OPERATOR WORKLOAD EVALUATION IN LOGISTICS AND BONDED SERVICE OF AIRCRAFT

MAINTENANCE REPAIR AND OVERHAUL COMPANY USING REPETITIVE STOPWATCH

TIME STUDY MEASUREMENT AND NASA-TLX METHODS

Ghozy Muhammad Fawwaz Amru*1), Nicolaz Arif Fachrosin*2), Muhammad Reza Syahputra Purnomo*3)

1, 2,3)
Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Industrial Technology,
Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Email: 15522365@students.uii.ac.id*1), 16522060@students.uii.ac.id*2), 16522205@students.uii.ac.id*3)

Abstract: X Company is an international company based in Indonesia that provides aircraft services for various
types and is one of the largest aircraft maintenance facilities in Asia. X Company companies with a business unit
consisting of 8 main products including Line Maintenance, Outstation Line Maintenance, Base Maintenance,
Component Services, Engine Maintenance, Cabin Maintenance, Material Services, and Engineering Services
which are very dependent on Logistic & Bonded Services (TG) as unit tasked to deliver every goods for domestic,
export, import, custom brokerage, packaging, warehousing, AOG services, and Bonded Logistics Center (PLB)
facilities. Since X Company has become the Bonded Logistics Center of the Indonesian Ministry of Finance in
2016, X Company has had to maintain its performance in providing logistics-related services. The initial step to
maintain and improve performance is to conduct performance appraisals. One of the main parameters that can
measure the performance of the TG unit is from cycle time, normal time, and standard time. Measurement of the
time for each item processing activity needs to be done as an initiation before making improvements. A method
that is accurate enough to measure time or better known as Time Study, using repetitive stopwatch. However, this
method is usually used to measure production time whereas in this study, time study is carried out on the process
of checking goods starting from unloading, document checking, inspect, goods receipt, order transfer, and
outgoing for each type of product. With this method, it can be seen the standard time of each processing activity
for each type of product available. OEM Expendable type products have a standard time of 1366.0437 seconds or
22 minutes 44 seconds, expendable products from vendors have a standard time of 4404.7313 seconds or 1 hour
13 minutes 34 seconds, repairable products from vendors have a standard time of 7954, 4282 or 2 hours 12 minutes
24 seconds, chemical products from the vendor have a standard time of 2047.5039 or 34 minutes 8 seconds, fan
blade products from OEM have a standard time of 6188,6504 or 1 hour 43 minutes 9 seconds, and local products
from the vendor has a standard time of 1666.3557 or 27 minutes 46 seconds. Workload calculation iusing NASA-
TLX is also carried out in this study to evaluate how was the the processing time impact to the operators
performance. Factors that can influence the occurrence of this high mental workload are several factors that can
be seen in the type of work that is the type of activity and work situation bias said to be the highest factor that can
influence it because in the task completion, all operators are required to work quickly and perfectly. Pressure like
this is very bias, so it can causes mental workload. The other factors that influence mental workloads are work
time and tolerance given. From the results obtained, the conclusion is that the heaviest workload is borne by the
inspector, followed by the unloader, logistics administrator, and document checker.

Index terms: Stopwatch Time Study, NASA-TLX, standard time, mental workload, MRO Company.

I. INTRODUCTION Services, and Engineering Services and all of these

Industry 4.0 forces each company to develop its
industrial system with effective and efficient
adjustments to be able to compete not only in terms of
profitability but also sustainability in adapting with the
era. With the establishment of the X Company vision
in the 2016-2020 period as the Top Ten Aircraft MRO
(maintenance, repair, and overhaul) in the world, it
push the company to make sustainable improvements,
especially in terms of the operating system. Companies
with business units consisting of 8 main products
include Line Maintenance, Outstation Line
Maintenance, Base Maintenance, Component Services,
Engine Maintenance, Cabin Maintenance, Material
service products require a Logistic & Bonded Services
(TG) as a unit whose job is to send the goods for
domestic, export, import, custom brokerage,
packaging, warehousing, AOG services, and Bonded
Logistics Center (PLB) facilities. This means that the
procurement of all items such as materials, aircraft
components (primary, secondary, aesthetic, etc.),
machinery, chemicals, gifts and souvenirs for the eight
service products from goods issues to warehousing
activities, are handled by the Logistics & Bonded
Services unit.
TG Unit processes a variety of types of goods in large
quantities, each item has a certification and special

1
documents that adjusted to the conditions of the goods.
If it is not suitable or there is a document or physical
defect in the goods, the TG unit must reprocess the
item. It makes the TG unit must plan, run, control and
evaluate every activity because in addition to
maintaining performance since the inauguration of the
X Company became the Bonded Logistics Center of
the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia
as a form of business development of the X Company,
the TG unit must also carry out warehouse and
inventory management, handle customs import and
export licensing, regulate the process of domestic
import and export shipments, electronic manifest
declarations and electronic truck surveillance (gps and
e-seal), value-added service options, documentation,
track and shipment (real-time) facilities, surveillance
facilities inventory (real-time), protection of goods
insurance (limited liability), security and monitoring
systems for domestic industries that are classified as
small and medium class in the Asia Pacific region.
One of several success indicator of the TG unit is time.
So the TG unit must plan and control the activities.
Activities are very important to be controlled, because
the company's performance improvement measured
from these activities to control every activity carried
out by the company to achieve the goal that is to
produce good products and services, the company
needs to take measurements of every activity that exist.
The measurement of these activities is carried out in
addition to seeing how long it takes by the workforce
also to find out how much the level of activity carried
out by the company for processing goods. Seeing the
importance of measuring every activity carried out by
the company, an accurate measurement method is
needed to be able to provide precise information on the
time required for each activity. One method used to
measure the time of the activity used is the time study
method. The activities carried out in the unit are
certainly carried out by operators which have different
burdens for each type of activity. In optimizing the
performance of interactivity, workload balancing is
needed by first measuring the workload in each
activity. One method that can be used to measure the
mental workload experienced by operators is NASA-
TLX.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Time Study
Time study is used to determine the time required
by a qualified and well trained person working at
a normal pace to do specific task [1] Time study
is the most widely method that used to determine
standard time. It is a technique of establishing an
allowed time standard to perform a given task,
based upon measurement of work content of the
prescribed method, with due allowance for fatigue
and personal and unavoidable delays[ 2 ] . Time
study is accomplished by performing analysis of
work, standardization of methods and making
time study respectively [3].
ILO describes time study as a work measurement
technique for recording the times and rates of
working for the elements of specified job carried
out under specified conditions, and for analyzing
the data so as to obtain the time necessary for
carrying out the job at a defined level of
performance [4].
The result of time study is called the standard
time. It means the time required to perform the
operation with the conditions fully qualified,
trained operator, working at standard pace and
exerting average effort. Certain fundamentals
requirements before conduct time study should be
made. There are methods or part of the method
has been altered, the operator should be
thoroughly acquainted with the new technique
before the operation is studied. Also, the method
must be standardized for the job before the study
begins [5].
NASA-TLX
NASA-TLX is a multi-dimensional rating procedure
that assigns a total workload score based on a
weighted average of six sub-scales: mental demand
(mental and perceptive activity); physical demand
(degree of physical effort); temporal demand
(temporal perception); performance (degree of goal
accomplishment); effort (amount of physical and
mental effort); and frustration level (feeling of
pressure, discouragement, and insecurity during
execution).
NASA-TLX analyzes three dimensions of
requirements concerning individuals: mental,
physical, and temporal. It analyzes another three
dimensions related to the willingness of individuals:
effort, frustration, and performance. Consequently, we
adopt NASA-TLX to maintain continuity in the
measurement of activities [6]. The application of
NASA-TLX has two sequential and structured phases:
i) weighing and; ii) estimation [7]. One of the
limitations associated with instructional design and
protocol design studies is related predictability and
measurability of activities [8].
III. RESEARCH METHOD such as oil or lubricants. The five types of goods have
the same process sequence on the TG unit as in Figure
A research methodology is used to describe every steps 2.
to solving the problem. The problem observed in an
aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul company.
The primary and secondary data in this research
collected and analyzed according the requirements.
Primary data were obtained through observation and Figure 2. Goods Processing
interview with the operators. Secondary data were
collected from reference book, journal and previous Data Sufficiency and Uniformity Test
related research. Data analysis was conducted after
data collection divided into two steps. The first step is Standard time measurement is preceded by calculating
getting the standard time: conduct stopwatch time work time in each activity. Then test the sufficiency
study, measure the time of each element, data and uniformity of the data. In testing the sufficiency of
sufficiency and uniformity testing, calculate the data carried out by calculating N 'with the
Westinghouse rating factor, calculate the normal time, following formula. Data is sufficient if the value of N
calculate Westinghouse allowance, and determine the '<N.
standard time. The second step is NASA-TLX scoring: 2
𝑘/𝑠√𝑁. ∑ 𝑥 2 − (∑ 𝑥)2
conduct operators interview, calculate the factor ′
𝑁 ={ }
weight, calculate the factor rate, calculate the product ∑𝑥
value, calculate Weighted workload (WWL), calculate
the average WWL, and interpreting the WWL score. Where:
N’ = Number of data that should be done
IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION k = Confidence Level (95%)
N = Number of data
Product Classifications s = Degree of accuracy

Many kinds of the goods that are processed in TG unit. Table 1. Data Sufficiency and Uniformity Test Result
So there is a classification of goods based on the Product
Data
Data
N N' Sufficien
properties of the product. The grouping of goods is Classification
cy
Uniformity
shown in Figure 1. Expendables OEM 30 2,50848 Sufficient Uniform
Expendables Vendor 30 17,2905 Sufficient Uniform
Repairable Vendor 100 91,7213 Sufficient Uniform
Chemical Vendor 30 3,97342 Sufficient Uniform
Fan Blade OEM 30 8,99997 Sufficient Uniform
Local Vendor 30 6,86570 Sufficient Uniform

Meanwhile, to test the uniformity of data, a control

chart needs to be made by counting the upper control
limit (UCL) and lower control limit (LCL).

𝑈𝐶𝐿 = 𝑥̅ + 𝑘𝜎𝑥
𝐿𝐶𝐿 = 𝑥̅ − 𝑘𝜎𝑥
Where:
UCL = Upper Control Limit
Figure 1. Goods Classification
LCL = Lower Control Limit
x̅ = Average value of subgroups
Local goods (vendors) are goods produced in
k = Confidence level
Indonesia such as in-flight medicines, furniture, and so
on. Expendable Goods are consumables that come σ = Standard deviation
directly from OEMs and are produced by vendors such
as bolt, hex, nut, washer, and so on. Fan Blade Items
After the calculation of the UCL dan LCL for all of the
are aircraft propeller components from OEMs.
Repairable goods are items that can be repaired such products, then input the data to the control line chart..
as air conditioners, black boxes, radios, and so on. The control chart shown in figure 3.
Chemical goods are goods in the form of chemicals
 Figure 3. Control Charts

Rating Factor unnatural condition must be normalized by

Not everyone has the same speed in doing work due to
various factors. A person's speed level at work can be
intentional or unintentional. Irregularity is due to
working without sincerity, someone works very
quickly because of the rush, or encounter difficulties
such as due to poor environmental conditions. This
multiplying the real time with the adjustment factor
(p). If a person works above normal or too fast then it
can be denoted by p> 1, and for people who work
slowly then p <1, and people who work normally then
p = 1. The rating factor calculation for all of the
operators shown in table 2.

Table 2. Operator Rating Factor

Consistency
Work Element

Condition

P (1+Total)
Effort
Product

Skill

Class Value Class Value Class Value Class Value

Unloading Good (C2) 0,03 Good (C1) 0,05 Good (C) 0,02 Average (D) 0 1,1
Expandables

Document Checking Superskill (A1) 0,15 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Good (C) 0,01 1,32
OEM

Inspect Excellent (B2) 0,08 Excellent (B1) 0,1 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,22
GR Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,33
TO Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,33
Outgoing Excellent (B1) 0,11 Good (C1) 0,05 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,2
Unloading Good (C2) 0,03 Excellent (B1) 0,1 Good (C) 0,02 Average (D) 0 1,15
Expandables

Document Checking Superskill (A1) 0,15 Excessive (A1) 0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Good (C) 0,01 1,33
Vendor

Inspect Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A1) 0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,3
GR Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A1) 0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,34
TO Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A1) 0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,34
Outgoing Excellent (B1) 0,11 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,27
epairable

Unloading Good (C2) 0,03 Excellent (B1) Good (C) 0,02 Average (D) 0 1,05
Document Checking Good (C2) 0,03 Good (C2) 0,03 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Good (C) 0,01 1,11
dor

Inspect Good (C2) 0,03 Good (C2) 0,03 Fair (E) -0,07 Poor (F2) -0,07 0,92
 Consistency
Work Element

Condition

P (1+Total)
Effort
Product

Skill

Consistency
Work Element

Condition

P (1+Total)
Class Value Class Value Class Value Class Value

Effort
Product

Skill
Unloading Good (C2) 0,03 Good (C1) 0,05 Good (C) 0,02 Average (D) 0 1,1

Expandables
Document Checking Superskill (A1) 0,15 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Good (C) 0,01 1,32

OEM
Inspect Excellent (B2) 0,08 Excellent (B1) 0,1 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,22
GR Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,33
TO Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,33
Outgoing Class(B1)
Excellent Value GoodClass
0,11 (C1) Value Excellenty
0,05 Class (B) 0,04
Value Average
Class(D) 0Value 1,2
Unloading Good (C2) Excellent
0,03 Good (C1)(B1) 0,05
0,1 Good (C) 0,02 Average (D) 0 1,15
1,1
Expandables

Document Checking Superskill (A1) (A1) 0,12

0,15 Excessive (A2) 0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Good (C) 0,01 1,33
1,32
Vendor
OEM

Inspect Superskill(B2)
Excellent (A2) 0,13 Excellent
0,08 Excessive(B1)
(A1) 0,1
0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,3
1,22
GR Superskill (A2) (A1) 0,12
0,13 Excessive (A2) 0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,34
1,33
TO Superskill (A2) (A1) 0,12
0,13 Excessive (A2) 0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,34
1,33
Outgoing Excellent (B1) Excessive
0,11 Good (C1) (A2) 0,05
0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,27
1,2
Rotable/RepairableRotable/Repairable

Unloading Good (C2) 0,03 Excellent (B1) 0,1 Good (C) 0,02 Average (D) 0 1,15
1,05
Expandables

Document Checking Superskill

Good (C2) (A1) 0,15
0,03 Excessive
Good (C2) (A1) 0,13
0,03 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Good (C) 0,01 1,33
1,11
Vendor
Vendor

Inspect
Inspect Superskill
Good (C2) (A2) 0,13
0,03 Excessive
Good (C2) (A1) 0,13
0,03 Excellenty
Fair (E) (B) 0,04
-0,07 Average
Poor (F2)(D) 0-0,07 0,92
1,3
GR Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A1) 0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,34
GR Good (C2) 0,03 Good (C2) 0,03 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,14
TO Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A1) 0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,34
TO Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,33
Outgoing Excellent (B1) 0,11 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,27
Outgoing
Unloading Excellent
Good (C2)(B1) 0,11 Excellent
0,03 Good (C2)(B1) 0,02 GoodExcellenty
(C) (B) 0,02
0,04 Average
Average (D)
(D) 00 1,17
1,05
Unloading
Document Checking Good (C2)
Good (C2) 0,03 Excellent
0,03 Good (C2) (B2) 0,08 Good (C) 0,02 Average
0,03 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Good (C) (D) 0
0,01 1,13
1,11
Document Checking Superskill (A1) 0,15 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Good (C) 0,01 1,32
Chemical
Vendor

Inspect Good (C2) 0,03 Good (C2) 0,03 Fair (E) -0,07 Poor (F2) -0,07 0,92
Inspect Excellent (B1) 0,11 Good (C2) 0,02 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,17
GR
GR Good (C2)(B1)
Excellent 0,03
0,11 Good (C2) (A1) 0,03
Excessive 0,13 Excellenty
Excellenty (B)
(B) 0,04
0,04 Perfect
Perfect (A)
(A) 0,04
0,04 1,14
1,32
TO
TO Superskill (A2)
Excellent (B1) 0,13
0,11 Excessive
Excessive (A2)
(A2) 0,12 Excellenty
Excellenty (B)
(B) 0,04
0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,33
1,31
Outgoing Excellent (B1) 0,11 Good (C2)(B2) 0,02
Excellent 0,08 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,23
1,17
Unloading Good (C2) Good (C1)(B2) 0,08
0,03 Excellent 0,05 Good (C) 0,02 Average (D) 0 1,1
1,13
Document Checking Good (C2) (A2) 0,12
Superskill (A1) 0,15 Excessive 0,02 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Good (C) 0,01 1,22
1,32
Chemical
blade

Inspect Superskill(B1)
Excellent (A2) 0,11
0,13 Good
Excellent
(C2)(B1) 0,02
0,1 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,27
1,17
GR (A2) 0,13
Excellent (B1) 0,11 Excessive (A1) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,31
1,32
Fan

TO Excellent (B1) 0,11 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,31
Outgoing Excellent (B1) 0,11 Excellent (B2)
(B1) 0,08
0,1 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,25
1,23
Unloading Good (C2) Excellent
0,03 Good (C1)(B1) 0,05
0,1 Good (C) 0,02 Average (D) 0 1,15
1,1
Document Checking Excessive
Superskill (A1) 0,15 Good (C2) (A2) 0,02
0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Good (C) 0,01 1,32
1,22
blade
Local

Inspect Good (C1) (A2) 0,13

Superskill 0,06 Excellent
Good (C2)(B1) 0,1
0,02 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,12
1,27
GR Superskill(B1)
Excellent (A2) 0,11
0,13 Excessive (A2)
(A1) 0,12
0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,34
1,31
Fan

TO Superskill(B1)
Excellent (A2) 0,11
0,13 Excessive (A2)
(A1) 0,12
0,13 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Perfect (A) 0,04 1,34
1,31
Outgoing Good (C2)(B1) 0,1
Excellent (B1) 0,11 Excellent 0,02 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,17
1,25
Unloading Good (C2) 0,03 Excellent (B1) 0,1 Good (C) 0,02 Average (D) 0 1,15
Document Checking Superskill (A1) 0,15 Excessive (A2) 0,12 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Good (C) 0,01 1,32
Local

Inspect Good (C1) 0,06 Good (C2) 0,02 Excellenty (B) 0,04 Average (D) 0 1,12
Normal Time GR Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A1)highest normal (B)
0,13 Excellenty time0,04value is (A)
Perfect repairable
0,04 products
1,34
TO Superskill (A2) 0,13 Excessive (A1)with
0,13 1 Excellenty
hour 52(B)minutes 55 (A)
0,04 Perfect seconds
0,04 each
1,34 coli.
Normal time is calculated
Outgoing based(B1)on0,11theGood (C2) Whereas
Excellent the shortest
0,02 Excellenty (B) 0,04 normal
Averagetime
(D) 0 is expendable
1,17
multiplication between rating factor and time for from OEM with 19 minutes 2 seconds for each
each element, the following is the result of normal collection. After obtaining the normalized time or
time calculation in the table 3. Based on the normal time for each type of product, the next step
calculation of normal time, the product with the is to determine the allowance.

Table 3. Normal Time

Rotable/repairable Vendor
Expendables Vendor
Expendables OEM

Chemical Vendor

Fan Blade OEM

Local Vendor
Code

Product

T 70,53 78,67 87,67 96,567 82,9 86,73

Unloading P 1,1 1,15 1,05 1,13 1,1 1,15
NT 77,583 90,4705 92,0535 109,12071 91,19 99,7395
T 54,37 58,67 59,65 57,93 60,067 63,4
Document
P 1,32 1,33 1,11 1,32 1,22 1,32
Checking
NT 71,7684 78,0311 66,2115 76,4676 73,28174 83,688
T 239,3 2185,6 6226 665,03 3373,3 319,87
Inspect P 1,22 1,3 0,92 1,17 1,27 1,12
NT 291,946 2841,28 5727,92 778,0851 4284,091 358,2544
T 211,867 203,367 164,8 188,4 202 188,9
GR P 1,33 1,34 1,14 1,32 1,31 1,34
NT 281,78311 272,51178 187,872 248,688 264,62 253,126
T 129,067 128,567 326,9 189,4 217,1 268,9
TO P 1,33 1,34 1,33 1,31 1,31 1,34
 Rotable/repairable Vendor
Expendables Vendor Expendables Vendor
Expendables OEM Expendables OEM

Chemical Vendor

Fan Blade OEM

Local Vendor
Code
Product

Rotable/repairable Vendor

Chemical Vendor

Fan Blade OEM

Local Vendor
T 70,53 78,67 87,67 96,567 82,9 86,73

Code
Unloading
Product P 1,1 1,15 1,05 1,13 1,1 1,15
NT 77,583 90,4705 92,0535 109,12071 91,19 99,7395
T 54,37 58,67 59,65 57,93 60,067 63,4
Document
P 1,32 1,33 1,11 1,32 1,22 1,32
Checking
NT 71,7684 78,0311 66,2115 76,4676 73,28174 83,688
T 239,3
T 70,53 78,67
2185,6 87,67
6226 96,567
665,03 82,9
3373,3 86,73
319,87
Unloading
Inspect P 1,22
P 1,1 1,15
1,3 1,05
0,92 1,13
1,17 1,1
1,27 1,15
1,12
NT 291,946
NT 77,583 90,4705
2841,28 92,0535
5727,92 109,12071 4284,091
778,0851 91,19 99,7395
358,2544
T 211,867
T 54,37 58,67
203,367 59,65
164,8 57,93
188,4 60,067
202 63,4
188,9
Document
GR P
P 1,32
1,33 1,33
1,34 1,11
1,14 1,32
1,32 1,22
1,31 1,32
1,34
Checking
NT
NT 71,7684
281,78311 78,0311
272,51178 66,2115
187,872 76,4676
248,688 73,28174
264,62 83,688
253,126
T
T 239,3
129,067 2185,6
128,567 6226
326,9 665,03
189,4 3373,3
217,1 319,87
268,9
Inspect
TO P
P 1,22
1,33 1,3
1,34 0,92
1,33 1,17
1,31 1,27
1,31 1,12
1,34
NT
NT 291,946
171,65911 2841,28
172,27978 5727,92
434,777 778,0851
248,114 4284,091
284,401 358,2544
360,326
T
T 211,867
226,5 203,367
234,3 164,8
227,64 188,4
231,967 202
219,167 188,9
229,167
GR
Outgoing P 1,2
P 1,33 1,34
1,27 1,14
1,17 1,32
1,23 1,31
1,25 1,34
1,17
NT 271,8
NT 281,78311 297,561
272,51178 187,872
266,3388 248,688
285,31941 264,62
273,95875 253,126
268,12539
Normal Time T 129,067
1166,5396 128,567
3752,1342 326,9
6775,1728 189,4
1745,7948 217,1
5271,5425 268,9
1423,2593
TO P 1,33 1,34 1,33 1,31 1,31 1,34

Allowance NT 171,65911 172,27978 434,777 248,114

coordination, 284,401
condition 360,326
of workplace temperature,
T 226,5 234,3 227,64 231,967 conditions,
atmospheric 219,167 229,167
and allowance for personal
Outgoing
Allowance is calculated P 1,2
by the Westinghouse 1,27
method 1,17 1,23 following
needs. The 1,25 is 1,17
the result of calculation of
NT 271,8
using eight allowance factors which are amount 297,561
of 266,3388 285,31941
allowance for each273,95875 268,12539 in table 4.
work element
Normal Time 1166,5396
body used, foot pedals, bi-manualness, eye 3752,1342 hand 6775,1728 1745,7948 5271,5425 1423,2593

Table 4. Allowance

Condition of Good
Allowance
Allowance Amount of Bi- Eye hand Workplace Atmospheric Environment
Foot pedals for personal Total
Factors body used manualness coordination Temperatur Conditions al
needs
e Conditions

Clean,
Stand on Disjointed healthy,
Desc Medium Normal Normal Good Man
Unloading two legs views bright with 22,5%
low noise
Val 16,0% 1,0% 0,0% 3,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5%
Persistent Clean,
Stand on views with healthy,
Document Desc Very Light Normal Normal Good Man
two legs shifting bright with 17,0%
Checking
focus low noise
Val 6,0% 1,0% 0,0% 7,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5%
Persistent Clean,
views with healthy,
Desc Light Sit down Normal Normal Good Man
Inspect shifting bright with 17,5%
focus low noise
Val 7,5% 0,0% 0,0% 7,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5%
Persistent Clean,
views with healthy,
Desc Very Light Sit down Normal Normal Good Man
GR shifting bright with 16,0%
focus low noise
Val 6,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5%
Persistent Clean,
views with healthy,
Desc Very Light Sit down Normal Normal Good Man
TO shifting bright with 16,0%
focus low noise
Val 6,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5%
Persistent Clean,
Stand on views with healthy,
Desc Very Light Normal Normal Baik Man
Outgoing two legs shifting bright with 17,0%
focus low noise
Val 6,0% 1,0% 0,0% 7,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5%
Standard Time allowance values based on the normal time value of
each element. The following is the result of standard
The final step of the time study method is the time calculation for each type of product in table 5.
calculation of standard time by multiplying the

Table 5. Standard Time

Rotable/repairable Vendor
Expendables Vendor
Expendables OEM

Chemical Vendor

Fan Blade OEM

Local Vendor
Code
Product

NT 77,583 90,4705 92,0535 109,12071 91,19 99,7395

Unloading A 0,225
ST 95,039175 110,82636 112,76554 133,67287 111,70775 122,18089
NT 71,7684 78,0311 66,2115 76,4676 73,28174 83,688
Document
A 0,17
Checking
ST 83,969028 91,296387 77,467455 89,467092 85,739636 97,91496
NT 291,946 2841,28 5727,92 778,0851 4284,091 358,2544
Inspect A 0,175
ST 343,03655 3338,504 6730,306 914,24999 5033,8069 420,94892
NT 281,78311 272,51178 187,872 248,688 264,62 253,126
GR A 0,16
ST 326,86841 316,11367 217,93152 288,47808 306,9592 293,62616
NT 171,65911 172,27978 434,777 248,114 284,401 360,326
TO A 0,16
ST 199,12457 199,84455 504,34132 287,81224 329,90516 417,97816
NT 271,8 297,561 266,3388 285,31941 273,95875 268,12539
Outgoing A 0,17
ST 318,006 348,14637 311,6164 333,82371 320,53174 313,70671
Total 1366,0437 4404,7313 7954,4282 2047,504 6188,6504 1666,3558

According to the result above, repairable products is
the highest standard time with 2 hours 12 minutes and
24 seconds (7954,4282s). Then the second highest is
fan blade products with 1 hours 43 minutes and 9
seconds (6188,6504s). The third highest is expendable
products from vendor with 1 hours 13 minutes and 34
seconds (4404,7313s). The shortest standard time is
expendable products from OEM with 22 minutes and
44 seconds (1366,0437s). Figure 4 present the
summarization of the standard time for every products.

Figure 6. Standard Time Summarization

 NASA-TLX IV. 4th Respondents

Table 10. Indicator Comparison of Logistic Administrator

There are 4 respondents who have different types of MD PD TD OP EF FR
MD MD TD OP MD FR
work according to the process of incoming goods. PD TD OP PD FR
Table 6 present the details of the respondents that have TD TD TD FR
been interviewed. OP EF OP
EF EF
Table 6. Respondents FR
Respondent Type of Work
1st Respondent Unloader Table 11. Indicator Comparison of Logistic Administrator
2nd Respondent Document Checker Subject
Factor Total
3rd Respondent Inspector MD PD TD OP EF FR
4th Respondent Logistic Administrator Unloader 3 5 1 2 3 1 15
Document checker 2 1 4 2 3 3 15
Inspector 4 3 2 2 3 1 15
Logistic 2 1 4 3 2 3 15
Administrator
Weighting

There are 4 respondents who have different job Rating

descriptions are required to fill out a questionnaire in
the form of a comparison between several indicators
relating to their work. Respondent chooses between 2
indicators, which indicator is more dominant. The
results of the questionnaires that have been filled out
by these four operators will result in weighting the
number of each indicator (table 11).
After completing the weighting questionnaire as
above, all four respondents were given a rating giving
questionnaire. In this questionnaire there is a
percentage score in the scale of 0-100. Respondents
were asked to give a score by giving a scale to the 6
indicators.

Table 12. Indicator Comparison of Logistic Administrator

I. 1st Respondent Factor
Subject
MD PD TD OP EF FR
Table 7. Indicator Comparison of the Unloader Unloader 70 90 50 60 80 60
MD PD TD OP EF FR Document Checker 60 20 50 40 60 30
MD PD MD MD EF MD Inspector 80 90 80 70 80 90
PD PD PD PD PD Logistic Administrator 60 40 70 60 40 60
TD OP EF TD
OP OP FR Products Value
EF EF
FR After getting the results of both questionnaires that
have been filled out by respondents, then the product
II. 2nd Respondent value is calculated based on the rating and weight of
the factor.
Table 8. Indicator Comparison of the Document Checker
MD PD TD OP EF FR
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑥 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠
MD MD TD MD EF FR
PD TD OP PD FR
Table 13. Product Value
TD TD TD FR
Factor
OP EF OP Subject
MD PD TD OP EF FR
EF EF
Unloader 210 450 50 120 240 60
FR Document checker 120 20 200 80 180 90
Inspector 320 270 160 140 240 90
III. 3rd Respondents Logistic
120 40 280 180 80 180
Administrator
Table 9. Indicator Comparison of the Inspector
MD PD TD OP EF FR Weighted workload (WWL)
MD MD MD MD EF MD
PD PD OP PD PD After calculating the product value by multiplying the
TD TD TD FR
rating and factor weight, then the weighted workload
OP EF OP
EF EF is calculated by adding up the product value of each
FR respondent
 𝑊𝑊𝐿 = ∑ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠 90 for Frustation. For the third respondent the results
obtained are 320 for mental demand, 270 for physical
Table 14. Product Value demand, 160 for temporal demand, 140 for Own
Factor performance, 240 for Effort, and 90 for Frustation. For
Subject Total
MD PD TD OP EF FR respondents fourth, the results obtained are 120 for
Unloader 210 450 50 120 240 60 1130
Document 120 20 200 80 180 90 690 mental demand, 40 for physical demand, 280 for
checker temporal demand, 180 for Own performance, 80 for
Inspector 320 270 160 140 240 90 1220
Logistic 120 40 280 180 80 180 880
Effort, and 180 for Frustation. Then the weighted
Administrator workload (WWL) is calculated by adding up the
product value of each operator. For WWL, the results
Average of WWL of the first respondent was 1130, the second respondent
was 690, for the third respondent was 1220, and for the
Based on the results of the calculation of the value of fourth respondent was 880. Then the average WWL
WWL that has been obtained from the assessment of 4 calculation was done by dividing the entire value of the
respondents, the average WWL calculation is product that has been obtained with 15 obtained from
performed to find out the score of each indicator the total column comparison of existing indicators . The
divided by the total number of indicators which is 15. average WWL of the first respondent is 75.33. The
second respondent is 46. The third respondent is 81.3.
Table 15. Average of WWL And the last respondent was 58.67. In the final stage, all
Factor
Subject
MD PD TD OP EF FR
Total calculations result in the final score of workload being
Unloader 14 30 3.33 8 16 4 75.33 interpreted into several categories where the four
Document checker 8 1.33 13.33 5.33 12 6 46
Inspector 21.33 18 10.67 9.33 16 6 81.33 respondents get different categories. Quite high
Logistic 8 2.67 18.67 12 5.33 12 58.67
Administrator
category for document checkers, high for unloaders and
logistic administrators, and very high for inspectors..
Interpretation Score of NASA-TLX From observations and calculations it can be said that
After knowing the value of WWL average calculation the work of the four respondents is classified as high
results, each workload value is obtained. So the mental workload. Factors that can influence the
workload value of each respondent is interpreted into occurrence of this high mental workload are the types
several categories, namely low, medium, quite high, of activities and work situations. The highest factor that
high, and very high. affects it is that all employees are required to work
quickly and perfectly so that pressure like this can
Table 16. NASA-TLX Score create a mental workload then other factors are the time
Subject Score Category of work and tolerance given. Among the four types of
Unloader 75.33 HIGH work above, the inspector gets the highest workload
Document checker 46 QUITE HIGH
81.33 VERY HIGH
value because the inspector is required to inspect and
Inspector
Logistic Administrator 58.67 HIGH ensure all goods that have arrived either from the
vendor or others are in good condition according to the
Discussion agreement, then the limited number of workers in this
type of work also greatly affect the mental workload,
After conducting an experiment that aims to find out when the goods that come a lot but the number of
worker’s mental workload in the goods processing X inspectors a little will of course make the inspector
company, then obtained four respondents who work in work harder. When compared to the document checker
different fields. The first respondent to work as an that only checks the completeness of the document
unloader. The second respondent who works as a when there is an item coming, the difference of the final
Document Checker. The third respondent works as an value is almost twice that of the document checker job.
Inspector. And the last respondent who worked as a
V. CONCLUSION
Logistic Administrator. All four were given 2
questionnaires in which the first questionnaire From the results of this study it is known that the type
contained a comparison between the 2 indicators that of work in the Logistic and Bonded Service unit which
tend to be more dominant and then on the second has the highest mental workload is the Inspector
questionnaire, respondents are asked to fill the rating as
Operators with a work load value of 81,33, while the
a determinant of the perceived mental workload.
type of work is the lowest mental workload is to keep
Furthermore, the product value is calculated by Document Checker Operators with work load value of
multiplying between the two and the results obtained 46. So to keep the performance of the organization
for the first operator are 210 for mental demand, 450 for remains good, then this mental workload needs to be
physical demand, 50 for temporal demand, 120 for Own
considered because there are none of the operators had
performance, 240 for Effort, and 60 for Frustation. For low workload. This is also supported by the high time
the second respondent the results are 120 for mental
of processing of goods carried out by the unit which
demand, 20 for physical demand, 200 for temporal has 3937,9522s in average.
demand, 80 for Own performance, 180 for Effort , and
REFERENCES

[1] R. M. Barnes, Motion and Time Study Design

And Measurement Of Work, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc, 1980.
[2] A. Freivalds, Niebel’s Methods, Standard, and
Work Design, McGraw-Hill, 2009.
[3] A. Karanjkar, Manufacturing and Operations
Management, Nıralı Prakashan, 2008.
[4] I. L. O. (ILO), Introduction to Work Study, India:
Universal Publishing Corp, Third Revised
Edition, 1986.
[5] A. Freivalds, Niebel’s Methods, Standard, and
Work Design, McGraw-Hill, 2009.
[6] S. G.Hart and L. E. , “Development of NASA-
TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and
Theoretical Research,” Development of NASA-
TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and
Theoretical Research, 1988.
[7] R. e. al, “A self-analysis of the NASA-TLX
workload measure,” A self-analysis of the NASA-
TLX workload measure, no. ergonomic, 2001.
[8] C. Nikulin, G. L. E. P. L. G. and P. Z. , “NASA-
TLX for predictability and measurability of
instructional design models: case study in design
methods,” NASA-TLX for predictability and
measurability of instructional design models:
case study in design methods, no. Ergonomic, pp.
467-493, 2019.