CHAPTER 8
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY BETWEEN
STOP WATCH TIME STUDY METHOD AND BASIC MOST METHOD
Sr.No
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.3.1
8.3.2
8.4
8.4.1
8.4.2
8.5
8.5.1
8.5.2
8.5.3
Title
Introduction
Comparison of Awareness related to Stopwatch time study method
and Basic MOST method
Comparison of Training received by Labour respondents related to
Stopwatch Time Study Method and Basic MOST Method
Comparison of Training Awareness related to Stop Watch Time
Study Method and Basic MOST Method.
Comparison of Training received by labour respondents related to
Stop Watch Time Study Method and Basic MOST Method.
Social and Technical Barrier Comparison
Comparison of Social Barriers associated with the application of
Stop Watch Time Study Method and Basic MOST method
Comparison of Technical Barriers associated with the application
of Stop Watch Time Study Method and Basic MOST method
Productivity Comparison
Comparison of Standard Time and Basic MOST Time to perform
Activity in Unloading Section
Improvement in Productivity after application of Basic MOST
method in unloading section.
Comparison of Standard time and Basic MOST time to perform
activity in TFA Section
Page
No.
239
240
242
242
244
245
245
248
250
251
256
260
8.5.4
8.5.5
8.5.6
8.5.7
8.5.8
8.5.9
8.6
8.7
Improvement in Productivity after application of Basic MOST
method in TFA section
Comparison of Standard time and Basic MOST time to perform
activity in Catwalk Section
Improvement in Productivity after application of Basic MOST
method in Catwalk section
Productivity Improvement for number of Labour respondents
after application of Basic MOST method
Sectional Labour Productivity Improvement after application of
Basic MOST Method
Comparison of Stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST
method for observed points/Variables
Summary of Comparison of stopwatch time study method and
Basic MOST method
Testing of Hypotheses
262
265
267
270
273
274
275
278
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.
239
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
Stopwatch Method
Basic MOST Method
Nos.
Percent
Nos.
Percent
YES
23
92
19
76
NO
2
8
6
24
Total
25
100
25
100
Responses
240
Figure 8.1
Comparison of Awareness related to Stop Watch Time Study Method
and Basic MOST Method
92%
Responses of Labour
Respondents
100
76%
50
24%
8%
0
YES
NO
A
B
Comparison of Awareness related to Stop
Watch Time Study Method and Basic
MOST Method
Comparison of Awareness related to Stop
X-Axis 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.
241
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
Responses
Stopwatch Method
Basic MOST Method
Nos.
Percent
Nos.
Percent
YES
20
80
19
76
NO
5
20
6
24
Total
25
100
25
100
242
Figure 8.2
Comparison of Training Awareness related to Stop Watch Time Study
Method and Basic MOST Method
80%
76%
Responses of Labour
Respondents
80%
60%
24%
20%
40%
20%
0%
B
A
Comparison of Training Awareness related to Stop
Watch Time Study Method and Basic MOST
Method
YES
NO
Comparison of Training Awareness related to
X-Axis 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 8.2 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.
243
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)
Responses
YES
NO
Stopwatch Method
100
0
Basic MOST Method
0
100
Figure 8.3
Comparison of Training received by Labour Respondents related to
Stopwatch Time Study Method and Basic MOST Method (In Percentage)
100%
Responses of Labour
Respondents
100%
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
0
A
B
Comparison of Training received
244
YES
NO
Comparison of Training received by Labour
X-Axis Respondents related to Stopwatch 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 8.3 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.
245
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
Basic MOST
Response
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)
Responses of Labour
Respondents
12%
12%
12
10
8%
StopWatch
Method
Response
8
6
4%
Basic MOST
Response
4
0
2
0
0
A
B
C
Social Barriers
Comparison of Social Barriers associated with
X-Axis the Application of Stop Watch time study
Method and Basic MOST Method
Y-Axis Responses of Labour Respondents
Alternatives
A
Reluctance to Measure
B
Fear of Job loss
C
Lack of Support
246
Observations:
It can be seen from Table 8.4 and Figure 8.4 that,
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.
247
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)
Stopwatch
Method Response
Sr.No Technical Barriers
Variation in application of
Basic MOST method and
1
time measurement
Variation in shortage of
2
needed samples
Ambiguity in activity
3
elements
Total
Basic MOST
Response
24
8
16
4
12
4
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)
Responses of Labour
Respondents
24%
25
20
StopWatch
Method
Response
16%
12%
15
8%
10
4%
4%
5
0
A
B
Technical Barriers
248
C
Basic
MOST
Response
Comparison of Technical Barriers associated with
X-Axis the Application of Stop Watch time study Method
and Basic MOST Method
Y-Axis Responses of Labour Respondents
Alternatives
Variation in application of Basic MOST method
A
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.
249
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.
8.5.3 Comparison of Standard time and Basic MOST time to perform activity in
TFA Section.
8.5.4 Improvement in Productivity after application of Basic MOST method in
TFA section.
8.5.5 Comparison of Standard time and Basic MOST time to perform activity in
Catwalk Section.
250
8.5.6 Improvement in Productivity after application of Basic MOST method in
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:
It can be seen from Table 8.6 and Figure 8.6 that,
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.
251
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
252
Figure 8.6
Comparison of Standard Time and Basic MOST Time
to perform Activity in Unloading Section (In Minutes)
Time taken byLabour
Respondents in Minutes
7
Standard Time
(In Minutes)
6.33
6
5.44
MOST Time
(In Minutes)
5
4.58 4.55
4
2.96
2
3
2.8
2.39
3
2.17
2.96
2.95
1.26
1.08
0.88
0.7
3.66
3.37
2.74
2.51
2.36
2.22 2.08
1.95
2.09
1.17
2.73
2.06
1.7
1
3.45 3.28
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Labour Respondents in Unloading Section
X-Axis
Labour Respondents in Unloading
Section
Y-Axis
Time taken by Labour Respondents in
Minutes
A-O
Alternatives
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
253
Minutes. Thus it can be said that Basic MOST time is more as compared to
standard time taken by labour respondent to complete the activity.
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
standard time taken by labour respondent to complete the activity.
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.
7. Standard time taken by labour 7 to complete the activity of unloading car body
parts from pallet is 3 Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the same
activity is 2.06 Minutes. This means that time required to complete the activity is
less as compared to the standard time taken by labour 7 to perform the activity.
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.
9. Standard time taken by labour 9 to complete the activity of unloading car body
parts from pallet is 3.45 Minutes where as Basic MOST time to perform the same
activity is 3.28 Minutes. This means that time required to complete the activity is
less as compared to the standard time taken by labour 9 to perform the activity.
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.
254
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.
15. Standard time taken by labour 15 to complete the activity of unloading car body
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.
255
8.5.2 Improvement in Productivity after application of Basic MOST method in
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.
Labour 1
Labour 2
Labour 3
Labour 4
Labour 5
Labour 6
Labour 7
Labour 8
Labour 9
Labour 10
Labour 11
Labour 12
Labour 13
Labour 14
Labour 15
Stopwatch
Time
(In Minutes)
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
Basic MOST
Time
(In Minutes)
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
256
Time Saved
(In Minutes)
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
Productivity
Improvement
(in %)
43
14
20
-17
1
50
31
54
5
34
38
50
39
30
8
Figure 8.7
Time Saved to perform activity in unloading section after application
Time Saved byLabour
Respondents in Minutes
of Basic MOST method (In Minutes)
1.47
1.44
1.6
1.28
1.4 1.26
1.19
1.09
1.2
1
0.94
0.89
0.88
1
0.8
0.6
0.23
0.4
0.18
0.17
0.03
0.2
0
E F G H I J K L M N O
-0.2 A
B C
D
-0.4
-0.41
-0.6
Labour Respondents in Unloading Section
X-Axis
Y-Axis
A-O
Labour Respondents in Unloading
Section
Time Saved by Labour Respondents in
Minutes
Alternatives
Labour 1 to Labour 15
257
Figure 8.8
Productivity Improvement after application of
Basic MOST method in unloading section
Productivity Improvement in
Percentage
60
50
40
A
F
43
50
54
J
31
30
C 20
14
20
10
H
50
38
M
E
5
1
39
N
G
B
0
K
34
L
30
O
8
I
-10
-17
-20
D
-30
Labour Respondents in Unloading Section
X-Axis
Labour Respondents in Unloading Section
Y-Axis
Productivity Improvement in Percentage
A-O
Productivity
Improvement
(in %)
Alternatives
Labour 1 to Labour 15
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.
258
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.
5.
Time saved after application of basic MOST method for Labour 5 is 0.03
Minutes to perform the activity. This results in productivity improvement of only
1 percent in labour performance.
6.
Time saved to perform the activity for Labour 6 is 1.09 Minutes resulting in 50
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.
259
13. For Labour 13, time saved to perform the activity is 1.44 Minutes after the
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.
15. For Labour 15, time saved to perform the activity is 0.23 Minutes after the
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.
8.5.3 Comparison of Standard time and Basic MOST time to perform activity in
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
Comparison of Standard Time and Basic MOST Time
to perform Activity in TFA Section
Labour No.
Labour 1
Labour 2
Labour 3
Labour 4
Labour 5
Standard Time
(In Minutes)
10.26
10.71
10.66
12.3
11.5
260
Basic MOST Time
(In Minutes)
9
9
9
9
9
Figure 8.9
Comparison of Standard Time and Basic MOST Time
to perform Activity in TFA Section
Time taken byLabour
Respondents in Minutes
14
12.3
12
10.26
9
10
10.71
11.5
10.66
9
9
9
9
8
6
Standard
Time
(In Minutes)
Basic
MOST Time
(In Minutes)
4
2
0
A
B
C
D
E
Labour Respondents in TFA Section
X-Axis
Labour Respondents in Unloading Section
Y-Axis
Time taken by Labour Respondents in
Minutes
A-E
Alternatives
Labour 1 to Labour 5
Observations:
It can be seen from Table 8.8 and Figure 8.9 that
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.
261
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.
8.5.4 Improvement in Productivity after application of Basic MOST method in
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.
262
Table 8.9
Productivity Improvement after application of Basic MOST
method in TFA section
Labour
No.
Stopwatch
Time
(In
Minutes)
Labour 1
Labour 2
Labour 3
Labour 4
Labour 5
10.26
10.71
10.66
12.3
11.5
Basic
MOST
Time
(In
Minutes)
9
9
9
9
9
Time Saved
(In
Minutes)
Productivity
Improvement
(in %)
1.26
1.71
1.66
3.3
2.5
12
16
16
27
22
Figure 8.10
Time Saved to perform activity in TFA section after application
Time Saved byLabour
Respondents in Minutes
of Basic MOST Method (In Minutes)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3.3
2.5
1.71
1.66
B
C
1.26
A
D
E
Labour Respondents in TFA Section
X-Axis
Y-Axis
A-E
Labour Respondents in TFA Section
Time Saved by Labour Respondents in
Minutes
Alternatives
Labour 1 to Labour 5
263
Figure 8.11
Productivity Improvement after application of Basic MOST method in TFA
section (In Percentage)
Productivity Improvement
in Percentage
30
25
D
20
10
E
16
B
15
22
C
16
12
A
27
5
0
Labour Respondents in TFA Section
X-Axis
Y-Axis
A-E
Productivity
Improvemen
t (in %)
Labour Respondents in TFA Section
Productivity Improvement in Percentage
Alternatives
Labour 1 to Labour 5
Observations:
It can be seen from Table 8.9, Figure 8.10 and Figure 8.11 that,
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.
2. For Labour 2, time saved to perform the activity is 1.71 Minutes after application
of Basic MOST method. This shows the 16 Percent improvement in the
productivity of labour performance.
3. Time saved to perform the activity for Labour 3 is 1.66 Minutes resulting in 16
Percent productivity improvement of Labour performance after application of
Basic MOST method.
264
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.
5. Time saved after application of basic MOST method for Labour 5 is 2.5 Minutes
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
determining the appropriate time (time to be saved) required to perform the activity in
TFA section resulting in the productivity improvement of labour respondents
performing the activity.
8.5.5 Comparison of Standard time and Basic MOST time to perform activity in
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
Comparison of Standard Time and Basic MOST Time
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
265
Figure 8.12
Comparison of Standard Time and Basic MOST Time
Time taken byLabour
Respondents in Minutes
to perform Activity in Catwalk Section
7
6.48
6
6.15
4.98
5.89
4.82
4.65
5
Standard
Time
(In Minutes)
6.29
5.3
3.66
4
2.68
3
Basic
MOST Time
(In Minutes)
2
1
0
A
B
C
D
E
Labour Respondents in Catwalk Section
X-Axis
Labour Respondents in Catwalk Section
Y-Axis
Time taken by Labour Respondents in
Minutes
A-E
Alternatives
Labour 1 to Labour 5
Observations:
It can be seen from Table 8.10 and Figure 8.12 that
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
266
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
logistic department.
8.5.6 Improvement in Productivity after application of Basic MOST method in
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.
267
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
Labour 2
Labour 3
Labour 4
Labour 5
6.48
6.15
4.65
6.29
5.3
4.98
5.89
3.66
4.82
2.68
1.5
0.26
0.99
1.47
2.62
23
4
21
23
49
Figure 8.13
Time Saved to perform activity after application of Basic MOST
Time Saved byLabour
Respondents in Minutes
Method in Catwalk Section (in Minutes)
2.62
3
2.5
2
1.5
1.47
1.5
0.99
1
0.26
0.5
0
A
C
B
D
Labour Respondents in Catwalk Section
X-Axis
Labour Respondents in Catwalk Section
Y-Axis
Time Saved by Labour Respondents in
Minutes
A-E
Alternatives
Labour 1 to Labour 5
268
E
Figure 8.14
Productivity Improvement after application of Basic MOST
Method in Catwalk section (in Percentage)
Productivity Improvement
in Percentage
60
E
50
49
40
30
21
23
A
20
C
D
23
10
B
0
4
Labour Respondents in Catwalk Section
X-Axis
Labour Respondents in Catwalk Section
Y-Axis
Productivity Improvement in Percentage
A-E
Productivity
Improvement
(in %)
Alternatives
Labour 1 to Labour 5
Observations:
It can be seen from Table 8.11, Figure 8.13 and Figure 8.14 that,
1.
Time saved after application of basic MOST method for Labour 1 is 1.5 Minutes
to perform the activity in Catwalk section. This results in productivity
improvement of 23 percent in labour performance.
2.
For Labour 2, time saved to perform the activity is 0.26 Minutes after application
of Basic MOST method. This shows the 4 Percent improvement in the
productivity of labour performance.
269
3.
Time saved to perform the activity for Labour 3 is 0.99 Minutes resulting in 21
Percent productivity improvement of Labour performance after application of
Basic MOST method.
4.
For Labour 4, time saved to perform the activity is 1.47 Minutes after application
of Basic MOST method. This shows the 23 Percent improvement in the
productivity of labour performance.
5.
Time saved after application of basic MOST method for Labour 5 is 2.62
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
determining the appropriate time (time to be saved) required to perform the activity in
Catwalk section leading to the improvement in productivity of labour respondents
performing the activity.
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, 4150 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.
270
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 - 10
11 - 20
21-30
31-40
41-50
>51
Total
1
3
2
1
4
3
1
15
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
5
1
4
5
6
4
4
1
25
Figure 8.15
Productivity Improvement of Labour respondents after
Application of Basic MOST Method (in Number)
Number of Labour Respondents
4.5
4
Nos. of
Labour
Respondent in
Unloading
Section
4
3.5
3
3
3
3
3
Nos. of
Labour
Respondent in
TFA Section
2.5
2
2
1.5
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
41-50
0
0.5
0
0
<1
0
1 - 10
0
11 - 20
21-30
0
31-40
>50
Range of Productivity Improvement
Range of Productivity Improvement of Labour
respondents after Application of Basic MOST
X-Axis
Method
Y-Axis Number of labour Respondents
271
Nos. of
Labour
Respondent in
Catwalk
Section
Observations:
It can be seen from Table 8.12 and Figure 8.15 that
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 2130 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.
272
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)
Labour Productivity Improvement
(in Percentage)
Section
Unloading Section
TFA Section
Catwalk Section
Average
27
18
24
23
Figure 8.16
Sectional Labour Productivity Improvement after application
of Basic MOST Method (In Percentage)
24%
27%
Unloading Section
TFA Section
18%
Catwalk Section
273
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.
274
Chart 8.1
Comparison of Stopwatch time Study method and Basic MOST method
Sr.
Comparison
No
Points
1
2
3
4
Method
Stopwatch Time Study Method
Basic MOST Method
It is traditional method which relies on
It is scientific methods which uses
operator application experience
predetermined parameter Index
Number of
Minimum 10 number of cycles should be one or two observations are enough to
Observations
observed with stopwatch to arrive at
measure the time required to perform
average time
work
Rating is decided by the operator to
Rating factor is taken care in parameter
arrive at standard time
index framed
Application
Application procedure is long as it
Application procedure is short as it
Procedure
involves observation readings,
involves only one or two observation
calculation of Normal time, allowances
reading and calculation of TMU
Rating Factor
and Standard time
5
6
7
8
Application
Application speed is slow as it involves
Application speed is fast as it involves
Speed
lengthy application procedure
simple application procedure
Deviation
Results can deviate from operator to
No deviation from results as universal
operator as rating factor depends on
parameter Index is used by all the
operator
operators
Accuracy of
Less accurate results as rating factor
Highly accurate results as time is
Result
depends on operator
measured using parameter Index values
Documentation More documentation is required as
number of observation reading and
Less documentation is required due to
simple application structure
calculations are lengthy
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.
275
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
276
Figure 8.17
Summary of Comparison of stopwatch time study method and Basic MOST
method
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Stopwatch Time Study Method-HIGH Values
X-Axis
Variables
Y-Axis
High Value
Basic MOST Method-HIGH Values
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
277
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:
278
Table 8.14
Chi- Square Test for Awareness of SAIPL labour towards stopwatch time study
method and Basic MOST method
Test
Value
Df
Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction(a)
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
2.381
1.339
2.475
1
1
1
2.333
50
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) (PValue)
0.123
0.247
0.116
1
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
0.247
0.123
0.127
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.
The above hypothesis is also tested using chi-square test as shown in table
8.15:
279
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
Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction(a)
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
0.117
0
0.117
1
1
1
0.114
50
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
(P-Value)
0.733
1
0.733
1
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
1
0.5
0.735
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.
280
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.
The above hypothesis is also tested using chi-square test as shown in table
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
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
Df
9
9.84
2
2
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
(P-Value)
0.011
0.007
6.562
36
1
0.01
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
281
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.
The above hypothesis is also tested using chi-square test as shown in table
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
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
0.196
0.201
2
2
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
(P-Value)
0.907
0.905
0.007
68
1
0.934
282
It is clear from table 8.17 that the value of chi-square test is 0.196 and its
corresponding p-value is 0.907. Since the p-value 0.907 > 0.05 (Significance level),
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.
The above hypothesis is also tested using chi-square test as shown in table
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
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
2.170
2.206
14
14
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
(P-Value)
1
1
0.173
81
1
0.677
It is clear from table 8.18 that the value of chi-square test is 2.170 and its
corresponding p-value is 1. Since the p-value 1 > 0.05 (Significance level), hypothesis
-5 is true and accepted.
283
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. Chisquare 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
logistic department.
Hence, hypothesis -7 is true and accepted.
284
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
The above hypothesis is also tested using chi-square test as shown in table
8.19:
Table 8.19
Chi- Square Test for Time taken (Standard Time) by SAIPL labour to perform
activity in TFA section under application of stopwatch time study method and
Basic MOST method
Test
Value
Df
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
0.113
0.113
4
4
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
(P-Value)
0.998
0.998
0.099
101
1
0.753
It is clear from table 8.19 that the value of chi-square test is 0.113 and its
corresponding p-value is 0.998. Since the p-value 0.998 > 0.05 (Significance level),
hypothesis -8 is true and accepted.
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)
285
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.
Hence, hypothesis -9 is true and accepted.
Hypotheses-10: Application of Basic MOST method improves the labour
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.
Hence, hypothesis -10 is true and accepted.
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)
286
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.
The above hypothesis is also tested using chi-square test as shown in table
8.20:
Table 8.20
Chi- Square Test for Time taken (Standard Time) by SAIPL labour to perform
activity in Catwalk section under application of stopwatch time study method
and Basic MOST method
Test
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
0.306
0.308
4
4
0.137
51
1
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
(P-Value)
0.989
0.989
0.711
It is clear from table 8.20 that the value of chi-square test is 0.306 and its
corresponding p-value is 0.989. Since the p-value 0.989 > 0.05 (Significance level),
hypothesis -11 is true and accepted.
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
287
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.
Hence, hypothesis -12 is true and accepted.
Hypotheses-13: Application of Basic MOST method improves the labour
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.
Hence, hypothesis -13 is true and accepted.
288