Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CHAPTER 9
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
Sr.No Title Page
No.
9.1 Introduction and Research design 289
9.2 Summary of findings on review of literature 294
9.3 Summary of findings on productivity improvement techniques
and its relationship with work study 296
9.4 Summary of findings on stop watch time study and MOST as
work measurement techniques 297
9.5 Summary of findings on Skoda Auto: An overview 300
9.6 Summary of findings on Labour Productivity through application
of Stop watch time study method in SAIPL 302
9.6.1 Summary of findings on awareness of labour respondents on Stop
watch time study method 303
9.6.2
Summary of findings on labour productivity in unloading section
of logistic department based on application of Stop watch time
study Method
304
9.6.3
Summary of findings on labour productivity in trolley filling
section of logistic department based on application of Stop watch
time study Method
305
9.6.4
Summary of findings on labour productivity in catwalk section of
logistic department based on application of Stop watch time
study Method
305
9.6.5
Summary of findings on social and technical barriers associated
with labour productivity while applications of Stop watch time
study Method
305
9.7 Summary of findings on Labour productivity through application
of MOST in SAIPL 306
9.7.1 Summary of findings on awareness of labour respondents on
MOST 308
9.7.2
Summary of findings on labour productivity in unloading section
of logistic department based on application of basic MOST
Method
309
9.7.3
Summary of findings on labour productivity in trolley filling
section of logistic department based on application of basic
MOST Method
309
9.7.4 Summary of findings on labour productivity in catwalk section of
logistic department based on application of basic MOST Method 310
9.7.5
Summary of findings on social and technical barriers associated
with labour productivity while application of basic MOST
Method
310
9.8 Summary of findings on Labour Productivity comparison between
Stop watch time study method and Basic MOST method. 311
9.8.1 Comparing labour awareness on stopwatch time study method
and Basic MOST method 311
9.8.2 Comparing socio-technical barriers associated with application of
stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST method 312
9.8.3 Comparison of labour Productivity after application of stopwatch
time study method and Basic MOST method in Unloading section 313
9.8.4 Comparison of labour Productivity after application of stopwatch
time study method and Basic MOST method in TFA section 313
9.8.5 Comparison of labour Productivity after application of stopwatch
time study method and Basic MOST method in Catwalk section 314
9.8.6 Summary of findings on range of labour producitivty improved
after application of Basic MOST technique 314
9.8.7 Summary of finding on sectional Labour Productivity
Improvement after application of Basic MOST Method 314
9.9 Conclusion 315
9.10 Suggestions 316
289
CHAPTER 9
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
9.1 Introduction and Research design:
The company aims to maintain its leadership in the industry by exploring the
cutting edge of technology; they stand prepared to compete with other global
competitors. Work measurement has important place in productivity improvement.
The productivity improvement directly corresponds to the growth of the company and
in turn gaining the market share. Productivity can be maximized only when there
exists a standard method of accomplishing a task and time to perform a task according
to a standard method can be measured. At present, studied company measures
productivity as per traditional time study method and MOST is advanced technique of
work measurement; it is helpful to understand the performance of labour and material
time. Hence there is need to understand which work measurement method performs
better to result in higher productivity. Therefore, the specific problems addressed in
the present study are as follows:
1. Whether labours are aware of stop watch time study method and MOST
technique?
2. Whether labours are aware of training related to stop watch time study method
and MOST technique?
3. To what extent labours received training related to stop watch time study method
and MOST technique?
4. Whether labour creates any socio- technical barrier in application of stop watch
time study method and MOST technique. If „Yes‟ then to what extent?
5. How to measure the performance of productivity on the basis of stop watch
method and MOST technique.
6. What is the procedure of stop watch time study method and MOST technique?
290
7. What happens if stop watch method and MOST technique are applied in
manufacturing industry for productivity improvement?
8. Whether labours are ready to adapt the changes in existing productivity
improvement technique?
9. Does application of MOST leads to higher productivity improvement as
compared to stop watch times study method?
10. What are the differences with respect to various variables related to stop watch
time study method and MOST technique application leading to productivity
improvement?
11. Is there any research gap in existing literature about application of MOST
technique to improve productivity in manufacturing industries?
In order to achieve this, the following objectives were set:
1. To study and assess the extent of awareness training, training received and socio
technical barriers related to application of stop watch time study method among
labour respondents.
2. To study and assess the extent of awareness, training, training received and socio
technical barriers related to application of MOST technique among labour
respondents.
3. To study and understand the stop watch time study method and MOST technique
application procedure.
4. To study and assess the labour productivity performance by application of stop
watch time study method.
5. To study and assess the labour productivity performance by application of MOST.
6. To compare the labour productivity of stop watch time study method and MOST
application.
7. To recommend the most appropriate work measurement technique to SAIPL.
291
For the study purpose, the following hypotheses were formulated by the
researcher:
1. Awareness of SAIPL labour towards stopwatch time study method is higher than
that of Basic MOST method.
2. Awareness of SAIPL labour on training related to stopwatch time study method
is higher than that of Basic MOST method.
3. Social barriers faced by SAIPL labour associated with the application of
stopwatch time study method is less than that of Basic MOST method.
4. Technical barriers faced by SAIPL labour associated with the application of
stopwatch time study method is more than that of Basic MOST method.
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.
6. Application of Basic MOST method saves the time of unloading activity
performed by labour than that of stopwatch time study method.
7. Application of Basic MOST method improves the labour productivity in
unloading section than that of stopwatch time study method.
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.
9. Application of Basic MOST method saves the time of trolley filling activity
performed by labour than that of stopwatch time study method.
10. Application of Basic MOST method improves the labour productivity in TFA
section than that of stopwatch time study method.
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.
292
12. Application of Basic MOST method saves the time of activity performed by
labour in catwalk section than that of stopwatch time study method.
13. Application of Basic MOST method improves the labour productivity in catwalk
section than that of stopwatch time study method.
There are various work measurement techniques used to improve productivity
that are adopted by manufacturing industries. The application of adequate and correct
work measurement technique is of at most importance for higher productivity
improvement. This study helps to know and understand the adequate and correct
application procedure of stop watch time study method and MOST technique for
higher productivity improvement.
Productivity can be maximized only when there is optimum utilization of all
the available resources. This study is useful to determine the optimum utilization of
manpower in three section of Logistic division by reducing non value added activities.
Application of all the work measurement techniques provides scope of
improvement in the productivity in their own ways. It is essential to understand which
work measurement technique will give maximum productivity improvement results.
This study is useful to compare the results obtained from application of stop watch
time study method and MOST technique as better option for productivity
improvement.
The period of primary data collection was from January 2011 to September
2012. Skoda Auto India Private Limited, an automobile company operating in MIDC
area of Shendra, Aurangabad is selected as study sample. There are 7 departments in
SAIPL. These 7 departments are treated as universe of the study. Out of 7
departments, 1 department i.e. Logistic Department is selected as study area. Logistic
department consist of 5 subsections namely PPC, MPO, ECM/BOM, Logistic
Planning, Stores/ RFD. Out of these 5, 2 subsections namely Logistic Planning and
Stores are selected for study purposes which consist of unloading; Trolley Filling
Area (Supermarket) and Catwalk area are selected purposefully as study area and
scope.
293
The selected subsections of logistic department i.e. logistic planning and stores
consist of unloading, Trolley Filling Area or supermarket and catwalk area where
different activities of logistic are performed. This is sample and scope of the study.
This sample size from area is 14.28 Percent and 40 Percent. Further the labours that
are working in this three sections or area are included in the study as sample. The
selection of labour respondents is done by using random sampling technique. Number
of labour considered as sample size for unloading, TFA and catwalk section was to
the extent of 71 Percent, 29 Percent and 100 Percent of sample. Unloading section
consist of total 21 labours considered here as universe. Out of 21 labours, 15 labours
are selected by random sampling as sample labour respondents which contribute to 71
percent of universe. Similarly for TFA section, out of total 17 labour, 5 labour
respondents are selected randomly as sample size contributing to 29 percent of
universe. Catwalk section consists of 5 labour and all the labour are selected as
respondents contributing to 100 percent of universe. Overall, it can be seen that, out
of total labour (i.e. 43 labour) from unloading, TFA and catwalk section, 25 labour are
selected as sample size contributing to 57 percent of the universe.
Primary as well as secondary data is collected by the researcher from different
sources to study the productivity improvement through application of Stop watch time
study and MOST technique in Skoda Auto India Private Limited, Aurangabad.
The primary data is collected on the basis of interviews and observations
through personal visits, telephone as well as mobile interview by using questionnaire.
Discussion, mobile talks, internet and questionnaire were used to collect data from
requisite respondents. The survey and experiment was conducted in Skoda Auto India
Private Limited, Aurangabad in Unloading, TFA and catwalk section of logistic
department. The researcher has approached personally to all the concern individuals
of the selected study area, had detailed discussions with the respective labour and
officers.
Secondary data is collected from various references that already exist and
published such as books, Project reports, theses, newspapers, magazines, productivity
research journals and articles, websites, internet and e-information, Annual report of
294
Skoda auto and departmental management reports of Skoda Auto India. Observations,
interview, survey, questionnaire administered secondary data and discussion etc were
used as data collection techniques. The data was interpreted with the help of statistical
techniques such as frequency distribution, average, Observed time, Normal time,
standard time, percentage, graph, comparative approach, index Values for MOST,
TMU for MOST and time study and MOST technique, MS Office-MS-Word, MS-
Excel and Chi- square test.
The study is organized into 9 chapters as under:
Sr.No Chapter
1 Introduction and Research Design of the Study
2 Review of Literature
3 Productivity improvement techniques and its relationship
with the work study
4 Stop watch time study method and MOST: Work
measurement techniques
5 Skoda Auto: An eye bird view
6
Labour Productivity through Application of Stop Watch
Time Study Method in SAIPL: Data Analysis and
Interpretation
7 Labour Productivity through Application of MOST in
SAIPL: Data Analysis and Interpretation
8 Comparative Analysis of Labour Productivity between Stop
Watch Time Study Method and Basic MOST method
9 Summary of findings, conclusion and suggestions
9.2 Summary of findings on review of literature:
Chapter second reviewed the available literature on labour productivity
concerned studies, especially on work measurement, time study and MOST technique.
For review purposes, the available literature was classified as under:
2.2 Literature review on optimization of material,
295
2.3 Literature review on optimization of Human resources,
2.4 Literature review on improvement of productivity,
2.5 Literature review on work measurement,
2.6 Literature review on Maynard Operation Sequence Technique (MOST),
From the review of literature it was found that:
1. Lot of studies are carried out on general productivity improvement techniques
particularly, using Japanese productivity improvement techniques but least
research studies are conducted on method study using MOST work measurement
techniques.
2. Various researchers attempted to study productivity improvement with respect to
optimization of materials, specially using EOQ. However, productivity
improvement through application of MOST for material optimization is not
addressed by researchers.
3. Lot of literature is available on optimization of human resource by implementing
of various productivity techniques but MOST application for effective human
resource study is not very common among researchers.
4. Work measurement literature review shows that various experts have emphasized
on the work related improvements majorly till 1930. The attention towards
improvement in work related improvement techniques decreased further till
Second World War. After Second World War outlook of experts and
manufacturers has changed completely as major focus shifted towards
productivity improvement in terms of increasing output rather than quality of the
product. Improvement in Work measurement related techniques was just limited
to time study method till MOST came into development. Hence, less literature
review is available on MOST work measurement technique.
5. As per productivity improvement literature studies, Japanese productivity
improvement techniques are largely practiced and implemented worldwide,
whereas, work measurement studies to improve productivity specifically related to
MOST technique are comparatively less practiced.
296
6. Literature review on either time study practice or MOST practice is performed
individually, but no study shows the comparison of results for implementation of
time study and MOST work measurement technique.
9.3 Summary of findings on Productivity improvement techniques and its
relationship with the work study:
The aim of the chapter 3 was to introduce and understand (labour)
productivity, concept, various techniques and work study concept and relationship
between labour productivity improvement and work study. The assessment of
productivity work study concept shows that,
1. There exist Japanese and non Japanese work measurement techniques.
2. Concept of productivity is expressed in terms of input – output ratio, reduction in
waste, human effort to produce more and more, attitude of minds, mentality of
constant improvement, continual effort to apply new technique/methods and
maximum output with the smallest effort
3. Higher or improved productivity means that more is produced with the same
expenditure of resources (i.e. at same cost) in terms of land, materials, machine,
time or labour.
4. There exist multiple productivity measurement techniques or indices such as (i)
Total productivity index (ii) Labour Productivity indice (iii) Material productivity
indices (iv) Machine productivity indice (v) Capital productivity indice (vi)
Japanese productivity techniques- Jidoka, Heijunka, Kaizen, 5s, Muda
elimination, poka-yoke, SMED, JIT etc.
5. The work study consists of two techniques namely method study and work
measurement. Time study, work sampling, standard data and pre-determined
motion and time study (PMTS) are the main work measurement techniques.
6. Methods-time measurement (MTM) is well known system of all the
predetermined motion time systems.
297
7. The time that results from performing an MTM analysis reflect a 100 percent
performance level and time can be established for operations prior to production.
8. MTM-1, MTM-2 and MTM-3 were developed to reduce the analysis of time
required to perform work.
9. MOST technique is one of the Predetermined Times and Motion system (PMTS).
10. There is positive relationship between method study and work measurements as
well as the productivity since method study and work measurement are closely
linked to each other and both are associated with work study.
9.4 Summary of findings on stopwatch time study and MOST as work
measurement techniques:
An attempt was made in the chapter 4 to introduce the stopwatch time study
method and MOST technique. Meaning, evaluation, importance, methods, general
procedure, methods of timing using equipments used and major companies who are
using these techniques are covered in this chapter. The aim was to know and
understand the fundamentals or essentials of stop watch time study method and
MOST techniques.
The following were observed from the introduction of stop watch time study
method and MOST technique.
(A) Stop Watch Time study Method:
(i) Time study is usually referred to as work measurement and it involves the
technique of establishing an allowed time standard to perform a given task,
based on measurement of the work content of the prescribed method and with
due allowance for fatigue, personal or unavoidable delays. When stop watch is
used for this purpose then it is referred to as stop watch time study method.
(ii) Standard data, work sampling, pre determined time standard system (PTS), stop
watch time study, computerized data collection, physiological work
298
measurement, labour reporting, expert opinion and historical data etc. are the
major time study techniques by source
(iii) Stopwatch time study measures how long it takes an average worker to complete
a task at a normal pace.
(iv) Major evolution milestones of time study start with Jean Rodolphe
Perronet (1760) and ends with Niebel Lawrences, Meyers and Stewart, Niebel
and Freivalds (1993-2003), indicating 2003-2012 evaluation needs to be
explored.
(v) General or fundamental procedure of conducting stop watch study method
consist of 11 steps such as (1) Selection of task to be timed (2) Standardize the
Method of Working (3) Select the operator for study (4) Record the details (5)
Break the task into element (6) Determine number of cycles to be measured (7)
Measure the time of each element using stop watch (8) Determine standard
rating (9) Calculate the Normal time (10) Determine the allowance (11)
Determine the standard time.
(vi) Flyback or snap back and continuous or cumulative are the two methods of
timing using a stop watch.
(vii) Digital or electronics stop watch, electronic data collector and computer,
observation board, observation sheet and stationary such as pen, pencil, eraser,
calculator etc are the equipments used to measure time using stop watch time
study method.
(viii) Majority of the manufacturing industries are using stop watch time study
method as a tool for work measurement.
(B) MOST Work Measurement technique:
(i) MOST is one of the recent MTM based techniques that is used for work
measurement. MOST is the activity based work measurement system that
enables us to calculate the length of time required to perform a task i.e. a system
to measure work. It is a breakthrough work measurement technique that allows
a greater variety of work (both repetitive and non-repetitive) for manufacturing,
299
engineering to administrative service activities to be measured quickly with ease
and accuracy. MOST work measurement technique is a complete study of an
operation or a sub operation consisting of one or several method steps and
corresponding sequence model, parameter time values and normal time values
for the operation or sub operation. It also includes the Basic, Mini, and Maxi
versions; it makes the measurement of work a practical, efficient, and
inexpensive task for manufacturing industry.
(ii) Evolutionary stages of MOST work measurement technique involves: (1) Time
Study (2) Motion Study (3) Time and Motion study (4) Predetermined Motion
Time Systems (PMTS) (5) Methods-Time Measurement (MTM-1) (6) Methods-
Time Measurement-2 (MTM-2) (7) Methods-Time Measurement-3 (MTM-3)
(8) Maynard Operation Sequence Technique (MOST) (9) Most
Work
Measurement Systems- Most Application Systems and Most
Computer Systems.
Advancement in the technology brought further innovation to field of work
measurement and hence advanced version of MOST were developed and
adopted by the industries.
(iii) MOST is important for an organization due to accurate work standard, capacity
analysis and manpower planning, workplace design and job activity analysis for
re-organization and allocation for work balance, cost estimation for existing and
new processes.
(iv) MOST work measurement system consists of (1) Mini MOST (2) Maxi MOST
(3) Basic MOST application system and MOST computer system.
(v) General Move (A B G A B P A), controlled move (A B G M X I A) and tool use
(A B G A B P- A B P A) are the activity of basic work measurement techniques.
(vi) Generally 9 steps are used for applying basic MOST Method such as (1)
Selection of Job (2) Select the Operator for study (3) Record details of activity
and conditions of Work (4) Observation of each parameter Phases (5) Parameter
Indexing (6) Addition of all the parameter Index values of activity (7) Convert
the total of Index values into TMU (8) Convert the TMU value in corresponding
time (Hours) (9) Convert the time from hour into Minutes.
300
(vii) Since MOST is a universal technique with applicability to any type of manual
work situations, it can be used in traditional as well as new work measurement
areas. Crompton Greaves (electrical), Mahindra & Mahindra (Automobile) and
Siporex (Construction) etc are few examples where MOST is presently applied.
9.5 Summary of findings on Skoda: An Overview
An attempt was made to present the overview of Skoda Auto India Private
Limited (SAIPL) , Shendra, Aurangabad. Overview of SAIPL includes Departments,
Logistic department, Material flow from MB, Process flow of activities in logistic
department, dealer network and some financial performance facets. From the
assessment of the overview of Skoda it was found that
i) Skoda Auto is one of the leading corporate groups in the Czech Republic. It
comprises the parent company ŠKODA AUTO a.s. and its fully consolidated
subsidiaries. The parent company is involved in development, manufacture and
sale of ŠKODA-brand automobiles, components and genuine parts and
accessories and the provision of maintenance services. Today, Skoda Auto is
operating in almost 90 markets all over the world.
ii) The subsidiary of Skoda Auto namely - ŠKODA AUTO Deutschland GmbH,
ŠKODA AUTO Slovensko, s.r.o., Skoda Auto Polska S.A., Skoda Auto India
Private Limited, have their production facilities at various location of the world,
indicating company has spread from being Regional to National and to
international( Multinational).
iii) The present logo of Skoda Auto has changed entirely since its inception in 1895
and symbolizes the principles of Skoda Auto.
iv) Present product of Skoda Auto is changed as per the change in technology since
its inception from 1895 i.e. from two wheeler to four wheeler which also
represents that present nature of business is completely changed than that of
initial nature of business i.e. from bicycle to Car.
301
v) Skoda Auto India is a fully owned subsidiary of Skoda Auto Czech Republic. In
January 2000 Skoda Auto marked its entry into Indian market. The plant is
located at Shendra Industrial area, five Star MIDC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. It
started its operations from November 2001 in Aurangabad, Maharashtra and it
has the capacity to produce 40,000 units annually through its present facilities. It
has the best engine assembly plant in Asia. It is CKD (Completely Knock Down)
type of automobile Plant.
vi) SAIPL consist of Human Resource, Quality, Logistic, Production, Marketing,
Finance and IT department. Logistic department is divided into various other sub
departments performing functions that are integrated to logistic functioning of
SAIPL such as PPC, MPO, ECM/BOM, Logistic Planning and Stores/ RFD.
vii) Material flow from MB to SAIPL shows that, the required material is transported
from MB to Germany port by road. From Germany Port to Mumbai JNPT port
the material is transported by sea route. After custom clearance, material is
transported from Mumbai JNPT port to SAIPL, Aurangabad by road ways. Final
product from SAIPL is delivered to the customer in 13 steps (Chart 5.4). The
transportation time required from MB to SAIPL is 39 days.
viii) Process flow of the activities performed in logistic department consists of
integration of three main sections: unloading, stores / trolley filling area and
assembly line.
ix) There are total of 101 dealers of SAIPL spread across India (Figure 5.10). Out of
total cars manufactured at SAIPL 80 Percent cars are delivered to dealers of
Delhi, Mumbai and Pune from stock yard. Remaining 20 Percent is delivered
directly to rest of dealers in India from SAIPL.
x) In 2011, a total of 30,005 ŠKODA automobiles were delivered to customers on
the Indian subcontinent, an increase in sales of 49.9% compared to 2010.
xi) The Indian subsidiary‟s 2011 revenues totalled CZK 15.4 billion, a 23.4%
increase year-on-year.
xii) Profit before tax increased in the reporting period to CZK 63.7 million,
surpassing the previous year‟s Figureure by 62.9%.
302
9.6 Summary of findings on Labour Productivity through application of Stop
Watch Time study method in SAIPL:
Data analysis and interpretation was undertaken by researcher in chapter 6, 7
and 8. In chapter 6, data was interpreted and analysed regarding labour productivity
through application of stop watch time study method in SAIPL. The objective of
chapter 6 were:
i) To assess and understand the believeness of SAIPL labour respondents on Stop
watch time study method as a time measurement technique.
ii) To assess and know the awareness of SAIPL labour on Stop watch time study,
methods of Stop watch time study, training and training received on Stop watch
time study method.
iii) To present and understand the adopted and applied procedure of Stop watch time
study method.
iv) To measure and study labour productivity (i.e. time taken by labour) by
application of Stop watch time study method, and
v) To study and examine the social and technical barriers associated with application
of Stop watch time study method.
The chapter is based on primary as well as secondary data, which was
collected through observations, interview, discussion and questionnaire. The survey
and personal contact, telephone/ mobile, email etc was used to collect information.
Observation time, normal time, standard time and allowances etc calculated and time
taken by labour to perform activity was finally used for analysis and interpretation
purpose.15, 5 and 5 labour respondents were selected from unloading (random
method), trolley filling and catwalk section (purposefully), percentage, ratio, standard
time, comparative approach etc. were used as statistical tools and techniques for data
analysis and interpretation. For measuring the work using time study, the researcher
has used (a) digital stop watch (Figure 6.7) (b) Time study observation board (Figure
6.8) (c) Time study observation sheet (Figure 6.9) and other equipment such as pen,
303
pencil, eraser and scientific calculator. Findings are summarized on the basis of study
on application of stop watch time study method as under:
9.6.1 Summary of findings on awareness of labour respondents on Stop watch
time study method.
9.6.2 Summary of findings on labour productivity in unloading section of logistic
department based on application of Stop watch time study Method.
9.6.3 Summary of findings on labour productivity in trolley filling section of
logistic department based on application of Stop watch time study Method.
9.6.4 Summary of findings on labour productivity in catwalk section of logistic
department based on application of Stop watch time study Method.
9.6.5 Summary of findings on social and technical barriers associated with labour
productivity while applications of Stop watch time study Method.
9.6.1 Summary of findings on awareness of labour respondents on Stop watch
time study method:
i) Majority (88 Percent) labours respondents believe in work measurement. It
means that perception of majority of labour respondents towards work
measurement is positive and they believe it is essential to measure the work that
is performed.
ii) Majority of the labour respondents are aware of time study method. The extent of
stop watch time study awareness is higher (92 Percent) than that of time
recording machine (76 Percent) and Motion Picture Camera (84 Percent).
iii) Majority of labour respondents (i.e. 92 percent) are aware and they know stop
watch time study method.
iv) 80 (20 respondents) Percent of labour respondents are aware of training related to
stop watch time study method. They fully know that there is special and rigorous
training of stop watch method provided by professional bodies.
304
v) All the labour respondents (100 Percent), those are working in unloading, Trolley
Filing and catwalk section of logistic department have received stop watch time
study method training.
vi) 100 Percent of sample respondent have received on the job training of stop watch
time study method.
vii) Majority (i.e. 88 Percent) of the respondent have not received off the job training
for stop watch time study method.
viii) Some of the respondents found that the trainers lack in depth knowledge of Stop
Watch time study method application procedure.
ix) All the respondents wanted to be more demonstrative and practical oriented on
the job training programme.
x) All the respondents wanted off the job training programme to be provided as
early as possible.
9.6.2 Summary of findings on labour productivity in unloading section of
logistic department based on application of Stop watch time study
Method:
i) The standard time taken to perform or complete the assigned activity by labour 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5 were 2.96 minutes, 6.33 Minutes, 0.88 Minutes, 2.39 minutes and
4.58 Minutes respectively.
ii) Labour 6, 7 ,8 9, and 10 took standard time to perform or complete their assigned
activity were to the extent of 2.17 minutes, 3.00 Minutes, 2.73 Minutes, 3.45
Minutes and 2.95 Minutes respectively.
iii) The standard time taken to perform or complete the assigned activity by labour 11,
12 , 13, 14 and 15 were to the extent of 3.37 Minutes, 2.36 Minutes, 3.66 Minutes,
2.96 Minutes and 2.74 Minutes respectively.
305
9.6.3 Summary of findings on labour productivity in trolley filling section of
logistic department based on application of Stop watch time study
Method:
i) The standard time taken to complete assigned activity by labour 1 is 10.26
Minutes.
ii) The standard time taken to complete the activity by labour 2 is 10.71 Minutes.
iii) Labour 3 took 10.66 Minutes of standard time to complete his activity.
iv) The standard time taken by labour 4 to complete the activity is 12.30 Minutes.
v) Labour 5 took 11.50 Minutes of standard time to complete his activity.
9.6.4 Summary of findings on labour productivity in catwalk section of logistic
department based on application of Stop watch time study Method:
i) The standard time taken to complete assigned activity by labour 1 is 6.48 Minutes.
ii) The standard time required to complete the activity for labour 2 is 6.15 Minutes.
iii) Labour 3 took 4.65 Minutes of standard time to complete his activity.
iv) The standard time taken by labour 4 to complete the activity is 6.29 Minutes.
v) Labour 5 took 5.30 Minutes of standard time to complete his activity.
9.6.5 Summary of findings on social and technical barriers associated with
labour productivity while applications of Stop watch time study Method:
A) Summary of findings on Social Barriers associated with labour productivity
while application of Stop watch time study Method:
i) 19 Labours respondents (i.e. 76 Percent) are not reluctant when their work is
measured using stop watch time study method and do not create any kind of
hurdles or feel any pressure on them while application of stop watch time study
method.
306
ii) 17 Labour respondents (i.e. 68 Percent) do not fear job loss and they fully
supported to implementation stop watch time study method to measure work.
iii) 18 labour respondents (i.e.72 Percent) do not show lack of support but provide full
support to measure their work by application of stop watch time study method.
iv) Overall, 72 Percent of labour respondents overcome the social barriers and do not
create any hurdles in work measurement when stop watch time study method is
applied in SAIPL.
B) Summary of findings on technical Barriers associated with labour
productivity while application of Stop watch time study Method:
i) 40 Percent of Labour agreed that there is no variation in time measurement and
application of stop watch time study method.
ii) 04 (16 Percent) agreed, 16 (64 Percent) did not agreed and 5 (20 Percent) agreed
to some extent that there is shortage of needed sample to measure work using
stop watch time study method.
iii) 18 labour respondents (i.e 72 Percent) stated that there was no ambiguity
observed in the activity elements to measure work.
iv) 64 percent of labour respondents stated that they have not created any kind of
technical hurdles, rather they fully support to measure their work performance
while application of stop watch time study method.
9.7 Summary of findings on labour productivity through application of MOST
in SAIPL:
Chapter 6 assessed labour productivity (i.e. standard time taken by labour) in
unloading, trolley filling and catwalk section of logistic department in SAIPL through
application of stop watch time study method, whereas, an endeavor was made in
chapter 7 to measure and know labour productivity for above same sections of same
department in SAIPL after application of MOST measurement technique. The
objectives of chapter 7 were:
307
1. To assess and understand the believeness of SAIPL labour respondents on MOST
as a time measurement technique.
2. To assess and know the awareness of SAIPL labour on MOST technique, methods
of MOST, training and training received on basic MOST method.
3. To present and understand the adopted and applied procedure of basic MOST
method.
4. To measure and study labour productivity (i.e. time taken by labour under MOST)
by application of MOST, and
5. To study and examine the social and technical barriers associated with application
of MOST.
This chapter is also concerned with data interpretation and analysis based on
primary and secondary sources of data. The major difference between stopwatch time
study method and MOST is that, in MOST calculation of normal time, standard time,
allowances etc. is not required instead, index values provided gives the time in TMU
to arrive at the time required to perform the activity for labour. Moreover, it is a
scientific and advanced method of measuring the time taken by labour to perform the
work.
(a) Work measurement refers to the estimation of standard time that is the time taken
for completing one piece/activity of job using the MOST. This is the time taken
by average experienced labour for the job. In this section Basic MOST General
sequence method is used as a technique of labour productivity measurement.
MOST is a system to measure work and concentrates on the movement of
objects. A model of this sequence is made which acts as a standard guide in
analyzing the movement of an object. The operation time may be left in TMU or
converted to minutes or hours. Again, this time would reflect pure work content
of labour to perform the work.
(b) The study measures the productivity (i.e. time taken by labour) of the Labour
working in selected three sections of Logistic Department and the MOST is the
308
technique of work measurement to establish the predetermined time for qualified
labour to carry out specified task under specified conditions.
(c) MOST group together the basic motions that frequently occur in a predefined
sequence. Time units in MOST are identical to those used in the basic method of
time measurement systems and are based on hours and parts of hours called
measurement units (TMU) and (1 TMU = 0.00001 hour) and the time value in
TMU for each sequence model is displaced by adding the index numbers and
multiplying the sum by 10. The time arrived by using this procedure is referred
here as labour productivity (or MOST time).
(d) Basic equipments used in measuring MOST are (1) MOST observation board (2)
MOST calculation sheet and (3) other necessary equipment like pen, pencil,
eraser and scientific calculator. On the basis of MOST application, findings are
summarized as under:
9.7.1 Summary of findings on awareness of labour respondents on MOST.
9.7.2 Summary of findings on labour productivity in unloading section of
logistic department based on application of basic MOST Method.
9.7.3 Summary of findings on labour productivity in trolley filling section of
logistic department based on application of basic MOST Method.
9.7.4 Summary of findings on labour productivity in catwalk section of logistic
department based on application of basic MOST Method.
9.7.5 Summary of findings on social and technical barriers associated with
labour productivity while application of basic MOST Method.
9.7.1 Summary of findings on awareness of labour respondents on MOST:
i) Majority of labour respondents are aware of Basic MOST method (76 Percent)
followed by Mini MOST method (32 Percent) and then Maxi MOST method (20
Percent) respectively.
ii) Overall 43 Percent of labour respondents are aware of various MOST methods.
309
iii) The extent of Basic MOST method awareness is higher (76 Percent) than that of
Mini MOST (32 Percent) and Maxi MOST (20 Percent).
iv) Majority of the labour respondents (i.e. 76 percent) are aware and have heard
about the Basic MOST method of work measurement.
v) Majority of labour respondents (76 percent) are aware of special training provided
for application of Basic MOST method used for work measurement.
vi) 100 Percent (25 Labour respondents) have not received any training related to
application of Basic MOST method for work measurement.
vii) All the labour respondents, those are working in unloading, Trolley Filing and
catwalk section of logistic department have not received Basic MOST method
training. Since no one has received training there is no question of on the job or
off the job training related to Basic MOST method.
9.7.2 Summary of findings on labour productivity in unloading section of
logistic department based on application of basic MOST Method:
i) Labour 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 took 1.70 Minutes, 5.44 Minutes, 0.70 Minutes, 2.80
Minutes and 4.55 Minutes respectively to complete the assigned job.
ii) 1.80 Minutes, 2.06 Minutes, 1.26 Minutes, 3.28 Minutes and 1.95 Minutes were
taken by labour 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to complete their assigned job.
iii) Time taken by labour 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 to complete the assigned job was 2.09
Minutes, 1.17 Minutes, 2.22 Minutes, 2.80 Minutes and 2.51 Minutes respectively
9.7.3 Summary of findings on labour productivity in trolley filling section of
logistic department based on application of basic MOST Method:
For trolley filling section, the time taken by all the selected 5 labour
respondents to performing the activity of trolley filling after application of basic
MOST method is 9 Minutes.
310
9.7.4 Summary of findings on labour productivity in catwalk section of logistic
department based on application of basic MOST Method:
i) Labour 1 took 4.98 Minutes to complete his assigned job of bin filling activity
after application of MOST.
ii) Time taken to complete the activity of filling the bin by labour 2 is 5.89 Minutes.
iii) Labour 3 took 3.66 Minutes to complete his assigned job of filling the bin.
iv) Time taken to complete the activity of box picking by labour 4 is 4.82 Minutes.
v) Labour 5 took 2.68 Minutes to complete his assigned job of box picking activity.
9.7.5 Summary of findings on social and technical barriers associated with
labour productivity while application of basic MOST Method:
A) Summary of findings on Social Barriers associated with labour productivity
while application of basic MOST Method:
i) Labour respondents of all the selected sections do not create any kind of hurdles
and do not feel any pressure on them as majority of labours (i.e. 92 Percent) are
not reluctant when their work is measured using Basic MOST method. This may
be because of easy application procedure of Basic MOST method.
ii) Majority of the respondents (i.e. 96 Percent) do not fear job loss when their work
is measured using Basic MOST method. On the other hand, they fully supported
to the implementation Basic MOST method to measure work.
iii) 92 Percent of labour respondents stated that they do not show lack of support
instead provided full support to measure their work by application of Basic
MOST method as it provides more accurate results. Majority of the labour feel
that the work should be measured and process should be improved using proper
work measurement method such as Basic MOST method.
iv) Majority of the respondents (93 percent) do not face the social barriers and do not
create any hurdles in work measurement when Basic MOST method is applied to
measure their work.
311
B) Summary of findings on Technical Barriers associated with labour
productivity while application of Basic MOST Method:
i) Majority of labour respondents (i.e. 88 Percent) stated that there is no variation in
time measurement and application of Basic MOST method as the major focus is
on sequence of the work that is performed.
ii) 24 labour respondents (i.e. 96 Percent) did not agreed to the shortage of needed
sample to measure work using Basic MOST method because of unique and easy
procedure that is followed to implement the Basic MOST method.
iii) Majority of the labour respondents (i.e. 92 Percent) state that there was no
ambiguity observed in the activity elements to measure work when Basic MOST
method is applied.
v) Majority of the respondents (92 percent) stated that they have not created any kind
of technical hurdles in application of Basic MOST method. On other hand, they
fully support to measure their work performance using Basic MOST method.
9.8 Summary of findings on comparison of Labour productivity between Stop
watch time study method and Basic MOST method:
The results obtained after data interpretation and analysis on application of
stop watch time study method and MOST was compared in chapter 8. The
comparison is made between two measurement methods with respect to various
variables such as Awareness, application procedure, social and technical barriers, etc.
the findings are summarized as under:
9.8.1 Comparing labour awareness on stopwatch time study method and Basic
MOST method:
1. As compared to the awareness of stopwatch time method (i.e.92 Percent), the
awareness for Basic MOST method is lower (i.e. 76 Percent) among the selected
labour respondents.
312
2. Extent of awareness among labour respondents on training provided by
professional bodies to apply Basic MOST method is lower (i.e.76 Percent) as
compared to Stop Watch Time Study Method (i.e. 80 Percent).
3. 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.
9.8.2 Comparing socio-technical barriers associated with application of
stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST method:
1. Labour respondents were less reluctant to measure their work by application of
Basic MOST method (i.e. 4 percent) as compared to the stop watches time study
method (i.e. 8 Percent).
2. Labour respondents feel more secured when their work is measured using Basic
MOST method as compared to the Stopwatch method (i.e. 12 percent) where fear
of job loss is high.
3. There is less variation in application of Basic MOST method (i.e.8 Percent) as
compared to the stop watch time study method (i.e. 24 Percent).
4. Basic MOST method (i.e.4 Percent) measures time more accurately as compared
to the Stopwatch method (i.e. 16 Percent) as there is no question of number of
readings to be observed to measure time.
5. Basic MOST method measures time more accurately as compared to the
Stopwatch method as only 4 percent of labour respondents observed ambiguity in
the activity elements for application of basic MOST method as compared to
stopwatch time study method (i.e. 12 Percent).
6. Technical barriers associated with the application of Basic MOST method (i.e.16
Percent) are less as compared to the technical barriers associated with the
application of stopwatch time study method (i.e. 52 Percent).
313
9.8.3 Comparison of labour Productivity after application of stopwatch time
study method and Basic MOST method in Unloading section:
1. Time taken by labour respondents to perform unloading activity by application of
Basic MOST is less than that of time taken (i.e. Standard time) by application of
stopwatch time study method except for one labour. 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 if Basic MOST method
is applied.
2. Application of Basic MOST method saved the time of labour respondents required
to perform the activities in unloading section as compared to stopwatch time study
method.
3. As compared to stop watch time study method, productivity of labour respondents
in unloading section is improved by application of Basic MOST method.
9.8.4 Comparison of labour Productivity after application of stopwatch time
study method and Basic MOST method in TFA section:
1. Time taken by labour respondents to perform the trolley filling activity by
application of Basic MOST is less than that of time taken (i.e. Standard time) by
application of stopwatch time study method. This means that the time required to
perform the activity of trolley filling for selected labour respondent can be
reduced from the current activity time if Basic MOST method is applied.
2. Application of Basic MOST method saved the time of labour respondents required
to perform the activities in trolley filling section as compared to stopwatch time
study method.
3. As compared to stop watch time study method, productivity of labour respondents
in trolley filling section is improved by application of Basic MOST method.
314
9.8.5 Comparison of labour Productivity after application of stopwatch time
study method and Basic MOST method in Catwalk section:
1. Time taken by labour respondents to perform the activity of bin filling and box
picking in catwalk section by application of Basic MOST is less than that of time
taken (i.e. Standard time) by application of stopwatch time study method. This
means that the time required to perform the activity for selected labour respondent
can be reduced from the current activity time if Basic MOST method is applied.
2. Application of Basic MOST method saved the time of labour respondents required
to perform the activities of bin filling and box picking in catwalk section as
compared to stopwatch time study method.
3. As compared to stop watch time study method, productivity of labour respondents
in catwalk section is improved by application of Basic MOST method.
9.8.6 Summary of findings on range of labour producitivty improved after
application of Basic MOST technique:
The range of productivity improvement is classified as less than 1, 1-10, 11-
20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50 and 50 above. It was found out that, 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.
9.8.7 Summary of finding on sectional Labour Productivity Improvement after
application of Basic MOST Method:
Sectional labour productivity was also worked out and it was shown in section
8.5.8 (Table 8.13). it was found out that overall productivity improvement in
unloading section was to the extent of 27 Percent followed by 24 Percent in Catwalk
315
section and 18 Percent in Trolley Filling Section of Logistic department. Thus it can
be inferred that maximum productivity improvement was in unloading section and
minimum productivity improvement was in Trolley Filling section.
9.9 Conclusion:
Chart 8.2 concludes the overall result of the study. the variables considered for
the study includes Method Awareness, Training Awareness, Training Received,
Social barriers, Technical Barriers, Method, Documentation Required, Observations
Required, Application Procedure, Application Speed, Accuracy of Result,
productivity improvement in unloading, trolley filling and catwalk section and overall
productivity of logistic section. It was found that for variables: Method Awareness,
Training Awareness, Training Received, Social and technical Barriers, the results are
high for stopwatch time study method as compared to Basic MOST method. For
variables method: 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 observations required: 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
Application Procedure: 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 in speedy application of Basic MOST method as compared
to stopwatch time study method as mentioned for variable Application Speed. 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
316
improvement of logistic section by application of Basic MOST method as compared
to stopwatch time study method.
Thus, finally the study concludes that as compared to stop watch time study
method application of Basic MOST method improves the labour productivity.
9.10 Suggestions:
Awareness:
1. Awareness is one of the main factors contributing to the labour productivity
improvement. While doing research, it was observed that the majority of the
labour respondents are aware of stopwatch time study method as compared to the
advanced work measurement techniques such as Basic MOST method. Since it
was proved in the research that Basic MOST method improves the labour
productivity, it is extremely important for labours of SAIPL to be aware about
various advanced work measurement technique along with Basic MOST method
to achieve productivity improvement. Thus, it is suggested to SAIPL to take
measures to create awareness among the labours related to the advanced work
measurement techniques for higher labour productivity improvement.
2. To achieve higher labour productivity along with the awareness of various
advanced work measurement technique, it is important for the labours to be
awared about the trainings provided related to these advanced work measurement
technique which is possible only with the cooperation of SAIPL officers. Thus,
SAIPL must arrange various group talks, seminars, conferences, training
programmes, poster communication to create awareness among labours related to
advanced work measurement techniques.
3. Higher officers of SAIPL should constantly bring out the importance of work
measurement in various meetings, group discussions, formal and informal
functions to make labours aware about the importance of work measurement and
acquirement of advanced techniques to measure the work
317
Training
1. It was observed during the study that majority of the labour respondents are
trained related to stop watch time study method but no labour respondent was
trained related to advanced work measurement technique such as Basic MOST
method. Thus it is suggested to SAIPL to train the labours on facts and benefits
associated with application of Basic MOST method that result in improved labour
productivity.
2. Training related to all other advanced work measurement technique should be
given to labours so that they are much cautious and responsible towards their
work measurement. Labours should be encouraged to ask questions related to their
work measurement.
3. Training should also be given to supervisors, engineers and all the concerned staff
that comes in day to day contact of labours. Points such as how to make labour
realize the importance of work measurement, quick adoption and benefits of
advanced methods should be taken into consideration while providing training.
4. Weekly training programmes of short duration which should be mixture of
practicle and theory sessions should be conducted by SAIPL for labours.
5. Any new concept involved related to the adopted work measurement technique
should be immediately discussed with the labours so as to make the work
measurement process smoother for labours as well as officers of SAIPL.
Social and Technical Barriers:
1. Labour respondents tend to face less social barrier when the adopted work
measurement technique is selected properly, applied scientifically with ease and
fair practices. Hence it is very important for SAIPL to select proper work
measurement technique such as Basic MOST Method that will provide accurate
results.
2. As results of time study method depends on the performance rating given by the
person conducting the study, some bad experiences of labour may make him face
318
social barriers such as reluctant to measure his work or fear of job loss or lack of
support. Since basic MOST method is not associated with above mentioned
drawback related to performance rating, it is suggested to adopt such advanced
work measurement technique such as Basic MOST Method to overcome any
possibility of social barriers.
3. As observed during the study, technical barriers associated with stop watch time
study method are higher than that of Basic MOST method, it is suggested to
SAIPL to go for Basic MOST method to overcome technical barriers associated
with the application of stop watch time study method.
Productivity improvement:
1. Application of basic MOST method results in higher time saving of labour
performing the activity as studied by the researcher. The effective utilization of
time should be done to make the productivity improvement of labour as well as
process.
2. The time saved for each labour respondent can be utilized to perform some other
activities related to section, attend training sections and assign some responsible
task.
3. SAIPL should implement and experiment Basic MOST method for productivity
improvement and make it a part of continuous improvement process.
For the labour productivity improvement in SAIPL using Basic MOST
method, a simple model is developed by the researcher as shown in Figure 9.1. This
model will also result in the overall productivity improvement of SAIPL. It is a 6 step
process model which will improve the labour productivity when implemented
effectively with the coordination of labours and officers of SAIPL. The model forms a
vicious circle of the steps that needs to be followed in continuous cycle. It is
integration of crucial points that needs to be focused when Basic MOST method is
applied for work measurement.
319
Figure 9.1
Productivity Improvement Model for SAIPL
The steps designed in the model that needs to be followed is explained as
below:
AWARENESS:
Awareness is basic step that is required to bring any change. During study it
was found that, SAIPL implements stop watch time study method to measure the
work performed by the labours and hence majority of the labours are aware of stop
watch time study method which is traditional work measurement technique. It was
also observed that almost all the officers were aware about the Basic MOST method
but only few numbers of labour respondents were aware of this method which has
ability to improve labour productivity if implemented properly. Thus, with the change
in time, technology and increase in market competition, it is extremely important for
SAIPL to implement advanced work measurement technique such as Basic MOST
method to achieve higher productivity improvement. And to achieve this it is
PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT
AWARENESS
CONTINOUS REVIEW
IMPROVE LABOUR
PRODUCVITIY
OVERCOME BARRIERS
IMPLEMEN-TATION
TRAINING
320
important for all the labours of SAIPL to be awared about the advanced work
measurement technique such as Basic MOST method which can be done by following
ways:
1. Agenda of the meetings scheduled with the officers should consist of points related
to work measurement mainly: importance of work measurement to improve
productivity, advance work measurement techniques and benefits of adopting basic
MOST method.
2. Visual representation plays a very important role in creating the awareness among
labour respondents. It includes designing and displaying of posters near to the work
stations of labours that consist of healthy messages related to importance of work
measurement, productivity improvement, Basic MOST method etc. This will keep
the labour awared about the importance of Basic MOST method application to
achieve higher productivity.
3. Showing live example of productivity improvement by application of Basic MOST
method by means of small documentaries or videos will create awareness related to
Basic MOST method.
4. Management should actively discuss about the importance of advanced work
measurement techniques like Basic MOST method with all the levels of officers
and labours to create high level of awareness and sense of seriousness related to
method.
TRAINING
Once labour is aware about the importance of advanced work measurement
technique such as Basic MOST method, it is important to provide training related to
this method. During study it was found out that majority of the labour respondents
are trained related to stop watch time study method and none of the labour
respondents were trained related to Basic MOST method. Training to labour
respondents on Basic MOST method should include:
321
i) Importance of work measurement and its techniques
ii) Introduction to Basic MOST method
iii) Importance and uses
iv) Implementation procedure
v) Overcoming the barriers associated at all levels
vi) Continuous reviews to achieve higher productivity
Training should be provided to labour respondents in following ways:
i) On the job training: On the job training should be provided so as to
understand the practical aspects and to provide hands on experience to the
labours on how their work is measured by an officer using Basic MOST
method.
ii) Off the job training: Off the job training includes theory sessions,
special training programmes arranged by SAIPL, meetings and
discussions with management.
The training programmes will make the SAIPL labours more awared and
responsible towards work measurement that will contribute to their productivity
improvement.
IMPLEMENTATION:
This is one of the important stages to achieve higher labour productivity. Just
being awared and trained will not contribute to labour productivity improvement.
Since labours are the one whose work is being measured by the officer, it is very
important for the labour to know the details and facts about Basic MOST method
implementation. Officers of SAIPL will have to implement the method with the
coordination and cooperation of labours. Now since labours are already awared and
trained related to Basic MOST method, it will be an smoother process to implement
the method. It is found from the study that labour respondents find the application
procedure much easy to implement.
322
OVERCOME BARRIERS:
Study showed that the barriers faced by labour respondents of SAIPL are
reduced when Basic MOST method is applied to measure their work. Because of all
the awareness, training and transparency in Basic MOST implementation, social
barriers such as fear of job loss, lack of support, reluctance and technical barriers such
as variation in application of method, shortage of sample, and ambiguity in activity
elements will also be reduced because of the simple procedure of Basic MOST
method. Reduced barriers will result in saving of time required to overcome these
barriers for all the labours. Thus, the time saved for labours can be utilized
effectively.
IMPROVE LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY:
Study showed that the application of Basic MOST time established standard
time required to perform the activity for labour respondents of SAIPL. If the activity
is performed by the labour at established time standard, there is 23 Percent of
improvement in labour productivity. As discussed in this model, awareness and
training will further add on to the labour productivity improvement. Thus it is very
important to apply Basic MOST method to achieve higher productivity improvement
for labours.
CONTINOUS REVIEW:
The make this model success, it is important to have continuous review of the
Basic MOST method application by SAIPL. The steps mentioned in this model
should be made part of continuous improvement programme. Management, officers
and labours should actively review the results of method application for its successful
implementation. Continuous review will help to identify the challenges and benefits
of Basic MOST method application related to productivity improvement. It is very
important to discuss the review in meetings, training programmes and management
discussions.
323
Since continuous review of method application to measure the work will
further create awareness among labours, officers and management related to
the challenges and benefits of Basic MOST method application. This will
provide scope for further productivity improvement of labours at SAIPL. Thus
the model shows the integration of all the steps to achieve overall productivity.
324
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:
1. International Labour Organisation (ILO), „Introduction to Work Study‟,
Universal Publishing Corp., India. , Third Revised Edition, 1986.
2. Niebel, B. W, „Motion and Time Study‟, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood,
Illinois, 1962.
3. Womack J.P., Jones.D. and Roos.D., „The Machine that changed the world‟,
Rawson Associations, New York, 1990.
4. Charles. William, „The Theory and Practice of Time Study‟, London Business
Publishing Limited, 1966.
5. Schlesinger G., „Das Bedoux- Verfahrn, Workstattstechnik, 1930.
6. Barnes R.M., „Motion and time study‟, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 3rd
edition, 1951.
7. Wiberg M., „Work – Time distribution‟, Mcclure, Huddon and Ortman, Chicago,
1947, Inc.
8. Maynard H.B., Stegemerten G.J. and Schwab J.I., „Method- Time Measurement‟,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1948.
9. Morrow R.L., „Time Study and Motion Economy‟, Ronald Press, New York.
10. Barnes R.M., „Work Sampling‟, John Wiley, New York, 1956.
11. Dudley Norman A., „Work Measurement: Some Research Studies‟, Macmillian,
London, 1968.
12. Kerger D.W. and Bayha F.H, „Engineered Work Measurement‟, Industrial Press
Inc, New York, 1997.
13. Karger D.W. and Hancock W.M., „Advanced Work Measurement‟, Industrial
Press Inc, New York, 1982.
14. Patil Sanjay S. and Hukeri NandKumar, „Industrial Engineering and Production
and Operations Management‟, Electrotech Publication engineering series, 2007.
325
15. Vernon H.M., „Industrial Fatigue and Efficiency‟, 1921.
16. Stevenson William J., „Production and Operations Management‟, Boston, MA:
Irwin McGraw-Hill, 1999.
17. Jhamb L.C., „Production (Operations) Management‟, Everest Publishing House,
11th
Edition, Pune, 2006.
18. Glossary, B.S., „British Standards Institution: Glossary of terms used in Work
Study‟, London, 1969.
19. Russell, R.R., Taylor, B.W.,‟ Operations Management: Quality and
Competitiveness in a Global Environment‟, 5th Edition, J. Wiley, New York,
2005.
20. Zandin, K.B., „MOST Work Measurement Systems‟, H.B. Maynard and
Company Inc, New York: Marcel Dekker, Second Edition, 1980.
Journals:
1. Ramchandaran Kartik, „A complete guide for Lean Manufacturing‟, Lean
manufacturing, Spring, 2001.
2. Morrow L.C., „The Beduax Principle of Human Power Measurement‟, The
American Machinist, 1922, PP. 2.
3. Standing P.K, „The Bedaux system‟, Industry Illustrated, 1934, PP. 5-6.
4. Mosso A., „Les Lois de la fatigue etudiees dans les muscles de L‟ Homme, Arch.i
tal, de boil No.12, 1890, PP. 123.
5. Williams J.A.C., „Physiological Measurements in Work Study‟, Time and
Motion Study, Vol.3, No.11, 1954, PP. 18-21.
6. Floyd and Welford, „Symposium on fatigue‟, Erogonomics Research Society,
K.Lewis, 1953.
7. Tippett L.H.C., „The Ratio Delay Technique‟, Time and Motion Study, May,
1953.
326
8. Federgruen A.and Zipkin P., „An Inventory Model with Limited Production
Capacity and Uncertain Demands II: The Discounted – Cost Criteria‟, Journal of
Mathematics of Operations Research, Vol.12, No.2, 1986, PP. 209-215.
9. Flores B.E. and Whybark D.C., „Implementing Multiple criteria ABC Analysis‟,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol.7, No.1, 1987, PP.79-85.
10. Dobson G., „Sensitivity of EOQ Model to Parameter Estimates‟, Operations
Research. Vol.36, No.4, 1988, PP. 570-574.
11. Hung-Po Chao,„The EOQ Model with Stochastic Demand and Discounting‟,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.59, 1992, PP.434-443.
12. Weinstein and Oblog, „Strategic and environmental determinants of human
resource management innovations in post socialist Poland‟, International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol.13, No.4, 2002, PP. 642-659.
13. Jalwadi S.N. and Patil Satyajit, „Productivity Improvement in an Engineering
Firm through Computer Applications‟, Productivity. Vol.51, No .4, January-
March, 2011, PP. 315-317.
14. RajenthiraKumar.D and P.R.Thyla, „Quality and Productivity improvement in
Automotive Component Manufacturing Company using Kaizen‟, Manufacturing
and Industrial Engineering, Issue No.2, 2011, PP.36-44.
15. Cagliano R, Caniato F and Spina G., „Lean Agile and Traditional Supply: How
Do They Impact Manufacturing Performance‟, Japrch Supply Management,
2004, PP. 151-164.
16. Shah R. and Ward. P, „Lean Manufacturing: Context, Practice Bundles and
Performance‟, Journal of Operations Management, 2003, PP. 129-149.
17. Pavnaskar S.J, Gershenson J.K and Jambekar A.B.,„Classification Scheme for
Lean Manufacturing tools‟, International Journal of Production Research, 2003,
PP. 3075-3090.
18. Shah R. and Ward.P.T, „Lean Manufacturing: Context, Practice bundles and
performance‟, Journal of Operations Management, 2003, PP. 129-149.
327
19. Hudli M.R and Inamdar K.H, „Areas of Lean Manufacturing for Productivity
Improvement in a Manufacturing Unit‟, World Academy of Science, Engineering
and Technology, Issue 69, 2010, PP. 584-587.
20. Gunasekaran A. and Cecille P., „Implementation of Productivity Improvement
Strategies in a Small Company‟, Technovation, Vol.18, No.5, 1998, PP. 311-320.
21. Taylor F.W., „Piece-rate System‟, Trans, ASME, 1895, PP. 861.
22. McDougall W., „A New Way of Measuring Mental Fatigue‟, British Journal,
Psychology, Vol.1, No.4, 1905.
23. Smith May, „A Contribution to the Study of Fatigue‟, British Journal,
Psychology, vol.8, No.3, 1916.
24. Seymour W.D., „Manual Skills and Industrial Productivity Institution of
Production‟, Engineering Journal, Vol.33, No.4, 1954, PP. 240-248.
25. Allderige John M., „Stastical Procedures in Stop Watch Work Measurement „,
Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol.VII, No.4, July-August, 1956.
26. Snakenberg T.R., „The use of multi variable charts to simplify MTM standard
data‟, Journal of Method Time Measurement, Vol.1, No.5, Dec 1954.
27. Sirdeshmukh Neelesh P.C, Puri Y.M, Chopde I.K and Pundlik A.D (2009),
„Productivity Improvement through Application of MOST in Switchgear
Company‟, Productivity. Vol.50, No.2, July -September, PP.146-151.
28. Abdullah Rohana and Bahiyah Aida, „Labour Utilization and Man to Machine
Ratio Study at a Semiconductor Facility‟, Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Vol.2, ISSN 2180-3811, June 2011, PP.75-84.
29. Nakayama, S., „ A study on setting standard time using work achievement
quotient‟, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40, No. 15, 2002,
PP 3945-53.
30. Izetbegovic, J., „Proucavanje Graditeljske Proizvodnje‟, Elektronicki Udzbenik,
Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering, 2007.
328
31. Aviv.Y, „Time series frames work for Supply Chain Inventory Management,
Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 51, No.2, 2003.
32. Katia C. Frank, Rachel Q.Zhang and Izak Duenyas, „Optimal Policy for
inventory systems with priority demand classes‟, Operations Research, Vol.51,
No.6, 2003, PP. 993-202.
33. Ebert R.J., „Aggregate planning with learning curve productivity‟, Management
Science, Vol.23, No.2, 1976, PP.171-182.
34. Charnes A.et.al., „A multi level coherence Model for EEO planning‟, TIMS
studies in Management Science, Vol.8, 1978, PP. 13-29.
35. Cuthcher-Gershenfield J, „The impact on economic performance of a
transformation in industrial relations‟, Industrial and Labour relations review,
Vol.44, 1991, PP. 241-260.
36. Ichniowsi C., Shaw K. and Prennushi G., „The effects of Human Resource
Management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines‟, The
American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No.3, 1997, PP. 291-313.
37. Racin A.D. and Davidso A.G., „Use Of Time Flow Study To Improve Patient
Waiting Times At An Inner-City Academic Pediatric Practice‟, Archives Of
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Vol.156, No.12, 2002, PP. 1203-1209.
38. M.A.Meyer et.al. , „Automatic Time Motion Study Of A Multi Step Preoperative
Process‟, Anesthesiology, Vol.108, 2008, PP.1109-16.
39. Kumar Sanjay and Mantha S.S. „ Optimum Utilization of Manpower using
MOST-A case study,‟ Industrial Engineering Journal, Vol.XXXV No.12, Dec
2006, PP.32-35.
40. Chester L.Brisley, „Work Measurement in the 1980‟s‟, 43rd
Annual IMS Clinic
Proceedings, Industrial Management Society, Des Plaines, IL, 1979.
41. Chester L.Brisley, „Comparison of Predetermined Time Systems (PTS)‟,
proceedings, AIIE spring Annual Conference, American Institute of Industrial
Engineers, Norcross, GA, 1978.
329
Reports/ Ph.D Thesis:
1. Nor Diana Hashim, „Time Study Method Implementation in Manufacturing
Industry‟, A B.E Report, Universiti Technikal Malaysia, Melaka, 2008.
2. Rice, 1977, in „Time Study Method Implementation in Manufacturing Industry‟,
A B.E. Report, Universiti Technikal Malaysia, Melaka, 2008, PP. 1.
3. Niebel, 1993, in „Time Study Method Implementation in Manufacturing Industry‟,
A B.E Report, Universiti Technikal Malaysia, Melaka, 2008, PP. 1.
4. Kumar Sanjay, „Optimization Of Resources In Service As Well As Manufacturing
Industries‟, Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Mumbai, Mumbai, 2010.
(A comprehensive review was undertaken by him.)
5. Chandrashekar K.N., Hemachandra N., Rangaran Narayan, „Timing of discount
offers for perishable inventories‟, proceedings of the APORS, 2003.
6. Jones D.T., „Seeing the whole- Macro Value Stream mapping‟, Lean Enterprise
Institute, 1999.
7. Abbett D., Payne V. and Gulfstream V, „Value Stream Tour‟, Lean Enterprise
Institute, 1999.
8. Peters G., Lodge M and Goodrich B.F., „Aerospace 7171 engine nacalle‟, Lean
Enterprise Institute, 1999.
9. Womack J.P. and FitzPatrick D., „Lean Thinking for Aerospace – The Industry
that can afford its Future‟, Lean Enterprise Institute, 1999.
10. Hitomi K., „Manufacturing Technology in Japan, Four of Manufacturing
Systems‟, 1994, PP. 209-215.
11. Sahoo A.K, Singh N.J and Tiwari M.K, „Lean Philosophy- Implementation in a
forging Company‟, Institute of Advance Manufacturing Technology, 2008, PP.
451-462.
12. Siddall G.J., „Variations in Movement Time in an Industrial Repetitive Task‟,
Medical, Research Council, (A.P.U) Report, Cambridge, 1954, PP.216-254.
330
13. Yong Gan Kiat., „The Importance of industrial Engineering in Small and Medium
Industries: A Time Study in Manufacturing Industry‟, B.E Dissertation, University
of Malaysia Pahang, 2007.
14. Malik Meghana R., „Improve the Productivity using MOST‟, a project carried out
at Mahindra and Mahindra Limited. Mumbai, 2004, PP. 28-99.
15. Jadhav Manjeet B., „Manpower Optimization through MOST Study‟, a project
carried out at Mahindra and Mahindra Limited. Mumbai, 2006, PP. 42-84.
16. Gothey Kaustubh S., „The Study of MOST D.P Contactors for Standardisation‟, a
project carried out at Siemens India Limited., Mumbai, 2005, PP.67-70.
17. Kothari Prasad P., „Implementation of MOST on 8BK80-800 Structure Assembly‟
a project carried out at Siemens India Limited., Mumbai, 2005, PP.50-70.
18. Mahajan Harshal V., „A Project Report on Reduction in Tool Changeover Time
by SMED through MOST for Legrand (India) Pvt.Ltd‟, MIDC, Jalgaon, A project
report (MBA), Institute of Management and Research, Jalgaon , 2010-2011.
19. Marovic Ivan , „Application of Chronometry Method Towards Calculation of
Regulation‟, A Report.
20. Deshpande Chaitanya , „Study of Supply Chain management of Skoda Auto‟,
Project Report- SAIPL, Sinhgad Institute of Management, Pune, 2010.
21. Best Tom, „Measurement in Skilled Labour Environment‟, A Report.
22. Meyers, 2002, in „Time Study Method Implementation in Manufacturing
Industry‟, A B.E Report, Universiti Technikal Malaysia, Melaka, 2008, PP. 6.
23. Malik, M.R., „Improve the productivity using MOST‟, A B.E project Report,
VJTI, Mumbai, 2004.
24. United States Agency for International Development, „Measuring
Competitiveness and Labour Productivity in Cambodia‟s garment industry‟.
Nathan Associates Inc. and its Parther Organisations, 2005, P.17.
331
Magzines:
1. Merrick, D.V., „Time Studies as a Basic for Rate Setting‟, Engineering
Magazine S., New York, 1919.
Websites:
1. Oxford Holt and Company Inc, www.oxfordholt.co.uk.
2. Sajjadi S.R, Jing Shi and Kambiz Farahmand, „Healthcare Digital Data
Collection System: An Opportunity to improve Operations‟, www.iiis.org.
3. H.B.Maynard Inc., www.hbmaynard.com.
