Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/298938307
CITATION READS
1 885
2 authors, including:
Francisco Brojo
Universidade da Beira Interior
40 PUBLICATIONS 58 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Francisco Brojo on 19 March 2016.
(1)
CISE – Electromechatronic Systems Research Centre
(2)
CAST – Centre for Aerospace Science and Technologies
(3)
University of Beira Interior
Convento de Santo António
6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
(4)
MSc, ex-Delphi Guarda Maintenance Engineer
Abstract
In order to present a new methodology to help maintenance practitioners, owners and
managers to develop and implement strategies for the management of their maintenance
activities, based on the Gupta’s Six Sigma Business Scorecard (SSBS) this paper proposes
the theoretical principles of the Six Sigma Maintenance Scorecard (SSMS) as well as a
case study. The proposed methodology, SSMS, represents a very efficient tool to evaluate
the performance of maintenance activities and to adopt methodologies for continuous
improvement. Moreover, by creating both performance and evaluation standards, as
proved in the case study presented, the SSMS also allows the comparison between
maintenance services.
1
1. Introduction
The maintenance process represents a key factor for the production in industrial processes
(Ghosh and Roy, 2010; Pintelon and Gelders, 1992). Therefore, a powerful tool as the
one proposed in this paper, allowing the evaluation of the maintenance performance, and
engineering. Statistics are very important within the context of quality improvement and
therefore in business and industry (Hoerla and Sneeb, 2010; Sana, 2010; Mishra and
“pitfalls” (Goh, 2010), Six Sigma (6σ) philosophy is a strongly disciplined practice
order to reduce failures and production costs (Snee, 2004; de Mast, 2007). The evaluation
of how many failures or defects exist in an industrial processes, will allow the adoption
of the correct procedures in order to eliminate those failures and attain the goal of “zero
failures or errors” (Akram, Saif, and Rahim, 2012; Goh and Xie, 2003).
Six Sigma is, perhaps, the most successful business improvement strategy during the last
five decades. Prabhushankar et al. (2008) presented and critically evaluated the various
definitions that exist in the literature and proposed the following definition: “Six Sigma
improvement strategy that seeks to find and eliminate the sources of error or the causes
operations, and strives to reach a level of 3.4 Defaults Per Million of Opportunities
(DPMO) using extremely rigorous data gathering and statistical analysis, thereby
2
meeting or even exceeding customers’ needs and expectations with a focus on financially
When applied to the industrial sector, this philosophy represents a methodology that
On the other hand, a study carried out by Thirunavukkarasu et al. (2008) indicated the
flexible and expanding nature of Six Sigma methodology and witnessed the efforts made
to integrate Six Sigma methodology with several other strategies. For instance, the design
technique named Total Six Sigma Function Deployment (TSSFD) and, as example, others
developed by Thomas and Barton (2006) and Thomas and Lewis (2007), which developed
and applied a combined Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) and Six Sigma strategy in
a sample Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) and cost-effective six sigma methodology
in order to eradicate a major Critical to Quality (CTQ) issue. In this context, and bearing
in mind that there is often a mismatch between some organisations' goals and their
strategies, Pyzdek (2004) presented an approach that shows how objectives can be used
The Six Sigma Business Scorecard (SSBS) (Gupta, 2007), whose theoretical and practical
principles are described in (Bass, 2007; Cabrita, 2009a; Cabrita, 2009b) consists in the
analysis and improvement of the organizations financial and business performance, based
on the 6σ structure (Bass, 2007; Gupta, 2007; Cabrita, 2009a; Cabrita, 2009b).
analyse the organizations performance, taking the previously defined strategy as basis.
The performance is measured using the 6σ levels, by means of indicators related to the
3
and human resources. Therefore, allowing the measure of the organizations financial and
performance and, consequently, compare it with the previously defined strategy and
outline their respective improvements, Gupta (2007) also proposed an indicator, called
Taking the SSBS into account, the Six Sigma Maintenance Scorecard (SSMS) is based on
the normal distribution and represents, in the same way, by evaluating the industrial
losses. Note that the Weibull continuous distribution can be relevant for example to
describe the time evolution of equipment failure rates. However, for the time periods
defined for the SSMS the mean failure rates must be considered instead of their continuous
time evolutions. It allows to analyse and improve the performance of the maintenance
activities based on the 6σ levels. This philosophy should present the following
characteristics in order to obtain the goal of “zero failures” (Silva, 2008; Vaz, 2009):
transition from the corrective and reactive activities to a new culture based on
4
the Total Productive Maintenance principles, as well as, other maintenance
models that involve, directly, equipment operators with the objective to avoid
6. Force the cultural changes in the maintenance structure with the objective of
continuous improvement.
departments.
10. Promotion of a continuous training practices, in order to encourage all the human
resources, making them feel every time more responsible, and could this way
necessities.
11. Adoption of the most suitable policies in what concerns the materials
carefully selected.
14. Maintain, permanently updated, the historical data concerning all equipments and
maintenance materials.
5
2. Implementation
Based on the SSBS guidelines (Gupta, 2007), the following sequential steps to install the
1. Understand clearly the meaning of the 6σ philosophy and Lean Thinking, as well
as the implications and importance of the maintenance for the wellness of the
organization.
2. Make feel that this philosophy corresponds to the miscegenation of 6σ with the
3. Create an indicator for the overall maintenance activities that could be designed
4. Establish short and long term improvement objectives for all maintenance
6. Establish the relation between the equipments productivity and the values
means of diagnostic and for the automation of the data acquisition and analysis
systems.
10. Establish methods for data logging, calculation of parameters and subsequent
analysis.
6
11. Elaborate the trend charts and present the data related to the objectives to reach,
its production field, the number of productive equipments and its complexity and
criticality.
13. Review the performance of Maintenance Funcion from the obtained data and
14. Identify the indicators that present a high variance and an adverse performance
compared to the initial objectives and research the causes of these differences.
15. Develop actions to improve the performance and monitor the improvement impact
16. Establish a benchmarking practice between all organization factories and with
3. Methodology
The knowledge of the maintenance PKPIs is essential to evaluate the efficiency of the
the very complete available indicators defined in (Moubray, 1997; Mather, 2005;
Wireman, 2005; ECS, 2007), the following 9 were chosen, in order to exemplify, in
practice, the methodology to determine the 6σ level for the SSMS. However, other
7
Is obtained by:
MTBM
EOA = ×100 (1)
MTBM + MDT
where MTBM is the Mean Time Between Maintenance and MDT the Mean Maintenance
Down Time. Because there are, in general, several production lines with various
Sometimes there are equipments with very high criticality levels and consequently with
high probability of non planned stopps, having then a low EOA. In these cases, is essential
Is obtained by:
As for EOA, EFR should correspond to the average of all equipments failure rates, with
Is obtained by
OEE = AV × OE × QR (3)
where AV is the Availability, OE the Operational Efficiency and QR the Quality Rate:
8
Total output for operating time × Design cycle time
OE = =
Net available run time − Downtime losses
(5)
Total output for operating time × Design cycle time
=
Actual operating time
According to Wireman (2004), the reference values for an excellent performance are
respectivelly AV = 0.90, OE = 0.95 and QR = 0.99, having this way the goal OEE = 0.90
⋅ 0.95 ⋅ 0.99 = 0.85 (85%). For a better understanding of the OEE calculation, a practical
● Gross time available: 2 daily shifts of 8 hours each, 5 days per week during 2
⋅ 60 = 300 min.
60 = 240 min.
● Rejects: 80 pieces.
9
M4. Overwork Maintenance Index: Evaluates the charges related to the overwork
maintenance activities, compared with the total work of the maintenance human
resources:
10
It should be emphasized that both number and type of these indicators depend from the
and MTTR are included in both inherent and operational availabilities (IEC Standard
60050 (191), 1990; IEC Standard 61703, 2001), which are more important in the
maintenance activities evaluation. Note that the European Standard EN 15341 (ECS,
Maintenance Scorecard, only nine indicators were chosen in order to clearly present the
theoretical fundamentals of this methodology, including also a practical case study. The
inclusion and quantification of training in Lean Sigma and TPM as well as in Reliability
Centred maintenance (RCM) (Ahuja, 2011; Fraser, Hvolby and Watanabe, 2011) can be
maintenance policies, and their production gains can also be included through other
However, the determination of the 6σ level presents always the same calculation
methodology, as follows.
To understand the 6σ level methodology calculation for the SSMS, a numerical example
concerning a given evaluation time period (one year for the present case), is presented in
11
Table 1 (Gupta, 2007; Cabrita, 2009a; Cabrita, 2009b). Then, to obtain the Maintenance
that, the indicators to choose must be the more representative to the company
every indicator as a function of the specificity of every one and of its importance
for the maintenance development. The sum of these weights must be equal to 100,
Scorecard, for every one of the n measured indicators, these weighted performances
As for Business Scorecard (Gupta, 2007; Cabrita, 2009a), the effective values to be
used for the SSMS are suggested in Table 2. Relatively to this ratio, it should be
ü The actual performance ratio, Rn, for every one of the measured indicators
ü As for SSBS, the elaboration of the SSMS don’t consider the actual ratio
Rn, but the corrected value Dn in order to clearly differentiate good from
bad performances. As example, for the EOA, if one has Rn = 100, the
12
corrected values recommended in Table 2, one obtains for Dn respectively
100 and 40, that is a more significant difference (see Table 3).
ü On the other hand, a Rn > 100 means that the performance obtained for
this indicator is higher than the specified for the analysis period.
aggravation every time higher. The same will happen with OMI, where
and M8.
ü Whereas Rn could be higher than 100, the value of Dn can’t get higher than
that value, from where comes the need to elaborate the correspondence
ü However, the maximum performance value for the n indicators could not
arbitrarily, for only one of the indicators, the values 90 or 95 for its
maximum performance.
consider the actual ratio Rn, if its value is higher than 100 one must always
13
consider Rn = 100. In the limit, i.e. when all the ratios are equal to 100,
P × Dn
PMPI n = n (14)
100
N
MPI = ∑ PMPI n (15)
n =1
• Determination of the number of Defects per Unit: As for the Business Scorecard
(Bass, 2007; Gupta, 2007; Cabrita, 2009a; Cabrita, 2009b), it should be calculated
⎛ MPI ⎞
DPU = − ln ⎜ ⎟ (16)
⎝ 100 ⎠
DPU × 10 6
DPMO = (19)
average number of opportunit ies for defect per unit
14
On the other hand, for the maintenance one must have:
DPU × 10 6
DPMO = (20)
average number of equipments per production line
• Determination of the Six Sigma level: The calculation of the 6σ level is performed
using the standard normal distribution playing numerically with the DPMO and the
2009b).
directly 6σ levels with DPMO (Table 4). For the levels calculated with the decimal part
to the hundredth or to the thousandth, for example 4.13, the respective DPMO could be
should be emphasized that a small error is introduced compared with the use of the
represents itself, in its principles, a numerical game of approximations where the true
As a complement, Table 5 shows the maximum and minimum values obtained for DPU,
according to Tables 1 and 2, as well as the limits for DPMO as a function of the average
15
PKPIs Pn Dn PMPIn
M1. Equipment Operational Availability EOA 10 40 4
M2. Equipment Failure Rate EFR 20 75 15
M3. Overall Equipment Effectiveness OEE 10 50 5
M4. Overwork Maintenance Index OMI 10 100 10
M5. Maintenance Technical Index MTI 10 30 3
M6. Production Volume Index PVI 15 70 10.5
M7. Preventive Maintenance Index PMI 5 50 2.5
M8. Maintenance Staff Index MSI 10 90 9
M9. Subcontracted Work Index SWI 10 70 7
Calculations
MPI 66.0 %
DPU 0.416
average number of equipments
9
per production line
DPMO 46222
6σ level 3.184 (3.18)
PKPIs Rn Dn
M1. Equipment Operational Availability EOA ≤ 60 20
80 40
90 70
≥ 100 100
≥ 200 20
16
M2. Equipment Failure Rate EFR 150 40
120 70
≤ 100 100
M3. Overall Equipment Efectiveness OEE ≤ 50 20
60 30
75 50
≥ 100 100
M4. Overwork Maintenance Index OMI ≥ 200 10
150 30
120 70
≤ 100 100
M5. Maintenance Technical Index MTI ≥ 200 10
150 30
120 70
≤ 100 100
M6. Production Volume Index PVI ≥ 200 10
150 30
120 70
≤ 100 100
M7. Preventive Maintenance Index PMI ≤ 20 10
40 30
60 50
≥ 100 100
M8. Maintenance Staff Index MSI ≥ 200 10
150 30
120 70
≤ 100 100
M9. Subcontracted Work Index SWI ≤ 70 20
80 30
90 70
≥ 100 90
Table 2 – Suggested values for the effective performance ratios of the measured
indicators.
Rn Dn
PKPIs Pn
Rn PMPIn Dn PMPIn
M1 10 80 8 40 4
M2 20 100 20 100 20
17
M3 10 60 6 30 3
M4 10 100 10 100 10
M5 10 100 10 100 10
M6 15 100 15 100 15
M7 5 60 3 50 2.5
M8 10 100 10 100 10
M9 10 80 8 30 3
Calculations
MPI 90.0 % 77.5 %
DPU 0.1054 0.2549
average number of
equipaments per 9
production line
DPMO 11711 28322
6σ level 3.769 (3.77) 3.407 (3.41)
18
1.3 579260 3 66800 4.7 686
1.4 539828 3.1 54799 4.8 483
1.5 500000 3.2 44565 4.9 337
1.6 460172 3.3 35930 5 230
1.7 420740 3.4 28717 5.1 159
1.8 382088 3.5 22750 5.2 108
1.9 344578 3.6 17865 5.3 72
2 308000 3.7 13904 5.4 48
2.1 274253 3.8 10724 5.5 32
2.2 241964 3.9 8198 5.6 21
2.3 211856 4 6210 5.7 13
2.4 184100 4.1 4661 5.8 9
2.5 158655 4.2 3467 5.9 5
2.6 135666 4.3 2555 6 3.4
As known:
DPU × 10 6 DPU × 10 6
DPMO = = (21)
average number of opportunit ies of defect per unit NOD
where NOD is the average number of equipments per production line. By considering the
DPU × 10 6
NOD = (22)
3.4
As can be concluded, for the production of industrial components and equipments, for
example power semiconductors and electronic converters for electrical motors speed
control (Cabrita, 2009a; Cabrita, 2009b), it is possible, at least theoretically and even in
Nevertheless, for the SSMS is impossible, from the rational point of view, to attain that
19
level, as explained ahead. From Table 5 the minimum value for DPU is 0.101 and,
therefore, from Eq. (22) the maximum performance should be obtained for NOD
6
= (0.0101 × 10 ) / 3.4 = 2970.
that the production lines have 2970 equipments, what is completely impossible. On the
other hand, as shown in Tables 1 and 5, for the same performance, i.e. the same DPU, the
higher the average number of equipments per production line, the higher will be 6σ level.
Althought SSMS presents the great merit of allowing to evaluate the performance of
maintenance in comparative terms, it succeeds that, for the same level of quality, i.e. for
the same DPU, the sigma level differs from organization to organization in function of
the number of equipments of the production lines. Thus, when the DPU number is the
same, the maintenance must have the same 6σ level, independently of the number of
Maximum Minimum
PKPIs Pn
Dn PMPIn Dn PMPIn
20
M1 10 100 10 20 2
M2 20 100 20 20 4
M3 10 100 10 20 2
M4 10 100 10 10 1
M5 10 100 10 10 1
M6 15 100 15 10 1.5
M7 5 100 5 10 0.5
M8 10 100 10 10 1
M9 10 90 9 20 2
Calculations
MPI 99.0 % 15.0 %
DPU 0.0101 1.8971
average number of
equipments per 9
production line
DPMO 1122 210789
6σ level 4.559 (4.56) 2.304 (2.30)
Tables 1 and 5, is proposed. To obtain the Scorecards, one should proceed according to
• Calculation of the values for MPI (99.0 %), DPU (0.0101) and DPMO (842),
concerning the maximum possible performance, and the respective 6σ level (4.65)
taking the average number of equipments per production line (12) into account.
• Calculation of the values for those same indicators (MPI = 54.0 %, DPU = 0.6162,
DPMO = 51350), and the respective 6σ level (3.13), for the effective performance
21
• Calculation of the correction factor (6 – 4.65 = 1.35). Since the number of
equipments considered is the same and the correction factor is calculated from the
• Calculation of the corrected 6σ level, for the effective performance, i.e. 3.13 + 1.35
= 4.48.
Because the average number of opportunities for defect per unit influences the
calculation of the DPMO and consequently the 6σ level, one can argue that the
follows:
ü The original idea for the creation of the 6σ philosophy is based on the
for DPU and DPMO, being enough to count the components and the
previously defined.
of the 6σ, with the intent to evaluate in relative terms based on the 6σ
22
their activity sector and dimension. Concerning the SSMS, it represents the
adaptation of the SSBS for the company Maintenance Function, with the
the calculation in both cases of DPU, differs significantly in its basis from
DPU for both SSBS and SSMS is conditioned to the calculation method
present the same DPU, its sigma level will be the same. The differentiation
exists only when the DPU is the same and the average number of
equipments per production line is different, then one obtains inequal sigma
levels, being more penalized the maintenance service that has at his charge
counted as the opportunities for defect. However, for both SSBS and SSMS
the calculation of DPMO is more subjective, taking into account that the
23
of the maintenance performance, for the same DPU one can calculate two
these equipments as opportunities for defect. On the other hand, it can also
ü For the SSMS one consider for the calculation of the DPMO the average
can emphasize that using the lessons learned from the 6σ philosophy, the
24
Effective
Maximum
PKPIs Pn performance
Dn PMPIn Dn PMPIn
M1 10 100 10 40 4
M2 20 100 20 70 14
M3 10 100 10 50 5
M4 10 100 10 30 3
M5 10 100 10 70 7
M6 15 100 15 30 4.5
M7 5 100 5 50 2.5
M8 10 100 10 70 7
M9 10 90 9 70 7
Calculations
MPI 99.0 % 54.0 %
DPU 0.0101 0.6162
average number of
equipments per 12
production line
DPMO 842 51350
6σ level (4.645) 4.65 (3.134) 3.13
Correction factor 6 – 4.65 = 1.35
Corrected 6σ level 6 4.48
4. Case Study
The presented case study was developed in a factory that belongs to Delphi Automotive
Systems, and was located in the central area of Portugal (city of Guarda). It had 749
employees and had 5 labour days per week in two fixed shifts. The productive process
25
was concerned only with the fabrication of electrical cables for world first class
automotive builders.
Taking into account that quality is an inseparable function for all productive processes
and which is also reflected in the quality of the final products, this company was certified
by the ISO 9000, QS 9000, ISO 14001 and ISO TS 16949 standards. It should be noted
also that this company used state of the art technology and productive processes without
wastes neither time losses (Lean Production), where the developing cycle of its products
prototyping, test, process planning, logistics, production planning, fabrication and supply
to the customers.
The maintenance was under the Department of Engineering Maintenance, where the
was performed by the technical personnel of the company. This factory had a care about
the activities of the human resources connected to the production lines, through a policy
concerned the good performance of all equipments they operated, in order to transfer the
shows the organizational chart related to the structure of the Industrial Direction (Vaz,
2009).
Concerning the use of proactive maintenance policies for the Assets Efficiency
significant enhancement to the OEE, being considered the following aspects, which were
equally in the basis of the exequibility of the methodologies used (Vaz, 2009):
26
• Improve the cooperation between the maintenance personnel and the equipments
process.
associated equipments.
• Higher integration of the production personnel with the equipments they operated.
INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT
OEE
Overall Equipment
Effectiveness
27
For the Delphi Guarda, the partial key performance indicators related to the time period
2003-2007 are shown in Table 7. Taking Table 7 into account one can conclude the
following:
The same succeeded, in an approximated way and by the same reasons, for the
M5.
activities (essentially preventive), the same happened with M7, also by the same
reason.
because even with production fluctuations, the equipments maintained the same
• M9 was stable due to the good practices in what respects the planning of the
28
M1 - EOA [%] 99.4 99.7 99.6 99.8 99.97
M2 - EFR
[failures per 7.47 ⋅ 10-2 4.09 ⋅ 10-2 4.70 ⋅ 10-2 1.10 ⋅ 10-2 1.30 ⋅ 10-2
hour]
M3 - OEE [%] 84 83 81 85 86
M4 - OMI [%] 4 4 4 4 4
M5 - MTI [%] 89 71 77 69 76.9
M6 - PVI [%] 1.89 0.95 1.18 1.20 1.25
M7 - PMI [%] 32 45 47 58 54
M8 - MSI [%] 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2
M9 - SWI [%] 18 31 32 40 38
The methodology used is obviously the same as that described previously, being
presented in Table 2 the values suggested for the effective performance ratios of the nine
measured indicators (Vaz, 2009). Because one had average number of equipments per
DPU × 10 6
DPMO = (23)
13
Accordingly, the calculation of the maximum and minimum sigma levels as well as the
correction factor is presented in Table 8. It should be emphasized that the values attributed
to the Pn weights obey to criteria directly related to the importance that the measured
indicators presented for the good performance of the maintenance technical and
29
Dn PMPIn Dn PMPIn
M1 20 100 20 20 4
M2 20 100 20 20 4
M3 10 100 10 20 2
M4 5 100 5 10 0.5
M5 10 100 10 10 1
M6 10 100 10 10 1
M7 5 100 5 10 0.5
M8 10 100 10 10 1
M9 10 90 9 20 2
Calculations
MPI 99.0 % 16.0 %
DPU 0.0101 1.833
average number of
equipments per 13
production line
DPMO 777 141000
6σ level 4.668 (4.67) 2.577 (2.58)
Correction factor 6 – 4.67 = 1.33
Corrected 6σ level 6 3.91
Table 8 – Maximum and minimum values of DPU and DPMO (Delphi Guarda).
Table 9 shows the results related to the application of the SSMS for the time periods 2003-
2005 and 2006-2007. It was chosen to determine the sigma levels for two groups of years
and not for each year separately, because for each year inside each period the obtained
30
Time periods 2003 - 2005 2006 - 2007
PKPIs Pn Dn PMPIn Pn Dn PMPIn
M1 20 100 20 20 100 20
M2 20 100 20 20 100 20
M3 10 100 10 10 100 10
M4 5 100 5 5 100 5
M5 10 100 10 10 100 10
M6 10 100 10 10 100 10
M7 5 50 2.5 5 70 3.5
M8 10 100 10 10 100 10
M9 10 50 5 10 50 5
Calculations
MPI 92.5 % 93.5 %
DPU 0.0779 0.0672
average number of equipments
13 13
per production line
DPMO 5992 5169
6σ level 4.014 (4.01) 4.067 (4.07)
Correction factor 1.33
Corrected 6σ level 5.34 5.40
Analyzing the data shown in Table 9, one can conclude the following:
● As expected, for both time periods the 6σ levels were relatively high (5.34 and
● Relatively to the values suggested in Table 2, M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6 and M8
● Concerning M7, it was given to D7 the values 50 and 70 and not the maximum
100, because it was advisable that the preventive maintenance activities should
31
increase in a significant way in order to this indicator to get higher than 75, what
● Concerning M9, for both time periods it was attributed to D9 the value 50 and not
the maximum 90, because it was advisable the increase of the subcontracted work
5. Final Considerations
From the presented work one can conclude that the 6σ philosophy represents a very
powerfull tool, allowing through the used metrics, to evaluate either the organisations
performance and determined sectors of its working structure, as succed with the
maintenance as proposed in this work. It also define all the correction procedures for the
key performance indicators, specially the more critical ones, in a continuos improvement
basis
As explained, the Partial Performance Key Indicators should be selected according to the
met. In the presented case study the major goals are related to the maximization of the
production.
Unfortunately, due to the global economic crisis, Delphi Guarda ended its activity and
closed at December 32, 2010. This paper represents the authors’ tribute to all employees
32
References
Akram, M.A.; Saif, A-W.A. and Rahim, A. (2012), “Quality monitoring and process
adjustment by integrating SPC and APC: a review”, International Journal of
Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol.11, No.4, pp.375 - 405.
Ahuja, I.S. (2011), “Total productive maintenance practices in manufacturing
organisations: literature review”, International Journal of Technology, Policy and
Management, Vol.11, No.2, p.117 - 138.
Baas, I. (2007), “Six Sigma Statistics with Excel and Minitab”, McGraw Hill, New York,
USA.
Cabrita, C.P. (2009a), “Contribution for the Knowledge of the Probabilistic and Statistic
Basis of the Six Sigma Philosophy: Caracterization of the Six Sigma Business
Scorecard” (in Portuguese). Portuguese Technical Journal of Maintenance.
Cabrita, C.P. (2009b), “Probabilistic and Statistic Basis of the Six Sigma Philosophy” (in
Portuguese). Portuguese Technical Journal of Maintenance.
de Mast, J. (2007) “Integrating the Many Facets of Six Sigma”, Quality Engineering, Vol.
19, No. 4, pp. 353 - 361.
European Committee for Standardization ECS (2007), “European Standard EN 15341,
Maintenance – Maintenance Key Performance Indicators”, Brussels, Belgium.
Fraser, K.; Hvolby, H-H. and Watanabe, C. (2011), “A review of the three most popular
maintenance systems: how well is the energy sector represented?”, International
Journal of Global Energy Issues, Vol.35, No.2/3/4, pp. 287 - 309.
Ghosh, D. and Roy, S. (2010), “A decision-making framework for process plant
maintenance”, European Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol.4, No.1 , pp.78 - 98
Goh, T.N. (2010), “Six Triumphs and Six Tragedies of Six Sigma”, Quality Engineering,
Vol. 22 Nº. 4, pp. 119 - 129.
Goh, T.N. and Xie, M. (2003), “Statistical Control of a Six Sigma Process”, Quality
Engineering, Vol. 22 Nº. 4, pp. 299 - 305.
Gupta, P. (2007), “Six Sigma Business Scorecard. Ensuring Performance for Profit” (2nd
edition), McGraw Hill, New York, USA.
Hoerla, R.W. and Sneeb, R. (2010) “Statistical Thinking and Methods in Quality
Improvement: A Look to the Future”, Quality Engineering, Vol. 22, No.4, pp. 119
- 129.
33
International Electrotechnical Commission IEC (1990), “IEC Standard 60050 (191),
International Electrotechnical Vocabulary, Chapter 191: Dependability and quality
of service”, Geneve, Switzerland.
International Electrotechnical Commission IEC (2001), “IEC Standard 61703,
Mathematical expressions for reliability, availability, maintainability and
maintenance support terms”, Geneve, Switzerland.
Linderman, K.; McKone-Sweet, K.E. and Anderson, J.C. (2005), “An economic
production lot size model in an imperfect production system”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 164, No. 2, pp. 324 - 340.
Mather, D. (2005), “The Maintenance Scorecard. Creating Strategic Advantage”,
Industrial Press, New York, USA.
Mishra, B. and Dangayach, G.S. (2009), “Performance improvement through statistical
process control: a longitudinal study”, International Journal of Globalisation and
Small Business, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp.55 - 72.
Moubray, J. (1997), “Reliability-Centered Maintenance”, Industrial Press, New York,
USA.
Pintelon, L.M. and Gelders, L.F. (1992), “Maintenance management decision making”
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 301 - 317.
Prabhushankar, G.V.; Devadasan, S.R.; Shalij, P.R. and Thirunavukkarasu, V. (2008),
“The origin, history and definition of Six Sigma: a literature review”, International
Journal Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.133 - 150.
Prabhushankar, G.V.; Devadasan, S.R.; Shalij, P.R. and Thirunavukkarasu, V. (2009),
“Design of Innovative Six Sigma Quality Management Systems”, International
Journal on Process Management and Benchmarking, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 76 - 100.
Pyzdek, T. (2004), “Strategy deployment using balanced scorecards”, International
Journal on Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.21 - 28.
Sana, S.S. (2010), “An economic production lot size model in an imperfect production
system”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 201, N.º 1, pp. 158 - 170.
Silva, C.; Cabrita, C.P. and Matias, J.C.O. (2008), “Proactive Reliability Maintenance: a
case study concerning maintenance service costs”, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 14 Nº. 4, pp. 343 - 355.
34
Snee, R.D. (2004), “Six-Sigma: the evolution of 100 years of business improvement
methodology”, International Journal on Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage,
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.4 - 20.
Thirunavukkarasu, V.; Devadasan, S.R.; Prabhushankar, G.V.; Murugesh R. and
Senthilkumar, K.M. (2008), “Conceptualisation of Total Six Sigma Function
Deployment through literature snapshots”, International Journal on Applied
Management Science, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.97 - 122.
Thomas, A. and Barton, R. (2006), "Developing an SME based six sigma strategy",
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.417 - 434.
Thomas, A. and Lewis, G. (2007), “Developing an SME-based integrated TPM - Six
Sigma strategy”, International Journal on Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage,
Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.228 - 247.
Vaz, P.M. (2009), “Six Sigma Industrial Maintenance. Statistic Basis, Methodologies,
Case Study of an Automotive Multinational Factory” (in Portuguese). MSc. Thesis
in Electromechanical Engineering, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
Wireman, T. (2004), “Total Productive Maintenance”, Industrial Press, New York, USA.
Wireman, T. (2005), “Developing Performance Indicators for Managing Maintenance”,
Industrial Press, New York, USA.
35