The classic Gustav Ende table typically contains the following :
Thus, the production quota at 100% performance = 60 / 0.132 ≈ . Part 4: Advantages of the Gustav Ende Table System Why did this table become so popular in European manufacturing (especially in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Austria)? 1. Speed of use compared to stopwatch studies No need to film or repeatedly time the same operation. A trained analyst could calculate a time in minutes rather than hours. 2. Consistency and objectivity Different analysts using the same table would get the same result for the same motion pattern. Stopwatch studies could vary wildly based on operator speed and analyst judgment. 3. Suitable for pre-production planning You can estimate assembly times before a line is built or before the product is physically prototyped. This was revolutionary for cost estimation. 4. Simplicity and portability The complete table typically fit on a double-sided A4 sheet or a laminated card. No computers, no special equipment. 5. Integrates with Arbeitsgestaltung (work design) If a motion took too long according to the table, the engineer would redesign the product (e.g., add chamfers, reduce insertion force, combine parts) – a direct precursor to Design for Assembly (DFA). Part 5: Limitations and Criticisms No system is perfect. The Gustav Ende method had several shortcomings that eventually limited its use. a) Limited range of motions The table assumed relatively simple, linear, repetitive motions. Complex tasks (soldering, wire harnessing, adjusting, testing) were not well covered. b) No consideration of mental workload Checking a gauge, reading a label, or deciding orientation – these cognitive elements were largely ignored or roughly estimated, leading to under-valuation of complex assembly. c) Based on 1930s–1950s workforce ergonomics Body sizes, strength norms, and lighting levels have changed. Today’s workers may move faster but require different ergonomic allowances. d) Static – no learning curve effect The table gives a single standard time. It does not account for the steep improvement in cycle times during the first hours/days of production (the learning curve). e) No integration with digital systems When digital MTM software (TiCon, Laubrass) appeared, updating and recalculating table-based times became tedious. Part 6: Modern Successors – From Ende to MTM to Digital Twins The Gustav Ende table belongs to the family of Predetermined Motion Time Systems (PMTS) . Its direct intellectual heirs include: TABEL MONTAGE TIJDEN CONFORM GUSTAV ENDE
In the Netherlands and Germany, many factories transitioned directly from Gustav Ende to or MTM-1 in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, these standards are embedded in software that interfaces with 3D CAD models and simulation (e.g., Siemens Process Simulate, Visual Components). The classic Gustav Ende table typically contains the
| Code | Motion Element | Description | |------|----------------|-------------| | | Reaching (Hinlangen) | Moving empty hand to object | | G | Grasping (Greifen) | Taking hold of part/tool | | B | Moving (Bewegen) | Transporting part/tool through air | | F | Guiding (Führen) | Aligning and positioning | | Z | Inserting (Zusammenfügen) | Joining two components (e.g., pin into hole) | | L | Releasing (Loslassen) | Letting go of part | | SB | Side motion (Seitenbewegen) | Very short movement (<10 cm) | | W | Turning (Wenden) | Rotating wrist or part | Speed of use compared to stopwatch studies No
His name is .
Final standard time = 0.115 × 1.15 ≈ (7.9 seconds)