CHAPTER 8 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27143/18/18_chapter 8.pdf · COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY BETWEEN

239

CHAPTER 8

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY BETWEEN

STOP WATCH TIME STUDY METHOD AND BASIC MOST METHOD

8.1 Introduction:

In chapter 6, while studying the SAIPL labour productivity standard time

taken by labour through application of stopwatch time study method, an emphasis

have been given on identifying believeness, training methods, training received,

awareness of labour on stopwatch time study method and to measure and know the

standard time taken by labour to perform or complete unloading, trolley filling and

catwalk section activities in logistic department. A similar endeavor is made in

chapter 7 for MOST technique application. In this chapter (i.e. Chapter 8), an

endeavor is made to compare the results of labour productivity obtained due to

application of stopwatch time study method and MOST work measurement technique.

Hence the objective of this chapter is to compare:

i) Awareness on stopwatch time study method.

ii) Training awareness and training received on stopwatch time study method and

MOST.

iii) Social and technical barriers associated with application of stopwatch time

study method and MOST.

iv) Labour Productivity or time taken by labour respondents to perform

unloading activity under stopwatch time study method and MOST method.

v) Labour Productivity or time taken by labour respondents to perform Trolley

filling activity under stopwatch time study method and MOST method.

vi) Labour Productivity or time taken by labour respondents to perform catwalk

section activity under stopwatch time study method and MOST method.

vii) Labour Productivity improvement due to application of MOST over stopwatch

time study method.

240

8.2 Comparison of Awareness related to Stopwatch time study method and Basic

MOST method:

Section 6.2.2 and section 7.2.2 analyzed and interpreted the labour responses

related to the awareness of Stop Watch Time Study method and Basic MOST along

with their various methods. This section attempt to compare the responses of the

labour respondents related to the awareness of Stop Watch Time Study method and

Basic MOST. Table 8.1 and Figure 8.1 shows the extent of awareness variation

related to Stop Watch Time Study Method and MOST Method.

Table 8.1

Comparison of Awareness related to Stop Watch Time Study Method

and Basic MOST Method

Responses Stopwatch Method Basic MOST Method

Nos. Percent Nos. Percent

YES 23 92 19 76

NO 2 8 6 24

Total 25 100 25 100

241

Figure 8.1

Comparison of Awareness related to Stop Watch Time Study Method


X-Axis

Comparison of Awareness related to Stop

Watch Time Study Method and Basic MOST

Method

Y-Axis Responses of Labour Respondents

Alternatives

A Stopwatch Time Study Method

B Basic MOST method

Observations:

It can be seen from Table 8.1 and Figure 8.1 that, out of total 25 Labour

respondents, 23 (92 Percent) of the labour respondents are aware of the Stop Watch

Time study method as compared to 19 (76 Percent) those are aware of the Basic

MOST method.

Findings:

Thus it can be said that as compared to the awareness of stopwatch time

method (92 Percent), the awareness for Basic MOST method is lower (i.e. 76 Percent)

among the selected labour respondents.

0

50

100 92%

76%

8%

24% YES

NO

Comparison of Awareness related to Stop

Watch Time Study Method and Basic

MOST Method

Res

pon

ses

of

Lab

ou

r

Res

pon

den

ts

A B

242

8.3 Comparison of Training awareness and Training received by Labour

Respondents related to Stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST

method:

This section attempts to compare the responses of the labour related to the

awareness of training provided by professional bodies and extent of training received

for application of Stop Watch Time Study method and Basic MOST method by labour

respondents of SAIPL as under:

8.3.1 Comparison of Training Awareness related to Stop Watch Time Study

Method and Basic MOST Method.

8.3.2 Comparison of Training received by labour respondents related to Stop

Watch Time Study Method and Basic MOST Method.

8.3.1 Comparison of Training Awareness related to Stopwatch Time Study

Method and Basic MOST Method:

The extent of variation in the training awareness related to Stopwatch time

study method and Basic MOST method among the labour respondents from

Unloading, TFA and Catwalk Section is presented in Table 8.2 and Figure 8.2.

Table 8.2

Comparison of Training Awareness related to Stop Watch Time Study

Method and Basic MOST Method


Nos. Percent Nos. Percent

YES 20 80 19 76

NO 5 20 6 24

Total 25 100 25 100

243

Figure 8.2

Comparison of Training Awareness related to Stop Watch Time Study


X-Axis

Comparison of Training Awareness related to

Stop Watch Time Study Method and Basic

MOST Method


Alternatives


B Basic MOST Method

Observations:

It can be seen from Table 8.2 and Figure 8.2 that,

Out of total 25 Labour respondents, 20 (80 Percent) of the labour respondents

are aware that there is training provided by professional bodies to apply Stop Watch

Time study method as compared to 19 (76 Percent) those are aware of training

provided to apply Basic MOST method.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

80% 76%

20% 24%

YES

NO

Comparison of Training Awareness related to Stop

Watch Time Study Method and Basic MOST

Method

Res

pon

ses

of

La

bou

r

Res

pon

den

ts

A B

244

Findings:

Thus it can be said that, extent of awareness among labour respondents on

training provided by professional bodies to apply Basic MOST method is lower (76

Percent) as compared to Stop Watch Time Study Method(i.e. 80 Percent).

8.3.2 Comparison of Training received by Labour respondents related to

Stopwatch Time Study Method and Basic MOST Method:

In this section, the researcher has tried to compare the extent of training

received by labour respondents related to stopwatch time study method and Basic

MOST method represented in Table 8.3 and Figure 8.3.

Table 8.3

Comparison of Training received by Labour Respondents related to

Stopwatch Time Study Method and Basic MOST Method (In Percentage)


YES 100 0

NO 0 100

Figure 8.3

Comparison of Training received by Labour Respondents related to

Stopwatch Time Study Method and Basic MOST Method (In Percentage)

0

20

40

60

80

100

100%

0 0

100%

YES NO Comparison of Training received

Res

pon

ses

of

Lab

ou

r

Res

pon

den

ts

A B

245

X-Axis

Comparison of Training received by Labour

Respondents related to Stopwatch Time Study



Alternatives


B Basic MOST Method

Observations:

It can be seen from Table 8.3 and Figure 8.3 that, among all the selected

labour respondents 100 Percent received the training related to stop watch time study

method. On the other hand, 100 percent of the labour respondents have not received

any training related to Basic MOST method.

Findings:

Thus it can be said that labours have never been trained to apply Basic MOST

method as compared to stop watch time study method.

8.4 Social and Technical Barrier Comparison:

The objective of this subsection is to understand whether Stop watch time

study method or Basic MOST Method faced higher social or technical barriers while

application in selected sections of logistic department. By comparing these one can

understand the attitude of labour respondents towards the barriers associated in

application of work measurement techniques to measuring performance.

8.4.1 Comparison of Social Barriers associated with the application of Stop

Watch Time Study Method and Basic MOST method:

Table 8.4 and Figure 8.4 compares the responses of labour respondents related

to the social barriers associated with the application of Stop watch time study method

and Basic MOST method.

246

Table 8.4

Comparison of Social Barriers associated with the Application of Stop Watch

time study Method and Basic MOST Method (In Percentage)

Sr.No Social Barriers Stopwatch Method

Response

Basic MOST

Method Response

1 Reluctance to Measure 8 4

2 Fear of Job loss 12 0

3 Lack of Support 12 0

Figure 8.4

Comparison of Social Barriers associated with the Application of

Stop Watch time study Method and Basic MOST Method (In Percentage)

X-Axis

Comparison of Social Barriers associated with

the Application of Stop Watch time study



Alternatives

A Reluctance to Measure

B Fear of Job loss

C Lack of Support

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

8%

12% 12%

4%

0 0

StopWatch

Method

Response

Basic MOST

Response

Social Barriers

Res

pon

ses

of

Lab

ou

r

Res

pon

den

ts

A B C

247

Observations:


1. For application of Stop Watch Time study method, 8 percent of the total labour

respondents were reluctant to measure the work whereas, only 4 percent of the

labour respondents were reluctant to measure the work by application of basic

MOST method. This show that, labour respondents were less reluctant to measure

their work by application of Basic MOST method as compared to the stop watches

time study method.

2. Out of total labour respondents, 12 percent of labour respondents feared job loss

when their time is measured using stop watch method whereas, none of the labour

respondent feared job loss when their time is measured using Basic MOST

method. This shows that labour respondents feel more secured when their work is

measured using Basic MOST method as compared to the Stopwatch method

where fear of job loss is high.

3. Out of total labour respondents, 12 percent of labour respondents provided lack of

support when stop watch method was used to measure their work time. None of

the labour respondent showed any lack of support when their work was measured

using Basic MOST method. This means that labour respondents provide full

support when their work is measured using Basic MOST method as compared to

the Stopwatch Time Study method.

Findings:

Thus it can be said from Table 8.4 and 8.4 that, social barriers associated with

the application of Basic MOST method are less as compared to the social barriers

associated with stopwatch time study method.

248

8.4.2 Comparison of Technical Barriers associated with the application of Stop

Watch Time Study Method and Basic MOST method:

Table 8.5 and Figure 8.5 compares the responses of labour respondents related

to the technical barriers associated with the application of Stop watch time study

method and Basic MOST method.

Table 8.5

Comparison of Technical Barriers associated with the application of

Stop Watch time study Method and Basic MOST Method (In Percentage)

Sr.No Technical Barriers

Stopwatch

Method Response

Basic MOST

Response

1

Variation in application of

Basic MOST method and

time measurement 24 8

2

Variation in shortage of

needed samples 16 4

3

Ambiguity in activity

elements 12 4

Total 52 16

Figure 8.5

Comparison of Technical Barriers associated with the application of Stop Watch

time study Method and Basic MOST method (In Percentage)

0

5

10

15

20

25 24%

16%

12%

8%

4% 4%

StopWatch

Method

Response

Basic

MOST

Response

Technical Barriers

Res

pon

ses

of

Lab

ou

r

Res

pon

den

ts

A B C

249

X-Axis

Comparison of Technical Barriers associated with

the Application of Stop Watch time study Method



Alternatives

A Variation in application of Basic MOST method

and time measurement

B Variation in shortage of needed samples

C Ambiguity in activity elements

Observations:

It can be seen from Table 8.5 and Figure 8.5 that

1. Out of total labour respondents, 24 percent of the total labour respondents said

that there is variation in measurement of time and application of Stop watch

method whereas, only 8 percent of the labour respondents felt that there is

variation in measurement of time and application of Basic MOST method. This

means that, there is less variation in application of Basic MOST method as

compared to the stop watch time study method.

2. 16 percent of the labour respondents felt that there is shortage in the sample of

observed readings taken to arrive at standard time using stop watch method

whereas, only 4 Percent of the labour respondent felt that there is shortage of

sample to measure time using Basic MOST method. This indicates that Basic

MOST method measures time more accurately as compared to the Stopwatch

method as there is no question of number of readings to be observed to measure

time.

3. Out of total labour respondents, 12 percent of labour respondents observed

ambiguity in the activity elements for application of stop watch method, whereas,

only 4 Percent of the labour respondents observed ambiguity in activity elements

using Basic MOST method. This means that Basic MOST method measures time

more accurately as compared to the Stopwatch method.

250

Findings:

Thus it can be said from Table 8.5 and Figure 8.5 that, technical barriers

associated with the application of Basic MOST method are less as compared to the

technical barriers associated with the application of stopwatch time study method.

8.5. Productivity Comparison:

As discussed in earlier section, Labour productivity is measured in terms of

time taken by individual labour respondents to complete the activity in selected

sections of logistic department. Lower the time required to complete the activity,

higher will be the labour productivity. Thus to arrive at this result, section 6.2.4.2 and

7.2.4 represented the standard time and MOST time taken by each labour respondent

to complete the activity in selected sections of logistic department. In this section

researcher has attempted to compare the standard time and MOST time derived from

application of Stop Watch Time Study Method and Basic MOST method. This section

will give the clear understanding related to the time required to complete the activity

for each individual labour so that it will be easy to determine the time saved for each

labour performing that activity resulting in higher productivity. The productivity

improvement by comparison of Standard time and Basic MOST time that results in

time saving to perform the activity by individual labour is represented as under:

8.5.1 Comparison of Standard time and Basic MOST time to perform activity in

Unloading Section.

8.5.2 Improvement in Productivity after application of Basic MOST method in

unloading section.


TFA Section.


TFA section.


Catwalk Section.

251


Catwalk section.

8.5.7 Productivity Improvement for number of Labour respondents after

application of Basic MOST method

8.5.8 Sectional Labour Productivity Improvement after application of Basic

MOST Method

8.5.9 Comparison of Stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST method for

observed points/Variables

8.5.1 Comparison of Standard Time and Basic MOST Time to perform Activity

in Unloading Section:

Standard time is the time which is calculated by application of Stop Watch

time study method and MOST time is the time calculated by application of Basic

MOST Method. In this section, researcher has tried to compare the Standard time and

Basic MOST time calculated to perform activity by labour respondent for unloading

section. This comparison will clearly identify the time required to perform the activity

for individual labour in unloading as presented in Table 8.6 and Figure 8.6.

Observations:


1. Standard time taken by labour 1 to complete the activity of opening & closing of

container gate at dock is 2.96 Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the

same activity is 1.7 Minutes. Thus it can be said that Basic MOST time is less as

compared to standard time taken by labour 1 to complete the activity.

2. Labour 2 took 6.33 Minutes to complete the activity of unloading car body pallet

from the container. Basic MOST time to perform the same activity is 5.44

Minutes. Thus it can be said that Basic MOST time is less as compared to

standard time taken by labour respondent to complete the activity.

252

Table 8.6

Comparison of Standard Time and Basic MOST Time to

perform Activity in Unloading Section (In Minutes)

Labour No. Standard Time

(In Minutes)

Basic MOST Time

(In Minutes)

Labour 1 2.96 1.7

Labour 2 6.33 5.44

Labour 3 0.88 0.7

Labour 4 2.39 2.8

Labour 5 4.58 4.55

Labour 6 2.17 1.08

Labour 7 3 2.06

Labour 8 2.73 1.26

Labour 9 3.45 3.28

Labour 10 2.95 1.95

Labour 11 3.37 2.09

Labour 12 2.36 1.17

Labour 13 3.66 2.22

Labour 14 2.96 2.08

Labour 15 2.74 2.51

253

Figure 8.6

Comparison of Standard Time and Basic MOST Time

to perform Activity in Unloading Section (In Minutes)

X-Axis Labour Respondents in Unloading

Section

Y-Axis Time taken by Labour Respondents in

Minutes

Alternatives

A-O Labour 1 to Labour 15

3. Standard time taken by labour 3 to complete the activity of unloading car body

parts from pallet is 0.88 Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the same

activity is 0.7 Minutes. This means that time required to complete the activity

performed by labour 3 is less as compared to the standard time taken by labour 3

to perform the activity.

4. Labour 4 took 2.39 Minutes of standard time to complete the activity of unloading

car body parts from pallet. Basic MOST time to perform the same activity is 2.8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2.96

6.33

0.88

2.39

4.58

2.17

3 2.73

3.45

2.95

3.37

2.36

3.66

2.96 2.74

1.7

5.44

0.7

2.8

4.55

1.08

2.06

1.26

3.28

1.95 2.09

1.17

2.22 2.08 2.51

Standard Time

(In Minutes)

MOST Time

(In Minutes)

Labour Respondents in Unloading Section

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

Tim

e t

ak

en b

yL

ab

ou

r

Res

pon

den

ts i

n M

inu

tes

254

Minutes. Thus it can be said that Basic MOST time is more as compared to


5. Labour 5 took 4.58 Minutes to complete the activity of unloading car body parts

from pallet. Basic MOST time to perform the same activity is 4.55 Minutes

respectively. Thus it can be said that Basic MOST time is less as compared to


6. Standard time taken by labour 6 to complete the activity of trolley alignment in

unloading area is 2.17 Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the same

activity is 1.08 Minutes. This means that time required to complete the activity is

less as compared to the standard time taken by labour 6 to perform the activity.


parts from pallet is 3 Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the same



8. Labour 8 took 2.73 Minutes to complete the activity of unloading car body parts

from pallet. Basic MOST time to perform the same activity is 2.06 Minutes

respectively. Thus it can be said that Basic MOST time is less as compared to

standard time taken by labour 8 to complete the activity.


parts from pallet is 3.45 Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the same



10. Standard time taken by labour 10 to complete the activity to carry car body shell

SUZ Pallet to assembly line is 2.95 Minutes where as Basic MOST time to

perform the same activity is 1.95 Minutes respectively. This means that time

required to complete the activity is less as compared to the standard time taken by

labour 10 to perform the activity.

255

11. Labour 11 took 3.37 Minutes to complete the activity of cleaning car body shell.

Basic MOST time to perform the same activity is 2.09 Minutes respectively. Thus

it can be said that Basic MOST time is less as compared to standard time taken by

labour 11 to complete the activity.

12. Standard time taken by labour 12 to complete the unloading of car body parts

from the pallet is 2.36 Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the same

activity is 1.17 Minutes respectively. This means that time required to complete

the activity is less as compared to the standard time taken by labour 12 to perform

the activity.

13. Standard time taken by labour 13 to complete the activity of packaging list

verification is 3.66 Minutes, whereas, Basic MOST time is 2.22 Minutes

respectively. This shows that Labour 13 takes more time to complete the activity

as compared to Basic MOST time.

14. Standard time taken by labour 14 to complete the activity of system operator is

2.96 Minutes, whereas, Basic MOST time is 2.08 Minutes respectively. This

means that time required to complete the activity is less as compared to the

standard time taken by labour 14 to perform the activity.


parts from the pallet is 2.74 Minutes, whereas, Basic MOST time is 2.51 Minutes

respectively. This means that time required to complete the activity is less as

compared to the standard time taken by labour 15 to perform the activity.

Findings:

Thus it can be inferred from Table 8.6 and Figure 8.6 that Basic MOST time is

less as compared to the standard time taken by labour respondents to perform the

selected activity in unloading section of logistic department. Except for labour 4

where basic MOST time is more as compared to Standard time. This means that the

time required to perform the activity in unloading section for selected labour

respondent can be reduced from the current activity time.

256


unloading section.

After understanding the time required to perform the activity in unloading

section for each selected labour respondent, it is necessary to understand that how

much time is saved after application of Basic MOST method in unloading section.

The time saved will result in the productivity improvement as this time can be utilized

for labour respondents further performance improvement. Table 8.7, Figure 8.7 and

Figure 8.8 highlight the time saved and corresponding improvement in productivity of

each selected activity of unloading section after application of Basic MOST method.

Table 8.7

Productivity Improvement after application of Basic MOST

method in unloading section

Labour No.

Stopwatch

Time

(In Minutes)

Basic MOST

Time

(In Minutes)

Time Saved

(In Minutes)

Productivity

Improvement

(in %)

Labour 1 2.96 1.7 1.26 43

Labour 2 6.33 5.44 0.89 14

Labour 3 0.88 0.7 0.18 20

Labour 4 2.39 2.8 -0.41 -17

Labour 5 4.58 4.55 0.03 1

Labour 6 2.17 1.08 1.09 50

Labour 7 3 2.06 0.94 31

Labour 8 2.73 1.26 1.47 54

Labour 9 3.45 3.28 0.17 5

Labour 10 2.95 1.95 1 34

Labour 11 3.37 2.09 1.28 38

Labour 12 2.36 1.17 1.19 50

Labour 13 3.66 2.22 1.44 39

Labour 14 2.96 2.08 0.88 30

Labour 15 2.74 2.51 0.23 8

257

Figure 8.7

Time Saved to perform activity in unloading section after application

of Basic MOST method (In Minutes)

X-Axis

Labour Respondents in Unloading

Section

Y-Axis Time Saved by Labour Respondents in

Minutes

Alternatives


-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6 1.26

0.89

0.18

-0.41

0.03

1.09 0.94

1.47

0.17

1

1.28 1.19

1.44

0.88

0.23

Labour Respondents in Unloading Section

A B C D

E F G H I J K L M N O

Tim

e S

aved

byL

ab

ou

r

Res

pon

den

ts i

n M

inu

tes

258

Figure 8.8

Productivity Improvement after application of

Basic MOST method in unloading section

X-Axis Labour Respondents in Unloading Section

Y-Axis Productivity Improvement in Percentage

Alternatives


Observations:

It can be seen from Table 8.7, Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.8 that,

1. Time saved after application of basic MOST method for Labour 1 is 1.26

Minutes to perform the activity. This resulted in productivity improvement of 43

percent in labour performance.

2. For Labour 2, time saved to perform the activity is 0.89 Minutes after application

of Basic MOST method. This shows the 14 Percent improvement in the

productivity of labour performance.

43

14 20

-17

1

50

31

54

5

34 38

50

39

30

8

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Productivity

Improvement

(in %) Labour Respondents in Unloading Section

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

Pro

du

ctiv

ity I

mp

rovem

ent

in

Per

cen

tage

259

3. Time saved to perform the activity for Labour 3 is 0.18 Minutes resulting in 20

Percent productivity improvement of Labour performance after application of

Basic MOST method.

4. For Labour 4, time required to perform the activity by application of Basic

MOST method is more and hence there is no saving of time observed. This

means Labour 4 is performing his activity at required time and at required

productivity level.


Minutes to perform the activity. This results in productivity improvement of only

1 percent in labour performance.


Percent of productivity improvement in Labour performance after application of

Basic MOST method.

7. After application of Basic MOST method, time saved for labour 7 is 0.94

Minutes. This results in productivity improvement of 31 Percent in performance

of labour 7.

8. Time saved for Labour 8 is 1.47 Minutes resulting in productivity improvement

of 54 Percent in performance of the labour 8.

9. For Labour 9, time saved to perform the activity is 0.17 Minutes after the

application of Basic MOST method. This results into 5 Percent improvement in

the productivity of labour 9 performance.

10. Time saved to perform the activity for Labour 10 is 1 Minutes resulting in 34

Percent improvement in productivity after application of Basic MOST method.

11. Time saved for Labour 11 is 1.28 Minutes resulting in the productivity

improvement of 38 Percent in performance of the labour 11.

12. After application of Basic MOST method, time saved for labour 12 is 1.19

Minutes. This results in the productivity improvement of 50 Percent in

performance of labour 12.

260


application of Basic MOST method. This results into 39 Percent improvement in

the productivity of labour 13 performance.

14. Time saved for Labour 14 is 0.88 Minutes resulting in the productivity

improvement of 30 Percent in performance of the labour 14.


application of Basic MOST method. This results into 8 Percent of productivity

improvement in the performance of labour 13.

Findings:

Thus it can be said that application of Basic MOST method resulted in

determining the appropriate time (time to be saved) required to perform the activity in

unloading section resulting in the productivity improvement of labour respondents

performing the activity.


TFA Section:

Table 8.8 and Figure 8.9 represent the comparison of Standard Time and Basic

MOST Time to perform activity in TFA Section.

Table 8.8


to perform Activity in TFA Section

Labour No. Standard Time

(In Minutes)

Basic MOST Time

(In Minutes)

Labour 1 10.26 9

Labour 2 10.71 9

Labour 3 10.66 9

Labour 4 12.3 9

Labour 5 11.5 9

261

Figure 8.9


to perform Activity in TFA Section

X-Axis Labour Respondents in Unloading Section


Minutes

Alternatives

A-E Labour 1 to Labour 5

Observations:


1. Standard time taken by labour 1 to complete the activity of Trolley filling is 10.26

Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the same activity is 9 Minutes.

Thus it can be said that Basic MOST time is less as compared to standard time

taken by labour 1 to complete the activity.

2. Labour 2 took 10.71 Minutes to complete the activity of Trolley filling. Basic

MOST time to perform the same activity is 9 Minutes. Thus it can be said that

Basic MOST time is less as compared to standard time taken by labour 2 to

complete the activity.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

10.26 10.71 10.66

12.3 11.5

9 9 9 9 9

Standard

Time

(In Minutes)

Basic

MOST Time

(In Minutes)

Labour Respondents in TFA Section

Tim

e t

ak

en b

yL

ab

ou

r

Res

pon

den

ts i

n M

inu

tes

A B C D E

262

3. Standard time taken by labour 3 to complete the activity of Trolley filling is 10.66

Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the same activity is 9 Minutes.

This means that the time required to complete the activity performed by labour 3

is less as compared to the standard time taken by labour 3 to perform the activity.

4. Labour 4 took 12.3 Minutes of standard time to complete the activity of Trolley

filling. Basic MOST time to perform the same activity is 9 Minutes. Thus it can be

said that the Basic MOST time is less as compared to standard time taken by

labour respondent to complete the activity.

5. Labour 5 took 11.5 Minutes to complete the activity of Trolley filling. Basic

MOST time to perform the same activity is 9 Minutes respectively. Thus it can be

said that Basic MOST time is less as compared to standard time taken by labour

respondent to complete the activity.

Findings:

Thus it can be said that Basic MOST time is less as compared to the standard

time taken by labour respondents to perform the selected activity in TFA section of

logistic department.


TFA section:

Table 8.9, Figure 8.10 and Figure 8.11 shows the time saved and

corresponding improvement in productivity of each labour respondents performing

selected activity in TFA section after application of Basic MOST method.

263

Table 8.9


method in TFA section

Labour

No.

Stopwatch

Time

(In

Minutes)

Basic

MOST

Time

(In

Minutes)

Time Saved

(In

Minutes)

Productivity

Improvement

(in %)

Labour 1 10.26 9 1.26 12

Labour 2 10.71 9 1.71 16

Labour 3 10.66 9 1.66 16

Labour 4 12.3 9 3.3 27

Labour 5 11.5 9 2.5 22

Figure 8.10

Time Saved to perform activity in TFA section after application

of Basic MOST Method (In Minutes)

X-Axis Labour Respondents in TFA Section


Minutes

Alternatives


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1.26

1.71 1.66

3.3

2.5

Labour Respondents in TFA Section

Tim

e S

aved

byL

ab

ou

r

Res

pon

den

ts i

n M

inu

tes

A B C D E

264

Figure 8.11

Productivity Improvement after application of Basic MOST method in TFA

section (In Percentage)

X-Axis Labour Respondents in TFA Section


Alternatives


Observations:


1. Time saved after application of basic MOST method for Labour 1 is 1.26 Minutes

to perform the activity in TFA section. This results in productivity improvement

of 12 percent in labour performance.






Basic MOST method.

12

16

16

27

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Productivity

Improvemen

t (in %) Labour Respondents in TFA Section

Pro

du

ctiv

ity I

mp

rovem

ent

in P

erce

nta

ge

A

B C

D

E

265

4. For Labour 4, time saved to perform the activity is 3.3 Minutes after application of

Basic MOST method. This shows the 27 Percent improvement in the productivity

of labour performance.


to perform the activity. This results in productivity improvement of 22 percent in

labour performance.

Findings:

Thus it can be said that application of Basic MOST method resulted in


TFA section resulting in the productivity improvement of labour respondents



Catwalk Section:

Table 8.10 and Figure 8.12 shows the comparison of Standard Time and Basic

MOST Time to perform activity in Catwalk Section.

Table 8.10


to perform Activity in Catwalk Section

Labour No.

Standard Time

(In Minutes)

Basic MOST Time

(In Minutes)

Labour 1 6.48 4.98

Labour 2 6.15 5.89

Labour 3 4.65 3.66

Labour 4 6.29 4.82

Labour 5 5.3 2.68

266

Figure 8.12


to perform Activity in Catwalk Section

X-Axis Labour Respondents in Catwalk Section


Minutes

Alternatives


Observations:


1. Standard time taken by labour 1 to complete the activity of Bin filling is 6.48

Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the same activity is 4.98

Minutes. Thus it can be said that Basic MOST time is less as compared to

standard time taken by labour 1 to complete the activity.

2. Labour 2 took 6.15 Minutes to complete the activity of Bin filling. Basic MOST

time to perform the same activity is 5.89 Minutes. Thus it can be said that Basic

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 6.48 6.15

4.65

6.29

5.3 4.98

5.89

3.66

4.82

2.68

Standard

Time

(In Minutes)

Basic

MOST Time

(In Minutes)

Labour Respondents in Catwalk Section

Tim

e t

ak

en b

yL

ab

ou

r

Res

pon

den

ts i

n M

inu

tes

A B C D E

267

MOST time is less as compared to standard time taken by labour 2 to complete

the activity.

3. Standard time taken by labour 3 to complete the activity of Bin filling is 4.65

Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the same activity is 3.66

Minutes. This means that the time required to complete the activity is less as

compared to the standard time taken by labour 3 to perform the activity.

4. Labour 4 took 6.29 Minutes of standard time to complete the activity of Box

picking. Basic MOST time to perform the same activity is 4.82 Minutes. Thus it

can be said that the Basic MOST time is less as compared to standard time taken

by labour respondent to complete the activity.

5. Labour 5 took 5.3 Minutes to complete the activity of Box picking. Basic MOST

time to perform the same activity is 2.68 Minutes respectively. Thus it can be

said that Basic MOST time is less as compared to standard time taken by labour

respondent to complete the activity.

Findings:

Thus it can be said that Basic MOST time is less as compared to the standard

time taken by labour respondents to perform the selected activity in catwalk section of



Catwalk section:

Table 8.11, Figure 8.13 and Figure 8.14 shows the time saved and

corresponding improvement in productivity of each labour respondents performing

selected activity in Catwalk section after application of Basic MOST method.

268

Table 8.11

Productivity Improvement after application of Basic MOST method in Catwalk

section

Labour

No.

Stopwatch

Time

(In Minutes)

Basic MOST

Time

(In Minutes)

Time Saved

(In Minutes)

Productivity

Improvement

(in %)

Labour 1 6.48 4.98 1.5 23

Labour 2 6.15 5.89 0.26 4

Labour 3 4.65 3.66 0.99 21

Labour 4 6.29 4.82 1.47 23

Labour 5 5.3 2.68 2.62 49

Figure 8.13

Time Saved to perform activity after application of Basic MOST

Method in Catwalk Section (in Minutes)



Minutes

Alternatives


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1.5

0.26

0.99

1.47

2.62


Tim

e S

aved

byL

ab

ou

r

Res

pon

den

ts i

n M

inu

tes

A B C D E

269

Figure 8.14


Method in Catwalk section (in Percentage)



Alternatives


Observations:



to perform the activity in Catwalk section. This results in productivity

improvement of 23 percent in labour performance.




23

4

21 23

49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Productivity

Improvement

(in %)


A

B

C D

E

Pro

du

ctiv

ity I

mp

rovem

ent

in P

erce

nta

ge

270



Basic MOST method.





Minutes to perform the activity. This results in productivity improvement of 49

percent in labour performance.

Findings:

Thus it can be said that the application of Basic MOST method resulted in


Catwalk section leading to the improvement in productivity of labour respondents


8.5.7 Productivity Improvement for number of Labour respondents after

application of Basic MOST method:

Application of Basic MOST method will reduce the time required to perform

the activity and improve the productivity of labour respondents. It was observed that

for all the selected labour respondents there was reduction in time required to perform

the activity, except one, thus giving a scope for productivity improvement. In this

section researcher has tried to define the range of productivity improvement for all the

selected labour respondents from Unloading, TFA and Catwalk section. The range of

productivity improvement is classified as less than 1, 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-

50 and 50 above. Table 8.12 and Figure 8.15 shows section wise, labour respondent

who belong to the corresponding range of labour productivity improvement.

271

Table 8.12

Productivity Improvement of Labour respondents after application

of Basic MOST Method (in Number)

Range of Productivity

Improvement (in %)

Unloading

Section

TFA

Section

Catwalk

Section

Total

< 1 1 0 0 1

1 - 10 3 0 1 4

11 - 20 2 3 0 5

21-30 1 2 3 6

31-40 4 0 0 4

41-50 3 0 1 4

>51 1 0 0 1

Total 15 5 5 25

Figure 8.15

Productivity Improvement of Labour respondents after

Application of Basic MOST Method (in Number)

X-Axis

Range of Productivity Improvement of Labour

respondents after Application of Basic MOST

Method

Y-Axis Number of labour Respondents

1

3

2

1

4

3

1

0 0

3

2

0 0 0 0

1

0

3

0

1

0 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

< 1 1 - 10 11 - 20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50

Nos. of

Labour

Respondent in

Unloading

Section

Nos. of

Labour

Respondent in

TFA Section

Nos. of

Labour

Respondent in

Catwalk

Section

Range of Productivity Improvement

Nu

mb

er o

f L

ab

ou

r R

esp

on

den

ts

272

Observations:


1. Only one labour respondents shows less than 1 Percent of productivity

improvement from unloading section.

2. 3 and 1 labour respondents of unloading and Catwalk section shows the

productivity improvement in the range of 1-10 Percent.

3. For range of 11-20 Percent, 2 labour respondents of unloading and 3 of TFA

section shows the productivity improvement in this range.

4. 1 labour respondent of unloading section, 2 from TFA section and 3 from catwalk

section shows the productivity improvement in range of 21-30 Percent.

5. 4 labour respondents of unloading section shows the productivity improvement in

the range of 31-40 Percent. Labour respondents from TFA and catwalk section do

not contribute to this range of productivity improvement.

6. 3 labour respondents of unloading section and 1 from catwalk section contribute

to the productivity improvement range of 41-50 Percent. No labour from TFA

contributes to improve productivity in this section.

7. Only 1 labour respondent from unloading section contribute to the productivity

improvement range of greater than 51 Percent.

Findings:

Out of 25 labour respondents, maximum number i.e. 6 contribute in the range of 21-

30 Percent of productivity improvement from all the selected sections. 15 labour

shows their productivity is improved after using Basic MOST method between 21-55

Percent. Whereas, 10 labour respondents show the productivity improvement between

less than 10-20 Percent. Overall result shows that labour productivity is improved

after using Basic MOST method than that of Stop watch time study method.

273

8.5.8 Sectional Labour Productivity Improvement after application of Basic

MOST Method:

Individual labour productivity improvement of each section will improve the

overall productivity of the sections for which labour respondents are working. In

earlier section individual labour productivity improvement was analysed. This section

will describe the sectional productivity improvement that results from the individual

labour productivity improvement of each section. Table 8.13 and Figure 8.16 shows

the productivity improvement of unloading, TFA and Catwalk section of logistic

department.

Table 8.13

Sectional Labour Productivity Improvement after application

of Basic MOST Method (In Percentage)

Section Labour Productivity Improvement

(in Percentage)

Unloading Section 27

TFA Section 18

Catwalk Section 24

Average 23

Figure 8.16

Sectional Labour Productivity Improvement after application

of Basic MOST Method (In Percentage)

27%

18%

24%

Unloading Section

TFA Section

Catwalk Section

274

Observations:

It can be seen from Table 8.13 and Figure 8.16 that overall productivity

improvement in unloading section was to the extent of 27 Percent followed by 24

Percent in Catwalk section and 18 Percent in Trolley Filling Section of Logistic

department.

Findings:

It can be said that maximum productivity improvement was in unloading

section and minimum productivity improvement was in Trolley Filling section.

8.5.9 Comparison of Stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST method for

observed points/Variables:

Application procedure of stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST

method is discussed in detail in chapter-4. In this section, researcher has tried to

compare the stopwatch time study and Basic MOST method based on certain

observed points/variables like number of observations, Rating Factor, Deviation,

speed of application, accuracy of results and documentation required. Chart 8.1 shows

the comparison of various observed points by researcher in application of Basic

MOST method and Time Study Method.

275

Chart 8.1

Comparison of Stopwatch time Study method and Basic MOST method

Sr.

No

Comparison

Points

Stopwatch Time Study Method Basic MOST Method

1 Method It is traditional method which relies on

operator application experience

It is scientific methods which uses

predetermined parameter Index

2 Number of

Observations

Minimum 10 number of cycles should be

observed with stopwatch to arrive at

average time

one or two observations are enough to

measure the time required to perform

work

3 Rating Factor Rating is decided by the operator to

arrive at standard time

Rating factor is taken care in parameter

index framed

4 Application

Procedure

Application procedure is long as it

involves observation readings,

calculation of Normal time, allowances

and Standard time

Application procedure is short as it

involves only one or two observation

reading and calculation of TMU

5 Application

Speed

Application speed is slow as it involves

lengthy application procedure

Application speed is fast as it involves

simple application procedure

6 Deviation Results can deviate from operator to

operator as rating factor depends on

operator

No deviation from results as universal

parameter Index is used by all the

operators

7 Accuracy of

Result

Less accurate results as rating factor

depends on operator

Highly accurate results as time is

measured using parameter Index values

8 Documentation More documentation is required as

number of observation reading and

calculations are lengthy

Less documentation is required due to

simple application structure

8.6 Summary of Comparison of stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST

method:

Chart 8.2 and Figure 8.17 shows the summary of comparison of stopwatch

time study method and Basic MOST method based on variables studied by the

researcher for study purpose. Considering High value as 1 and Low value as 0,

comparison is represented in Figure 8.17 for all high value of selected variables.

276

Chart 8.2

Summary of Comparison of stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST

method

Sr.No Comparison

Points/Variables

Stopwatch Time

Study Method Basic MOST Method

1 Method Awareness HIGH LOW

2 Training Awareness HIGH LOW

3 Training Received HIGH LOW

4 Social barriers HIGH LOW

5 Technical Barriers HIGH LOW

6 Method TRADITIONAL SCIENTIFIC

7 Documentation Required HIGH LOW

8 Observations Required HIGH LOW

9 Application Procedure LONG SHORT

10 Application Speed LOW HIGH

11 Accuracy of Result LOW HIGH

12 Unloading Section

Productivity

LOWER THAN

BASIC MOST

HIGHER THAN

STOPWATCH TIME

STUDY METHOD

13 Trolley Filling Area (TFA)

Section

LOWER THAN

BASIC MOST

HIGHER THAN

STOPWATCH TIME

STUDY METHOD

14 Catwalk Section LOWER THAN

BASIC MOST

HIGHER THAN

STOPWATCH TIME

STUDY METHOD

15

Overall productivity

improvement in Logistic

Section

LOWER THAN

BASIC MOST

HIGHER THAN

STOPWATCH TIME

STUDY METHOD

277

Figure 8.17

Summary of Comparison of stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST

method

X-Axis Variables

Y-Axis High Value

It is clear from Chart 8.2 and Figure 8.17 that for variables from 1 to 5 the

results are high for stopwatch time study method as compared to Basic MOST

method. For variables 6, the method of stopwatch time study is more of a traditional

work measurement technique as compared to Basic MOST method which is known as

more of scientific work measurement technique. For variable 8, the number of

observations required to arrive at accurate results for stopwatch time study method is

higher (minimum 10 readings) as compared to Basic MOST method where only one

or two observations are enough to arrive at accurate results. For variable 9, the

application procedure of stopwatch time study method is long as compared to Basic

MOST method as it involves calculation of observed time, Normal time , allowances

and standard time whereas Basic MOST requires only value in TMU. This also results

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Stopwatch Time Study Method-HIGH Values Basic MOST Method-HIGH Values

278

in speedy application of Basic MOST method as compared to stopwatch time study

method as mentioned invariable 10. Since rating factor for Basic MOST method is in

build in index values the results are highly accurate as compared to stopwatch time

study method where rating factor is decided by time study operator or engineer. With

the application of stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST method it was

observed that productivity improvement in unloading, TFA and catwalk section of

logistic department was higher when Basic MOST method was applied as compared

to traditional stopwatch time study method. Thus this sectional productivity

improvement resulted in the higher productivity improvement of logistic section by

application of Basic MOST method as compared to stopwatch time study method.

8.7 Testing of Hypotheses:

SAIPL uses stop watch time study method as a work measurement technique.

To improve the labour productivity of SAIPL using advanced work measurement

technique such as Basic MOST method following hypothesis were framed. The

productivity improvement is tested using various variables such as awareness,

training, social and technical barriers and standard time. The hypotheses were tested

using various statistical tests as shown below:

Hypotheses-1: Awareness of SAIPL labour towards stopwatch time study

method is higher than that of Basic MOST method. (Table 8.1)

Table 8.1 reveals that, out of total 25 Labour respondents, 92 Percent of the

labour respondents are aware of the Stop Watch Time study method and 76 Percent

are aware of the Basic MOST method indicating that the awareness of labour

respondents towards stopwatch time method is higher than that of Basic MOST

method. Hence hypothesis 1 stands accepted.

The above hypothesis is also tested using chi-square test as shown in table

8.14:

279

Table 8.14

Chi- Square Test for Awareness of SAIPL labour towards stopwatch time study

method and Basic MOST method

Test Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided) (P-

Value)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 2.381 1 0.123

Continuity Correction(a) 1.339 1 0.247

Likelihood Ratio 2.475 1 0.116

Fisher's Exact Test 0.247 0.123

Linear-by-Linear

Association 2.333 1 0.127

N of Valid Cases 50

It is clear from table 8.14 that the value of chi-square test is 2.381 and the

corresponding p-value is 0.123. Since the p-value 0.123 > 0.05 (Significance level)

hypotheses-1 is confirmed and accepted.

Hypotheses-2: Awareness of SAIPL labour on training related to stopwatch time

study method is higher than that of Basic MOST method. (Table 8.2)

Table 8.2 reveals that, out of total 25 Labour respondents, 80 Percent of the

labour respondents are aware that there is training provided by professional bodies to

apply Stop Watch Time study method. On other hand, only 76 Percent of labour

respondents are aware of the training provided to apply Basic MOST method

indicating that it is clear that the awareness of labour respondents related to the

training provided by professional bodies to apply Stop Watch Time Study Method is

higher than that of Basic MOST. Hence hypothesis 2 stands accepted.


8.15:

280

Table 8.15

Chi- Square Test for Awareness of SAIPL labour on training related to

stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST method

Test Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

(P-Value)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)


Continuity Correction(a) 0 1 1


Fisher's Exact Test 1 0.5

Linear-by-Linear


N of Valid Cases 50

It is clear from table 8.15 that the value of chi-square test is 0.117 and its

corresponding p-value is 0.733. Since the p-value 0.733 > 0.05 (Significance level),

hypotheses-2 is confirmed and accepted.

Hypotheses-3: Social barriers faced by SAIPL labour associated with the

application of stopwatch time study method is less than that of Basic MOST

method. (Table 8.4)

Table 8.3 reveals that, out of 25 labour respondents, 8 Percent of labour

respondents are reluctant to measure their work by application of stop watches time

study method where as only 4 Percent of labour respondents are reluctant to measure

their work by application of Basic MOST method. This means that, labour

respondents are more reluctant to measure their work by application of stop watches

time study method than that of Basic MOST method.

12 percent of labour respondents feared job loss when their time is measured

using stop watch method, whereas, none of the labour respondent feared job loss

when their time is measured using Basic MOST method. This means that labour

respondents do not feel secured when their work is measured using Stopwatch time

study method than that of Basic MOST.

281

12 percent of labour respondents provided lack of support when stop watch

method was used to measure their work time. None of the labour respondent showed

any lack of support when their work was measured using Basic MOST method. This

means that labour respondents are not supportive when their work is measured using

Stopwatch Time Study method. On the other hand; they support Basic MOST method

to measure their work. This indicates that the labour respondents face more social

barriers when their work is measured using stopwatch time study method than that of

Basic MOST method.


8.16:

Table 8.16

Chi- Square Test for Social barriers faced by SAIPL labour associated with the

application of stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST method

Test Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

(P-Value)

Pearson Chi-Square 9 2 0.011


Linear-by-Linear


N of Valid Cases 36

It is clear from table 8.16 that the value of chi-square test is 9 and its

corresponding p-value is 0.011. Since the p-value 0.011 < 0.05 (Significance level),

hypothesis -3 is false and not accepted.

Hypotheses-4: Technical barriers faced by SAIPL labour associated with the

application of stopwatch time study method is more than that of Basic MOST

method. (Table 8.5)

Table 8.5 reveals that, out of 25 labour respondents, 24 percent of the labour

respondents observed variation in measurement of time and application of stop watch

time study method whereas, only 8 percent of the labour respondents felt that there is

variation in measurement of time and application of Basic MOST method. This means

282

that, there is more variation in application of stop watch time study method than that

of Basic MOST method.

16 percent of the labour respondents felt that there is shortage in the sample of

observed readings taken to arrive at standard time using stop watch method whereas,

only 4 Percent of the labour respondent felt that there is shortage of sample to

measure time using Basic MOST method. This means that Basic MOST method

measures time more accurately as compared to the Stopwatch method as there is no

question of number of readings to be observed to measure time.

12 percent of labour respondents observed ambiguity in the activity elements

for application of stop watch time study method, whereas, only 4 Percent of the labour

respondents observed ambiguity in activity elements using Basic MOST method. This

means that there is more ambiguity in the activity elements in application of

stopwatch time study method than that of Basic MOST method. Overall results show

that there are more technical barriers associated with application of Stopwatch time

study method than that of basic MOST method.


8.17:

Table 8.17

Chi- Square Test for Technical barriers faced by SAIPL labour associated with

the application of stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST method

Test Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

(P-Value)



Linear-by-Linear


N of Valid Cases 68

283



hypothesis -4 is true and accepted.

Hypotheses-5: Time taken (Standard Time) by SAIPL labour to perform

unloading activity in unloading section under application of stopwatch time

study method is higher than that of Basic MOST method. (Table 8.6)

Table 8.6 shows that, the time taken (standard time) by labour respondents to

perform unloading activity in unloading section under application of Stopwatch time

study method is higher than that under Basic MOST method. Except for labour 4

where basic MOST time is more than that of time under stopwatch time study method

indicating that the time taken (Standard Time) by SAIPL labour to perform unloading

activity in unloading section under application of stopwatch time study method is

higher than that of Basic MOST method.


8.18:

Table 8.18

Chi- Square Test for Time taken (Standard Time) by SAIPL labour to perform

unloading activity in unloading section under application of stopwatch time

study method and Basic MOST method

Test Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

(P-Value)

Pearson Chi-Square 2.170 14 1

Likelihood Ratio 2.206 14 1

Linear-by-Linear


N of Valid Cases 81


corresponding p-value is 1. Since the p-value 1 > 0.05 (Significance level), hypothesis

-5 is true and accepted.

284

Hypotheses-6: Application of Basic MOST method saves the time of unloading

activity performed by labour than that of stopwatch time study method. (Table

8.7)

Table 8.7 reveals that, application of Basic MOST method saved the time

required to perform the activity in unloading section for all the selected labour

respondents expect for one. Further, hypotheses-6 states that the application of Basic

MOST method saves the time of unloading activity performed by labour than that of

stopwatch time study method. Chi-square test is not required here as it is proved in

Hypotheses-5 that the time taken by labour respondent to perform activities in

unloading section by application of stopwatch time study method is more than that of

Basic MOST method. This shows that the time is saved when Basic MOST method is

applied, as time required to perform the activity is less as compared to stopwatch time

study method. Hence, hypothesis -6 is true and accepted.

Hypotheses-7: Application of Basic MOST method improves the labour

productivity in unloading section than that of stopwatch time study method.

(Table 8.7)

Table 8.7 reveals that, the time saved for each unloading activity results in

improvement of productivity for each labour respondent of unloading section. Further,

hypotheses-7 states that application of Basic MOST method improves the labour

productivity in unloading section than that of stopwatch time study method. Chi-

square test is not required here as it is proved in Hypotheses-5 that the time taken by

labour respondent to perform activities in unloading section by application of

stopwatch time study method is more than that of Basic MOST method which results

in time saving when Basic MOST method is applied. This means that the application

of Basic MOST method has improved the labour productivity in unloading section of


Hence, hypothesis -7 is true and accepted.

285

Hypotheses-8: Time taken (Standard Time) by SAIPL labour to perform trolley

filling activity in TFA section under application of stopwatch time study method

is higher than that of Basic MOST method. (Table 8.8)

Table 8.8 shows that, the time taken (standard time) by all the 5 labour

respondents to perform the trolley filling activity in TFA section under application of

Stopwatch time study method is higher than that under Basic MOST method

indicating that the time taken (Standard Time) by SAIPL labour to perform trolley

filling activity in TFA section under application of stopwatch time study method is

higher than that of Basic MOST method


8.19:

Table 8.19


activity in TFA section under application of stopwatch time study method and

Basic MOST method

Test Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

(P-Value)



Linear-by-Linear


N of Valid Cases 101




Hypotheses-9: Application of Basic MOST method saves the time of trolley

filling activity performed by labour than that of stopwatch time study method.

(Table 8.9)

286

Table 8.9 reveals that, application of Basic MOST method saved the time

required to perform the activity in TFA section for all the 5 labour respondents.

Further, hypotheses-9 states that the application of Basic MOST method saves the

time of trolley filling activity performed by labour than that of stopwatch time study

method. Chi-square test is not required here as it is proved in Hypotheses-8 that the

time taken by labour respondent to perform activities in TFA section by application of

stopwatch time study method is more than that of Basic MOST method. This shows

that the time is saved when Basic MOST method is applied, as time required to

perform the Trolley filling activity is less as compared to stopwatch time study

method.



productivity in TFA section than that of stopwatch time study method. (Table

8.9)

Table 8.9 reveals that, the time saved for trolley filling activity results in

improvement of productivity for each labour respondent of TFA section. Further,

hypotheses-10 states that application of Basic MOST method improves the labour

productivity in TFA section than that of stopwatch time study method. Chi-square test

is not required here as it is proved in Hypotheses-8 that the time taken by labour

respondent to perform activities in TFA section by application of stopwatch time

study method is more than that of Basic MOST method which results in time saving

when Basic MOST method is applied. This means that the application of Basic MOST

method has improved the labour productivity in TFA section of logistic department.


Hypotheses-11: Time taken (Standard Time) by SAIPL labour to perform

activity in Catwalk section under application of stopwatch time study method is

high than that of Basic MOST method. (Table 8.10)

287

Table 8.10 shows that, the time taken (standard time) by all the 5 labour

respondents to perform the bin filling and box picking activity in catwalk section

under application of Stopwatch time study method is higher than that under Basic

MOST method indicating that the time taken (Standard Time) by SAIPL labour to

perform activity in Catwalk section under application of stopwatch time study method

is high than that of Basic MOST method.


8.20:

Table 8.20


activity in Catwalk section under application of stopwatch time study method

and Basic MOST method

Test Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

(P-Value)



Linear-by-Linear

Association 0.137 1

0.711

N of Valid Cases 51




Hypotheses-12: Application of Basic MOST method saves the time of activity

performed by labour in catwalk section than that of stopwatch time study

method. (Table 8.11)

Table 8.11 reveals that, the application of Basic MOST method saved the time

required to perform the bin filling and box picking activity in catwalk section for all

the 5 labour respondents. Further, hypotheses-12 states that the application of Basic

MOST method saves the time of activity performed by labour in catwalk section than

that of stopwatch time study method. Chi-square test is not required here as it is

288

proved in Hypotheses-11 that the time taken by labour respondent to perform

activities in catwalk section by application of stopwatch time study method is more

than that of Basic MOST method. This shows that the time is saved when Basic

MOST method is applied, as time required to perform the activity in catwalk section

is less as compared to stopwatch time study method. This means that the application

of Basic MOST method saves the time of labour required to perform the activity in

catwalk section than that of stopwatch time study method.



productivity in catwalk section than that of stopwatch time study method. (Table

8.11)

Table 8.11 reveals that, the time saved to perform the bin filling and box

picking activity in catwalk section results in improvement of productivity for all the 5

labour respondent of catwalk section. Further, hypotheses-13 states that application of

Basic MOST method improves the labour productivity in catwalk section than that of

stopwatch time study method. Chi-square test is not required here as it is proved in

Hypotheses-11 that the time taken by labour respondent to perform activities in

catwalk section by application of stopwatch time study method is more than that of

Basic MOST method which results in time saving when Basic MOST method is

applied. This means that the application of Basic MOST method has improved the

labour productivity in catwalk section of logistic department.


Documents

CHAPTER 8 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27143/18/18_chapter 8.pdf · COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY BETWEEN