% quality. Consequently, there will be 03:24 hrs available for maintenance,
conversion, and other possible waiting times. Incidentally, the 85% mentioned is a rather
conservative figure; nowadays we see in the automotive-industry equipment that runs over
90%.
The analysis of hundreds of installations for various processes shows that, as rule of thumb,
an average installation in an average (non-TPM) company runs at an effectiveness rate
between 35 and 45%. Of course, there are always cases that stick out; for example, values
in the pharmaceutical industry may lie considerably lower and there are also cases that show
considerably higher values.
If it turns out that an installation has an effectiveness of 40%, while people always thought
that there were limited options left for potential improvements, it is extremely good news: this
means that twice as much good product can be manufactured (your effectiveness rate would
be 80%!) at the present cost level. Or, you manufacture the same product with one shift
instead of two.
Yes, but then the costs will increase!
It is often assumed that achieving such improvements will necessitate an enormous increase
in costs for, for instance, maintenance. That is sometimes partly true, for example, when it
concerns overdue maintenance and you are then actually paying off a loan, because a
fundamental design flaw has to be solved (and, therefore, you can also see this as paying off
a postponed cost item). However, by activating the knowledge that is present on the shop
floor in the right way, 80% of the improvements can often be implemented without any capital
expenditures and at minimal costs.
It is not so hard to imagine that an installation, which halts on a regular basis for various
reasons, or whose process is not stable enough to operate at high speed without any losses
in quality, automatically requires more resources at the input side as well! Reversely, it may
be that lowering the efficiency (for instance, by spending a little bit more money and time on
preventive maintenance) will bring about a strong increase in effectiveness, which - bottom
line - creates a higher net productivity. Such considerations can only be made if, in addition
to efficiency, particular attention is paid to losses in effectiveness as well.
In all cases, it is necessary to take decisions concerning actions leading to improvement on
the basis of facts and figures describing the entire productivity picture.
World Class Manufacturing does not accept any losses at all. That is what management
must focus on and management must have the will to go further than mere window dressing
and scratching the surface. Unfortunately, that is often even harder than just opening the
wallet. Companies that do take this route, discover over and over again: There still lies a
nearly unlimited potential for improvement for those who learn to see it and seize it!
Arno Koch
Senior Consultant
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
6 / 30
Operators, line managers and management all either want to compare equipment, or
are afraid that this will be done.
Setting up the definitions for gathering OEE data brings up the same discussions over
and over again. Larger companies all seem to struggle -most political- fights about
how OEE is defined, one wants to include PM, the other takes it out, and the third
takes it out under conditions... thus giving fear on the shop floor that 'unfair
comparisons' are done.
Ad 1. Although I feel OEE is a shop floor tool, not meant to benchmark, it is certainly
possible to use certain elements as useful reference information considering it is done
in the right way.
Ad 2. For every problem there is only one optimal solution. So why discover the wheel
again...
So I started to wonder if it would be possible to define a kind of an 'Industry Standard OEE
definition', that would make sure that at least within the same company everybody uses OEE
in the same way. i.e. if we are talking about 'Availability' at least it should be clear that
everybody in- or excludes the same issues (i.e. breaks, PM, etc).
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
7 / 30
At first I thought this would become a huge document since the equipment I looked at was
varying from refineries to cement- and paper mills to beer breweries, food processors,
drilling, stamping, welding, plating.... well you name it and is was there.
Guess what I figured out the whole lot of it fits on a couple of A4!
Then I took this concept to some experienced OEE implementers and discussed every
element. Every time we had a discussion, I gave all arguments I had heard and tried to find
the Best Of Best argument, considering it had to be applicable on ANY other situation! In fact
this process is still going on, but the picture becomes quite clear.
It is my objective to have an OEE standard definition available where every choice is
companioned with very reasonable and strong argumentation, that (if I did my job well) can
not be refuted within the spirit of TPM and Lean Manufacturing.
Now, in 2003 many parties have joined us on this adventure and tried hard to doubt every
element of the standard; yet the arguments given by the first group of forum-members stand
firm. However we have gathered some additions and clarifications which are added to this
version of the OEE Industry Standard.
I now want to invite every OEE using company to join us in this standard:
1. to check if the definition can stand up to new discussions;
2. to get broader support within the industry, so we get more unity in OEE
definitions.
If you would like to contribute to the discussion please let us know by sending an email to:
[email protected].
Arno Koch
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
8 / 30
Section 1:
Scope
Several parties, such as production teams, line managers and top management may have a
different scope when looking at effectiveness. Being aware of those differences, it is
possible to calculate different indices representing those different scopes; all based upon
the same data. In the literature we find several attempts to do so, unfortunately they are not
always consistent.
Although this definition goes beyond the scope of OEE, it is necessary to have a clear picture
on this issue since it determines how to define certain categories within the OEE.
Not scheduled
Loading time
Unscheduled (-)
Failures
Idling
Line
restraint
Theoretical output
Reduced
Speed
Actual output
Good!
Scrap
Minor
stoppages
Rework
OEE Solitaire
OEE (top)
Operations Effectiveness
Asset Utilization
Capacity Utilization
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
9 / 30
1.1
1.1.2 OEE
OEE is the default scope for a production team.
It shows the ratio between the theoretical maximum good output during the loading time vs
the actual good output.
The loading time can be less then the operations time since the equipment can be
unscheduled during the operations time, thus reducing the loading time. Loading time
therefore is the time the equipment was supposed to be running
In cases where several products have been produced, (either sequential or parallel) the
Performance part of the OEE is calculated as a weighted average between the several
expected output ranges.
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
10 / 30
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
11 / 30
Section 2:
Type Name
Definition
Production time =
Running time
Failure time =
Breakdown time
Idle time =
Waiting time
Unscheduled
Not Scheduled
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
12 / 30
2.1
Production
Time type
Max. recommended
Try to define no
more categories!
Plating
Stamping
Assembly
Filling
Moulding
Drilling
Refining
Baking
2 Reworking
Re-filling
Re-pressing
Remanufacture
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
13 / 30
Time type
Max. recommended
10 Failure [function x]
Failure filler
Failure Capper
Failure depalletiser
10
11 (Re)Adjustment
Adjustment
Re-calibration
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
14 / 30
No Time Usage
20 Setup
Product change
Setup
Quality Change
Time type
Max. recommended
21 Startup/Shutdown
Heat up
Start after stop
Run-in
Checking machine
Preparation
Pressurise
Pump dry
Empty out
Clear out
Rinse out
Cool down
Calibration
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
15 / 30
No Time Usage
22 No Operator at machine
Break
Meeting
Training
Help at other machine
Washing hands
23
Time type
Max. recommended
Stopped because output is out of The machine can not run because the process can not
meet up with the specifications for (at that moment)
spec
unknown reasons.
If the reason is known (i.e. bad raw material), it should
be registered as such (Bad raw material = Waiting for
correct material).
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
16 / 30
No Time Usage
24 Refill/Replace
Blade change
Refill ink cartridge
Oil Refill
25 Loading
Load labels
Load boxes
Load Raw material
26 Handling
Truck (un)loading
Forklift driving
Container change
Time type
Max. recommended
27 Waiting
Waiting on Tooling
Waiting on Engineering
Waiting on Maintenance
Waiting on Inspection
Looking for Gauge
No/Bad Packaging
No/Bad Raw material
No operator Available
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
17 / 30
No Time Usage
28
Time type
Max. recommended
29
Preventive Maintenance
during Loading Time
Unplanned PM
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
18 / 30
Time type
Max. recommended
The machine stands still due to the fact it can not get rid
of its output; mostly due to a stop in a succeeding
process that has a technical link, e.g. a conveyer.
Also see block [No Input].
Remark:
The Line Restraint categories are used to reveal unbalanced capacities and/or timing in line
processes. A line can be thought of literally: several machines tied together with conveyors,
pipes etc.
However, applying Lean-Principles, those categories can be very well used to detect unbalanced situations between machines not technically tied together, e.g. in a cell or between
several departments.
It even might be used to detect flaws in the supply-chain.
The [L] category therefore can be seen as a strict [L]ine Restraint but also as a [L]ean or
[L]ogistic restraint.
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
19 / 30
Max. recommended
60 No Orders
No Orders
Over-capacity
PM during No Orders
Cleaning during No Orders
Time type
61 No Personnel Available
No Personnel
Strike
62 No Resources
River Frozen
Energy Contract
Boycott
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
20 / 30
No Time Usage
63 Test Production
R&D
Test Run
Time type
Max. recommended
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
21 / 30
The activity is necessary to perform the scheduled production thus can not be skipped:
This means the OEE is artificially high. When Loading Time needs to be extended (e.g.
more capacity is needed) and 2 shift becomes 3 shift, or 3 becomes 5 shift, those
activities automatically will fall into the loading time, thus dropping the OEE!
Usually, outside the loading time, there is no pressure to get the machine up and running;
this might result in a less effective performance of the activity scheduled outside of the
loading time.
It is advised to register ALL machine related activities, necessary to perform the operation,
WITHIN the loading time, regardless of the normal shift-time. Thus PM on Saturday would be
Idle time and decreases the OEE!
However, if you choose not to do so, make sure to register ALL the time the machine is being
touched or activated outside normal loading time. In this way the potential loss can be
identified and made visible.
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
22 / 30
No Time Usage
70
Time type
Max. recommended
71
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
23 / 30
Section 3:
Speed definitions
To calculate the performance rate, the theoretical maximum speed is related to the actual
speed.
3.1
The maximum speed can be determined from the NPC, the Name Plate Capacity (Design
speed). However, mostly there are several product(groups) on a machine with their own
derived maximum speed. In such cases, special care has to be taken not to include hidden
losses in the maximum speed due to difficult products which might refer to products which
we dont control the process for
3.3
The NPC should not be taken granted for. More than once it was discovered to include all
kind of hidden losses. The manufacturer might have chosen a low NPC for reasons of liability
or to fit the equipment with other equipment in a line.
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
24 / 30
3.4
The Standard
At well chosen Standards, the performance rate will never exceed 100%,
unless the product or the machine fundamentally changes
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
25 / 30
3.5
This statement should be taken serious. If not done so, situations may (and do) occur where
the shopfloor is filled with scrap, the machine is suffering one breakdown after the other and
still accounts for 80% or more OEE. How?
70% Availability, 80 % Quality, 143% Performance = 80% OEE !
As soon as the performance rate goes over 100% (indicating the standard is chosen too
low!) the beautiful balance of the OEE parameters is broken, and the focus may be taken
away from what it is all about: identifying and reducing losses.
In cases where the maximum speed has to be determined based upon a Best Of Best
analysis, it should be considered that this BOB is achieved under the former and current
circumstances, including current losses.
Since in the end even standards are broken by product- and equipment improvement, the
BOB should not be considered too easily as maximum value. As a rule of thumb the BOB
value should be raised with at least 10 to 25% to serve as Standard.
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
26 / 30
Section 4:
Quality definitions
Producing quality means producing a product that meets its specification, not by trying
more than once but First Time Right.
Products not meeting its full spec, but still useful and possible to sell (i.e. as B product, or in
a different market) are not first time right and thus should be considered scrap.
If a product does not meet its spec, but can be reworked, in terms of OEE it is to be
considered as scrap, but can be identified as a special form of scrap, by labelling it as
rework.
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
27 / 30
Section 5:
Discussion issues
Q:
Why do you include breaks in the OEE? We have a legal right to have a break!
A:
This approach assumes the machine can not run while you are having your coffee or lunch.
The reason to include it in the OEE is to make the production team aware of this potential
loss. Is there really no way to let the machine run 15 or 30 minutes without operator
interference? Would it be possible to have an other operator at the machine? Could an other
operator watch your machine while you go away?
Q:
We feel cleaning and maintenance should not be included in OEE. This is necessary to
keep the machine running well!
A:
Exactly! So Maintaining a machine is not meant to reduce its effectiveness No, we clean
and maintain to RAISE its effectiveness. By taking this time out of the OEE, we will never see
if the effort we spent to clean and maintain is bringing us a higher effectiveness at the bottom
line!
Q:
Ok, but at least you should take out Preventive Maintenance. I, the operator, do not
have any influence on preventive maintenance!
A:
Q:
You want us to track a maximum of 10 failure categories, but I want to define 85. How
else can I ever know what bold is breaking?
A:
At first glance that seams to make sense. But OEE is not a breakdown registration system, but
a loss detection system.
Let me explain the consequences: Imagine after 3 months registering OEE data, it shows the
main loss is in availability. So now you want to know what you need to do to get your
availability up. So you take one of the seven tools and draw a pareto diagram of all your timeevents. Lets assume each of the 85 breakdown items occurred at least once. What you will
see is a pareto with an immense long tail, not giving a clear clue where the main losses are
located.
In the other approach where you would have registered failures on, lets say, 5 process parts of
the equipment (like incoming conveyer, pre-heater, moulder, compressor, outgoing conveyer)
it would show what part of the equipment is restraining the process most. Then you start
temporarily to focus on that part. A simple registration card (maybe even showing the 85
breakdown items) for some weeks will give detailed insight whats going on. Sometimes it is a
matter of simple maintenance, sometimes a Small Group Activity can solve the problem for
once and forever. By this circle of focused improvement the equipment will become better and
better. This example also shows another disadvantage of the breakdown registration
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
28 / 30
approach; if you handle each breakdown in the best way, thus eliminating it forever (either by
reengineering or taking it into PM), it will not reoccur, while other breakdowns may start to
occur. So after a while the breakdown registration system will not reflect the reality anymore.
In the other approach this is less likely to happen.
Q:
A:
The reason why the equipment stopped running is not the cleaning but the waiting for
technician or the raw material. Always register the true reason why the machine is stopped,
not how you spent that time.
If you would like to add a discussion item, please let us know: [email protected]
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
29 / 30
Beekseweg 7
5735 CB Aarle-Rixtel
The Netherlands
tel. +31-492-381349
fax. +31-492-383768
@ [email protected]
www.BlomConsultancy.nl
www.oeetoolkit.com
OEE
INDUSTRY
STANDARD
30 / 30