TPM Education & Training (E&T): A Practitioner's Guide to Building the Skills That Make Every Other Pillar Work
- Aug 27
- 22 min read
By Allan Ung | Founder & Principal Consultant, Operational Excellence Consulting (OEC)
Published: 27 August 2026
Allan Ung is the Founder and Principal Consultant of Operational Excellence Consulting (OEC), a Singapore-based management training and consulting firm established in 2009. With over 30 years of experience deploying TPM across high-mix manufacturing environments, including senior roles at IBM, Microsoft, and Underwriters Laboratories (UL), Allan has facilitated Lean, Total Quality, Autonomous Maintenance, Planned Maintenance, and Education & Training pillar programmes for organisations including Lam Research, Micron, Tokyo Electron, Panasonic, Analog Devices, and Amkor Technology.
He holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the National University of Singapore and completed advanced consultancy training in Japan as a Colombo Plan Scholar. Allan is a Certified Management Consultant (Japan), a Certified Lean Six Sigma Black Belt, a JIPM TPM Instructor, and a TWI Master Trainer.
E&T is the only TPM pillar whose output — trained, competent people — is the input every other pillar quietly assumes it already has. This guide sets out what a working E&T system actually contains: the four audiences it must serve, the skill levels beyond "knows the theory," the matrix that makes competence visible, and the TWI machinery that closes the gap on the shopfloor.
I have sat across the table from plant managers who describe a mature Education & Training pillar in one sentence: "We have an HRD, and they run the training calendar." I understand why. Of TPM's eight pillars, E&T is the one with the least dedicated literature. Autonomous Maintenance has its seven steps and its red-tag campaigns. Planned Maintenance has its maintenance calendars and its TBM-to-CBM ladder. Focused Improvement has its loss trees and its kaizen sheets. Ask a practitioner to describe E&T beyond "JIPM says we need a system for developing human resources," and most reach for the award criteria and the Achievement Sheet — and then stop, because that is genuinely where the published detail runs out.
That gap is the reason for this guide. I want to be direct about what it is not: it is not a case for pursuing the JIPM TPM Excellence Award. I reference the award tiers and checklists throughout because they are the clearest existing framework for what a mature E&T system looks like at each stage, and because plants I work with use them as an alignment reference regardless of whether they intend to submit. Whether your organisation ever puts in an award application is a separate decision entirely. What every plant needs, award-bound or not, is a system by which people actually become capable — not a calendar that says they attended something.
This article sits alongside the Autonomous Maintenance Practitioner's Guide and the Planned Maintenance Practitioner's Guide as the third pillar-specific spoke under our TPM hub article. Where those two guides describe what operators and technicians must do, this one describes how they get to the point of being able to do it — and, more importantly, how a plant proves that they can.
🛠️ Master Your E&T Pillar: The Complete PowerPoint Presentation & Toolkit Fast-track your team's development and secure JIPM alignment with our fully editable, 109-slide TPM Education & Training Practitioner Toolkit.
|
Beyond Knowing and Understanding: The Four Levels of "Can"
Here is the diagnostic observation I open most E&T workshops with: ask a plant manager whether their operators are trained on a piece of equipment, and the honest answer is almost always "they've been through the induction." Induction confirms exposure. It does not confirm capability. A worker who has sat through a briefing and nodded along knows something about the job. Whether they can do the job — safely, correctly, and without supervision — is an entirely different question, and it is the question E&T exists to answer with evidence rather than assumption.
JIPM's own visual language for tracking this is the four-quadrant skill-progress circle, and it is worth understanding properly because it is the single clearest expression of what "trained" actually has to mean under TPM. The circle fills one quadrant at a time, and each quadrant marks a distinct, verifiable level of capability rather than a vague sense of progress:
Empty circle — no training has taken place. The person has not been exposed to the skill at all.
One quadrant filled — the person is in training; they have completed the theory or classroom component but have not yet performed the task.
Two quadrants filled — the person can perform the task, but only under direct supervision. An instructor or experienced colleague is watching.
Three quadrants filled — the person can perform the task independently. No supervision is required; the skill is theirs.
Full circle — the person is certified not only to perform the task but to instruct others in it. This is the highest level: can do, and can teach.
That last quadrant is the one most training programmes never reach, and it is the one that matters most. A skills matrix that stops at "can perform independently" has built operational capacity. A skills matrix that pushes people to the full circle has built a self-sustaining training system, because every full circle on the board is a potential instructor for the next new hire, the next line expansion, the next shift rotation. This is also, not coincidentally, exactly what Checklist C is asking for when it requires that "OJT programs fully function to upgrade skills and progress multi-skilled worker training" — the multi-skilling rate JIPM tracks as a Key Management Indicator is, at its simplest, the fill rate of this board.
I want to be blunt about a mistake I see constantly: plants that measure training completion by attendance sign-off, then report that number as a competency figure. It is not. A sign-off records that someone showed up. A full circle on a skills matrix records that someone can do the job unsupervised and can teach the next person. Confusing the two is how a plant ends up with an operator who "completed training" on emergency shutdown procedures eighteen months ago and has never once had to demonstrate it since — and it is exactly the "take-on-faith" competency that turns into a breakdown, a defect, or a safety incident the day it actually matters.
Designing the board itself is straightforward once the notation is understood: operators run down the vertical axis, the required equipment and process skills run across the horizontal axis, and every intersection gets one circle. Read across a row and you know instantly what one person can do. Read down a column and you know instantly who your bench of certified instructors is for that specific skill — and, just as usefully, which column has no full circles at all, meaning the plant currently has zero certified instructors for a skill it depends on. That single gap, visible at a glance on a wall-mounted board, is worth more diagnostically than a stack of individual training records nobody has cross-referenced.
E&T Is Not a Training Plan Under HR
This is the point I push back on hardest, because it is the single most common way plants convince themselves E&T is handled when it is not: "We have an HRD, so E&T is covered." An HR department running an annual training calendar and a set of individual development plans is doing HR's job well. It is not, on its own, running the E&T pillar, and the difference matters because the failure modes are different. An IDP-driven training plan is built around each employee's career progression. E&T is built around closing specific, nameable competency gaps that are currently costing the plant availability, performance, or quality — and it has to do that for four distinct groups whose skill requirements do not overlap the way a single generic curriculum assumes.
JIPM's own checklist language is explicit on this point: training must reach "managers, staff members, operators, and maintenance workers" as four separate categories, each requiring a different curriculum:
Operators need cleaning, inspection, and lubrication skill, plus the ability to detect an abnormality before it becomes a stoppage — this is the entry point into Autonomous Maintenance and it has to exist before AM Step 1 can meaningfully start. Maintenance technicians need repair, diagnosis, and precision-maintenance skill, including the equipment-diagnosis technologies — vibration analysis, thermal imaging, oil analysis — that let a plant move from reactive breakdown response to predictive maintenance. Engineers and specialists need root-cause analysis capability (Why-Why, PM Analysis), MP design skill, and the Early Management competencies that prevent a defect from being designed into the next generation of equipment before it is even installed. Managers and supervisors need the coaching capability and step-by-step diagnosis skill to sign off on subordinates' work honestly, plus the policy-deployment literacy to translate a corporate TPM target into a shopfloor activity.
One training calendar cannot serve all four groups with the same content on the same cadence, and treating it as if it can is the most common structural failure I see. It produces a plant with a training completion rate that looks respectable on a dashboard and a skills matrix that, if anyone actually built one, would show entire columns of empty and one-quadrant circles.
The second structural failure is treating training as reactive rather than triggered. A properly run E&T system does not schedule training because a slot opened on the calendar; it schedules a formal Training Timetable — a scheduled, dated who/what/by-when commitment — in response to one of three specific triggers, and only these three:
New equipment. A line, machine, or process has been installed and no one yet holds a full circle on it. This is the most obvious trigger and the one plants handle best, because commissioning naturally forces the question.
Poor line performance. Minor stoppages, defects, or breakdowns are tracing back to a skill gap rather than an equipment fault — the Loss-to-Skill-Gap link I cover in the next section. This trigger is the one plants miss most often, because the instinct is to blame the machine before checking whether the operator or technician was ever actually trained to catch the condition that caused the loss.
Turnover. An experienced operator is leaving, transferring, or retiring, and is about to take uncaptured tribal knowledge with them. This is the trigger that most exposes a plant with no skills matrix, because there is no way to know what is walking out the door until it already has.
Underneath all of this sits the indicator structure that separates a real E&T system from a well-intentioned training calendar: three tiers of measurement, run from company-level outcome down to shopfloor activity, all traceable back to the JIPM Achievement Sheet.
The Key Management Indicator (KMI) sits at the top and is what leadership actually reports on: the multi-skilling rate as a percentage, and an overall workforce competency index. The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) sits in the middle: the number of certified training instructors, training hours completed per employee, and the average time to certify a new hire. The Key Activity Indicator (KAI) sits at the base, and is where the shopfloor's daily discipline actually shows up: OPLs created and signed off, employee suggestion submission rate, and the number of skills matrix boards updated on schedule.
The reason this three-tier structure matters more than any individual metric is that it forces traceability in both directions. A plant manager can ask "why is our multi-skilling rate stuck at 40%?" and trace the answer down through instructor count and training hours to the actual KAI activity — or lack of it — on the floor. And a shopfloor supervisor updating a skills matrix board knows, or should know, that the circle they just filled in is one data point feeding a number the plant manager reports to the steering committee. Most plants I audit have one tier or the other, rarely both connected. HR tracks training hours (a KPI) in isolation from any multi-skilling outcome (a KMI), and nobody on the floor has ever been shown how their OPL sign-off sheet (a KAI) relates to either.
From Skills Matrix to the Shopfloor: Killing the Orphan OPL
I want to name a specific bad habit directly, because I see it in nearly every plant that has "already implemented" a skills matrix: the One-Point Lesson library that keeps growing because creating OPLs has become a KPI in itself, disconnected from any actual gap on the matrix. Someone in the training department is measured on "number of OPLs created this quarter," so OPLs get produced — competently formatted, one page, plenty of diagrams — on topics nobody asked for, filed in a binder or a shared drive nobody opens, cascaded to nobody in particular. That is an orphan OPL. It exists, it is well made, and it has closed zero gaps, because it was never traced back to a specific empty or one-quadrant cell on a specific skills matrix.
The discipline that prevents this is straightforward, and it starts with getting the alignment direction right: the skills matrix identifies the gap first, and the OPL exists to close that specific, named gap — never the reverse. When Module 1's diagnostic exercise asks a team to circle the skills they can only "take on faith," those circled items are the starting point. They become empty or partially filled cells on the matrix. The matrix then either triggers a full Training Timetable, if the gap is broad enough to need scheduled, structured instruction, or a single One-Point Lesson, if the gap is narrow enough to close with a five-to-ten-minute, single-theme training sheet.
The OPL itself follows a strict visual policy, and this is one of the places where I see plants shortcut the discipline hardest: more drawings, photos, and diagrams than text, with any accompanying text kept straightforward and pointed. This is not a stylistic preference. An OPL crammed with paragraphs is an OPL nobody reads at the point of use, on a shopfloor, in the middle of a shift. There are three legitimate OPL types, and picking the right one matters: Basic Knowledge OPLs fill gaps in basic operating information, safety, and equipment subsystems; Examples of Problems OPLs are built from a past failure or defect and exist specifically to prevent recurrence; Examples of Improvements OPLs share a completed kaizen result so the improvement spreads rather than staying local to the team that found it.
None of that prevents the orphan problem on its own, though. What prevents it is the cascading method — the three-step discipline that turns an OPL from a document into an audit trail.
Research and draft: the team members closest to the gap research the topic themselves and draft the OPL — deliberately not a trainer writing it on their behalf, because the act of researching and drafting is itself part of how the skill embeds. Present on the shopfloor: the drafting team presents the OPL at the point of use, where the skill is actually applied, not in a classroom or a meeting room disconnected from the equipment. Track attendance: a sign-off table on the OPL itself records who has seen it, dated, with a name against it. That sign-off table is the entire difference between an orphan OPL and a working one — it is the physical evidence that the loop from matrix gap to closed gap actually ran to completion, and it is exactly what an assessor, or a plant manager who actually wants to know, checks first.
Get this alignment right — matrix identifies gap, OPL or Training Timetable closes it, sign-off proves it closed — and the skills matrix stops being a poster on the wall and becomes what JIPM's own maturity language calls it at the "Defined" level: a consistent, data-driven system where training needs are tied directly to line bottlenecks.
TWI Is the Engine, Not a Nice-to-Have
If the skills matrix tells you what needs to be trained, TWI — Training Within Industry — is how the training actually gets delivered, and I want to be equally direct here: TWI is not one Lean tool among many that a plant can optionally layer on top of E&T. It is the delivery mechanism the entire pillar depends on, and skipping it is the single most common reason a plant has a beautifully designed skills matrix and a stubbornly low multi-skilling rate.
The motto that anchors the whole method is worth repeating exactly as it is used on the Job Instruction Card, because it reframes where accountability sits: if the worker hasn't learned, the instructor hasn't taught. That single sentence removes the excuse that a training failure is the learner's fault for not paying attention, and puts the burden where it belongs — on whether the instruction method itself was sound.
Two instinctive teaching habits fail on their own, and understanding why they fail is what makes the four-step method make sense. Telling alone — the instructor describes the job in words, with no demonstration — assumes the learner can translate language directly into physical action. It misses feel, timing, and the hazards that are genuinely hard to put into words, and the learner nods along, then fails the first time they attempt it unsupervised. Showing alone — the instructor demonstrates the job but explains little while doing it — lets the learner see what happens but not why, and without Key Points and Reasons explicitly stated, the learner copies the motion without acquiring the judgment behind it. Errors from this surface later, often as exactly the minor stoppages and defects I described in the loss-to-skill-gap link above.
The effective method combines both, in a fixed, non-negotiable sequence: Prepare the worker — put the person at ease, state the job, find out what they already know so you teach only what needs teaching, and get them interested in learning it. Present the operation — tell, show, and illustrate one important step at a time, then repeat while stressing the Key Points, then repeat again while explaining the Reasons, presenting no more than the learner can master in one pass. Try-out performance — have the learner do the job themselves, correcting errors as they happen, then have them explain each step, key point, and reason as they do it again, continuing until the instructor genuinely knows the learner knows. Follow up — put the person on their own, designate who they go to for help, check on them frequently, and taper off close coaching gradually rather than abruptly.
Behind this sequence sits the Job Breakdown Sheet, which I want to flag because practitioners routinely misuse it: it is a note from the instructor to themselves, breaking the job into Important Steps, Key Points, and Reasons — it is never handed to the learner as reading material. The rule of thumb worth keeping is that any Important Step needing more than three to five key points should be split into two steps, because no learner can hold more than that in working memory at once. This is also the document that turns "the worker hasn't learned" from a vague accusation into a specific, checkable failure: if the learner keeps missing a particular point, the breakdown sheet tells you exactly which key point or reason was never properly presented.
TWI's reach extends well beyond Job Instruction, and this is where it earns its place as the engine for the rest of the pillars, not just E&T in isolation. TWI Job Methods carries the four-step ECRS technique — Eliminate, Combine, Rearrange, Simplify — that gives Focused Improvement teams a concrete way to act once a 5-Why or fishbone analysis has surfaced a root cause: eliminate unnecessary detail outright, combine details discovered through where/when/who questioning, rearrange what cannot be combined to cut backtracking, and simplify what remains with jigs, fixtures, or gravity feeds. TWI Job Relations is the one piece of the framework that is relational rather than technical, and it exists because a trained workforce that is poorly managed will not sustain its own competence. Its four foundations — let each worker know how they are doing, give credit when due, tell people in advance about changes, and make the best use of each person's ability — pair with a four-step method for handling people problems: get the facts, weigh and decide, take action, check results.
Root-cause discipline sits alongside TWI as the second Lean tool E&T leans on constantly. Five-Why analysis is not a problem-solving technique in itself — it is a root-cause tool, used to peel away symptom layers by repeatedly asking why until the actual cause surfaces, and it belongs in the E&T toolkit because so many of the skill gaps Module 2's loss framework surfaces only become visible once a 5-Why traces a stoppage or a defect back past the equipment symptom to the competency behind it. Fishbone (Cause & Effect) analysis structures the causes of a known effect across Manpower, Methods, Machines, and Materials when the effect is known but the causes are not yet clear. P-M Analysis is reserved for the chronic, complex problems that 5-Why cannot crack on its own, because it takes considerably more time, resources, and expertise — it is not a tool a plant should reach for on every routine problem.
Visual boards — the skills matrix board itself, plus the visual controls I covered under Autonomous Maintenance Step 4 — are the third leg, and their role in E&T specifically is to make competence and its gaps visible to anyone walking the floor, not just to the people who filed the training record. None of these three — TWI, root-cause tools, visual management — is optional dressing on top of an E&T programme. They are the mechanism by which a matrix gap becomes a taught, verified skill rather than a line item on a training plan that never quite gets actioned.
Common Mistakes I See on the Shopfloor
Beyond the orphan OPL and the HR-training-calendar substitution I have already named directly, four other patterns recur often enough to call out specifically. The first is measuring training by hours delivered rather than skill demonstrated — a plant proud of its "training hours per employee" KPI while its multi-skilling KMI has barely moved, because hours in a seat were never converted into a verified full circle on anyone's matrix. The second is building the skills matrix once, as a project, and never updating it — a board that was accurate on the day it went up and has silently drifted out of date ever since, because nobody assigned ownership for keeping it current against turnover, promotions, and new equipment. The third is running Job Instruction as a one-time event rather than a cycle — an instructor who delivers all four steps once, correctly, and then treats the skill as permanently acquired, skipping the Follow Up step's ongoing check-ins, which is precisely how a correctly taught skill quietly decays back into an unsafe shortcut over the following months. The fourth, and the one I find hardest to fix because it is cultural rather than procedural, is treating the Dojo or OJT centre as a formality rather than a genuine hands-on space — a room with the right signage but no equipment a learner can actually practise on before touching a live line, which defeats the entire purpose of separating practice from production.
How E&T Enables Every Other Pillar
I described E&T earlier as the pillar whose output every other pillar assumes it already has, and it is worth showing exactly where that assumption gets tested, because it is not an abstract claim — it is written into the named steps of the other pillars themselves.
Autonomous Maintenance's Step 4 is not a metaphor for "apply some training somewhere in this process." It is literally titled Conduct General Inspection Skills Training, and it is scored and audited as a distinct step in its own right. Everything before it in the seven steps — cleaning, eliminating contamination sources, setting cleaning and lubrication standards — is preparation. Everything after it — autonomous inspection, visual standardisation, full self-management — assumes Step 4's training has already happened and stuck. The skill areas trained there are specific and nameable: pneumatics, electrical, hydraulics, lubricants and coolants, drive systems, bolts and nuts, and safety, taught through five-senses inspection, match marks and abnormality tags, and colour-coded visual controls, then cascaded to peers through exactly the One-Point Lesson mechanism I described above.
Planned Maintenance's first three steps are, if anything, even more explicit about the dependency. They are literally titled around supporting Autonomous Maintenance: PM technicians explain machine function and normal-versus-abnormal conditions, teach red-and-white tagging, teach operators how to develop their own One-Point Lessons, and instil the principle that cleaning is inspection. They run Why-Why analysis on breakdowns, and where the cause is an AM skill gap, they close it directly rather than filing a maintenance ticket and moving on. A PM technician, in the first three steps of their own pillar, is functioning as an instructor before PM builds any of its own systems — which means a plant with a weak E&T pillar will find its PM technicians spending months on work that should have taken weeks, because the training infrastructure to do it efficiently was never built. PM Step 6 then names a second, later training dependency directly in its own wording: the jump from Time-Based Maintenance to Condition-Based Maintenance requires every maintenance engineer to be trained in equipment diagnostics — vibration analysis, thermal imaging, oil analysis — and JIPM treats that training as a named checkpoint of the step, not an optional enhancement.
Focused Improvement and Quality Maintenance depend on E&T in a subtler but equally direct way: through the analytical tools themselves. Fishbone, 5-Why, and P-M Analysis are not innate abilities; they have to be taught, and a team that has not been trained to run a 5-Why properly will produce root-cause analyses that stop at the second or third why, converging on a symptom rather than a cause. Quality Maintenance's own framework makes the dependency explicit: quality is determined by four conditions — Machinery, Materials, Methods, and Men/Women — and while the first three depend on equipment and process discipline, the fourth is the one E&T owns outright. It is also worth noting that the other three conditions still depend on a trained person to establish and sustain them in the first place, which means E&T's fingerprints are on all four, not just the one named after people.
The connecting thread across every one of these dependencies is the same: no pillar's own methodology teaches the skill it needs. AM's seven steps describe what to inspect, not how to teach five-senses inspection to someone who has never done it. PM's seven steps describe what to diagnose, not how to instil diagnostic judgment in a new technician. E&T is the pillar that supplies the how, for every one of the others, and a plant that treats it as an HR afterthought is quietly undercutting every pillar it thinks it has already implemented.
Proof It Works: A Case in the JIPM Chapter 9 Format
JIPM's own TPM Activity Report format includes a worked Chapter 9 case study — the same chapter an assessor reads to see the full loop from problem to result — and I want to walk through it here because it demonstrates the entire system described above operating together rather than as separate tools. The activity theme was stated plainly in the format assessors expect: upgrading operator skills on a bottleneck filling line to achieve zero minor stoppages.
The execution profile followed exactly the sequence this guide has described. First, identify skill gaps: a Training Timetable was used to spot high-frequency minor stops tracing back to weak general inspection skill — the Loss-to-Skill-Gap link from earlier in this guide, applied directly. Second, OPL deployment: a targeted One-Point Lesson on drive-system chain tensioning was created and cascaded to all operators, following the research-draft-present-sign-off cycle. Third, OJT training: the four-step Job Instruction method was delivered to the line's operators, using the Prepare-Present-Try-Out-Follow-Up sequence rather than a single briefing.
Before the intervention, the line's multi-skilling rate stood at 35%, minor stoppages were frequent, and suggestion participation was low. After the Training Timetable was built, the OPL cascaded, and the four-step OJT delivered, multi-skilling rose to 85%, minor stoppages fell to zero, and suggestion participation reached 100%. The intangible result worth noting alongside the hard numbers is that morale survey scores improved in the same direction — the M indicator on the Achievement Sheet moving alongside the P indicator, exactly as the KMI-KPI-KAI structure predicts it should when the underlying activity is genuine rather than performative.
What this case demonstrates, and why I keep returning to it with practitioners rather than a more abstract description of the method, is that none of the three tools worked in isolation. The Training Timetable without the OPL would have identified the gap without closing it efficiently. The OPL without the four-step OJT would have distributed information without verifying anyone could actually perform the task. The OJT without a Training Timetable pointing at the right gap would have been well-delivered training aimed at the wrong problem. The result — zero minor stoppages, not "fewer" — came from running all three in the sequence this guide has laid out, not from any single tool applied well.
The Discipline This Guide Is Really About
Strip away the award tiers, the checklists, and the indicator acronyms, and E&T asks one question of every plant, repeatedly: for any given task, on any given line, right now, can you produce evidence — not an assurance, evidence — of who can do it unsupervised, and who can teach the next person to do it? Most plants cannot answer that question for more than a handful of critical tasks. They can tell you who has "been trained." They cannot tell you, with a dated circle on a board, who can actually perform, and who is certified to instruct.
That is the gap this guide has tried to close. Not a training plan. Not an HR calendar. A system: four audiences served distinctly, three triggers that call training rather than a calendar date, a four-quadrant standard that separates knowing from doing from teaching, a matrix that makes the gaps visible instead of taken on faith, and a TWI-driven delivery method that turns a visible gap into a demonstrated skill with a sign-off to prove it. Build that system, and the multi-skilling rate, the OEE recovery, and — if your organisation chooses to pursue it — the award readiness all follow as consequences, not as separate projects to run in parallel.
The next time someone in your plant tells you "we have an HRD, so E&T is covered," ask them one question instead of arguing the point: pick any critical task on the floor, and ask who is certified to teach it. If nobody can answer with a name, you have your starting point.
Build Education & Training Capability
A skills matrix, a Training Timetable, and a library of One-Point Lessons are only as good as the discipline behind maintaining them. If your plant is ready to move from a training calendar to a working E&T system, OEC's relevant training programmes include:
TPM Education & Training Pillar Deployment — an on-site programme building the skills matrix, Training Timetable, and OPL cascading discipline described in this guide, mapped to your plant's own equipment and audiences.
TWI Job Instruction, Job Methods, and Job Relations Certification — the full three-programme TWI curriculum, run to the original Training Within Industry Foundation standard.
TPM Autonomous Maintenance and Planned Maintenance Deployment — for plants building or refreshing the pillars that depend most directly on a working E&T system.
👉 Learn more or discuss a plant-specific programme at: www.oeconsulting.com.sg
About the Author
Allan Ung is the Founder and Principal Consultant of Operational Excellence Consulting (OEC), a Singapore-based management training and consulting firm he established in 2009 to bring structured Lean, Quality, and TPM methodology to organisations across Asia. His career began at Singapore's National Productivity Board, where he served as a consultant and co-led national Cost of Quality and Total Quality Process programmes that helped participating companies cut quality costs by an average of 42.3%, delivering a combined S$3 million in savings — early proof, long before TPM entered his practice, that competency gaps are the hidden driver behind most operational loss.
Allan went on to hold senior roles at IBM, Microsoft, and Underwriters Laboratories (UL), where he led Lean Six Sigma deployment across manufacturing and quality operations. In the three decades since, he has facilitated Lean and Total Quality programmes, as well as TPM pillar deployment — Autonomous Maintenance, Planned Maintenance, and Education & Training in particular — for organisations including Lam Research, Micron, Tokyo Electron, Panasonic, Analog Devices, STATS ChipPAC, and Amkor Technology, alongside public-sector engagements with Singapore's Ministry of Social and Family Development, Ministry of Education, and Health Sciences Authority.
He holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the National University of Singapore and completed advanced management consultancy training in Japan as a Colombo Plan Scholar, hosted by the Central Japan Industries Association in Nagoya. His credentials include Certified Management Consultant (Japan), Certified Lean Six Sigma Black Belt (NCSU), JIPM-certified TPM Instructor, TWI Master Trainer, ISO 9001 Lead Auditor, and Singapore Quality Award National Assessor.
Allan's consistent view, across every plant he has worked with, is that a pillar's paperwork and a pillar's practice are two different things, and the gap between them is always closed by people who were actually taught — not merely informed. His toolkits and training curricula are in active use across manufacturing sites in Asia, Europe, and North America.
👉 Learn more at: www.oeconsulting.com.sg
Further Learning Resources
TPM: The Complete Practitioner Guide — the hub article this guide sits under, covering all eight pillars and the JIPM Excellence Award framework at a glance.
Autonomous Maintenance: A Practitioner's Guide — the pillar whose Step 4 is the clearest single example of E&T embedded directly inside another pillar's own methodology.
Planned Maintenance: A Practitioner's Guide — covers the TBM-to-CBM skill ladder this guide references under PM Step 6 in full technical detail.
Focused Improvement: A Practitioner's Guide — the 5-Why, fishbone, and P-M Analysis toolkit this guide covers as E&T's contribution to root-cause capability.
TPM Self-Assessment and the JIPM Excellence Award — the checklist tiers and scoring mechanics referenced throughout this guide, covered in full across all eight pillars.