Problem, Objective and Hypothesis

Based on the above and according to ^{The Productivity Press Development Team (2002}), there is evidence of problems in the communication of standards and standardized work as the available tools for this task (such as job aids and standard operating sheets) do not provide the same level of added value in terms of information transmission. This motivated this investigation, which aims to propose a game to assemble a pegboard before and after teaching and learning the standard operating sheet, and to evaluate whether the teaching and learning of this tool reduces the pegboard assembly cycle time.

The research hypothesis is that the average of the differences in the cycle time of the assembly of the pegboard (before and after the teaching and learning of the standard operating sheet) is greater than zero.

Background

The background of this study are distributed into two categories. On the one hand, there is a great diversity of research that has promoted the application of standardized work and has shown positive results in manufacturing companies. On the other hand, there are studies that use games as didactic strategies to enhance the learning experience of industrial engineering in class.

^{Bragança and Costa (2015}) stand out within the first group and point out in their study that they managed to do more with less in the company where they implemented work standardization, as they obtained an increase in flexibility and productivity on the plant floor without the need for high investments.

Through the standardization of work, ^{Fazinga and Saffaro (2012}) managed to disseminate a common goal for all those involved in the operating processes. There were no autonomous actions by the operators because all replicated the sequence of operations stated in the standard operating sheet, which reduced variability in the civil construction processes.

^{Pereira et al. (2016}) stated that standard operating sheets are essential but can pose problems if not effectively managed and controlled within organizations. The authors conducted a study where they developed and reconfigured the standardization of work in a company, which had positive impacts on product quality and productivity.

Through the standardization of work, ^{De Freitas and Da Silva (2017}) managed to reduce variability and improve the process quality of a manufacturing cell. They highlight the importance of integrating people for a successful consolidation of the standard, as well as the impact on the satisfaction of the operators resulting from their participation in the design of the standards and the simplification in their training.

In a more recent study, ^{Dos Santos et al. (2021}) reported that the activities within a company used to be disorganized, resulting in frequent bottlenecks in the receiving and supply area. However, after the implementation of the standard operating sheet, there was improved harmony in operations, increased stability in the assembly line, enhanced throughput, reduced accumulated lead times, and higher process quality.

Regarding the second group of information consulted, ^{Possebon et al. (2012}) should be referenced. They successfully developed a teaching and learning process for the standard operating sheet using a group dynamic based on a game developed in class. This approach enabled production engineers to better assimilate the theoretical concepts presented during class.

^{Có et al. (2008}) also proposed a teaching and learning strategy based on a ludic experience with cards and on constructivist epistemology with the purpose of improving the competences of production engineers regarding planning tools based on the lean manufacturing model. Students were able to formulate more efficient plans that improved the fulfillment order significantly.

The studies on improving the teaching and learning of industrial engineers is not limited to the tools of the lean model. ^{Tapia (2014}) develops a company game to improve the teaching and learning of operations planning under the theory of constraints model. In his conclusions he states that games are tools that facilitate the learning process, which contributes to improved understanding of abstract issues.

Justification

Proposing a game to improve the teaching and learning of standardized work is justified due to the general use of this tool in education. Games allow people to exercise in various hard and soft skills required for their integral development. Games are simulators that replicate real scenarios with the purpose of practicing, strengthening, maturing, learning, or acquiring new knowledge.

^{Aguilar et al. (2018}) argue that the purpose of games is to achieve academic quality and generate clear standards that allow establishing indicators to evaluate the desired competence profile of a professional.

The justification for focusing on enhancing the technical competencies of industrial engineers in relation to standardized work is based on ^{Masaaki (1986}), who states that without standards and standardization, it is impossible to initiate continuous improvement processes within a company.

That is, an anomalous situation cannot be detected without prior standardization. Therefore, standards and standardization are essential to make non-standard conditions visible, so that preventive and/or corrective actions can be quickly triggered in order to standardize them and reduce waste.

Type, Method and Design of the Research

This work is of an applied type, since, as pointed out by ^{Hernández et al. (2014}), the emphasis of the study is to propose a practical solution to the problem posed. The level of the research is relational, that is, it seeks to show probabilistic dependence between events, since the statistical objective is to compare two measures, one before and the other after the teaching of the standard operating sheet. The design is pre-experimental because it works with a single group, where the intervention is applied (pre and posttest). According to ^{Arnau and Bono (2008}), the study also qualifies as longitudinal, of repeated measures on the same group, since its main characteristic is the sequential observation of the same dependent variable according to different treatments.

Inventory items required for implementing the pegboard assembly game

To run the game proposed, the items listed and shown in Figure 1 are required.

1 asymmetrical 20 × 23 cm wooden board with 42 holes.

50 wooden sticks 7 cm high and 0.5 cm in diameter. It should be noted that only 42 wooden sticks are required to assemble the pegboard. However, there is a restriction in the game: if a stick falls out during the assembly, it cannot be reused because it is assumed to be contaminated. Thus, industrial engineers will have to consider these wastes to determine the stock of sticks that will be needed at the workstation.

Trays of various types to organize the sticks prior to the assembly operation. The purpose of providing different containers is for industrial engineers to evaluate which is the most appropriate type and the number of containers to run the assembly operation easily and safely.

Note: The type and number of containers used to organize the sticks before starting the assembly operation will be determined by the industrial engineers.

Source: Prepared by the author.

Figure 1 Inventory items required for implementing the pegboard assembly game. 

Game configuration

The game consists of assembling the pegboard in a 50 second standard cycle time as shown in Figure 2. The game starts with the organization of the worktable with the items to be used and ends with the total assembly of the pegboard. The only restriction is that if a stick falls out of the board during the assembly operation, it cannot be reused (it is assumed to be contaminated).

Note: The unassembled pegboard is shown on the left and the assembled one is shown on the right.

Source: Prepared by the author.

Figure 2 Pegboard to Assemble. 

Population and Sample

The study population consisted of students enrolled in the Quality and Productivity Management course at the Graduate School of Industrial Engineering of a university of Lima, Peru.

The game dynamics involved dividing the students into two distinct groups, each with well-defined roles, and whose responses were based on non-probabilistic directed samples. The group of industrial engineers consisted of 5 volunteer students, while the group of operators comprised the remaining 25 students.

The group of industrial engineers was responsible for designing the standard procedure for the pegboard assembly to be performed in a standardized cycle time of 50 seconds. This group was also in charge of timing the actual assembly cycle times and documenting the gap between the standard procedure designed and the actual one executed.

On the other hand, the group of operators was responsible for executing the pegboard assembly operations according to the standard procedure designed by the industrial engineers.

Pegboard Assembly Rounds

Two assembly rounds were designed for the unassembled pegboards as follows:

The first round was executed by the group of operators based on the job aid designed by the group of industrial engineers. The industrial engineers were asked to develop a procedure to assemble the pegboard in a cycle time that lasted 50 seconds. The procedure had to contemplate the items to be used, their organization on the worktable and the filling of the pegboard. The group of industrial engineers was told that they could take into account the ideas provided by the group of operators to create the job aid.

The teacher then gave a 50-minute class on the standard operating sheet, in which it was explained what a standard operating sheet is, what it is used for, its format, how to create one, and the sections that conform it.

Then the second assembly round was carried out by the group of operators following the standard operating sheet designed by the group of industrial engineers. This time, the members of the group of industrial engineers were no longer told that they could take into consideration the ideas provided by the group of operators to make the standard operating sheet. They were told in class that one of the strengths of the standard operating sheet design is that it incorporates the participation of the operators in its outline.

Evaluation of the Job Aid and the Standard Operating Sheet Prepared by the Industrial Engineers for the First and Second Pegboard Assembly Rounds

Table 1 shows a checklist evaluation of the instruments designed by the industrial engineers to standardize the pegboard assembly process. This checklist was completed at the end of both rounds by the students and the teacher in order to make the students aware of what they were able to achieve and what they still need to consolidate.

Table 1 shows several weaknesses observed in the procedure developed with the job aid during the first round. Although the industrial engineers outlined the logical sequence of operations, the operators faced challenges regarding the arrangement of items on their worktable (including the position of the pegboard and trays) and the organization of sticks in the trays. The industrial engineers did not incorporate visual training or symbology to emphasize crucial points for task execution. Furthermore, they did not provide justifications for why tasks should be performed as described, nor did they determine whether operators should work while standing or sitting. Limited integration with the group of operators was observed during the creation of the job aid. As a result, there was an increased degree of freedom and variability during the execution of the first round, as shown in Figure 3. These factors also influenced the achieved assembly cycle times, as shown in Table 2.

In contrast, Table 1 shows the results with the standard operating sheet designed by the industrial engineers for round 2. There was more precision in describing what tasks should be performed, how to do them and why they should be done that way. In addition, they exploited visual management, which made it easier for the group of operators to perform the tasks. There was also greater standardization both in the arrangement of the items on the worktable and in the assembly operation itself, but, above all, there was full integration between industrial engineers and operators to prepare the standard operating sheet, which can be seen in Table 3.

Note: All operators used the trays and number of sticks specified in the job aid, however the arrangement of the sticks on the work table was very different because it was not specified in the procedure. The photo on the left also shows an operator working standing up, while in the last two photos the operators performed the assembly operation sitting down. All of this had an impact on the amount of waste and the assembly cycle time.

Source: Prepared by the author.

Figure 3 Variability in the organization of the Required Items on the Worktable and in the Assembly Operation Based on the Job Aid Prepared by the Industrial Engineers. 

Table 3 Standard Operating Sheet Elaborated by the Group of Industrial Engineers in Coordination with the Group of Operators for the Second Pegboard Assembly Round. 

STANDARD OPERATING SHEET Procedure description : Pegboard assembly Cycle time : 50 seconds Items required : 1 pegboard of 20 × 23 cm with 42 holes 46 sticks of 7 cm high and 0.5 cm in diameter 2 flat plastic trays of 14 × 11 × 2 cm Tools or resources required : 1 worktable
TASKS (WHAT)	KEY POINTS (HOW)		REASONS (WHY)		VISUAL TRAINING
Position the pegboard in the center of the worktable as shown in the visual training section.	Pay attention to the vertical orientation of the board (6 × 7).		It facilitates the filling of the board because it synchronizes the work of both hands. (√)
Arrange the 2 trays adjacent to the pegboard.	The trays should be very close to the pegboard and perpendicular to it.		It saves the displacement of both hands.
Arrange 23 sticks in each tray. (●)	The sticks should be in the orientation shown in the visual training section (parallel to the board).		It facilitates the assembly operation. The hands will lift the sticks in the position that they need to be assembled. (√)
Take one stick from the left tray with the left hand, and one stick from the right tray with the right hand and place them into the A3 and A4 holes respectively. (■)	Use both hands simultaneously and synchronized. Press the sticks lightly into the board. If a stick falls off the board do not pick it up because it is contaminated and repeat step 4.		It prevents downtime.
Repeat step 4, but this time fill the A2 and A5 holes with the left and right hands respectively. (■)	Do this simultaneously and press the sticks lightly into the pegboard.		It makes it easy to fill the board and the collision of both hands. (√)
Repeat step 4, but this time fill holes A1 and A6 with the left and right hands respectively. (■)	Do this simultaneously and lightly press the sticks into the peg board.		It makes it easy to fill the board and the collision of both hands. (√)
Repeat steps 4, 5 and 6 for each remaining row, taking care to fill the holes with the same logic. (■)	Do this simultaneously and press lightly.		It makes it easy to fill the board and the collision of both hands. (√)
Critical points to remember	■	Critical inspection	●	Check quantity	†	Be careful, you could get hurt	√	It facilitates the work

Source: The preparation of the original document was done freehand by the students.

Statistical Results