Modern manufacturing requires that to be successful organisations must be supported by both effective and efficient maintenance. One approach to improving the performance of maintenance activities is to implement and develop a total productive maintenance (TPM) strategy. However, it is well documented that a number of organisations are failing to successfully implement such strategies. This paper outlines research carried out by the Aeronautical, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Department at Salford University aimed at discovering the factors affecting the successful implementation of TPM. This research has led to the development of a generic model indicating factors affecting the successful implementation of TPM. The validity of the generic model has been tested in a UK manufacturing small‐ to medium‐size enterprise (SME) and the case study research findings further triangulated through a review of documented case study evidence. This research has also led to the development of recommendations to improve the TPM development and implementation program of the case study organisation. Further development of the research has resulted in a step‐wise program or generic roadmap for UK SMEs which is proposed as a tool for the implementation or rejuvenation of an organisation’s TPM program.

Agrees that the evidence of a vast array of research concerning teamwork is conclusive: teams are capable of outstanding performance and are the primary unit of performance for increasing numbers of organisations. Nevertheless, high performance teams (HPTs) are a rarity. Presents the results of collaborative research aimed at determining the factors affecting successful implementation of HPTs. The factors have been derived from literature on teamwork, quality management, and a review of case study literature. This research has led to the development of a model for the successful implementation of HPTs, which has been tested through a case study organisation. Furthermore, the results were used to develop an implementation program aimed at rejuvenating team performance in UK small‐ to medium‐sized enterprises.

Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) is being used increasingly in industry. This paper defines OEE and explores the purpose of this concept in modern operations. The paper discusses OEE as a total measure of performance that relates the availability of the process to the productivity and quality of the product. Therefore, the concept of OEE is appropriate to all operations containing plant and machinery. Research has shown that the most successful method of employing OEE is to use cross-functional teams aimed at improving the competitiveness of business. Practical implicationsIn order to address effectively all the six big losses and hence improve overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), cross-functional team working is necessary. Cross-functional teams have the combined necessary skills and knowledge of the entire system of manufacture to identify correctly the practices and activities that relate to the six big losses. Furthermore, the fact that a crossfunctional approach is taken gives the opportunity to address immediately identified improvements or to ensure that plans could be developed during the team meeting. This ensures the best utilisation of operational and other resources because of the authority and responsibility of team members, who represent various departments and functions within the organisation.

In manufacturing in recent years there has been a proliferation of management techniques to support the advances in manufacturing technologies. Different departments and functions often operate these management systems. Traditionally, systems such as quality management (ISO 9000 series), environmental management (ISO 14001), maintenance management (TPM and 5S), operations management (JIT and kaizen) and occupational health and safety management (BS 8800) are operated independently by quality, works engineering, maintenance and production departments. Clearly these management systems have to be brought together and combined in order for an organization to be able to develop an effective integrated manufacturing system. This paper outlines the need to bring these management systems together. It discusses a case study whereby such management systems, traditionally run by separate departments, have come together in order to contribute towards the development of an integrated manufacturing system.

The aim of this article is to present data on the strength and power characteristics of forwards and backs in a squad of elite English rugby league players and compare these findings to previously published literature from Australia. Participants were elite English rugby league players (n = 18; height 184.16 ± 5.76 cm; body mass 96.87 ± 10.92 kg, age 21.67 ± 4.10 years) who were all regular first team players for an English Superleague club. Testing included 5-, 10-, 20-m sprint times, agility, vertical jump, 40-kg squat jump, isometric squat, concentric and eccentric isokinetic knee flexion and extension. Independent t-tests were performed to compare results between forwards and backs, with paired samples t-tests used to compare bilateral differences from isokinetic assessments and agility tests. Forwards demonstrated significantly (p < 0.05) greater body mass (102.15 ± 7.5 kg), height (186.30 ± 5.47 cm), power during the 40-kg jump squat (2,106 ± 421 W), isometric force (3,122 ± 611 N) and peak torque during left concentric isokinetic knee extension (296.1 ± 54.2 N·m) compared to the backs (86.30 ± 8.97 kg; 179.87 ± 3.72 cm; 1,709 ± 286 W; 2,927 ± 607 N; 241.7 ± 35.2 N·m, respectively). However, no significant differences (p > 0.05) were noted between forwards and backs during right concentric isokinetic knee extension (274.8 ± 37.7 and 246.8 ± 25.8 N·m), concentric isokinetic knee flexion for both left (158.8 ± 28.6 and 141.0 ± 22. 7 N·m) and right legs (155.3 ± 22.9 and 128.0 ± 23.9 N·m), eccentric isokinetic knee flexion and extension, hamstring quadriceps ratios, or vertical jump (37.25 ± 4.35 and 40.33 ± 6.38 cm). In comparison, relative measures demonstrated that backs performed significantly better compared to the forwards during the 40-kg jump squat (20.71 ± 5.15 and 19.91 ± 3.91 W·kg⁻¹) and the isometric squat (34.32 ± 7.9 and 30.65 ± 5.34 N·kg⁻¹). Bilateral comparisons revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between left and right leg performances in the agility test (3.26 ± 0.18 and 3.24 ± 0.18 seconds), or between left (0.7 ± 0.10) and right (0.71 ± 0.17) leg eccentric hamstring concentric quadriceps ratios. The results demonstrate that absolute strength and power measures are generally higher in forwards compared to in backs; however, when body mass is taken into account and relative measures compared, the backs outperform the forwards.