Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 19, No.

4, 2016 485

Optimisation of labour productivity using work

measurement techniques

R. Jain*, S. Gupta, M.L. Meena and

G.S. Dangayach
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur,
J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur-302017, India
Email: rjmahesh207@gmail.com
Email: sumitgupta2007@gmail.com
Email: mlmeenamnit@gmail.com
Email: dangayach@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Abstract: Productivity has now become an everyday watch word. The most
practical approach is to attack the work process itself that is review the
operations, and apply automation and mechanisation. In such cases, a
productivity audit employing industrial engineering techniques are used for
evaluating the existing manufacturing situation and identify the potential for
increased productivity. Maynard Operation Sequence Technique (MOST) is a
good work measurement technique that allows greater variety of work (both
repetitive and non-repetitive) for manufacturing, engineering to administrative
service activities, which needs to be measured quickly with ease and accuracy.
This paper demonstrates the application of MOST technique through a case
study of process improvement for improving labour productivity at bathroom
appliances industry in casting section. The observational MOST study
improved the casting process time by 17.69% compared to stopwatch
technique. The MOST study is well accepted by the labourers compared to the
stopwatch technique during implementation of observational MOST technique.
Keywords: industrial engineering techniques; Maynard operation sequence
technique; MOST; labour productivity; stopwatch technique.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Jain, R., Gupta, S.,
Meena, M.L. and Dangayach, G.S. (2016) ‘Optimisation of labour productivity
using work measurement techniques’, Int. J. Productivity and Quality
Management, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.485–510.
Biographical notes: Rahul Jain is a Research Scholar in Department of
Mechanical Engineering in Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT)
Jaipur. He graduated in Production and Industrial Engineering from Rajasthan
Technical University, Kota in 2012. He obtained his Master’s in Manufacturing
System Engineering from MNIT Jaipur in 2014. He is pursuing his PhD from
MNIT Jaipur. His research areas are ergonomics, productivity, time study and
work study.
Sumit Gupta is a Research Scholar in Department of Mechanical Engineering
in Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT) Jaipur. He graduated in
Mechanical Engineering from University of Rajasthan, Jaipur in 2008. He
obtained his Master in Manufacturing System Engineering from MNIT Jaipur
in 2010. He has published research papers in various national and international
journals and conferences.

Copyright © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

486 R. Jain et al.

M.L. Meena is an Assistant Professor in Department of Mechanical

Engineering in Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT) Jaipur. He
graduated in Mechanical Engineering from University of Rajasthan, Jaipur in
the year 2005. He obtained his Master’s in Manufacturing System Engineering
from MNIT Jaipur. He earned his Doctorate in Industrial Engineering also at
MNIT Jaipur. His research areas are ergonomics and productivity engineering.
He has published five research papers in various international journals. He has
seven years of teaching and industrial experience.

G.S. Dangayach is a Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in

Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT) Jaipur. He graduated in
Mechanical Engineering from M.B.M. Engineering College Jodhpur in 1985.
He obtained his Master’s in Production Engineering from the Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT), Delhi. He earned his Doctorate in Industrial Engineering also
at IIT, Delhi. He has published 125 research papers in various national and
international journals. He is a Guest Editor of three international journals viz.
PPC, IJMTM and IJBPM. He is a reviewer of 25 international journals and
guided 13 PhD and 45 Master’s theses.

1 Introduction

Customer-focused (Singh and Singh, 2014) and rapid industrialisation (Gorantiwar and
Shrivastava, 2014) paradigm of business environment puts tremendous pressures on
quality, delivery, dependability, flexibility and various costs associated (Jaju et al., 2010)
with manufacturing organisation for delivering the desired product. Automatic
manufacturing systems (Mathur et al., 2011a, 2011b) and industrial engineering concepts
offer several advantages and are increasingly being adopted as a strategy to improve
performance of manufacturing organisations and employee satisfaction which is
important for organisation’s success and survival (Meena and Dangayach, 2012). The
quest for lower operating costs and improved manufacturing efficiency (Dangayach and
Deshmukh, 2001) has forced a large number of manufacturing firms to embark on
industrial engineering approaches to analyse and optimise their production.
Productivity reflects the ability (Sauian et al., 2013) to generate higher income or
value-added for the organisation and labour performance is affected by many factors and
is usually linked to the (Soekiman et al., 2011) time, cost, and quality constraints. A
common goal is to establish a continuous improvement process to achieve the same
added value with reduced resource utilisation (Womack and Jones, 2003). Meena et al.
(2014) state in his article that working environment is most essential factor which affects
the work quality of worker that is somehow related to the productivity of organisation.
Because productivity is the term that makes all the difference, for raising the prosperity
of any organisation in terms of cost-return analysis (Dwivedi et al., 2013), profitability
(Dwivedi et al., 2013) and operational efficiency (Dwivedi et al., 2013; Mathur et al.,
2011b). Integration of various functional groups within a manufacturing organisation
(Gunasekaran et al., 1994) can improve both productivity and quality in the organisation.
Inequalities in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita among the various
developing countries – primarily reflect differences in labour productivity growth
(Manyika et al., 2014). Currently, however, many countries lag significantly behind from
the USA as shown in Figure 1, especially in emerging markets. Both China and India,
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 487

which have experienced high levels of productivity growth in recent decades, but still
there is lots of improvement needed.

Figure 1 Progress towards productivity benchmarks1, GDP per employee in 1964 and 2012

Note: 1Excludes Russia because of lack of historical data.

Source: Conference Board; McKinsey Global Institute analysis

2 Literature review

Saito (2004) states various methods to identify an industrial engineering technique in his
article which needs to be applied on the process in any organisation. An audit to be done
according to three important factors of productivity method, performance, and utilisation
(including planning and control). For each factor, industrial engineering techniques such
488 R. Jain et al.

as work sampling and time studies are used to evaluate quantitatively and objectively the
effectiveness of the applied resources for any organisation in the existing situation and to
determine where and to what degree losses are occurring for every factor. The system for
such audits is shown in Table 1, of which some additional explanation may be useful.
Few literature has been identified for productivity (Desai, 2012; Gorantiwar and
Shrivastava, 2014; Salehi et al., 2013), quality (Desai, 2012; Gorantiwar and Shrivastava,
2014), continuous improvement (Singh and Singh, 2014) and optimisation of assembly
line (Kamaruddin et al., 2011; Soroush et al., 2014) in manufacturing industry. In all of
these articles, various optimisation tools like overall equipment effectiveness (Singh and
Singh, 2014), TQM (Gorantiwar and Shrivastava, 2014), Six Sigma (Desai, 2012) and
tools like heuristic, various algorithms and statistical techniques, etc. also used (Rane
et al., 2015) for assembly line optimisation. Kamaruddin et al. (2011) and Soroush et al.
(2014) used WITNESS, Arena software for simulation and Soroush et al. (2014) used
PAN software for better analysis of the developed solution. Salehi et al. (2013) used
nearest neighbour algorithm (NNA) in order to classify product for better labour
productivity measurement. But fewer empirical literature found on the Maynard
operation sequence technique (MOST) (Abdullah and Ahmad, 2010; Babu and Subbaiah,
2009; Kukreja, 2003; Ma et al., 2010; Norhelmy, 2009; Puvanasvaran et al., 2013;
Sawyer-Beaulieu and Tam, 2015; Tuan et al., 2014), time study (Abdullah and Ahmad,
2010; Babu and Subbaiah, 2009; Kukreja, 2003; Ma et al., 2010; Puvanasvaran et al.,
2013; Razmi and Niyaee, 2008) and labour productivity (Czumanski and Lodding, 2012;
Durdyev and Mbachu, 2011; Fallahi et al., 2011; Kodithuwakku and Priyanath., 2007;
Meena et al., 2011; Rothwell, 1982; Soekiman et al, 2011; Tilton, 2001) which has been
selected for this study and also best suitable for doing the optimisation in our case of
investigation. In these studies, various aspects related to the labour productivity are
discussed that how these are related to the national productivity and GDP of a country;
financial benefits of the organisation; satisfaction of labour; and schedule of activities.
Various work measurement techniques are also discussed and used in these studies for
improvement of process and labour productivity, but results obtained by MOST, which is
a work measurement technique that basically concentrates on the movement of objects
are fare better than other work measurement techniques.
In Indian context, MOST is not that much popular for doing research as compare to
other industrial techniques and only few literatures have discussed (Belokar et al., 2012;
Gnanavelu et al., 2013; Harish et al., 2012; Gupta and Chandrawat, 2012; Jamil et al.,
2013; Kanda et al., 2013; Vikram et al., 2012) that how MOST can be used for improving
productivity and establishing time standards for a particular process mainly in
manufacturing organisation. Rane et al. (2015) discussed about the complexity of
assembly line in Indian vehicle industries and this study also stated that for improving
performance in Indian industries is crucial, but industries still follow techniques like time
study and MOST. Production in the Indian industries is still depends on labour because
fully automation is not present, so there is need of research on work measurement
techniques used in the Indian industries that will help industries to achieve the
optimisation in manufacturing assembly line.
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 489

Table 1 System for surveying the potential for improvement

Operator Machine Material

Method Actions • Confirm • Determine actual • Determine losses
factor percentage for machine time. caused by
basic functions. product design.
• Estimate the
• Estimate the potential for • Estimate the
operator reduction reduction of potential (%) for
factor. machine time. improvement of
yield.
Techniques • Work sampling. • Pitch diagrams. • Design review.
• Human-machine • Sequence charts. • Value-added
charts. analysis.
• 4W (what, who,
why, where)
charts.
Performance Actions • Confirm present • Confirm the • Confirm the
factor performance level. facility quality of
performance. material and
• Estimate
parts.
performance • Estimate the
improvement potential (%) for • Estimate
potential (%). improvement of potential for
performance. increasing
first-pass yield.
Techniques • MOST analysis. • Work sampling. • Yield analysis.
• Direct time study. • Material • Analysis of
analysis. failure causes.
• Output analysis.
• Analysis of
materials.
Utilisation Actions • Confirm • Confirm • Confirm
factor utilisation loss. utilisation loss. utilisation loss.
• Estimate the • Estimate the • Estimate the
potential (%) for potential (%) for potential (%) for
improvement of improving improving
the utilisation utilisation. utilisation.
factor.
Techniques • Analysis of setup • Downtime • Scrap rate
procedures. analysis. analysis.
• Investigate the • Work sampling. • Inventory
impact of staffing analysis.
• Analyse space
changes.
utilisation. • Investigate
• Work sampling. alternative
materials.
490 R. Jain et al.

3 Research methodology

Basic principles of work measurement (Baines, 1995) make a significant contribution to

the pursuit of effective working and high productivity. The following are the principal
techniques (Kanawaty, 1992) by which work measurement is carried out:
• time study
• activity sampling
• predetermined motion time systems
• synthesis from standard data
• estimating
• analytical estimating
• comparative estimating
• MOST.
From these all eight techniques, this paper concerns with time study and MOST.
Research methodology (Kothari, 2004) is a way to systematically study and solve the
research problems. A research problem here was to analyse the labour resources under
the casting section having five subsections: loading, unloading, mould filing, polishing,
cleaning. Comparison of MOST and stopwatch technique can be done for the every
subsections having well-defined work methods for utilising the resources for the casting
section. The study was carried out in three phases:
• stopwatch study using palmtop
• basic MOST time calculation then
• comparison between the both processes.
MOST is a powerful analytical tool to measure every minute spent on a task. It makes the
analysis of work a practical, manageable and cost effective task (Salvendy, 2001). MOST
analysis is a complete study of an operation or sub-operation typically consisting of
several method steps and corresponding sequence model. MOST is comprised of work
study, method study, and work measurement.
The basic MOST system (Zandin, 1990) is the core of MOST work measurement
systems.

3.1 Stopwatch study

Once the method of doing the work has been determined by motion study, it is often
desirable to find out how much time is used to do the work. Many industries have
adopted some sort of a time study system to record the time on a job. The name time
study implies that some sort of a time-measuring device must be used. In this paper, the
role of time-measuring device is played by using the palmtop on which recording of time
and activity has been filled by the supervisor and this can be further used for analysis.
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 491

3.2 The basic MOST system

The basic MOST system satisfies the most work measurement situations in the
manufacturing arena. Every company very likely has some operations for which basic
MOST is the logical and most practical work measurement tool.
Consequently, only three activity sequences models are needed for describing manual
work. The basic MOST work measurement technique therefore comprises the following
three sequence models:

• General move sequence – for the spatial movement of an object freely through the
air
ABG ABP A
Get Put Return

• Controlled move sequence – for the movement of an object when it remains in

contact with a surface or is attached to another object during the movement.

The move sequence model is A B G M X I A, in which

ABG MXI A
Get Move or actuate Return

• Tool use sequence – for the use of common hand tools. However, the tool use
sequence model does not define a third basic activity – normally, it is a combination
of general move and controlled move activities. The tool use sequence model is
ABG ABP *ABP A, in which

ABG – Get Tool, ABP – Put Tool, * − Use Tool, ABP – Aside Tool, A – Return

In our case of investigation, most part of the study lies in between the first two sequences
because we have to deal with the labours not the machines.

3.3 Conceptual framework of study

Labour productivity is measured in terms of time taken by individual labour respondents

to complete the activity in five subsections of casting section. Lower the time required to
complete the activity, higher will be the labour productivity (Golden, 2012). Comparison
of the standard time derived from palmtop and MOST time derived from basic MOST
method can be done in this paper. Selection of sample size for every subsection will be
done on the basis of the concept stated by Shapiro and Wilk (1965) in his article that by
increasing the sample size, efficient results for the process will come. 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 presented in the next section.
492 R. Jain et al.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to perform activity in
loading section
In this section, comparison of standard time and basic MOST time for loading section
will be done; this comparison will clearly shows the time required to perform the activity
for individual labour in loading as presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time for loading section

Labour no. Standard time (in minutes) Basic MOST time (in minutes)
Labour 1 0.752 0.72
Labour 2 0.855 0.764
Labour 3 0.855 0.72
Labour 4 0.979 0.912
Labour 5 0.892 0.69

Figure 2 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to perform activity in loading
section (in minutes)

Standard Time
Basic MOST
1.0
Time
Time (in Minutes)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1 2 3 4 5
Labour Respondent

It can be inferred from Table 2 and Figure 2 that basic MOST time is less as compared to
the standard time taken by all five respondents to perform the selected activity in loading
subsection of casting section.

4.2 Improvement in productivity after application of basic MOST method in

loading section
After understanding the time required to perform the activity in loading section for each
selected labour respondent, it is necessary to understand that how much time is saved
after application of basic MOST method in loading section. The time saved will result in
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 493

the productivity improvement as this time can be utilised for labour respondents further
performance improvement. Table 3, Figure 3 and Figure 4 highlight the time saved and
corresponding improvement in productivity of each selected activity of loading section
after application of basic MOST method.
Table 3 Productivity improvement after application of basic MOST method in loading section

Time saved for Productivity

Labour Standard time Basic MOST time
loading section improvement for
no. (in minutes) (in minutes)
(in minutes) loading section (in %)
Labour 1 0.752 0.72 0.032 4.26
Labour 2 0.855 0.764 0.091 10.64
Labour 3 0.855 0.72 0.135 15.79
Labour 4 0.979 0.912 0.067 6.84
Labour 5 0.892 0.69 0.202 22.65

Figure 3 Time saved to perform activity in loading section after application of basic MOST
method (in minutes)

Time saved for loading section (in minutes)

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Labour Respondent

Thus, it can be said that application of Basic MOST method resulted in determining the
appropriate time (time to be saved) required performing the activity in loading section
resulting in the productivity improvement of labour respondents performing the activity.
From Figure 3 and 4, it can be easily said that the labours 3 and 5 saved greater amount
of time that will lead to comparatively higher productivity compare to other labour
respondents.
494 R. Jain et al.

Figure 4 Productivity improvement after application of basic MOST method in loading section
Productivity Improvement for loading section (in %)
25

20

15

10

1 2 3 4 5

Labour Respondent

4.3 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to perform activity in
unloading section
Table 4 and Figure 5 represent the comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to
perform activity in unloading section.
Table 4 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time for unloading section

Labour no. Standard time (in minutes) Basic MOST time (in minutes)
Labour 1 0.541 0.534
Labour 2 0.746 0.726
Labour 3 0.657 0.57
Labour 4 0.641 0.642
Labour 5 0.922 0.804
Labour 6 0.811 0.594
Labour 7 0.632 0.504
Labour 8 0.918 0.888
Labour 9 0.628 0.588
Labour 10 0.702 0.458
Labour 11 0.915 0.852
Labour 12 0.781 0.564
Labour 13 0.642 0.432
Labour 14 0.789 0.492
Labour 15 0.897 0.426
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 495

Figure 5 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to perform activity in unloading
section (in minutes)

Standard Time
1.0 Basic MOST Time

0.8
Time (in Minutes)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Labour Respondent

Thus, it can be said that basic MOST time is less as compared to the standard time taken
by nine labour respondents except one labour 4 will take higher time compared to
standard time to perform the selected activity in unloading subsection of casting section.
Table 5 Productivity improvement after application of basic MOST method in unloading
section

Standard Basic MOST Time saved for Productivity

Labour
time (in time (in unloading section improvement for
no.
minutes) minutes) (in minutes) unloading section (in %)
Labour 1 0.541 0.534 0.007 1.3
Labour 2 0.746 0.726 0.02 2.69
Labour 3 0.657 0.57 0.087 13.24
Labour 4 0.641 0.642 -0.001 -0.16
Labour 5 0.922 0.804 0.118 12.8
Labour 6 0.811 0.594 0.217 26.76
Labour 7 0.632 0.504 0.128 20.25
Labour 8 0.918 0.888 0.03 3.27
Labour 9 0.628 0.588 0.04 6.37
Labour 10 0.702 0.458 0.244 34.76
Labour 11 0.915 0.852 0.063 6.89
Labour 12 0.781 0.564 0.217 27.78
Labour 13 0.642 0.432 0.21 32.71
Labour 14 0.789 0.492 0.297 37.64
Labour 15 0.897 0.426 0.471 52.51
496 R. Jain et al.

4.4 Improvement in productivity after application of basic MOST method in

unloading section
Table 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the time saved and corresponding improvement in
productivity of each labour respondents performing selected activity in unloading section
after application of basic MOST method.

Figure 6 Time saved to perform activity in unloading section after application of basic MOST
method (in minutes)

Time saved for unloading section (in minutes)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Labour Respondent

Figure 7 Productivity improvement after application of basic MOST method in unloading section

Productivity Improvement for unloading section (in %)

60

50

40

30

20

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Labour Respondent
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 497

Thus, it can be said that application of basic MOST method resulted in determining the
appropriate time (time to be saved) required performing the activity in unloading section
resulting in the productivity improvement of labour respondents performing the activity.
From Figure 6 and 7, it can be easily said that labour 15 saved greater amount of time
that will lead to comparatively higher productivity compare to all other labour
respondents and labour 4 take more time than standard time so that will lead decrease in
productivity.

4.5 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to perform activity in
mould filling section
Table 6 and Figure 8 show the comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to
perform activity in mould filling section.
Table 6 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time for mould filling section

Labour no. Standard time (in minutes) Basic MOST time (in minutes)
Labour 1 0.473 0.456
Labour 2 0.347 0.312
Labour 3 0.285 0.264
Labour 4 0.268 0.246
Labour 5 0.275 0.186
Labour 6 0.342 0.246
Labour 7 0.313 0.252
Labour 8 0.299 0.192
Labour 9 0.291 0.21
Labour 10 0.318 0.192

Figure 8 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to perform activity in mould filling
section (in minutes)

Standard Time
Basic MOST Time
0.5
Time (in Minutes)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Labour Respondent
498 R. Jain et al.

Thus, it can be said that basic MOST time is less as compared to the standard time taken
by all ten labour respondents to perform the selected activity in mould filling subsection
of casting section.

4.6 Improvement in productivity after application of basic MOST method in

mould filling section
Table 7, Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the time saved and corresponding improvement in
productivity of each labour respondents performing selected activity in mould filling
section after application of basic MOST method.
Table 7 Productivity improvement after application of basic MOST method in mould filling
section

Standard Basic MOST Time saved for mould Productivity

Labour
time (in time (in filling section (in improvement for mould
no.
minutes) minutes) minutes) filling section (in %)
Labour 1 0.473 0.456 0.017 3.6
Labour 2 0.347 0.312 0.035 10.01
Labour 3 0.285 0.264 0.021 7.37
Labour 4 0.268 0.246 0.022 8.21
Labour 5 0.275 0.186 0.089 32.36
Labour 6 0.342 0.246 0.096 28.1
Labour 7 0.313 0.252 0.061 19.5
Labour 8 0.299 0.192 0.107 35.79
Labour 9 0.291 0.21 0.081 27.84
Labour 10 0.318 0.192 0.126 39.62

Figure 9 Time saved to perform activity in mould filling section after application of basic MOST
method (in minutes)

Time saved for mould filling section (in minutes)

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Labour Respondent
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 499

Figure 10 Productivity improvement after application of basic MOST method in mould filling
section

Productivity Improvement for mould filling section (in%)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Labour Respondent

Thus, it can be said that the application of basic MOST method resulted in determining
the appropriate time (time to be saved) required performing the activity in mould filling
section leading to the improvement in productivity of labour respondents performing the
activity. From Figure 9 and 10, it can be easily said that labours 8 and 10 saved greater
amount of time that will lead to comparatively higher productivity compare to all other
labour respondents.

4.7 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to perform activity in
polishing section
Table 8 and Figure 11 show the comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to
perform activity in polishing section.
Table 8 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time for polishing section

Labour no. Standard time (in minutes) Basic MOST Time (in minutes)
Labour 1 0.251 0.246
Labour 2 0.246 0.234
Labour 3 0.264 0.234
Labour 4 0.165 0.15
Labour 5 0.225 0.168
Labour 6 0.237 0.156
Labour 7 0.283 0.234
Labour 8 0.276 0.186
Labour 9 0.234 0.174
Labour 10 0.222 0.144
500 R. Jain et al.

Figure 11 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to perform activity in polishing
section (in minutes)

Standard Time
Basic MOST Time
0.30
Time (in Minutes)

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Labour Respondent

Thus, it can be said that basic MOST time is less as compared to the standard time taken
by all ten labour respondents to perform the selected activity in polishing subsection of
casting section.

4.8 Improvement in productivity after application of basic MOST method in

polishing section
Table 9, Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the time saved and corresponding improvement in
productivity of each labour respondents performing selected activity in polishing section
after application of basic MOST method.
Table 9 Productivity improvement after application of basic MOST method in polishing
section

Standard Basic MOST Time saved for Productivity

Labour
time (in time (in polishing section improvement for
no.
minutes) minutes) (in minutes) polishing section (in %)
Labour 1 0.251 0.246 0.005 1.99
Labour 2 0.246 0.234 0.012 4.88
Labour 3 0.264 0.234 0.03 11.36
Labour 4 0.165 0.15 0.015 9.09
Labour 5 0.225 0.168 0.057 25.34
Labour 6 0.237 0.156 0.081 34.18
Labour 7 0.283 0.234 0.049 17.31
Labour 8 0.276 0.186 0.09 32.61
Labour 9 0.234 0.174 0.06 25.64
Labour 10 0.222 0.144 0.078 35.14
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 501

Figure 12 Time saved to perform activity in polishing section after application of basic MOST
method (in minutes)

Time saved for polishing section (in minutes)

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Labour Respondent

Figure 13 Productivity Improvement after application of basic MOST method in polishing

section

Productivity Improvement for polishing section (in %)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Labour Respondent

Thus, it can be said that the application of basic MOST method resulted in determining
the appropriate time (time to be saved) required performing the activity in polishing
section leading to the improvement in productivity of labour respondents performing the
activity. From Figure 12 and 13, it can be easily said that labours 6, 8 and 10 saved
502 R. Jain et al.

greater amount of time that will lead to comparatively higher productivity compare to all
other labour respondents.

4.9 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to perform activity in
cleaning section
Table 10 and Figure 14 show the comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to
perform activity in cleaning section.
Table 10 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time for cleaning section

Labour no. Standard time (in minutes) Basic MOST time (in minutes)
Labour 1 0.817 0.78
Labour 2 0.826 0.746
Labour 3 0.722 0.564
Labour 4 0.733 0.594
Labour 5 0.781 0.57

Figure 14 Comparison of standard time and basic MOST time to perform activity in cleaning
section (in minutes)
Standard Time
0.9 Basic MOST Time

0.8
Time (in Minutes)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
1 2 3 4 5
Labour Respondent

Thus, it can be said that basic MOST time is less as compared to the standard time taken
by all five labour respondents to perform the selected activity in cleaning subsection of
casting section.

4.10 Improvement in productivity after application of basic MOST method in

cleaning section
Table 11, Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the time saved and corresponding improvement
in productivity of each labour respondents performing selected activity in cleaning
section after application of basic MOST method.
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 503

Table 11 Productivity improvement after application of basic MOST method in cleaning

section

Time saved for Productivity

Labour Standard time Basic MOST
cleaning section improvement for
no. (in minutes) time (in minutes)
(in minutes) cleaning section (in %)
Labour 1 0.817 0.78 0.037 4.53
Labour 2 0.826 0.746 0.08 9.68
Labour 3 0.722 0.564 0.158 21.88
Labour 4 0.733 0.594 0.139 18.96
Labour 5 0.781 0.57 0.211 27.02

Figure 15 Time saved to perform activity in cleaning section after application of basic MOST
method (in minutes)
Time saved for cleaning section (in minutes)
0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Labour Respondent

Figure 16 Productivity improvement after application of basic MOST method in cleaning section
Productivity Improvement for cleaning section (in %)
30

25

20

15

10

1 2 3 4 5

Labour Respondent
504 R. Jain et al.

Thus, it can be said that the application of Basic MOST method resulted in determining
the appropriate time (time to be saved) required performing the activity in cleaning
section leading to the improvement in productivity of labour respondents performing the
activity. From Figure 15 and 16, it can be easily said that labour 5 saved greater amount
of time that will lead to comparatively higher productivity compare to all other labour
respondents.

4.11 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, range of
productivity improvement for all the selected labour respondents from loading,
unloading, mould filling, polishing and cleaning section. The range of productivity
improvement is classified as less than 1, 1–10, 11–20, 21–30, 31–40, 41–50 and 51
above. Table 12 and Figure 17 show section wise, labour respondent who belong to the
corresponding range of labour productivity improvement.
Table 12 Productivity improvement of labour respondents after application of basic MOST
method (in number)

Range of productivity Mould

Loading Unloading Polishing Cleaning Total
improvement (in %) filling
<0 0 1 0 0 0 1
1%–10% 2 5 3 3 2 15
11%–20% 2 2 2 2 1 9
21%–30% 1 3 3 2 2 11
31%–40% 0 3 2 3 0 8
41%–50% 0 0 0 0 0 0
> 51% 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 5 15 10 10 5 45

Out of 45 labour respondents, maximum number, i.e., 15 contributes in the range of 1%

to 10% of productivity improvement from all the selected sections. Eleven labour shows
their productivity is improved after using basic MOST method between 21% to 30%.
Whereas, nine labour respondents show the productivity improvement between 10% to
20%. Overall result shows that labour productivity is improved after using basic MOST
method than that of stopwatch time study method.

4.12 Summary of results

A brief summary of results of comparison done in Table 13 which shows how good the
application of the MOST at manufacturing site.
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 505

Figure 17 Productivity improvement of labour respondents after application of basic MOST

method (in number) (see online version for colours)
Range of Productivity Improvement (%)

Total

>51 %

41 - 50 % Cleaning
Polishing
31 - 40 %
Mould Filling
21 - 30 % Unloading
Loading
11 - 20 %

1 - 10 %

<1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Table 13 Comparison between MOST and stopwatch time values

Time calculated by time Time calculated

Sub operation Unit relative
S. no. stopwatch technique (in by MOST (in
name deviation (in %)
minutes) minutes)
1 Loading 4.333 3.806 –12.16
2 Unloading 11.222 9.074 –19.14
3 Mould filling 3.211 2.556 –20.39
4 Polishing 2.403 1.926 –19.85
5 Cleaning 3.879 3.254 –16.11
Total 25.048 20.616 –17.69

So this table shows that this study improved the labour productivity for all the
subsections in term of time likewise; for loading 12.16%, unloading 19.14%, mould
filling 20.39%, polishing 19.85%, cleaning 16.11% and overall 17.69% reduction in the
time that shows MOST is successfully implemented for the casting section. Also, the
labour improvement also takes place, so this shows the MOST is successfully
implemented. The time and effort required in establishing the time values for various
operation is very less when compared with the stopwatch method. This proves the
effectiveness of the MOST in work measurement area.

5 Concluding remarks

5.1 Main contribution of research

Main contributions of this research lie in these points as below:
506 R. Jain et al.

• The operators’ manual activities are discovered for weakness and strength point of
view. So that it can be further improved and the standard time for each process could
be determined.

• This study also helps to establish the standard time which could save time and
remove fatigue of workers.

• The study revealed that the MOST can be successfully utilised to determine the
non-value added time associated with various work elements/parameters in the
organisation.

5.2 Limitations of study

• For every subsection, MOST implemented successfully except some labour
respondent’s takes greater or exactly close to standard time for completing the
activity in the various subsections that is due to the improper following of the given
rules for applications of the training of MOST and absenteeism of mind during
training.

• Cooperation between the worker and supervisor plays crucial role for working on the
assembly lines that sometimes lacks in our case.

• Sometime decisive power given to the worker is not that much to take decision
which are they willing to do for better implementation of process.

5.3 Managerial implications

• Process of MOST is very interesting to utilise and balance the entire work layout by
identifying the bottlenecks and non-value added activities that seem very helpful for
prepare a fruitful planning for operational mangers.

• Results from the study provide a great competitive environment for working and also
help operation mangers to take effective decisions to attain higher labour
productivity.

• This study provides a road map to the operation manager for working on the
manufacturing industries as well as other industries also for improvement in the
productivity.

5.4 Future research

The work done can be further extended in the selection of best layout for various
departments in the organisational processes as time of the activities for various alternative
layouts at a very fast rate without actually implementing it in reality and it can be
extended for other assembly line and patterns or products in same industry as well as in
other industries also.
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 507

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments,
which has been improved the contents and format of this paper.

References
Abdullah, R. and Ahmad, N.H. (2010) ‘Development of automated Maynard operation sequence
technique (MOST) work study technique: case study at aerospace manufacturing company
using lean six sigma’, Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Science and
Technology: Applications in Industry and Education, The Gurney Resort Hotel and Residence,
Penang, 16–17 December.
Babu, T.S. and Subbaiah, K.V. (2009) ‘Work measurement in body shop through Maynard
operation sequence technique (MOST) at Mahindra & Mahindra, Zaheerabad plant’,
International Journal of Materials Science, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.49–56.
Baines, A. (1995) ‘Work measurement – the basic principles revisited’, Work Study, Vol. 44, No. 7,
pp.10–14.
Belokar, R.M., Dhull, Y., Nain, S. and Nain, S. (2012) ‘Optimization of time by elimination of
unproductive activities through ‘MOST’’, International Journal of Innovative Technology and
Exploring Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.77–80.
Czumanski, T. and Lodding, H. (2012) ‘Integral Analysis of labour productivity’, in Procedia
CIRP, 45th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems, University of Patras, Laboratory for
Manufacturing Systems and Automation, in Athens, Vol. 3, pp.55–60.
Dangayach, G.S. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2001) ‘Practice of manufacturing strategy: evidences from
select Indian automobile companies’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 39,
No. 11, pp.2353–2393.
Desai, D.A. (2012) ‘Quality and productivity improvement through six sigma in foundry industry’,
International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.258–280.
Durdyev, S. and Mbachu, J. (2011) ‘On-site labour productivity of New Zealand construction
industry: key constraints and improvement measures’, Australasian Journal of Construction
Economics and Building, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.18–33.
Dwivedi, A.K., Dwivedi, N.T., Sah, B. and Dangayach, G.S. (2013) ‘Operational efficiency and
profitability measurement of Indian gur (jaggery) manufacturers’, International Journal of
Procurement Management, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.466–480.
Fallahi, F., Sojoodi, S. and Aslaninia, N.M. (2011) ‘Determinants of labour productivity in Iran’s
manufacturing firms: with emphasis on labour education and training’, International
Conference on Applied Economics – ICOAE, Italy, pp.169–178.
Gnanavelu, D., Shivappa, D.N. and Reddy J.R. (2013) ‘Establishing time standards for hydraulic
cylinder assembly operations using MOST’, International Journal of Emerging Technology
and Advanced Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 11, pp.102–108.
Golden, L. (2012) The Effects of Working Time on Productivity and Firm Performance: A Research
Synthesis Paper, Technical Report, International Labour Organization, Geneva [online]
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@protrav/@travail/documents/
publication/wcms_187307.pdf (accessed 2 February 2014).
Gorantiwar, V.S. and Shrivastava, R.L. (2014) ‘Identification of critical success factors for quality
productivity management approach in different industries’, International Journal of
Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.66–106.
Gunasekaran, A., Korukonda, A.R., Virtanen, I. and Yli-Olli, P. (1994) ‘Improving productivity
and quality in manufacturing organizations’, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.169–183.
508 R. Jain et al.

Gupta, P.K. and Chandrawat, S.S. (2012) ‘To improve work force productivity in a medium size
manufacturing enterprise by MOST technique’, IOSR Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 10,
pp.8–15.
Harish, H., Shivappa, D.N. and Sangamesh, J. (2012) ‘Establishing time standards for assembly
activity in chassis preparation area using MOST’, Proceedings of the National Conference on
Trends and Advances in Mechanical Engineering, YMCA University, Faridabad, India,
pp.819–827.
Jaju, B., Lakhe, R.R. and Bhagde, S.S. (2010) ‘Development of empirical quality cost model for a
manufacturing industry’, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management,
Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.48–70.
Jamil, M., Gupta, M., Saxena, A. and Agnihotri, V. (2013) ‘Optimization of productivity by work
force management through ergonomics and standardization of process activities using
M.O.S.T analysis – a case study’, Global Journal of Researches in Engineering Mechanical
and Mechanics Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.45–56.
Kamaruddin, S., Khoo, S.Y., Khan, Z.A. and Siddiquee, A.N. (2011) ‘The effect of layout design
on productivity: an empirical study’, International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.484–500.
Kanawaty, G. (1992) Introduction to Work Study, 4th ed., International Labour Office, Geneva.
Kanda, R., Akhai, S. and Bansal, R. (2013) ‘Analysis of MOST technique for elimination of ideal
time by synchronization of different lines’, International Journal of Research in Advent
Technology, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.151–158.
Kodithuwakku, S. and Priyanath, H.M.S. (2007) ‘Reasons for the improvement of labour
productivity in tea plantations after privatization with special reference to the estate labourers
in the Ratnapura district’, Sabaragamuwa University Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.37–47.
Kothari, C.R. (2004) Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, 2nd ed., New Age
International (P) Limited Publishers, New Delhi.
Kukreja, V. (2003) Time Study of Bolt Making Process at LPS Ltd. using Maynard Operation
Sequence Technique, Unpublished MTech Thesis, Delhi College of Engineering, Delhi.
Ma, L., Zhang, W., Fu, H., Guo, Y., Chablat, D., Bennis, F., Sawanoi, A. and Fugiwara, N. (2010)
‘A framework for interactive work design based on motion tracking, simulation, and analysis’,
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.339–352.
Manyika, J., Remes, J. and Woetzel, J. (2014) ‘A productivity perspective on the future of growth’,
McKinsey Quarterly, Article Report, McKinsey & Company, New York City, USA [online]
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/a_productivity_perspective_on_the_
future_of_growth (accessed 7 January 2015).
Mathur, A., Dangayach, G.S., Mittal, M.L. and Sharma, M.K. (2011a) ‘Improving productivity in
Indian SMEs’, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 23, Nos. 10–11, pp.754–768.
Mathur, A., Dangayach, G.S., Mittal, M.L. and Sharma, M.K. (2011b) ‘Performance measurement
in automated manufacturing’, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.77–91.
Meena, M.L. and Dangayach, G.S. (2012) ‘Analysis of employee satisfaction in banking sector’,
International Journal of Humanities and Applied Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.78–81.
Meena, M.L., Dangayach, G.S. and Bhardwaj, A. (2011) ‘Impact of ergonomic factors in handicraft
industries’, in Proceedings of the International conference of Mechanical, production and
Automobile Engineering, Planetary Scientific Research Center (PSRC), Pattaya, Thailand,
pp.247–250.
Meena, M.L., Dangayach, G.S. and Bhardwaj, A. (2014) ‘Measuring quality of work life among
workers in handicraft industries in Jaipur’, International Journal of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.376–390.
 Optimisation of labour productivity using work measurement techniques 509

Norhelmy, R. (2009) Work Study Utilizing Maynard Operation Sequence Technique at Aerospace
Manufacturing Company: A Case Study at a 320 Spoiler Project, Project Report, UTeM,
Melaka, Malaysia [online] http://eprints2.utem.edu.my/4564/2/Work_Study_Utilizing_
Maynard_Operation_Sequence_Technique_At_Aerospace_manufacturing_Company_-
_A_Case_Study_At_A320_Spoiler_Project.pdf (accessed 15 March 2014)
Puvanasvaran, A.P., Mei, C.Z. and Alagendran, V.A. (2013) ‘Overall equipment efficiency
improvement using time study in an aerospace industry’, in Procedia Engineering,
International Tribology Conference Malaysia, Centre for Advanced Research on Energy,
Melaka, Malaysia, Vol. 68, pp.271–277.
Rane, A.B., Sudhakar, D.S.S., Sunnapwar, V.K. and Rane, S. (2015) ‘Improving the performance
of assembly line: review with case study’, in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Nascent
Technologies in the Engineering Field (ICNTE 2015), Mumbai, pp.1–14.
Razmi, J. and Niyaee, M.S. (2008) ‘Developing a specific predetermined time study approach: an
empirical study in a car industry’, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 19, No. 5,
pp.454–460.
Rothwell, S. (1982) ‘Productivity improvement through reduced labour turnover’, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.67–76.
Saito, S. (2004) ‘Chapter 2.9: case study: reducing labour costs using industrial engineering
techniques’, in Mynard, H.B. (Ed.): Industrial Engineering Handbook, 3rd ed., pp.151–164,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Salehi, M., Shirouyehzad, H. and Dabestani, R. (2013) ‘Labour productivity measurement through
classification and standardisation of products’, International Journal of Productivity and
Quality Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.57–72.
Salvendy, G. (2001) Handbook of Industrial Engineering, 3rd ed., Wiley Interscience, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., Canada.
Sauian, M.S., Kamarudin, N. and Rani, R.M. (2013) ‘Labor productivity of services sector in
Malaysia: analysis using input-output approach’, in Procedia Economics and Finance,
International Conference on Economics and Business Research, Penag, Malaysia, Vol. 7,
pp.35–41.
Sawyer-Beaulieu, S. and Tam, E. (2015) ‘Maximizing automotive parts reuse, remanufacturing,
and recycling through effective end-of-life vehicle management: a different perspective on
what needs to be done’, SAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing, Vol. 8,
No. 1, pp.118–127.
Shapiro, S.S. and Wilk, M.B. (1965) ‘An analysis of variance test for normality (complete
samples)’, Biometrika, Vol. 52, Nos. 3–4, pp.591–611.
Singh, J. and Singh, H. (2014) ‘Performance enhancement of a manufacturing industry by using
continuous improvement strategies – a case study’, International Journal of Productivity and
Quality Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.36–65.
Soekiman, A., Pribadi, K.S., Soemardi, B.W. and Wirahadikusumah, R.D. (2011) ‘Factors relating
to labor productivity affecting the project schedule performance in Indonesia’, in Procedia
Engineering, The Proceedings of the Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural
Engineering and Construction, Department of Building and Construction City University of
Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, Vol. 14, pp.865–873.
Soroush, H., Sajjadi, S.M. and Arabzad, S.M. (2014) ‘Efficiency analysis and optimisation of a
multi-product assembly line using simulation’, International Journal of Productivity and
Quality Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.89–104.
Tilton, J.E. (2001) ‘Labour productivity, costs, and mine survival during a recession’, Resources
Policy, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.107–117.
510 R. Jain et al.

Tuan, S.T., Karim, A.N.M., Emrul, H.M.K., Amin, A.K.M.N. and Hasan, M.H. (2014)
‘Improvement of workflow and productivity through application of Maynard operation
sequence technique (MOST)’, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Operations Management, Bali, Indonesia, pp.2162–2171.
Vikram, K.V., Shivappa, D.N. and Sangamesha, J. (2012) ‘Establishing time standards for fixing
body side panel to the chassis in assembly line using MOST’, Proceedings of the National
Conference on Trends and Advances in Mechanical Engineering, YMCA University,
Faridabad, India, pp.811–818.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2010) Lean Thinking, 2nd ed., Free Press, New York.
Zandin, K.B. (1990) MOST Work Measurement Systems, 2nd ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.