This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies
By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn More
This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
Assembly Magazine logo
search
cart
facebook twitter linkedin youtube
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Assembly Magazine logo
  • Home
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Digital Edition
    • Archives
    • Specs Book
    • How-To-Guide
    • Buyers Guide
  • Exclusives
    • Plant of the Year
      • About Plant of the Year
      • Nomination Form
    • Capital Spending
    • State of the Profession
  • Industries
    • Aerospace
    • Appliance
    • Automotive
    • Medical Devices
    • DFMA Assembly
    • Green Manufacturing
    • Lean Manufacturing
    • Electronics Assembly
    • Machinery Assembly
  • Technologies
    • Adhesives
    • Assembly Presses
    • Automated Assembly
    • Dispensing
    • Motion Control
    • Screwdriving and Riveting
    • Plastics Assembly
    • Robotics
    • Test and Inspection
    • Welding
    • Wire Processing
    • Workstations
  • Columns
    • Assembly in Action
    • Automation Profiles
    • Medical Device Assembly
    • On Campus
    • Shipulski on Design
    • The Editorial
    • XYZ
    • Moser on Manufacturing
    • 21st Century Assembly
    • Mind Your Ps and Qs
  • New Products
  • More
    • Web Exclusives
    • Classifieds
    • eNewsletter
    • Blog
    • Market Research
    • Store
    • Product Spotlight
    • White Papers
    • Integrated Showcase
    • Custom Content & Marketing Solutions
    • Monthly Quiz
    • Sponsored Insight
  • Multimedia
    • Assembly Radio
    • Assembly TV
    • Image Galleries
    • Webinars
    • Interactive Spotlights
    • eBooks
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • The Assembly Show
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
  • InfoCenters
    • Collaborative Robot Revolution
    • Factory of the Future
Home » The Basis of Productivity Improvement
IndustriesAutomated AssemblyLean Manufacturing Assembly

The Basis of Productivity Improvement

asb0512meas1.jpg
A paced assembly line like this one makes more efficient use of space and reduces excessive motion. Illustration courtesy JD Gray & Associates

asb0512meas2.jpg
Before conducting a time study, engineers should first make sure the process is safe and ergonomic. Photo courtesy Creform Corp.

asb0512meas3.jpg
In a gain-sharing system, bonus pay for assemblers is tied to output per shift, as well as weekly increases in uptime, yield, quality and attendance. Photo courtesy Hyundai Motor Co.

asb0512meas4.jpg
Industrial engineering standards can even be implemented in low-volume operations. Photo courtesy Steinway & Sons

asb0512meas5.jpg
Armed with industrial engineering standards for operators, management can institute a variety of incentives to boost performance. Photo courtesy KSB Corp.

asb0512meas1.jpg
asb0512meas2.jpg
asb0512meas3.jpg
asb0512meas4.jpg
asb0512meas5.jpg
May 1, 2012
Joseph Gray
KEYWORDS benchmarking / continuous improvement / cycle time / time studies
Reprints
There are three types of labor standards for manufacturers:

Output estimates, which are typically established by a department foreman.

Historical output, which is based on past accomplishment.

Industrial engineering standards, which are developed by trained and experienced engineers.

The primary advantage of estimates and historical output is that they don’t cost anything to develop. Unfortunately, they are rarely accurate. They are almost always 15 percent below an industrial engineering standard.

Whether you’re planning a productivity improvement project or running cost estimates, if you really want to know how your assembly line is performing, you need to get out on the shop floor and do some time measurement studies. The following steps will provide valuable information that can be used to improve any repeatable assembly operation.

First, define your objective. What is your primary goal? Is it cost reduction, labor reporting, operator assessment, pricing or line balancing? Determining your objective will help you develop a time frame to accomplish your goal.

Next comes work method optimization. Start by writing out the steps or procedures for the current method of assembly, and then consider alternatives. Before you time anything, make sure the process is safe and ergonomic. Are the parts and tools clearly visible and within easy reach? If there are no glaring ergonomic issues, do some quick cycle time measurements of the current and alternative assembly methods to ascertain which method takes the least overall time. This will give you an idea of where to concentrate your efforts before developing a detailed time study.

Now you can do detailed work measurements for labor cost estimates or industrial engineering standards. For each operation, you’ll want to:

Scrutinize the work elements for optimum methodology.

Plot time values for each work element. Through direct observation, take a minimum of 10 cycle time measurements of each work element for each assembly operation.

Average the cycle times, or select a representative time that best suits your operator rating. Rate the performance level of each work element for the operator observed.

Total the average time values for each operation.

Factor in allowances for unavoidable delays and fatigue.

Calculate operational standards. Convert the factored total from your standard to a rate that makes sense, such as pieces per hour, pieces per day or hours per hundred assemblies.

Once you have an industrial engineering standard for how long a process should take, compare it against the current operation. Have your accounting and payroll departments “run the numbers” for the current operation vs. your ideal. Make sure your cost objectives will be achieved before implementing the new standard.

That last step is important. Only implement the new standard if it meets your cost objectives. Years ago, I wanted to implement industrial engineering standards at a union shop. My efforts drew the suspicion of union stewards, and I was forced to quote the new standards immediately after the time studies were completed and before the time-study technician had even left the floor. Don’t give in to such pressure. Do it right and test the results before implementing the standard.

With the standard in place, it’s up to you to maintain it. Bear in mind that slight changes in the assembly process can increase or decrease the time standard you developed. Over the years, those slight changes can add up to a major change, and you’ll have to repeat the entire time-study process. Thus, it’s to your advantage to keep your department’s industrial engineering standards current.

Low-Volume Shops

Industrial engineering standards can even be implemented in low-volume operations.

Consider an assembly plant that makes large machines in low volumes. A typical machine might require 2,000 hours to assemble over a three-month time frame and be routed through multiple buildings for fabrication, paint, subassembly, final assembly and packaging.

Even if no two final assemblies are alike, each machine will have common blocks of work, such as the installation of a particular gauge or door.

Although there are historical records of the hours needed to produce the fabricated parts and subassemblies, there is no accurate measurement of operator efficiency or hours per finished unit, since there are no industrial engineering standards and no repeat orders for a specific machine.

Nevertheless, management wants improvement on labor costs. So where to start? Direct labor controls depend on accurate standards and methods. In this scenario, your initial concentration should be on developing accurate standards for fabrication and subassembly. Remember: Using historical data to predict the cost, labor content and scheduling of a fabrication or subassembly will typically be off by at least 15 percent, so you can expect at least that much in labor savings.

Begin by developing standards for common fabricated parts. Follow the procedure for repeatable work tasks.

Time quotes for unique fabricated parts can be estimated based on the standards for common parts. To verify these estimates, do a time study of the unique fabricated parts. In this case, you will only see one assembly, so you’ll need to describe the operation you are observing with your stop watch running continuously.

Document the beginning of each operation with a new start time, and later subtract the start times from each other to calculate a net time for the entire operation. Level each operation as it is concluded, then follow the methodology for a repeatable work task. Compare this time study of a nonrepeatable work task with its respective estimate to substantiate the latter. Recalculate the estimate if it’s off by more than 10 percent.

Industrial Incentives

Armed with industrial engineering standards for operators, plant management can institute a variety of incentives to boost performance.

For example, assemblers can be rewarded based on measured day work. Workers are paid a weekly bonus for achieving 100 percent of the standard.

An alternative is the “hours earned” method. When a shift produces an assembly, it “earns” the standard hours allocated for that assembly’s process. At the end of the month, the total hours earned are compared to the total hours spent. A shift that produces assemblies more efficiently than the standard creates a favorable variance. One that spends more hours than the standard produces an unfavorable variance.

Let’s say a shift needs to produce 100 assemblies, and you’ve determined that each assembly should take one hour to produce. When the shift completes these assemblies, it will have earned 100 hours. If it actually took 110 hours to produce the assemblies, that represents an unfavorable variance of 10 hours. On the other hand, if the shift produces those assemblies in 90 hours, that’s a favorable variance of 10 hours.

That variance is then translated into financial terms. If the labor rate is $10 per hour, and the plant spends $1,000 (100 actual hours x $10) to earn $1,000 (100 standard hours x $10), then the variance is zero ($1,000 actual – $1,000 earned). Assemblers are rewarded if the plant spends $1,000 for labor and earns $1,100 in standard dollars. The shift can split all or some of that $100 difference as a bonus. However, if the plant spends $1,000 and only earns $800, no one gets a bonus.

Another option is gain sharing. In this case, bonus pay is tied to output per shift, as well as weekly increases in uptime, yield, quality and attendance. Other indices, such as delivery time and scrap, can be measured on a year-to-date basis, but paid weekly. This system rewards those who are directly involved in product assembly, as well as those with indirect roles, such as fork truck drivers, material handlers and machine setup personnel.                     

Editor’s note: Joseph D. Gray has more than 30 years experience in industrial engineering, automation, material handling and lean manufacturing. An expert in the planning, design, balancing and installation of paced systems, Gray has engineered more than 100 synchronized production lines and 1,000 finished products. Before launching his consulting business, Gray served as a factory automation manager with Perkin-Elmer, foreman with Honeywell, and productivity improvement manager for Johnson & Johnson. This article is an excerpt from his forthcoming book, Classic Productivity Systems, published by iUniverse.

subscribe to assembly

Gray is Director of J.D. Gray & Associates in Summit Hill, PA

Related Articles

2016 Assembly Plant of the Year: Bosch Rexroth Flexes Its Lean Production Muscle

Femtosecond lasers improve processing of metal, plastic parts

2019 Assembly Plant of the Year: Refrigerator Production Heats Up at GE Appliances

Improve Productivity With Poka-Yoke

Subscribe For Free!
  • Print & Digital Edition Subscriptions
  • Assembly eNewsletters
  • Online Registration
  • Subscription Customer Service
  • Mobile App

More Videos

Popular Stories

lordstown motors

Electric Truck Manufacturer Buys GM’s Lordstown Assembly Plant

Bobcat manufacturing

Bobcat Announces Manufacturing and Assembly Facility Upgrades

Wearable Device 11-27

Wearable Lets Users Control IoT-Enabled Devices With Brain Waves

Rayovac 11-20

Energizer Moving VT Battery Manufacturing Facility to Former Rayovac Plant

Breaking and Industry News

Airstream Manufacturing Expands With $50 Million Factory

Upcoming Assembly Events and Webinars

Events

January 1, 2030

Webinar Sponsorship Information

For webinar sponsorship information, visit www.bnpevents.com/webinars or email webinars@bnpmedia.com.

View All Submit An Event

Poll

Cloud Computing

Are you using cloud computing at your assembly plant?
View Results Poll Archive

Products

Welding: Principles & Practices

Welding: Principles & Practices

This text introduces students to a solid background in the basic principles and practices of welding.

See More Products
assembly buyers guide

Assembly Magazine

assembly dec 2019

2019 December

The 2019 December Assembly features our Capital Spending Report, plus much more. Check it out today!
View More Create Account
  • More
    • Assembly Plant of the Year
    • Manufacturing Group
    • List Rental
    • Organizations
    • Connect
    • Want More?
    • Polls
    • Privacy Policy
    • Subscribe
    • Survey And Sample

Copyright ©2019. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing