Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Assembly
Abstract
Increased market competition has moved companies more towards 'customization' of their products and
services. Therefore, it has become the norm rather than the exception for companies to update their
operations continuously. Predetermined Motion Time Systems (PMTS) have become attractive and useful
evaluation tools in this endeavor. BasicMOST, as an example of PMTS systems, was applied to the
assembly of door locks. The results showed no significant differences between the standard times
determined from BasicMOST and these obtained from conventional time studies.
Keywords
MOST, Time Study, PMTS, Accuracy
1. Introduction
Predetermined Motion-Time Systems (PMTS) combines the best practices from the principles of motion
study of the Gilbreths with the techniques of time study of Taylor [1]. The PMTS utilize previously
established standard time data of basic motions, to determine standard times of manual operations. The
most well known of these systems is Methods-Time Measurement (MTM).
For PMTS , work measurement became a matter of devising the best motion pattern to perform a specific
task, and assigning the appropriate established time from catalogued data, for each basic motion in that
pattern. As a result, PMTS became increasingly attractive to analysts because of their consistency [2,3]. In
addition, PMTS circumvent one the controversial issue of ‘performance rating’ that is inherits in
conventional work measurement methods.
Several PMTS methods had been computerized which made them easier to learn, faster in determining
standard, and more capable of mass data update [4]. The latter, made these system economically
advantageous to meet the frequent changes in processes to meet the ever-changing customer needs.
2. BasicMOST System
BasicMOST system [1], compared to other PMTS systems, concentrates on the movement of ‘objects’
rather than the basic motions of ‘worker’. This lead to using fewer elements in describing operations that
consequently made the technique simpler to use, faster to implement, and more economical to use when
compared to other PMTS systems. The fewer elements used in describing the operation, together with the
smaller number of parameter used with these elements, made the system less susceptible to applicator’s
deviations. In that regard it can be looked at as an enhancement to other exiting PMTS systems
BasicMOST is one of three available modules in the family of MOST (Maynard Operation Sequence
Technique). Basic MOST [1] is recommended for operation time that extends from few seconds to 10
minutes, with 0.5-3.0 minutes being a typical time.
BasicMOST has three types of sequence models, General Move, Controlled Move, and Tool Use. With the
proper combinations of these models, any operation can be modeled [1,4]. The General Move Sequence is
characterized by a sequence of unrestricted spatial displacement of an object under manual control. It is
described as:
1.Use one or two hands to reach the object(s) with distance. The body movement might be used as
appropriate in order to help the movement of the object.
2. Gain manual control of the object.
3. Move the object with a distance to the target point of placement. The body movement might be used
as appropriate in order to help the movement of the object(s).
4. Place the object in a required position.
5. Return to workplace or in the normal working position.
These five steps can be represented by five parameters in three distinct phases as
The indexes (subscripts x, y, etc) associated with each parameter are catalogued on data cards.Table(2)
shows a representative column from data card for the values of index ‘x’, in TMU (Time Measurement
Units)
In the BasicMOST software, there are drop-down lists of indexes values for all parameters. The time of the
activity that is represented by the model is determined by adding the values of the indexes (x, y, etc). As
shown in Table (2), the value of the index will depend on the description of the parameter. Therefore, it
becomes necessary for the user to understand the different descriptions of each parameter, as it will affect
the calculated time of the model, and hence, the accuracy of the sub-operations and operations.
The same applies for both the Controlled Move and the Tool Use sequence models. Details on these
modules can be found Zandin[1].
3. Case Study
A mortise door lock with 26 components to be assembled was selected to study the accuracy of the
BasicMOST. The workstation ( Fig. 1) was designed to permit the operator to assemble two locks every
cycle. Components, tools (power, manual testing/inspection), labeling, and assembled locks were placed
within reach from the operator. The components were placed in multi-rows gravity feed bins and power
tools were suspended in front of the operator. The operator chooses the most comfortable posture to do the
work (sitting, standing, etc). The work environment is clean, the ambient temperature is very comfortable,
and the lighting is good with adjustable lamp position. The operator is expected to assemble 150 locks (i.e.
75 cycles) during the production time of 6.5 hours.
Power
Label Screwdriver
Stickers
Parts’
Bins
Assembly
Table
The ‘operation’ time will be determined using conventional standard time method (CM) and BasicMOST.
The results will be compared and analyzed
where, Ri is the performance rating of the worker who carries out element i.
It should be pointed out that the objective of this work is to compare the techniques of Basic MOST and
traditional method and not to calculate a standard time for the assembly. Therefore, the normal times are
used in the analysis instead of the standard times. It should be also added that the allowances are
independent from the measurement techniques.
For ease of analysis and comparison of results with these from the CM, the same work elements, Table (3),
that were developed for the CM, were used as the sub-operations of BasicMOST (step 1). From the video
recorded earlier for the CM, the sub-operation is broken down to logical activities that are represented by
adequate sequence models (step 2&3). The values of the indices are selected for the parameters of the
models (step 4). Finally, adding the values of indices give the normal time of the operation (step 5) which is
required for this study. However, if needed, the standard time of the operation can be determined as
explained in section 3.1.7.
The BasicMOST software (university version) was used in this study. It is designed so that models,
parameters, and indices can be easily selected and the normal times calculated. It can develop database that
can be used to store, retrieve, modify and/or develop time standard. The editing and printing capabilities are
also included.
The accuracies of the CM times are calculated from {+ tα,n-1*[ (s/(n)0..5] } where tα,n is t-value from
Student’s distribution at significance level of α and degree of freedom (n-1), s is the standard deviation
from observations, and n is the number of observed cycles. The results shown in Table (4) were calculated
for α=0.05 (confidence level 95%), n=26, and t (0.025,25) =2.060.
The accuracy of the BasicMOST time is determined from [+ t * re] where t is the operation (or element)
time, and ‘re ‘ is the allowed deviation ‘re’ in any element of the operation that is repeated ‘n’ times over
the production period ‘BP’ and which would guarantee the + 5% accuracy in the calculated total operation
time. The values of ‘re’ are determined from {+ 0.05 * [BP/(n*t)] 0.5 } using BP=6.5 hours and n =75
cycles ( See section 3). More Details about the accuracies for both CM and BasicMOST can be found in
Rabie [8] and Zandin [1]
Examining the times in Table (4), CM (column 2) and BasicMOST(column3), and taking into account the
accuracies, it can be seen that these times overlap. This indicates that there is no significant difference
between the two methods in determining the normal ‘true times’. This could be supported with the
argument that, as stated in [1], that the ‘true time’ in work measurement is indeterminate. . The use of direct
observations in CM methods does not lend the determined normal times to be automatically exact or true.
This is because the ‘performance ratings’ used in calculating these times, involve subjective judgments
from analysts, which would vary from one analyst to the other. Therefore, if it is assumed that the time
study and measurements are thoroughly conducted for both methods, and that calculated times overlap, it is
creditable to assume that the ‘true time’ would lie some where in the overlapping region. (More case
studies should be analyzed to be able to assert this fact with some level of confidence).
6.Conclusions
1. There is no significant difference between the normal times evaluated from BacisMOST
and conventional time study methods
2. Compared to conventional methods, the accuracy of BasicMOST can be predicted in advance from
statistically developed expressions
3. The procedure of Basic MOST eliminates the controversial calculation and time consuming
efforts used in the conventional work measurements, i.e., worker qualifying, performance
rating, and the selection of sample size.
4. Standard times calculated by BasicMOST are faster to obtain when compared to conventional
methods. In addition of its cost advantages, it makes BasicMOST more responsive to the
ever-changing processes to meet customer needs.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Mr. P. Putthawong, B.S, M.S, for performing the time study when he was in
the M.S Industrial Engineering graduate program at The University of Southern Colorado (Pueblo). At
present, Mr. Putthawong works in quality control at LTEC Ltd (a subsidiary of Fujikura, Japan), Chiang-
Mai, Thailand
References
1. Zandin, K.B., 1990, MOST: Work Measurement Systems, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York
2. Brown, A., 1992, “Office Work Measurement by PADS”, Work Study, 4, 18-26
3. Gowan, C., 1999, “Which Work Measurement Tool?” Manufacturing Engineering, 122, 18
4. Genaidy, A.M., Agrawal, A., and Mital A, 1990, “Computerized Predetermined Motion-Time System
in Manufacturing Industries”, Computer Industrial Engineering, 18,571-584
5. Kanawaty, G.(ed), 1992, Introduction to Work Study, ILO
6. Mayer, R., 1975, Production and Operation Management, McGraw Hill, New York
7. Lowry, S., Maynard, H., and Stegemerten, G., 1940, Time & Motion Study and Formulas for Wage
Incentives, 3rd ed, McGraw Hill, New York, New York
8. Rabie, A., 2001,”Evaluation of the Accuracy of BasicMOST,” Proc. IERC-2001, May 20-23, Dallas,
Texas (to be published)
Biographical sketch
Abdelrahman Rabie
Current position :
Associate Professor
Integrated Science and Technology Department
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia
Education:
1982 PhD Mech. Eng, Univ. of Nottingham, England
1974 M.Sc Manufacturing Techn., Univ. of Manchester, England
1996 B.Sc Production Eng., Cairo Univ, Egypt
Experience:
Have academic experience in higher education in different engineering programs in USA, Saudi Arabia,
and Egypt. Have technical management experience of manufacturing plants.
I
Current research and interests:
Manufacturing systems, Methods Engineering, Manufacturing Processes, and Integration of
Science/Engineering/Technology in higher education