One of the things I have a hard time reconciling is when doing TPM projects, think Autonomous Maintenance and Planned Maintenance, is the use of expense or capital to get improvements. I have always come from the belief that surely a team of engaged and focused partners can make great things happen when they put their minds to it. But I have found that across the several plants / companies that I have worked on this, that money always comes up. This may be anecdotal on my part, but I have seen anywhere from 40% to 80% improvement of OEE on a piece of equipment tied to the spend as opposed to the direct work of the team. Now, I will state the half the time the team either identifies the issue, quantifies the issue or recommends the fix, it still feel that we could have done more prior to the spend. It may also reflect that by the time a plant or organization wants to move forward with TPM is around the time the equipment is showing signs of wear and tear and breakdowns. Breakdowns as defined in Japanese Kanji is intentional harm. Like the band Rush stated in Freewill, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this matter because, though I can intellectualize how the expense / capital is to get the equipment back to where it should be, I can’t help think that there was more the team could have done before the spend.