This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 19 October 2014, At: 20:13Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Production Planning & Control: The Management ofOperationsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

The maquiladora industry and equipmentmaintenance: an industry-based perspectiveShad Dowlatshahi aa Division of Business Administration, HW Bloch School of Business and PublicAdministration , The University of Missouri-Kansas City , 5110 Cherry Street, Kansas City, MO64110-2499, USAPublished online: 23 Apr 2009.

To cite this article: Shad Dowlatshahi (2009) The maquiladora industry and equipment maintenance: anindustry-based perspective, Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 20:3, 227-241, DOI:10.1080/09537280902843573

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537280902843573

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Production Planning & ControlVol. 20, No. 3, April 2009, 227–241

The maquiladora industry and equipment maintenance: an industry-based perspective

Shad Dowlatshahi*

Division of Business Administration, HW Bloch School of Business and Public Administration, The University ofMissouri-Kansas City, 5110 Cherry Street, Kansas City, MO 64110-2499, USA

(Received 19 December 2007; final version received 10 February 2009)

This article empirically investigated the role and implications of equipment maintenance in the maquiladoraindustry at the industry level in El Paso, TX and Juarez, Mexico. The maquiladora industry describes a foreignor domestic-owned factory in Mexico at which imported parts are assembled into products by lower-paidworkers for export. The survey instrument contained four major research questions. The response rate was86% constituting 131 usable questionnaires. Additionally, several in-depth field interviews with experts ofmaquiladoras were conducted in order to gain insight into the results of the survey. Extensive statistical analysesincluding descriptive statistics, hypotheses testing and analysis of variance were performed. The analyses were allindustry based. The overall results indicate that the principles of Total Preventive Maintenance were notimplemented. Maquiladoras, by and large, focused on the symptoms rather than root cause of maintenanceproblems. The maquiladoras invariably emphasised the equipment itself and its immediate breakdownsregardless of what had caused these problems and how the maintenance problems could be effectively avoided.Finally, conclusions and assessment of the results were provided.

Keywords: equipment maintenance; maquiladoras; survey instrument; field interviews; functional collaboration;maintenance losses; six major equipment losses; ISO certifications

1. Introduction

The maquiladora concept, also known as ‘productionsharing’ and ‘twin plants’, emerged as a new modelof manufacturing operations on the border betweenthe US and Mexico in the 1960s. This model ofmanufacturing created significant interest among firmsin the US and subsequently among European andAsian firms. Many US companies attempted todevelop maquiladora operations to take advantageof low-cost Mexican labour, less restrictive Mexicanlabour laws and unions, and the ability to be closeto newer markets. Dowlatshahi (2005) explainedmany details of the operational characteristics andthe importance of maquiladora industries.

One important concern for the maquiladoraindustries is the maintenance and upkeep of industrialequipment and machinery needed to conduct variousmanufacturing operations. The maquiladoras becomemore dependent upon reliability of fewer, but moresophisticated machines and processes of production.Poor equipment and operating performance are nolonger affordable or acceptable. The overall effective-ness of the machines, equipment and processes is

necessary to provide consistency in product quality

and continued availability of equipment at an afford-

able cost. This is essential as the quality of parts and

products manufactured in maquiladora plants should

be congruent with the parts and products produced in

the headquarters of these companies. This issue is

important for two reasons. First, the products manu-

factured in maquiladoras bear the same names and

logos as the original company in the US or elsewhere.

Lack of quality for maquiladora products could

adversely affect the image, reputation and the ability

of the original companies to sell similar products in the

marketplace. Second, low-cost maquiladora industries

resonate low-quality products for many customers.One important topic, which represents the state of

art in maintenance, is Total Preventive Maintenance

(TPM). Bamber et al. (2000) advocated using TPM as

an integral part of a JIT system and integrated

manufacturing system. Kutucuoglu et al. (2001)

focused on the strategic importance of maintenance

and stated that companies should adopt maintenance

as a profit-generating business element within the

corporate business objectives. Salaheldin (2005) stated

*Email: shad@umkc.edu

ISSN 0953–7287 print/ISSN 1366–5871 online

� 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09537280902843573

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

that engineering modifications (e.g. equipment main-tenance and improvement) should be undertaken priorto JIT implementation. Savsar (1997) showed that theintroduction of preventive maintenance in the JITproduction systems increased line performance underall conditions studied in a simulation study. Theauthor further stated that the effects of maintenancewere more pronounced in a longer time. Any break-down in machine operation results in disruptionof production and leads to additional costs due todowntime, loss of production, decrease in productivityand quality and inefficient use of personnel, equipmentand facilities (Ashayeri et al. 1996). Cua et al. (2001)explored the practice of JIT, TPM and Total QualityManagement (TQM) simultaneously. The authorspresented the evidence supporting the compatibilityof the practices in these programs and their positiveimpact on manufacturing performance. In a relatedwork, McKone et al. (2001) investigated the relation-ship between TPM and manufacturing performance.The authors concluded that TPM had a positiveand significant relationship with low cost (as measuredby higher inventory turns), high levels of quality(as measured by higher levels of conformance tospecifications) and strong delivery performance(as measured by higher percentage of on-time deliveriesand by faster speeds of delivery).

Newer technologies and concepts have emergedin the field of maintenance. Many of the functionsassociated with preventive and predictive maintenanceare nowadays performed on the Internet. The emergingconcept of e-maintenance is a maintenance manage-ment concept in which equipment and machines aremonitored and managed on the Internet. Levrat et al.(2008) provided a framework that facilitated anunderstanding of e-maintenance. The authors furtherprovided guidance for supporting e-maintenancedeployment for services, processes, organisations andinfrastructure. Thun (2008) discussed how mainte-nance (in particular, the improvement of maintenanceby TPM) could be supported by mobile business. Theauthor concludes that mobile devices can be used toimprove TPM in different ways to increase OverallEquipment Effectiveness (OEE). Carnero and Noves(2006) discussed the use of and performed an evalua-tion of Computerised Maintenance ManagementSystems (CMMS). The author developed the evalua-tion system for the selection of CMMS softwarein industrial plants using multi-criteria methods.Huang et al. (2005) stated that with the developmentof information technology (IT), predictive mainte-nance technology integrated with IT is becomingincreasingly popular. This work introduced a newpredictive maintenance system, the Intelligent

Maintenance System (IMS). The IMS called for furtherintegration of the factory floor and enterprise systems.Caputo also cited a success story about applying theIMS to an industry. The described approach necessi-tated a complete redesign of plant maintenanceoperations relying on both technical and managerialactions.

The main focus of TPM is on workers andmanagerswho operate or maintain industrial equipment. Thisis essential for achieving effectiveness in the use oftechnology. The TPM is designed to maximise theeffectiveness of the equipment by setting and maintain-ing the best relationships between people and machines.

1.1. Topic justification, research questions andmethodology and organisation of the article

Maquiladoras are inherently manufacturing entitieswith major focus placed on the production of parts andproducts. The maintenance, upkeep and effectivenessof industrial equipment are more crucial issues formaquiladoras than for many other industries. The lackof equipment availability can adversely affect the entiremaquiladora production.

The objective of this study is to explore the role andimpact of industrial maintenance in maquiladoras.This is a significant topic for research given the rolethat manufacturing and equipment maintenance playin maquiladoras. This importance is enhanced becausethere is virtually no work conducted in this area. Theresearch questions specifically focus on the followingareas of research:

Question 1 explores the degree of collaborationbetween the maintenance function and other functionalareas at the industry level in maquiladoras.

Question 2 addresses the sources of maintenanceproblems in terms of equipment, personnel and admin-istration (management) at each industry surveyed inmaquiladoras.

Question 3 considers the six major equipment lossesat each industry. These major losses could be classifiedas symptoms or root-cause losses of equipment.

Question 4 investigates the role of ISO certificationin maintenance of maquiladora industries.

In order to better understand the importanceof maquiladoras, the following information shedssome light. At least 17 states in the US have majorcompanies that are engaged in maquiladora trade andcommerce (Michie 1987). The significance of maquila-doras to the Mexican economy and to the US economycannot be overstated. Nearly 4000 export

228 S. Dowlatshahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

manufacturers, including maquiladoras, employ morethan one million people (Sowinski 2000). The maqui-ladora industry performed 4 percentage points abovetotal industrial growth in 1997 and 1998 in Mexico,which is cited to become the number one maquiladoranation in the world (Carlsen 1998). Lindquist (2001)stated that the maquiladoras helped transform Mexicointo one of the world’s top 10 manufacturing countries.The author further stated that in 2000 the maquiladoraoutput reached $83 billion, which is one-half of thetotal of Mexico’s exports. The US is on the receivingend of many of these exports. At the peak ofemployment at maquiladoras in 2000, nearly 1.3million workers were employed by maquiladoras(Lindquist 2001). Furthermore, NAFTA, with itssignificant economic impact, has drastically affectedmaquiladora operations.

The relevant issues (the four research questionsposed above) in maintenance were studied througha survey instrument and extensive field interviewswith experts in maquiladora plants in El Paso, TX andJuarez, Mexico. Based on the survey and 11 in-depthinterviews of maintenance experts in 10 industries,statistical analyses were performed.

This article is organised into five sections. Theremainder of Section 1 is devoted to the principles ofTPM and review of the literature. The instrumentdevelopment, data collections and the classifications ofthe responses are presented in Section 2. Section 3presents the analysis of results. Whenever possible, theanalysis of results is enhanced by field interviewsconducted with quality experts in the maquiladoraindustry. Section 4 presents the conclusions andassessment of the results.

1.2. Principles of TPM

In order to effectively address and implement TPM,the following five principles must be considered:

(1) Autonomousmaintenance system. This requiresseven steps and includes: initial cleaning ofmachines and production plants, carrying outcounter-measures at the source of problems,developing cleaning and lubrication standards,implementing general inspection routines,effecting an autonomous inspection and creat-ing full autonomous maintenance.

(2) Equipment improvement. The feedback fromthe previous step is essential for improvingequipment. In this step, the maintenancedepartment could work with designers andengineers to create new designs and applica-tions for machines, if necessary.

(3) Quality maintenance. Quality function should

focus on eliminating accelerated deteriora-tion, eliminating defects, operating machine

profitability and working as a team. Thisprinciple requires the identification of sources

as well as proper elimination of defects.(4) Maintenance prevention. Preventive mainte-

nance to the machines is like preventivemedicine for humans. Preventive maintenance

decreases the number of breakdowns andeliminates accelerated deterioration in order

to extend the life of equipment. The preventivemaintenance step requires a planned preventive

maintenance program, evaluating the mainte-nance program, creating optimal design andoperation of equipment and finally making

improvements in systems and work methods.(5) Education, training and awareness. Training

personnel is essential in order to implement and

succeed in the TPM process. The personnelmust be trained in different areas with differenttypes of education. Some of these training

programs include: introductory education,stepwise education (in which operators are

jointly trained by production managers andmaintenance engineers), inspection education

and routine education.

1.3. Review of literature

The review of literature is classified into three areas.First, the role and impact of maintenance in maqui-

ladoras will be discussed. Second, the general roleof proper maintenance in the manufacturing arena

will be explored. Third, the main issues and topicsrelated to maintenance in literature will be explored.

These main issues and topics were used as the basisfor the development of survey instrument.

First, the available literature (survey or non-survey-based research) does not address the role and impact

of industrial maintenance in maquiladoras. There aremany reasons that could explain a lack of research

in this area. Maquiladora operations are not wellunderstood by many researchers and practitionersdue to geographic distance, complicated regulations

governing their operations and unfamiliarity of manyresearchers with Spanish (the main language of many

maquiladoras). Maquiladora research surveys usuallyyield very low response rates, thereby making signif-

icant research projects unviable. Gaining any signif-icant maquiladora data requires having personalcontacts and familiarity with the personnel of the

organisations surveyed. The only article that cited

Production Planning & Control 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

the topic of maintenance in maquiladoras appearedin Zurier (1991). This short article briefly explainsthe challenges of securing replacement parts for oldermachinery. The author further states the difficultyof securing these replacement parts and the lengthof time it takes to secure these parts, usually months.

Second, there are two distinct characteristics of theliterature in maintenance. (1) Most literature addressesthe role of maintenance and related issues in generaland not necessarily in the maquiladoras. (2) Many ofthese articles are short, practitioner-related, lacksubstantial depth, data collection and detailed analysis.

Third, the main issues, themes and determiningfactors in proper maintenance of industrial equipmentin literature as they relate to survey items used in thisarticle are identified and cited below.

1.3.1. Question number 1 of the survey instrument(Collaboration between the maintenance andother functional areas)

Dilger (1997) stated that other departments suchas the ones initiating work orders for preventiveand predictive maintenance, equipment recording andtracking, inventory control, scheduling labour andresources and purchasing are essential in the properfunctioning of maintenance activities. Sivalingam(1997) argued that integrating all aspects of main-tenance produces dividends, immediately and in thelong term if good management practices are appliedalong with sound technical expertise. McComb et al.(2008) investigated the moderating effects of topmanagement involvement on successful maintenanceprojects.

1.3.2. Question number 2 of the survey instrument(Likely sources of maintenance problems(equipment, personnel and management))

Antosiewicz (1996) defined equipment as the mostlikely source of maintenance troubles. He proposedvarious ways of combating equipment failures. Thereare many other references where the focus of main-tenance problems is placed on the equipment itself.

Bannister (1991) focused on a team approach thatcombines the talents of machine operators, manage-ment and the maintenance trades as the backboneof TPM. Vorster (2006) also stated that operatorsinfluence the field maintenance costs. Jordan andGruber (2001) stated that training technicians andpersonnel on the correct ways to certify the machinesand follow the appropriate procedures to betterpinpoint problems in the machines have been highlybeneficial for operators and the maintenance staff.

Brown and McCabe (2005) contended that the best

results are achieved by using a team of operators and

maintenance personnel facilitated by an experiencedmoderator to provide objective guidance on failure

modes, guide the discussion, and maintain pace andmomentum in maintenance activities.

On the other hand, Phillips (1997) focused on therole managers play in the upkeep and maintenance

activities. Also, Bannister (1991) within the overallcontext of TPM pointed out the importance of the role

of managers in maintenance.

1.3.3. Question number 3 of the survey instrument

(Six major equipment losses)

The literature review pertaining to the six major

maintenance losses, as originally developed byNakajima (1988), are outlined below.

(1) Breakdowns and unplanned plant shutdowns.Gorman (1985) viewed breakdowns and shut-

downs as the most common loss of mainte-nance problems costing as much as three times

the cost of a well-planned preventive main-tenance program. Ljungberg (1998) stated that

TPM is necessary to assess the magnitude ofdifferent types of production losses. In many

enterprises, the focus is directed towards majortime losses due to breakdowns (performance

losses) rather than minor losses in speed andtime. Knezevic (1994) stated that the prediction

of the duration of the downtime caused bymaintenance presented a challenge for main-

tenance managers, because of possible revenuelosses.

(2) Excessive set-ups, changeovers and adjust-

ments. Gerry and Buckbee (2006) cited acompany that could not easily make direct

adjustments to its main operations. Instead, thecompany could make adjustments to compres-

sion, fuel mix, operating procedures, and tirepressure to optimise short-term process perfor-

mance. Mileham et al. (1999) focused on a setof rules derived from action research from

different companies in order to reduce thechangeover time and create a leaner and more

responsive manufacturing environment.(3) Machine idling and minor stoppages requiring

the attention of the operator. Williams (2003)

stated that machine downtimes should beavoided so that the operator’s time and effort

would not go idle. According to Suehiro (1992),idling and minor stoppages stand for 20–30%of OEE in most automated lines.

230 S. Dowlatshahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

(4) Running and then reducing the speed due to

equipment malfunctions. Kalousdian (2006)

showed a case where operating speed was

used to check the bypass indicators. Then, theequipment was evaluated after a drop in

operating speed.(5) Startup losses due to breakdowns and minor

stoppages before the process stabilises (process

defects). Vorster (2006) suggested that repair

costs, downtime and reliability, operating

conditions, the operators themselves and thequality of preventive maintenance influenced

the actual results and the stabilisation of the

maintenance process.(6) Quality defects and rework due to equipment

malfunctioning. Jeske and Marlow (1997)

focused on the proportion of defects in a

manufacturing or service-oriented process.The authors further noted that these defects

were attributable to a specific root cause

of equipment malfunctioning. The root-causeproblem was then often used to dictate main-

tenance actions. Raouf (1994) argued that

an efficiently maintained plant must producethe right quality and quantity of product to

yield high capital productivity. The author

further stated that TPM is required to avoidquality defects and achieve high capital

productivity.

1.3.4. Question number 4 of the survey instrument

(The role of ISO certification in maintenance)

The role of equipment maintenance is crucial and arequirement in ISO certification. Tzelepis et al. (2006)

empirically explored the role of ISO 9001 as a factor

affecting technical and productive inefficiency of firms.The authors concluded that ISO 9001 decreased the

level of technical inefficiency of firms.

2. Research design

This study has covered different industries, different

experts in maquiladoras, and different aspects ofindustrial maintenance that were most relevant

to maquiladoras. The questionnaire for this study

was designed to be easy to read and understand.The questions were as concise and as clear as possible.

In order to increase the response rate, difficult

and complex questions were avoided. Also, respondent

anonymity was offered to the respondents. Thisanonymity tended to increase the response rate as

well as the veracity of the responses.

After a pilot study, the final questionnaire was

completed with the assistance of university academi-cians and maquiladora practitioners. Because of theunique environment of the maquiladora industry,

where both Spanish and English are spoken (and notnecessarily fluently), two questionnaires were givento each individual at each company, one in eachlanguage. The contents of these questionnaires were

exactly the same except for the language in which theywere prepared. The respondent was asked to return thequestionnaire which he or she felt more comfortable

answering. When appropriate, the five-point Likertscale was used.

The unit of analysis was at the company level.One questionnaire was delivered to an individualrespondent at each company surveyed. No single

company received more than one questionnaire. Thequestionnaires were targeted to medium- and upper-level management. The respondents were deemed tohave direct and meaningful knowledge and involve-

ment with the maintenance issues in their plants.The SIC classification was not appropriate for themaquiladora industry because of the original nature

of the maquiladoras as an assembly operation.

2.1. Data collection

This study was targeted to manufacturing companiesthat belonged to the Asociacion de Maquiladoras,AC (AMAC 2005) or Association of Maquiladoras

in Ciudad Juarez and Ciudad Chihuahua, Mexico,which border El Paso, TX, representing the largestconcentration of maquiladoras in Mexico. To conduct

this study, questionnaires were distributed to themanufacturing members of the AMAC directory.From the AMAC (2005) database of companiesin Ciudad Juarez and Ciudad Chihuahua, Mexico,

non-manufacturing-related companies, such as banks,custom brokers, lawyers, service organisations, etc.were initially excluded from the database. The response

to the questionnaire was 86%; 152 questionnaireswere distributed and 131 were returned. It wasassumed that the high response rate was due to thefact that respondents were contacted initially by

phone. After being contacted by phone, one ques-tionnaire (in duplicate copies of English and Spanish)per company was delivered in person or by fax.

Also the questionnaires were given to key contactpersonnel in the maquiladora industry, which werethen distributed to appropriate personnel with knowl-edge of maintenance in their respective plants. The

contact people were also given a telephone call, if theyhad not returned the questionnaires within a week.

Production Planning & Control 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

2.2. Classifications of responses by type of industry

The classification of the industries is based on the main

types of products that they manufacture. Table 1

presented the classification of industries surveyed.By far the largest industries belonged to electronics

components, consumer electronics and automotive.

These three types of industries accounted for 56% of

the total industries surveyed. These mature industries

were established in the El Paso-Juarez area during the

late 1960s and early 1970s. Ancillary industries such as

wood and furniture, food and agriculture and metals

and stamping showed some of the lowest response

rates. These newer maquiladora industries emerged

much later (late 1980s and early 1990s) in order to

provide support for the plants already established. The

number of these plants in the region was generally low.

2.3. The interviews with maquiladora managers

Eleven in-depth interviews were conducted to gain

insight in the maintenance issues of maquiladoras with

respect to the survey conducted. Table 2 represented

the profile of interviewees.The same positions and titles in different companies

could have different responsibilities. Alternatively,

there could be different positions and titles with

essentially the same responsibility. Although there

was no standardisation of positions or titles in the

maquiladora industry, the interviewees selected had

direct knowledge of maintenance issues regardless

of their positions in maquiladoras.It was believed that the quality and the depth

of information that could be obtained from the

interviews greatly enhanced this study. Also, it was

believed that due to cultural and organisational issues

in the maquiladoras, the managers were pre-disposed

to be more open and forthcoming in their oral

comments during the interviews. The interviewees

represented all 10 categories of maquiladora industries

targeted for the study. All of them were considered to

be members of their company’s management team.

They had at least 5 years of industry experience in the

maquiladoras. Most of them had experience in

additional functional areas other than their current

positions. The interviewees were both expatriates and

Mexican nationals. The same questions were asked

of all interviewees regardless of their positions and

industries. An attempt was made to represent the

diversity and similarity of their views in the analysis

of the survey results, whenever appropriate. Some

of the interviewees also participated in the pilot test

and modified the survey. The interviewees were given

an opportunity to express their views on the questions

posed in the survey, as well as any comments they

wished to make on the subject. The interviewees

were invited to describe their institutional culture and

the maquiladoras’ priorities and disposition, topics

that could not be gauged through formal surveys.

Table 2. The profile of interviewees.

Position/ExpertiseNumbersinterviewed Industries represented

Average numberof years in industry

Quality expert 3 Consumer electronics, metals and stampingand food and agriculture

8

Supervisors/Managers 5 Textiles and apparel, automotive, rubberand plastics, electronic components andwood and furniture

9

Manufacturing/Maintenance 3 Medical, consumer electronics and paperand prints

13

Table 1. Number and percentage of respondents by typeof industry.

Type ofindustry

Number ofresponses

Percentage ofresponses (%)

Cumulativepercentage ofresponses (%)

Electroniccomponents

29 22.1 22.1

Consumerelectronics

24 18.4 40.5

Automotive 21 16.0 56.5Textile and

apparels11 8.4 64.9

Rubber andplastics

7 5.3 70.2

Metals andstamping

6 4.6 74.8

Medical 5 3.8 78.6Paper and prints 5 3.8 82.4Wood and

furniture4 3.1 85.5

Food andagriculture

3 2.3 87.8

Others 16 12.2 100Total 131 100

232 S. Dowlatshahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

The interviews were conducted with the understandingthat the names and companies of the intervieweeswould remain confidential.

3. Statistical analyses

This section includes four sets of analyses andcomments. Each set pertains to each question in thesurvey instrument.

3.1. Statistical analysis for question 1(functional collaboration)

Question 1 addresses the degree of collaborationbetween the maintenance department and other func-tional areas in each maquiladora industry surveyed.Six functional areas (departments), along with 11 typesof industries, were surveyed and the results wererepresented in Table 3.

In Table 3, the manufacturing function is by far themost important function for all industries surveyed.The more established electronic components andautomotives were the only industries which showedsome importance for the role that the administration(management) played in their maintenance. Only fiveindustries gave any value to the role of designin maintenance. The medical industry, in particular,had no emphasis on any other functions thanmanufacturing.

Several interviews corroborated the fact thatmaintenance issues were largely dealt with andresolved at the manufacturing level nearly for allindustries. These interviews further revealed thatthe more mature industries were slightly morefocused on non-manufacturing functions than therecent maquiladoras. These results indicate a passive

and myopic view of maintenance operations inmaquiladoras.

3.2. Statistical analysis for question 2(sources of maintenance problems)

Question 2 of the questionnaire considered the sourcesof maintenance problems at maquiladoras. Threechoices (equipment, personnel and administration ormanagement) were given and respondents at eachindustry were asked to evaluate the importanceof these choices in terms of being the sources ofmaintenance problems on a scale of 1 (never) to 5(always). Table 4 addressed the personnel choice.

Most maquiladora industries considered personnel,by a varying degree, to be a major source ofmaintenance problems. The scale of 4 was widely(nearly 58%) given to personnel across the board by allindustries. The four mature maquiladora industries(the first four listed in Table 5) accounted for nearly44% of the top two Likert scales of 4 and 5.

Interviews with maquiladora experts highlightedthe importance of personnel as a main source ofmaintenance problems. The interviews revealed thathighly skilled personnel could run the equipmenteffectively and without breakdowns. This was not thecase for semi-skilled workers whose numbers were notnecessarily low in maquiladoras.

Table 5 shows that five industries with highstandard deviations and p-values were statisticallyinsignificant at �¼ 0.05 level of significance. Theseresults were consistent with Table 4 in that there wereother sources of maintenance problems than just thepersonnel.

The ANOVA results in Table 6 showed very lowF statistics value and high p-value. This meant that

Table 3. Number and percentage of responses to functional collaboration per industry.

Type of industryNumbers

of responses Manufacturing Engineering Design PurchasingAdministration(Management)

Finance(%) Total

Electronic components 29 13 (9.9%) 7 (5.3%) 4 (3.1%) 3 (2.3%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 22.1Consumer electronics 24 16 (12.2%) 3 (2.3%) 4 (3.1%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 18.4Automotive 21 11 (8.4%) 3 (2.3%) 5 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 16.0Textile and apparel 11 6 (4.5%) 3 (2.3%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 8.4Rubber and plastics 7 5 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 5.3Metals and stampings 6 3 (2.3%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4.6Medical 5 5 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3.8Paper and prints 5 3 (2.3%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3.8Wood and furniture 4 2 (1.5%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3.1Food and agriculture 3 2 (1.5%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2.3Others 16 11 (8.4%) 2 (1.5%) 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 12.2

Total 131 100

Production Planning & Control 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

there was not a significant difference in the meansof all the maquiladora industries at �¼ 0.05 level ofsignificance. This conclusion is consistent with pre-vious results that personnel constituted a major sourceof maintenance problems for all industries.

As shown in Table 7, most maquiladora industriesconsidered management, by a wide margin, to be only

a minor source of maintenance problems. Nearly sixindustries did not choose the Likert scales of 4 and 5for management as a source of maintenance problems.Again, the respondents at more mature industriesput more emphasis on management than the newerindustries. The interesting aspect of Table 7 is the highpercentage of ‘no response’. The respondents appar-ently were confused as to the relevance of managementas being a source of maintenance problems.

Interviews with maquiladora experts highlightedthe lack of importance of management as a mainsource of maintenance problems. The interviewsrevealed that managers (especially the local managersat maquiladoras) had very little involvement in theselection and upkeep of equipment. Generally speak-ing, maquiladora workers did not look up to managersto institute TPM programs or to provide a significanteffort and support when equipment breakdowns ormalfunctions occurred.

Table 4. Numbers and percentages of respondents to sources of maintenance problems per industry (personnel).

Personnel scale

Type of industry Numbers of responses 1 2 3 4 5 Total (%)

Electronic components 29 2 (1.5%) 2 (1.5%) 4 (3.1%) 17 (12.9%) 4 (3.1%) 22.1Consumer electronics 24 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 6 (4.6%) 12 (9.2%) 4 (3.1%) 18.4Automotive 21 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.5%) 5 (3.8%) 13 (9.9%) 0 (0.0%) 16.0Textile and apparel 11 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 2 (1.5%) 7 (5.4%) 0 (0.0%) 8.4Rubber and plastics 7 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 4 (3.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5.3Metals and stampings 6 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) 4.6Medical 5 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.8%) 3.8Paper and prints 5 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.8%) 3 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%) 3.8Wood and furniture 4 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.5%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 3.1Food and agriculture 3 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 2.3Others 16 0 (0.0%) 3 (2.3%) 2 (1.5%) 11 (8.4%) 0 (0.0%) 12.2

Total 131 100

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for sources of maintenance problems per industry (personnel).

Type of industry Number of responses Mean (95% CI) SD SE of mean t-value p-value

Electronic components 29 3.66 (3.28–4.04) 1.04 0.19 3.38* 0.001*Consumer electronics 24 3.75 (3.41–4.09) 0.85 0.17 4.34* 0.000*Automotive 21 3.43 (3.06–3.81) 0.87 0.19 2.26* 0.024*Textile and apparel 11 3.45 (2.97–3.94) 0.82 0.25 1.84* 0.066*Rubber and plastics 7 3.00 (1.95–4.05) 1.41 0.53 0.00** 1.00**Metals and stampings 6 3.67 (3.01–4.32) 0.82 0.33 2.00* 0.045*Medical 5 3.20 (2.06–4.34) 1.30 0.58 0.34** 0.732**Paper and prints 5 3.40 (2.62–4.18) 0.89 0.40 1.00** 0.317**Wood and furniture 4 3.00 (2.20–3.80) 0.82 0.41 0.00** 1.00**Food and agriculture 3 3.67 (3.01–4.32) 0.58 0.33 2.00** 0.045**Others 16 3.50 (3.10–3.90) 0.82 0.20 2.45* 0.014*

Notes: *Significant at �¼ 0.05 level of significance; **Insignificant at �¼ 0.05 level of significance.

Table 6. One-way ANOVA: sources of maintenanceproblems (personnel).

Source DF SS MS F p

Factor 10 5.78 0.578 0.65** 0.769Error 120 106.92 0.89

Total 130 112.70

Notes: S¼ 0.94; R2¼ 5.13%; R2 (adj)¼ 0%.

**Insignificant at �¼ 0.05 level of significance.

234 S. Dowlatshahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 8 showed that eight industries with highstandard deviations and p-values were statisticallyinsignificant at �¼ 0.05 level of significance. Theseresults corroborate the results of Table 7 whererespondents provided a wide range of responses to allchoices for management. This is consistent with therespondents’ lack of understanding as to what rolethe management should play in maintenance ofmaquiladoras.

The ANOVA results in Table 9 showed a lowF-statistics value. This meant that there was not asignificant difference in the means of all the maquila-dora industries at �¼ 0.05 level of significance.This conclusion is consistent with previous resultsthat management was generally considered to be aminor source of maintenance problems for allindustries.

In Table 10, most of the maquiladora industriesrated equipment, rather consistently, to be a major

source of maintenance problems. The scales of 4 and 5were widely (more than 72%) given to equipmentacross the board by all industries. The respondentsin the last eight maquiladora industries in Table 10only marked scales 1 and 2 eight times. This indicatedthe degree of importance of equipment for allindustries.

Table 7. Numbers and percentages of respondents to sources of maintenance problems per industry (management).

Management scale

Type of industry Number of responses 1 2 3 4 5 No response Total (%)

Electronic components 29 4 (3.1%) 4 (3.0%) 10 (7.6%) 4 (3.1%) 4 (3.0%) 3 (2.3%) 22.1Consumer electronics 24 2 (1.5%) 4 (3.1%) 13 (9.9%) 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.6%) 2 (1.5%) 18.4Automotive 21 5 (3.8%) 6 (4.6%) 8 (6.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 16.0Textile and apparel 11 1 (0.8%) 5 (3.8%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.5%) 1 (0.8%) 8.4Rubber and plastics 7 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 1 (0.8%) 5.3Metals and stampings 6 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 3 (2.3%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.7%) 4.6Medical 5 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (2.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3.8Paper and prints 5 2 (1.5%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 3.8Wood and furniture 4 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.7%) 3.1Food and agriculture 3 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2.3Others 16 4 (3.1%) 3 (2.3%) 4 (3.0%) 1 (0.8%) 3 (2.3%) 1 (0.7%) 12.2

Total 131 100

Table 8. Descriptive statistics for sources of maintenance problems per industry (management).

Type of industry Number of responses Mean (95% CI) SD SE of mean t-value p-value

Electronic components 29 2.69 (2.14–3.24) 1.51 0.28 �1.10** 0.270**Consumer electronics 24 2.63 (2.13–3.12) 1.25 0.25 �1.48** 0.140**Automotive 21 1.95 (1.51–2.39) 1.02 0.22 �4.69* 0.00*Textile and apparel 11 2.55 (1.62–3.47) 1.572 0.47 �0.96** 0.337**Rubber and plastics 7 2.57 (1.10–4.04) 1.99 0.75 �0.57** 0.568**Metals and stampings 6 2.50 (1.40–3.60) 1.38 0.56 �0.89** 0.374**Medical 5 2.40 (1.62–3.18) 0.894 0.40 �1.50** 0.133**Paper and prints 5 0.80 (0.07–1.53) 0.84 0.37 �5.88* 0.00*Wood and furniture 4 1.50 (0.23–2.77) 1.29 0.65 �2.32* 0.020*Food and agriculture 3 1.67 (0.36–2.97) 1.16 0.67 �2.00** 0.046**Others 16 2.56 (1.78–3.34) 1.59 0.40 �1.10** 0.272**

Notes: *Significant at �¼ 0.05 level of significance.**Insignificant at �¼ 0.05 level of significance.

Table 9. One-way ANOVA: sources of maintenance pro-blems (management).

Source DF SS MS F p

Factor 10 26.34 2.63 1.37** 0.201Error 120 230.33 1.92Total 130 256.67

Notes: S¼ 1.39; R2¼ 10.26%; R2 (adj)¼ 2.78%.

**Insignificant at �¼ 0.05 level of significance.

Production Planning & Control 235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Interviews with maquiladora experts clearlyshowed the significance of equipment as a mainsource of maintenance problems. The interviewsrevealed that many employees directly associatemaintenance problems with equipment failure. Anequipment failure or breakdown is largely anddirectly attributable to the machine itself regardlessof whether the operators or managers had directinvolvement in its breakdown. This is significant asmaquiladoras are inherently manufacturing centresand any equipment failure affects the main functionof maquiladoras.

Table 11 showed that nine industries with hight-values and low p-values were statistically significant at�¼ 0.05 level of significance. These results corroboratethe results of Table 10, where respondents provideda clear evidence of the importance of equipment as asource of maintenance problems in maquiladoras.This is consistent with the emphasis the respondentsplaced on the crucial role of equipment.

The ANOVA results in Table 12 showed a lowF-statistics value and moderately high p-value. Thismeant that there was not a significant differencein the means of all the maquiladora industries at�¼ 0.05 level of significance. This conclusion isconsistent with previous results that equipment con-stituted a major source of maintenance problemsfor all industries.

Table 10. Numbers and percentages of respondents to sources of maintenance problems per industry (equipment).

Equipment scale

Type of industry Numbers of responses 1 2 3 4 5 Total (%)

Electronic components 29 0 (0.0%) 6 (4.6%) 4 (3.1%) 7 (5.3%) 12 (9.1%) 22.1Consumer electronics 24 3 (2.3%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (4.6%) 13 (10%) 18.4Automotive 21 0 (0.0%) 4 (3.1%) 1 (0.8%) 6 (4.6%) 10 (7.5%) 16.0Textile and apparel 11 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (2.3%) 4 (3.1%) 2 (1.5%) 8.4Rubber and plastics 7 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (2.3%) 3 (2.2%) 5.3Metals and stampings 6 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 4 (3.1%) 4.6Medical 5 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.5%) 3.8Paper and prints 5 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.8%) 3.8Wood and furniture 4 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 3.1Food and agriculture 3 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.5%) 2.3Others 16 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (2.3%) 10 (7.6%) 12.2Total 131 100

Table 11. Descriptive statistics for sources of maintenance problems per industry (equipment).

Type of industry Number of responses Mean (95% CI) SD SE of mean t-value p-value

Electronic components 29 3.86 (3.43–4.29) 1.19 0.22 3.91* 0.00*Consumer electronics 24 4.00 (3.42–4.58) 1.45 0.29 3.39* 0.001*Automotive 21 4.048 3.55–4.54) 1.16 0.25 4.14* 0.00*Textile and apparel 11 3.46 (2.74–4.17) 1.21 0.37 1.24* 0.214*Rubber and plastics 7 4.14 (3.35–4.93) 1.07 0.40 2.83* 0.005*Metals and stampings 6 4.67 (4.25–5.08) 0.52 0.21 7.91* 0.00*Medical 5 4.00 (3.12–4.88) 1.00 0.45 2.24* 0.025*Paper and prints 5 3.00 (1.67–4.33) 1.52 0.68 .00** 1.00**Wood and furniture 4 3.00 (1.61–4.39) 1.41 0.71 .00** 1.00**Food and agriculture 3 4.67 (4.04–5.30) 0.58 0.32 5.18* 0.00*Others 16 4.25 (3.64–4.86) 1.24 0.31 4.04* 0.00*

Notes: *Significant at �¼ 0.05 level of significance.**Insignificant at �¼ 0.05 level of significance.

Table 12. One-way ANOVA: sources of maintenanceproblems (equipment).

Source DF SS MS F p

Factor 10 17.64 1.76 1.17** 0.318Error 120 180.99 1.51

Total 130 198.63

Notes: S¼ 1.228; R2¼ 8.88%; R2 (adj)¼ 1.29%.

**Insignificant at �¼ 0.05 level of significance.

236 S. Dowlatshahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

3.3. Statistical analysis for question 3 (six majorequipment losses)

In question 3, six major equipment losses werepresented to the respondents and the respondentsat each industry were asked to identify the one thatis most important and most common problem intheir plants. The six major equipment losses areoutlined as follows and analysed in Table 13:

(1) Breakdowns and unplanned plant shutdowns.(2) Excessive set-ups, changeovers and

adjustments.(3) Idling and minor stoppages requiring the

attention of the operator.(4) Running and then reducing the speed due

to equipment malfunctions.(5) Startup losses due to breakdowns and minor

stoppages before the process stabilises (processdefects).

(6) Quality defects and rework due to equipmentmalfunctioning.

Table 13 showed a fairly wide distribution of sixmajor equipment losses across maquiladora industries.Every common loss received a number of responsesfrom the respondents. Idling and minor stoppages thatrequired the attention of the operator received thehighest ranking for nine industries (one industry had atie with breakdowns and unplanned plant shutdowns).Electronic components were cited running and thenreducing the speed due to equipment malfunctions asthe main common loss, while consumer electronicsranked the breakdowns and unplanned plant shut-downs as its common loss of maintenance.

Interviews with maquiladora experts clearlyshowed the significance of the idling and minorstoppages. The interviews revealed that many employ-ees directly associate maintenance problems not withthe root cause of maintenance problems, but withsimple common loss such as minor stoppages. Therespondents viewed any disruption in equipment usageand availability as a major factor that could affecta large number of workers, managers and the entireproduction schedule. This simplified notion is indica-tive of lack of strategic focus in maquiladorasregarding industrial maintenance.

3.4. Statistical analysis for question 4(ISO certification)

Question 4 of the questionnaire inquired whether therespondents’ companies were ISO certified. Therespondents were given three choices of yes – ISOcertified, no – not ISO certified, and we are in process

of obtaining ISO certification. Table 14 shows the

results of question 4.Two mature industries of electronic components

and consumer electronics had the highest percentages

of ISO certification. Three mature industries (elec-tronic components, consumer electronics and auto-

motive) also had the highest percentages of companiescurrently in the process of obtaining ISO certification.No food and agriculture company currently had ISO

certification. It appeared that mature industriesfocused on ISO certification more than newer maqui-

ladoras. ISO certification is related to proper main-tenance and upkeep of industrial equipment as two

sections for obtaining ISO certification (‘corrective andpreventive action’ and ‘control of inspection, measur-ing and test equipment’) deal directly with mainte-

nance. When implementing these two sections forachieving ISO certification, the maquiladora industry

could focus on the root-cause problems associatedwith the maintenance problems at maquiladoras.

Interviews with maquiladora managers and qualityexperts confirmed the trend of increasing interest in

achieving ISO certification in maquiladoras. Theseexperts indicated that the impetus behind obtaining

ISO certification on the part of maquiladoras is not toimprove industrial maintenance. The real impetus

in seeking ISO certification in maquiladoras lieselsewhere. Some of these include the request by their

customers to obtain ISO certification. Some need theISO designation in order to be able to sell their productto European countries. Whatever the reason for

seeking or obtaining ISO certification, the intervieweesall agreed that industrial maintenance in maquiladoras

would improve as an unintended consequence of theefforts to become ISO certified.

4. Conclusions and assessment of the results

This article empirically studied the importance and

the role of effective equipment maintenance in themaquiladora industry at the industry level. The

respondents were asked about the maintenance issuesand practices in their respective plants. This topic

is a critical issue for maquiladoras as the usageand availability of industrial equipment directly affectmaquiladoras as manufacturing centres. Maquiladoras

are designed to be production units whose primary jobis to produce parts/products. The equipment plays

an important role in this mission.Although the number and importance of maquila-

dora industries have grown over the years, therehas been no research that has addressed the role

and implications of equipment maintenance in

Production Planning & Control 237

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Table

13.Numbersandpercentages

ofrespondents

tosixmajorequipmentlosses.

Typeofindustry

Numbersof

responses

Idling&

minor

stoppages

Breakdowns&

Unplanned

shutdowns

Quality

defects

&rework

Startup

losses

Runningequipment

andreducingspeed

Excessivesetups

&changeover

Total

(%)

Electronic

components

29

3(2.3%

)3(2.3%

)7(5.3%

)6(4.6%

)9(6.8%

)1(0.8%

)22.1

Consumer

electronics

24

9(6.9%

)10(7.6%

)3(2.3%

)1(0.8%

)0(0.0%

)1(0.8%

)18.4

Automotive

21

13(9.9%

)1(0.8%

)3(2.3%

)2(1.5%

)2(1.5%

)0(0.0%

)16.0

Textile

andapparel

11

4(3.1%

)2(1.5%

)2(1.5%

)3(2.3%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)8.4

Rubber

andplastics

74(3.0%

)0(0.0%

)2(1.5%

)1(0.8%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)5.3

Metalsandstampings

64(3.1%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)2(1.5%

)4.6

Medical

52(1.5%

)1(0.8%

)1(0.8%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)1(0.7%

)3.8

Paper

andprints

52(1.5%

)2(1.5%

)1(0.8%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)3.8

Woodandfurniture

44(3.1%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)3.1

Foodandagriculture

32(1.5%

)1(0.8%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)0(0.0%

)2.3

Others

16

4(3.1%

)3(2.2%

)3(2.3%

)2(1.5%

)1(0.8%

)3(2.3%

)12.2

Total

131

100

238 S. Dowlatshahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

maquiladoras. The survey-based research was furtherenhanced by interviews conducted with several maqui-ladora managers and experts who had expertise in thefield of industrial maintenance. Here are some insightsand assessment of the results gained as a result of theanalyses of four questions investigated in this research.

Question 1 explored the degree of collaborationbetween the maintenance function and other functionalareas at the industry level. Among six differentfunctional areas considered, manufacturing, by far,had the most impact on the maintenance function atmaquiladora industries. Only more mature maquila-dora industries considered the role of administration(management) as somewhat important. The respon-dents, by and large, focused on manufacturingfunctions and had very value for the interactioneffect of other functional areas on maintenance.Interviews with maquiladora experts underscored theprevalent, myopic, and limited focus that the maqui-ladoras place on other functional areas. For manymaquiladoras, the maintenance and manufacturingare closely and directly aligned and no other functionalarea can significantly affect this relationship in apositive or negative way.

Question 2 addressed the sources of maintenanceproblems in terms of equipment, personnel, andadministration (management) at each industrysurveyed in maquiladoras. Extensive statistical ana-lyses ranked equipment, personnel and managementin terms of their importance of being the sources ofmaintenance problems. The management was viewedas not being an important source of maintenanceproblems. Nearly 11% of the respondents provided‘no response’ to management as a source of main-tenance problems. These respondents were uncertainas to what role management could possibly play inmaintenance problems. Although the role of personnel

in maintenance problems was adequately recognised,it was still the equipment itself that was viewed as themain source of maintenance problems. At manymaquiladoras, when equipment breaks down or mal-functions, the equipment itself is to be blamed aboveall other internal or external factors.

Question 3 considered the six major equipmentlosses at each industry. These equipment losses couldbe classified as symptoms or root-cause losses. Ninemaquiladora industries focused on one symptom(the idling and minor stoppages). Only two industriesfocused slightly on other equipment losses, whichcould have been generated by root-cause problems.The results obtained in this question are consistentwith the results of other questions. These resultsin totality underscore the lack of TPM programsas well as the lack of strategic focus on maintenanceas an important activity in an overall strategy ofmaquiladoras.

Question 4 investigated the role of ISO certificationin maintenance in maquiladora industries. Two sec-tions of ISO certification focused the attention ofmaquiladoras on improvement of maintenance prac-tices. The results showed that mature maquiladoras,as well as companies which had ISO certification,generally did better in their maintenance practices.Although the prime objective of obtaining ISOcertification is not to improve the maintenancepractices in maquiladoras, one of its unintendedconsequences could be to improve maintenancepractices.

The maquiladora industry has seen great advancesin terms of size, technology used and sophisticationof its operations. These advances do not appear toinclude a proactive strategy in terms of equipmentmaintenance and upkeep. The general trend inmaquiladoras, with respect to maintenance, is

Table 14. Number and percentages of respondents to ISO certification.

Type of industry Numbers of responses Yes (ISO certified) In progress No (not ISO certified) Total (%)

Electronic components 29 6 (4.6%) 19 (14.4%) 4 (3.1%) 22.1Consumer electronics 24 6 (4.6%) 15 (11.5%) 3 (2.3%) 18.4Automotive 21 2 (1.5%) 15 (11.4%) 4 (3.1%) 16.0Textile and apparel 11 1 (0.8%) 4 (3.1%) 6 (4.5%) 8.4Rubber and plastics 7 1 (0.7%) 4 (3.1%) 2 (1.5%) 5.3Metals and stampings 6 1 (0.8%) 5 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) 4.6Medical 5 2 (1.5%) 3 (2.3%) 0 (0.0%) 3.8Paper and prints 5 0 (0.0%) 4 (3.1%) 1 (0.7%) 3.8Wood and furniture 4 2 (1.5%) 2 (1.6%) 0 (0.0%) 3.1Food and agriculture 3 0 (0.0%) 3 (2.3%) 0 (0.0%) 2.3Others 16 4 (3.1%) 10 (7.6%) 2 (1.5%) 12.2

Total 131 100

Production Planning & Control 239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

symptom-based and focuses on a reactive strategythat myopically responds to equipment failures andbreakdowns. These statements are indeed corroboratedas a result of this study and extensive interviewsconducted with the maquiladora experts.

Maquiladoras, as manufacturing centres, mustimprove their overall maintenance operations on asystem-wide and comprehensive basis. This is necessaryto create a synergy required to focus on multiple issuesinvolved in the maintenance and upkeep of equipmentin maquiladoras. In addition to manufacturing, topmanagement and other functional areas should beinvolved in maintenance activities. The maquiladorasshould seek ISO certification. The stringent ISOrequirements with regard to maintenance couldorganise and systematically improve the maintenanceefforts on a companywide basis. The sources and rootcauses of maintenance problems should be identified.The appropriate documentation of these sources andcauses should be made for future analyses and evalua-tions. These sources and causes should become thebases for future improvements. Further, maquiladorasshould attempt to acquire the right machines andequipment for the appropriate manufacturing opera-tions. Adequate training of maquiladora workers onthe proper use of machines and equipment is the mostimportant factor. This will, in turn, require thestabilisation of the maquiladora workforce as well asoffering fair and equitable compensation to workers.Additionally, the headquarters of maquiladorasshould offer economic and technical assistance to theirmaquiladoras so that they have similar maintenancecapabilities as those that exist in the headquarters.Maquiladoras could also benchmark successful main-tenance operations from their own industries andbeyond for the best maintenance practices.

Notes on contributor

Dr Shad Dowlatshahi is a Professorof Operations Management at theUniversity of Missouri, Kansas City.He holds a PhD in IndustrialEngineering from The Universityof Iowa. He holds a MBA degreeas well as an MS degree in IndustrialEngineering from Emporia StateUniversity and the University of

Missouri – Columbia, respectively. He has an undergraduatedegree in Industrial Management. Dr Dowlatshahi’s researchactivities focus on operations management, supply chainmanagement, service operations, manufacturing systems andstrategy, technology management, concurrent engineering,purchasing and materials management, quality management,information system design, business logistics and transporta-tion, statistics and management sciences. He has published

over 100 journal articles, books, book chapters and procee-dings in refereed academic and professional outlets. He haspresented and published extensively in national conferences.He has also served as a member of the editorial boardand/or referee for a number of academic and professionaljournals and is an active member of DSI and APICS.

References

Asociacion de Maquiladoras, A.C. (AMAC), 2005. Directori

Junio 2005 (Directory June 2005) Juarez, Chihuahua,

Mexico.

Antosiewicz, M.B., 1996. Gearing up for predictive main-

tenance. Plant Engineering & Maintenance, 19 (2), 29–30.

Ashayeri, J., Teelen, A., and Selen, W., 1996. A production

and maintenance model for the process industry.

International Journal of Production Research, 34 (12),

3311–3326.Bamber, C.J., Sharps, J.M., and Hides, M.T., 2000.

Developing management systems towards integrated

manufacturing: a case study perspective. Integrated

Manufacturing Systems, 11 (7), 454–461.Bannister, K., 1991. When it comes to maintenance, don’t

put the cart before the horse. Plant Engineering &

Maintenance, 14 (4), 14–15.Brown, A.D. and McCabe, J., 2005. Maintenance

qualification: improving compliance and performance

in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Pharmaceutical

Technology Europe, 17 (3), 20–26.

Carlsen, L., 1998. Twin plants. Business-Mexico, 8 (11),

34–40.

Carnero, M.C. and Noves, J.L., 2006. Selection of compu-

terised maintenance management system by means

of multicriteria methods. Production Planning & Control,

17 (4), 335.Cua, K.O., McKone, K.E., and Schroeder, R.G., 2001.

Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and

TPM and manufacturing performance. Journal of

Operations Management, 19 (6), 675–694.Dilger, K.A., 1997. To protect and preserve. Manufacturing

Systems, 15 (6), 22–28.Dowlatshahi, S., 2005. An operational perspective of the

relationships between the headquarters and maquiladoras.

International Journal of Production Research, 43 (14),

2949–2975.

Gerry, J. and Buckbee, G., 2006. The link between

automation and enterprise KPIs. Control Engineering, 53

(7), 9–12.

Gorman, F., 1985. Information power for maintenance

support. Manufacturing Systems, 3 (12), 12–14.

Huang, R., et al., 2005. The framework, impact and

commercial prospects of a new predictive maintenance

system: intelligent maintenance system. Production

Planning & Control, 16 (7), 652–664.Jeske, D.R. and Marlow, N.A., 1997. Alternative prediction

intervals for Pareto proportions. Journal of Quality

Technology, 29 (3), 317–326.

240 S. Dowlatshahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Jordan, J.M. and Gruber, E.M., 2001. Preventive main-tenance programs head off downtime before it starts.

Modern Machine Shop, 74 (7), 140–144.Kalousdian, A., 2006. Maintaining air brake systems.Michigan Contractor and Builder, 100 (3), 8.

Knezevic, J., 1994. Determination of operations/production

downtime for group replacement maintenance policy.International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, 14 (7), 18–26.

Kutucuoglu, K.Y., et al., 2001. A framework for managingmaintenance using performance measurement systems.International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, 21 (1/2), 173–195.Levrat, E., Iung, B., and Marquez, A.C., 2008.E-maintenance: review and conceptual framework.Production Planning & Control, 19 (4), 408.

Lindquist, D., 2001. Maquiladora mess; factories hit withdeclining sales, higher costs and red tape. The San DiegoUnion-Tribune, 28, H-1.

Ljungberg, O., 1998. Measurement of overall equipmenteffectiveness as a basis for TPM activities. InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, 18 (5),

495–507.McComb, S.A., et al., 2008. Project team effectiveness: thecase for sufficient setup and top management involvement.

Production Planning & Control, 19 (4), 301.McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G., and Cua, K.O., 2001.The impact of total productive maintenance practiceson manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations

Management, 19 (1), 39–58.Michie, D., 1987. Maquiladora Impact Survey. El Paso, TX:University of Texas at El Paso.

Mileham, A.R., et al., 1999. Rapid changeover – a pre-requisite for responsive manufacture. International Journalof Operations & Production Management, 19 (8), 785–796.

Nakajima, S., 1988. TPM: introduction to totalproductive maintenance. Cambridge, MA: Productivity

Press.Phillips, T., 1997. What’s your maintenance strategy? PlantEngineering & Maintenance, 21 (4), 22–26.

Raouf, A., 1994. Improving capital productivity through

maintenance. International Journal of Operations &Production Management, 14 (7), 44–52.

Salaheldin, I.S., 2005. JIT implementation in Egyptian

manufacturing firms: some empirical evidence.International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, 25 (3/4), 354–370.

Savsar, M., 1997. Simulation analysis of maintenancepolicies in just-in-time production systems. InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, 17 (3),256–266.

Sivalingam, Y., 1997. Applying best practices to mainte-nance: a 12-step program for moving down the road torecovery. Plant Engineering, 51 (6), 120–121.

Sowinski, L.L., 2000. Maquiladoras. World Trade, 13 (9),88–92.

Suehiro, S., 1992. Eliminating minor stoppages on automated

lines. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.Thun, J.-H., 2008. Supporting total productive maintenanceby mobile devices. Production Planning & Control, 19 (4),

430.Tzelepis, D., et al., 2006. The effects of ISO 9001 on firms’productive efficiency. International Journal of Operations &Production Management, 26 (10), 1146–1165.

Vorster, M., 2006. Component Replacement Cost.Construction Equipment, 109 (6), 75–77.

Williams, D., 2003. Mobile maintenance boosts jobsite

uptime. On-Site, 47 (6), 35.Zurier, S., 1991. Distribution’s Mexican Connection.Industrial Distribution, 80 (1), 26–29.

Production Planning & Control 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4