See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351219885

PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT OF AN AUTOMOTIVE ASSEMBLY LINE USING

MODULAR ARRANGEMENT OF PREDETERMINED TIME STANDARDS
(MODAPTS)

Article  in  i-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering and Technology · January 2021

DOI: 10.26634/jfet.16.2.17694

CITATIONS READS

0 941

4 authors, including:

Raj Kumar Abhishek Charak

PEC University of Technology Punjab Engineering College
5 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NON Conventional Machining Process View project

Development of Ultra fine grain through Cryogenic Process View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abhishek Charak on 19 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RESEARCH PAPERS

PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT OF AN AUTOMOTIVE ASSEMBLY

LINE USING MODULAR ARRANGEMENT OF PREDETERMINED TIME
STANDARDS (MODAPTS)

By
RAJ KUMAR * GAGANDEEP **

ABHISHEK CHARAK *** GAURAV THAKUR ****

*-*** Department of Production and Industrial Engineering, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, Punjab, India.
**** Department of Mechanical Engineering, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, Punjab, India.
Date Received: 16/11/2020 Date Revised: 19/12/2020 Date Accepted: 24/12/2020

ABSTRACT
In this competitive world, productivity is a most crucial factor. Every organization must maintain an enough productivity to
satisfy the market's demand, to sustain in this world of competition. Productivity of an assembly line mainly depends on the
standard time required to complete the assigned task. Therefore, the work measurement techniques have great
importance in enhancing the productivity of the assembly line. This study aims to improve the productivity of an automotive
assembly line where in the productivity of existing assembly process is insufficient to fulfil the required demand. In this study, a
new combination of a work measurement technique Modular Arrangement of Predetermined Time Standards (MODAPTS)
and elimination of Non-Value-Added (NVA) activities, is used to enhance the productivity of assembly line. Firstly, the NVA
activities are eliminated to smooth the workflow. Further, MODAPTS has been used to estimate the appropriate standard
time required to complete the assembly tasks. Modular Arrangement of Predetermined Time Standards revealed the
excessive movements of operators, and helps to minimize the fatigue of the operators working on the assembly line. The
elimination of NVA activities followed by implementation of MODAPTS, has been used as an effective approach that
enhances the productivity of assembly line by 25.85%. Further, the significance of the applied approach is validated by
conducting a statistical test.
Keywords: Modular Arrangement of Predetermined Time Standards (MODAPTS), Time Study, Productivity, Standard Time,
Non-Value-Added Activities.

INTRODUCTION productivity are mainly required to comply with the

An industry must retain the essential assembly processes,
materials, manpower and research innovations for
ensuring the sufficient productivity to meet the demand of
customers. The customer satisfaction plays an important
role for sustainability of an organization in competitive
market (Rosa et al., 2017). A better quality and sufficient
This paper has objectives related to SDG
Member of:
customer needs (Almström & Kinnander, 2011). The small
and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) have to face more
competition in respect of rapid marked changes and high
fluctuation in customer demands (Ghafoorpoor Yazdi et
al., 2018). These small and medium-sized enterprises have
to achieve and sustain the defined standard of product
quality and quantity to satisfy the customer needs
(Ghafoorpoor Yazdi et al., 2019). An efficient and smart
manufacturing helps to connect the industries with the
applications that are proceeded around the production
(Azizi, 2019). With elimination of Non-Value-Added (NVA)

32 i-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering & Technology, Vol. 16 l

No. 2 l
November 2020 - January 2021
 RESEARCH PAPERS
activities, the execution of the work-study techniques helps
any industry to enhance the productivity, quality and
reduce production cost and time (Azizi, 2019). This
improves the levels of customer satisfaction and, results in
huge profits (Patel et al., 2017). The work study method is
widely used in manufacturing industries to improve
productivity (Kumar et al., 2020). The work study method is
categorized in two parts: Method study and Work
measurement (Kanawaty, 1992).
Method study is a systematic approach for studying the
method of performing a task, including workflow and
human motions, to improve the productivity. Basically,
method study is focused to develop a best way for
performing a task with less time and effort (Groover, 2006).
Work measurement is a process of establishing the time
required to perform the assigned task by a qualified and
well-trained operator, with normal pace and defined
performance in standard conditions (Bondhare et al.,
2016). Numerous work measurement techniques have
been developed to measure the work and, establish the
time required to perform a task. Specifically, work
measurement techniques include time study, work
sampling, synthesis method analytical estimating and
Predetermined Motion Time system (PMTS), and these are
basic tools for improving performance of any process.
These techniques are introduced in a systematic way for
maximizing the utilization of available resources in order to
enhance productivity and performance of the system (Jain
et al., 2016). Additionally, the non-value-added activities
which does not add any value in the working system, are
required to be eliminated to improve the productivity of the
system. Work measurement techniques and elimination of
non-value-added activities can be combined to achieve
the excellent performance and productivity (Karim et al.,
2016). Non-value-added activities consists of all wastages
which require an extra effort and time but do not add in
value to the working system (Aughney & O'Donnell, 2015).
Accordingly, it becomes necessity to eliminate the non-
value-added activities to improve the performance and
productivity of a system.
The work measurement techniques are extensively used for
estimating the time required to perform the assigned task,
i-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering & Technology, Vol. 16 l
No. 2 l
redesigning the layout of assembly line, redistributing tasks
and balancing the assembly line, which enhances the
productivity (Mathur et al., 2012). The academic
researchers and practitioners are using various PMTS
techniques to get appropriate standard time required to
complete a specific task. The appropriate standard time
helps to enhance the productivity of an assembly line and
reduce the production time. This leads to better profitability
and sustainability of an organization in this era of
competition. The PMTS techniques are Methods Time
Measurement (MTM), MOST (Maynard Operation
Sequence Technique) and Modular Arrangement of
Predetermined Time Standards (MODAPTS), are widely
implemented to estimate the standard time required to
complete any task (Razmi & Shakhs-Niyaee, 2008). The
implementation of PMTS can be valuable approach to
improve existing process, balance assembly lines and
estimate the standard time (Cakmakci & Karasu, 2007).
From the fast few decades, the implementation of PMTS
techniques in various industries, is broadly adopted by the
several developing nations (Laring et al., 2002).
MODAPTS is one of the most popular PMTS techniques,
which is widely used to evaluate the standard times in
which an operator should complete the assign task (León-
Duarte et al., 2019). In MODAPTS, the standard time
required to complete a task, can be predicted before to
the actual execution of task and motion of the operators is
rationalized accordingly. MODAPTS classifies the movement
of operators into twenty-one types, and a constant value is
estimated as the standard time required to complete
certain task (Hoffmann & Hui, 2010). In a study, MODAPTS
has been implemented in a compiling yarn rolls process in
the textiles industry to eliminate the unproductive motions
of the operators, reducing 75.87% of the production time
(Patel et al., 2017). The removal of non-value-added
activities to enhance the performance and productivity of
assembly lines, is widely accepted by the manufacturing
organizations (Jin et al., 2008). According to Jin et al.
(2008), researchers, the MODAPTS is found to be valuable
approach to estimate appropriate time required to
perform the assigned task and to evaluate the bottlenecks.
Further, elimination of non-value-added activities and
November 2020 - January 2021 33
 RESEARCH PAPERS
modification of existing methods, helps to remove
bottlenecks.
PMTS is a procedure which is used to analyze the manual
activities in terms of micro motions required to perform
those activities, without the use of a stopwatch. This can be
implemented on assembly operations and non-cyclic
working environments, in less time with more accuracy.
PMTS methods such as MTM, MOST and MODAPTS are
widely used to enhance the productivity and, balance
workflow of production lines. MTM is categorized as MTM-1,
MTM-2 and MTM-3. MTM-1 has been introduced in 1940s,
to establish the standard time required to complete a task
prior to the task being processed (Zandin, 2001). Further,
MTM-2 has been introduced in 1965, to estimate the
standard time for tasks having small cycle time and
repetition and, MTM-3 has been established in 1970, to
estimate standard time of tasks where the working
distances and approaches are varying in continuous
manner. The major drawback associated with the use of
MTM is that it includes analysis of huge amount of data,
huge paperwork and, requires much time for execution. In
1967, a new PMTS technique known as MOST has been
introduced, to overcome the drawbacks of MTM. MOST
consumes less time and easy to execute with more
accuracy as compared to MTM (Zandin, 2001). For
implementation of MOST, an operation is broken into
several sub-operations and, assigning numerical values in
terms of time, to every sub-operation for estimating the
standard time. These numerical values are known as Time
Measurement Units (TMUs). One TMU is equal to .036
seconds. MOST is also categorized as basic MOST, maxi
MOST, mini MOST and admin MOST. However, MOST requires
less time for implementation than MTM, but still required a
lot of time and a huge paperwork. MOST and MTM are
complicated methods which consumes a lot of time.
Further, MODAPTS has been introduced in 1966. Like Basic-
MOST, implementation of MODAPTS includes a coding
technique that consists of at least one alphabetic letter
and at least one integer number, where the sum of all
integer numbers in a single code represents MODs. MODs
can be simply converted into seconds or minutes to
estimate the standard time required to complete an
34 i-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering & Technology, Vol. 16 l
assigned task. Unlike the MTM and MOST techniques,
MODAPTS uses a MOD as basic unit of time measurement,
wherein one MOD is equal to 0.129 seconds. MODAPTS is
most popular PMTS technique, widely used in the
manufacturing, healthcare, service and garment
industries. While implementing MODAPTS there is no need
of stopwatch. MODAPTS analyzing the body motion
required to complete the assigned work. MODAPTS is a
most accurate and quick technique to determine the
standard time. MODAPTS is easy to implement and it also
reduce the possibility of errors. In present days, the product-
based industries have to employ various modifications in
the products by changing their shapes, manufacturing
processes and parts (Wu et al., 2016). MODAPTS provides a
provision to establish the standard time required to perform
a task prior to the execution of that task. The sum of
standard times for each task, results cycle time of the
assembly process executed to get final product. Therefore,
the product designers and industrial engineers can
estimate the appropriate cycle time for a product before
establishing the final product and assembly line.
Accordingly, changes can be made in the assembly
process of actual product and layout of assembly line to
improve the productivity of the assembly line. MODAPTS
can also be implemented on the existing assembly
operations to improve their productivity wherein the
production of existing assembly lines has been unable to
meet the required demand. Therefore, the working
methods, machines can be modified to finish the task in
the estimated standard time. This helps the product
designers and industrial engineers to make necessary
changes in the assembly line for reducing and re-
estimating standard time for each task, without changing
the whole assembly process.
Basically, MODAPTS is related to the movement of body
parts including hands, arms, and shoulders and load on the
body parts. In addition, the integer numbers are provided
to represent the distance covered by the body parts while
performing the assigned task. Every task is represented with
two-part codes. First part is an alphabetic component
which represent the type task and second part is an integer
number which represent the time to complete the
No. 2 l
November 2020 - January 2021
 RESEARCH PAPERS

assigned task in MODs. MODAPTS categorized the motion

of the operator in three types such as movement task,
terminal task and auxiliary task. Movement task includes
the movements done by fingers, hand, arm, shoulder and
trunk system. The values of MODs in accordance with
codes of the movement tasks are presented in the Table 1.
Movement class tasks are always followed by terminal
tasks. Terminal tasks are performed after the execution of
movement tasks. Further, terminal task is divided into two
activities, Get and Put. In Get activity, G0, G1 and G3 codes
have been used. G0 is used to get an object with low
conscious control. For example, touch the button or
placing palm on piece of paper. Further, G1 is used for the
simple grasping with low conscious control and G3 is used
for complex getting operation with high conscious control.
In Put activity, P0, P2 and P5 has been used to represent the
performed motion. P0 is used for simply putting an object
with low conscious control and without specific positioning
requirement. Furthermore, P2 is used for putting an object in
a defined location with high conscious control and, P5 is
used for putting an object with multiple feedbacks with high
Figure 1. The Methodology for Implementation of MODAPTS
conscious control. This code is used to place an object in (Cho & Park, 2012)
defined location. Third task is auxiliary class task which are
elimination of NVA activities, seems to be precious
not executed by fingers, arm, forearm, shoulder and trunk
technique to enhance the productivity of a system as it is
system. The auxiliary tasks include walking, bending,
also essential to remove NVA activities along with the
inspection, deciding etc. The auxiliary tasks have various
standard time measurement. The present study has been
codes such as X4 is used to represent extra force, J2 used
carried out in a small scale automotive industry to improve
to represent juggle, F3 used to represent foot action, B18
the productivity of an assembly line, where an unbalance
used to represent bend and arise, S30 used to represent sit
exists between demand and supply, due to insufficient
and stand, W5 used to represent walking and, C3 and C4
productivity. This assembly process consists of seven
used to define the motion of hand and arm in circular path.
operations to be performed by seven operators on the
The codes for the movement task, terminal task and
corresponding seven workstations. The present study has
auxiliary tasks are represented in the Figure 1.
following objectives:
Accordingly, the implementation of MODAPTS with
·To enhance the productivity of assembly line by
S.No. Code Activity MODs balancing the workflow through the assembly line.
1 M1 Finger move 1
·To enhance the efficiency of assembly line by
2 M2 Hand move 2
3 M3 Forearm move 3 reducing the standard time of each task and,
4 M4 Full arm move (elbow must be displaced) 4 eliminating the NVAs.
5 M5 Full arm move (shoulder must be displaced) 5
6 M7 Body trunk move 7 The combination of MODAPTS and elimination of NVAs, has
been used for estimating the appropriate standard time
Table 1. MODs in Accordance with Codes of the
Movement Tasks
required to complete assigned tasks and maximizing the

i-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering & Technology, Vol. 16 l

No. 2 l
November 2020 - January 2021 35
 RESEARCH PAPERS

utilization of resources respectively. This improves the sub-operations to examine the micro motion of operators.
productivity and efficiency of the assembly line. Seven operators are working on the assembly line for
1. Methodology performing seven operations. The operation breakdown of
the workstation is shown in the Table 2. Another six
The methodology followed to perform the present study,
operations performed on the corresponding six workstations,
has four phases as shown in Figure 2. The initial phase
are broken in similar manner. Further, the time study is
includes the time study of existing assembly line to estimate
carried out for estimating the observed time taken by the
the standard time, efficiency and productivity. Further, the
operators to perform the assigned tasks. The stopwatch is
second phase includes elimination of non-value-added
used to measure the observed time. As per the norms of
activities and balance of workflow through the assembly
automotive industry and visual observation, the
line. Accordingly, a new assembly process has been
performance rating is considered. The performance rating
proposed. In the third phase, MODAPTS is implemented on
is multiplied with observed time to get normal time. Further,
the proposed assembly process to estimate the
the standard time has been obtained by adding the
appropriate standard time for performing the assigned
allowances in the normal time. Herein, the allowances are
task. The fourth phase includes a statistical testing which is
taken as 10% of normal time which includes 6% fixed
carried out to test the significance of implemented
allowance and 4% of variable allowances. Then, the total
MODAPTS technique.
allowances i.e., 10% of normal time are added to normal
1.1 Time Study of Existing Assembly Process
time to get standard time. Table 3 represents the standard
The operations of the assembly line are broken into various
time for each workstation, in which the operator is
performing the assigned task in standard time.

Sub Standard
Sr.No Operation Operation Sub Operation Details Time
No. (Seconds)

1 O-Ring 1.1 Pick body case from the bin 2.27

Assembly and remove the poly bag
and 1.2 Pick an O-ring and insert in 2.39
Greasing the body case
1.3 Pick a spring and insert in 2.35
the hole provided in the
body case
1.4 Place the body case on a 1.82
fixture.
1.5 Pick three springs and insert 6.95
in the body case for
accommodating the
magnets in three holes
1.6 Apply grease in the inner 3.34
surface of body case
using a greasing dispenser
1.7 Pick one steel ball and place 2.45
over the spring to
accommodate the magnets
in provided hole
1.8 Pick body case sub-assembly 2.23
and place in the conveyor bin
1.9 Press the nagara switch for 1.85
moving the conveyor

Total 25.65

Table 2. Standard Time Calculated by Time Study for First

Figure 2. Flowchart of Methodology Followed to Perform Workstation of Assembly Line
the Present Study

36 i-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering & Technology, Vol. 16 l

No. 2 l
November 2020 - January 2021
 RESEARCH PAPERS

S. No. Work Station Standard Time (Seconds) Sub Operation

S. No. Work Station Standard Time (Seconds)
Number
1 O-Ring greasing and assembly 25.65
2 Magnets and dowl spring insertion 17.52 1 O-Ring Assembly 1.1 A body case is picked by the
3 Body case and cover assembly 23.35 and Greasing operator and insert O-Ring in
Dispensing the body case.
4 Magnets insertion in the Key 19.23
1.2 Pick a spring and insert in the
5 Sticker pasting 11.28
hole provided in the body case.
6 Key insertion and code marking 18.69
1.3 Place the body case on a fixture.
7 Final inspection 10.66
1.4 Pick three springs and insert in
the body case for
Table 3. Standard Time Calculated by Time Study for all accommodating the magnets
Seven Work Stations of Assembly Line in three holes
1.5 Apply grease in the inner
1.2 Elimination of NVA Activities and Proposal of New surface of body case using
a greasing dispenser.
Assembly Process 1.6 Pick one steel ball and place
over the spring to accommodate
The existing assembly process consists of seven operations the magnets in provided hole.
to be performed on corresponding seven workstations. The 1.7 Pick body case sub-assembly
and place in the conveyor bin
first operation of existing assembly line has nine sub 1.8 Press the nagara switch for
operations as already represented in Table 2. The sub moving the conveyor

operation 1.1 of first operation includes picking of body case

from the bin followed by removal of the poly bag in which
the body case is covered. The use of poly bag to cover the
body case is found to be non-value-added activity which
does not add any value instead of increasing the standard
time of the operation. This is non-value-added activity for
the supplier as well as assembly process. The use of poly
bag is replaced by using structured bins. The structured bin
includes various body case shaped cavities to
accommodate the body case. The structured bins are
placed one over one. 5S is already implemented in the
assembly section and, also at supplier's workspace. The
structured bins prevent the body cases from dust, moisture,
dents, notch, etc. Accordingly, there is no need to use poly
bags to cover body case. The body cases can be securely
placed in the structured bins and transported to assembly
section. Therefore, the activity including removal of poly
bag is eliminated from the existing sub-operation 1.1 of
existing first operation and, existing sub-operations 1.1 and
1.2 are combined to balance the workflow. The proposed
assembly process of first operation is shown in Table 4.
Similarly, the non-value-added activities are removed from
the other six operations of the existing assembly process.
Total seven non-value-added activities are eliminated from
the existing assembly process and, remaining 33 valued
added activities are relocated to balance the workflow
through the assembly line. Accordingly, a modified
Table 4. Proposed Assembly Process with Elimination of
Non-Value-Added Activities
assembly is proposed. These seven non-value-added
activities are excluded by selecting these activities on basis
of the lean wastages such as MUDA, MURI and MURA (Asif et
al., 2019).
1.3 MODAPTS Implementation
The modified assembly process is proposed with various
changes by eliminating the NVAs. Further, MODAPTS is used
on the various operations of the proposed assembly process
after the elimination of non-value-added activities wherein
each operation is broken into several sub-operations by
operation breakdown for better implementation of
MODAPTS. The task included in every sub-operation are
observed and categorized into movement task, terminal
tasks and auxiliary tasks. In accordance with the category of
the task, codes consist of integer numbers and alphabets,
which are designated to each sub-operation, and estimate
the MODs. Further, the MODs are converted to seconds to
calculate normal time. The standard time required to
complete assigned task, is calculated by adding the
allowances in the normal. In present study, 10% of the normal
time is used as allowances to estimate the appropriate
standard time as required to complete assigned task. The
results of the MODAPTS implementation on the first operation
(Workstation No. 1) are described in the Table 5. As

i-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering & Technology, Vol. 16 l

No. 2 l
November 2020 - January 2021 37
 RESEARCH PAPERS

S. No Work Station Sub Sub Operation Code MODs Normal Time Allowance Standard Time
Operation (seconds) (seconds)
No.
1 O-Ring 1.1 A body case is picked by M5G2 M3G3 M3P2 18 2.322 1.1 2.41
Assembly the operator and insert
and O-Ring in the body case
Greasing 1.2 Pick a spring and insert in M3G3 M3P5 14 1.806 1.1 1.99
Dispensing the hole provided in the
body case
1.3 Place the body case on a M3P5 8 1.032 1.1 1.14
fixture.
1.4 Pick three springs and insert 3 (M3G3 M3P5) 42 5.418 1.1 5.96
in the body case for
accommodating the
magnets in three holes
1.5 Apply grease in the inner M5G3 M3C4 M5 20 2.58 1.1 2.84
surface of body case using
a greasing dispenser
1.6 Pick one steel ball and (M3G3 M3P5) 14 1.806 1.1 1.99
place over the spring to
accommodate the magnets
in provided hole
1.7 Pick body case sub-assembly M3G3 M3P2 11 1.419 1.1 1.56
and place in the conveyor bin
1.8 Press the nagara switch for M3G1X4 8 1.032 1.1 1.14
moving the conveyor
Total 19.03

Table 5. Standard Time Estimated by MODAPTS Analysis for First Work Station of Proposed Assembly Process

represented in Table 5, the standard time required to 1.4 Statistical Testing to Check the Significance of the
complete the first operation, is calculated as 19.014 Implemented Technique
seconds. The statistical test has been conducted using Microsoft Excel
In similar manner, MODAPTS is implemented on each for the significance of the implemented technique, on
operation of the assembly process to get total standard standard time of each operation. Table 7 describes a
time. The total standard time required to complete the statistical paired sample t-test conducted with the Microsoft
assembly process is determined as 99.24 seconds. The Excel. The paired sample t-test is conducted by considering
final product is assembled in the 99.24 seconds. This is the the 5% of significance level or 95% of confidence level. This
appropriate value of standard time in which a healthy test results 0.074933% of p-value that is less than 5%. Thus, it
operator should complete the entire assembly process. can be stated with 95% of confidence that implemented
The standard time estimated by MODAPTS for each technique is an effective technique to reduce the standard
workstation is shown in the Table 6. time of every operation of assembly line. This improves the
productivity of the assembly process.
S. No Work Station Standard time with
MODAPTS (Seconds) 2. Results and Discussion
1 O-Ring greasing and assembly 19.0146 The comparison of standard time of the existing assembly
2 Magnets and dowl spring insertion 13.5600
process is estimated by time study and standard time of
3 Body case and cover assembly 18.1280
4 Magnets insertion in the Key 16.1100 the proposed assembly process by MODAPTS, is detailed in
5 Sticker pasting 8.94000
the Table 8. MODAPTS is found to be effective technique to
6 Key insertion and code marking 13.9338
7 Final inspection 9.55000 reduce the standard time for each operation as
compared to the standard time of the existing assembly
Table 6. Standard Time Estimated by MODAPTS Analysis for all process estimated by time study. The maximum standard
Seven Workstation of Proposed Assembly Process
time of the proposed assembly process is estimated as

38 i-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering & Technology, Vol. 16 l

No. 2 l
November 2020 - January 2021
 RESEARCH PAPERS

Standard Time with Standard Time

MODAPTS
Mean 14.17662857 18.05428571
Variance 15.33739934 31.39629524
Observations 7 7
Pearson Correlation 0.985892964
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 6
t Stat -5.511543898
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000749333
t Critical one-tail 1.943180281
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001498666
t Critical two-tail 2.446911851

Table 7. T-test: Paired Two Sample for Means

S. Workstation Standard Time of Standard Time of

No Existing Process Proposed Process
(seconds) (seconds)

1 O-Ring greasing and assembly 25.65 19.0300 Figure 4. Comparison of Standard Times of Existing and
2 Magnets and dowl spring insertion 17.52 13.5600 Proposed Assembly Process
3 Body case and cover assembly 23.35 18.1280
4 Magnets insertion in the Key 19.23 16.1100 proposed line can have sufficient production to meet
5 Sticker pasting 11.28 8.94000 customer demand within available time. The productivity
6 Key insertion and code marking 18.69 13.9338
7 Final inspection 10.66 9.55000
of the assembly process is enhanced by 25.85%. The
Total time 126.38 99.2518 calculation of enhancement in productivity is followed as:

Table 8. Comparison of Standard Times of Existing and

Proposed Process of Assembly Line

19.03 seconds. The maximum standard time is reduced by (1)

6.64 seconds. The total time of the assembly process is
reduced by 27.14 seconds. The elimination of non-value-
added activities and, implementation of MODAPTS
reduces the standard time of each workstation, as shown in
Figure 3 and 4.
(2)
The reduction in standard time of each operation,
enhances the productivity of assembly process. Further, the

(3)

Further, line efficiency of the proposed assembly line is

improved from 70.39% to 74.56% and, balance delay is
also reduced by 29.61% to 25.44%. The line efficiency is
calculated as followed:

Figure 3. Reduction in Standard Times of Proposed Assembly (4)

Process as Compared to Existing Assembly Process

i-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering & Technology, Vol. 16 l

No. 2 l
November 2020 - January 2021 39
 RESEARCH PAPERS

manufacturing for improving productivity at sewing section

in apparel industry: An empirical study. International
Journal of Textile Science, 8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5 923
/j.textile.20190801.01
(5)
[3]. Aughney, N., & O'Donnell, G. E. (2015). The energy
is line efficiency of the assembly line.
h
saving opportunity in targeting non-value add manufacturing
The results show the importance of proposed assembly
activities: A structured approach. Journal of Cleaner
process over the existing assembly process. The elimination
Production, 86, 191-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepr
of NVAs and implementation of MODAPTS improves
o.2014.05.044
efficiency and productivity of the assembly process by
[4]. Azizi, A. (2019). Modern manufacturing. In Applications
reducing the standard time for every operation.
of Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Industry 4.0 (pp. 7-
Conclusion
17). Singapore: Springer.
This study consists of elimination of non-valued added
[5]. Bondhare, G., Pawar, A., & Deshpande, G. (2016).
activities followed by implementation of MODAPTS. The
Productivity improvement in cable assembly line by MOST
micro motions of the operators have been analyzed to
technique. International Journal of Advance Industrial
improve their performance. In this study, MODAPTS is
Engineering, 4, 50–54.
effectively implemented to establish the appropriate
[6]. Cakmakci, M., & Karasu, M. K. (2007). Set-up time
standard time for each operation. Seven non-value-
reduction process and integrated predetermined time
added activities are eliminated from the assembly
system MTM-UAS: A study of application in a large size
process. MODAPTS reduce the total standard time of the
company of automobile industry. The International Journal
assembly process from 126.38 seconds to 99.2518
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 33(3-4), 334-
seconds. Further, this also improves the assembly line
344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-006-0466-x.
efficiency by 4.17%. Moreover, the assembly line's
[7]. Cho, H. J., & Park, J. I. (2012). Methodology of
productivity is improved by 25.85%. The present study
estimating assembly cost by MODAPTS. World Academy of
revealed that the productivity and efficiency of the
Science, Engineering and Technology, 63, 49-53.
assembly are effectively improved by implementing the
MODAPTS. The significance of the implemented technique [8]. GhafoorpoorYazdi, P., Azizi, A., & Hashemipour, M.
is also statistically proved in this study. The findings of this (2018). An empirical investigation of the relationship
study helps the managers, practitioners to effectively between overall equipment efficiency (OEE) and
implement the MODAPTS on different assembly lines. The manufacturing sustainability in industry 4.0 with time study
present study is based on the specific industrial problem approach. Sustainability, 10(9), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3
but can be also extended towards other industries. 390/su10093031

References [9]. Ghafoorpoor Yazdi, P., Azizi, A., & Hashemipour, M.

[1]. Almström, P., & Kinnander, A. (2011). The productivity
potential assessment method: Assessing and bench
marking the improvement potential in manufacturing
systems at shop-floor level. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 60, 758-770.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401111167825.
[2]. Asif, A. A. H., Hasan, M. Z., Babur, J. U. M., Sheikh, M. M.
I., Biswas, A., Uddin, M. K., & Rana, S. (2019). Lean
(2019). A hybrid methodology for validation of optimization
solutions effects on manufacturing sustainability with time
study and simulation approach for SMEs. Sustainability,
11(5), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051454
[10]. Groover, M. (2006). Work systems: The methods,
measurement & management of work. New Jersey:
Prentice.
[11]. Hoffmann, E. R., & Hui, M. C. (2010). Movement times

40 i-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering & Technology, Vol. 16 l

No. 2 l
November 2020 - January 2021
 RESEARCH PAPERS
of different arm components. Ergonomics, 53(8), 979-993.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2010.500403
[12]. Jain, R., Gupta, S., Meena, M. L., & Dangayach, G. S.
(2016). Optimization of labour productivity using work
measurement techniques. International Journal of
Productivity and Quality Management, 19(4), 485-510.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2016.080154
[13]. Jin, Y., Curran, R., Butterfield, J., & Burke, R. (2008). A
quantitative metric for workstation design for aircraft
assembly. In Collaborative Product and Service Life Cycle
Management for a Sustainable World (pp. 523-530).
London: Springer.
[14]. Kanawaty, G. (Ed.). (1992). Introduction to work study.
Geneva: International Labour Organization.
[15]. Karim, A. M., Tuan, S. T., & Kays, H. E. (2016). Assembly
line productivity improvement as re-engineered by MOST.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 65(7), 977-994. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-11-2015-0169
[16]. Kumar, R., Kalra, P., & Kant, S. (2020). Productivity
enhancement of assembly line by using Maynard
operation sequence technique after identification of lean
wastages. International Journal Productivity and Quality
Management, 29(4), 463–482.
[17]. Laring, J., Forsman, M., Kadefors, R., & Örtengren, R.
(2002). MTM-based ergonomic workload analysis.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 30, 135-148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(02)00091-4
[18]. León-Duarte, J., Aguilar-Yocupicio, L., & Romero-
Dessens, L. (2019, January). A software tool for the
i-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering & Technology, Vol. 16 l
No. 2 l
View publication stats
calculation of time standards by means of predetermined
motion time systems and motion sensing technology. In
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (pp. 1088-
1093).
[19]. Mathur, A., Mittal, M. L., & Dangayach. G. S. (2012).
Improving productivity in Indian SMEs. Production Planning
& Control, 23, 754-768. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953728
7.2011.642150
[20]. Patel, M., Patel, N., Patel, H., & Patel, Y. (2017). A
review on concepts of work-study for productivity
improvement. International Journal of Science and
Research (IJSR), 6, 2180–2182.
[21]. Razmi, J., & Shakhs-Niyaee, M. (2008). Developing a
specific predetermined time study approach: An
empirical study in a car industry. Production Planning and
Control, 19(5), 454-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537
280802052028
[22]. Rosa, C., Silva, F. J. G., & Ferreira, L. P. (2017).
Improving the quality and productivity of steel wire-rope
assembly lines for the automotive industry. Procedia
Manufacturing, 11, 1035-1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.p
romfg.2017.07.214
[23]. Wu, S., Wang, Y., BolaBola, J. Z., Qin, H., Ding, W., Wen,
W., & Niu, J. (2016). In corporating motion analysis
technology into modular arrangement of predetermined
time standard (MODAPTS). International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 53, 291-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergo
n.2016.03.001
[24]. Zandin, K. B. (2001). Maynards' industrial engineering
handbook (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
November 2020 - January 2021 41