Hi @Hadwll, just saw your post and thought I share my experiences. Firstly how big is your organisation? I mean are you talking about hundreds of maintenance staff deployed over multiple sites? In case your organisation is smaller, say 50 staff, I wouldn't bother naming the thing. Instead I would focus on the basics and try to master them. This means have good planners who really know the plant and therefore do the right thing (as opposed to do the things right). After your planners have identified the true scope and required parts for the job you will need to schedule it most appropriately. This means to have a framework that allows you to rank your jobs by urgency and criticality. For this @Erik Hupje has mentioned a very useful tool he used to use.
For many organisations these two basics are not well executed causing maintenance expenses to 'unexpectedly' increase.
However, for large organisations (army, car manufacturing, aviation) the typical 80% rule might not be enough. In aviation for instance, where you expect maximum levels of utilisation and availability, you simply need to expand your measures beyond said two basics. Otherwise your maintenance becomes too expensive. This is why RCM got introduced and to this day only really works in that context. Why? Because they did do the basics right and also did the implementation to 101% (you know what I mean).
There is many organisations with bad experiences from RCM implementation. Mainly due to not being 'ready' in first place:)
Now why am I saying all this you may wonder. Simple answer. TPM is very similar in that it does also require the organisation to be ready. Once successfully implemented you will have operators conducting "first line maintenance" which is exactly what is meant by involving staff or raise awareness. And yes I have seen this working in the army maintenance. We had proud tank operators who would make sure their tank stayed in good condition.
So let me ask you again. How big is your organisation and are you ready?