How MTM Really Works: From Motions To Time

We dig into how MTM turns micro motions into fair, consistent time standards with ReThink Productivity’s Simon Woodfield and Ed Thompson and when to use MTM1, MTM2, or UAS for different kinds of work. We share how video, TMUs, and peer review remove bias and help teams set reliable, safe methods.

• MTM motion categories and why they matter
• Video-based analysis for repeatability and detail
• Differences between MTM1, MTM2, and UAS
• Choosing the right system for cycle length
• How motion rules remove subjectivity
• TMUs explained and conversion to seconds
• Practical coding tips and peer review
• Coding the intended method for safety and quality

 Find out more at the UKMTM Website

#theproductivityexperts
Register for the 2026 Productivity Forum
Find us in the Top 50 Productivity Podcasts
Connect to Simon on LinkedIn
Follow ReThink on LinkedIn

Chapters

• 0:10 Welcome And Today’s Focus
• 0:56 MTM Motion Categories Explained
• 2:25 Video Analysis And Repeatability
• 3:52 MTM1, MTM2, UAS And Logistics
• 7:53 Removing Subjectivity With Motion Rules
• 12:47 TMUs And Converting To Seconds
• 14:51 Practical Tips For Applying MTM
• 19:16 Peer Review, Consistency, And Close

Transcript

SPEAKER_01: 0:06

Welcome to the Productivity Podcast. This is episode two in our series around MTM. And today we're going to be getting into a little bit more detail about how MTM really works. So I'm delighted that Simon and Ed are rejoining me. Hi both. How are you doing? Hi there, Simon. All good here. Thank you very much.

unknown: 0:28

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 0:28

Hi both.

SPEAKER_01: 0:29

Nice to uh talk to you again. Good. And our promise is we'll try and keep this as simple as possible. So without further ado then, Simon, do you want to give us an overview of the motion categories? Because these are kind of quite fundamental to how the whole MTM operation works.

SPEAKER_00: 1:02

Yeah, fine. So MTM1 works on essentially the basic motions of reach, grass, move, position, and release. Essentially, they form part of virtually everything that we ever do. If you think about having to pick up a cup to drink a cup of coffee, we have to reach for it, then we grasp it, then we have to move it to the mouth, potentially position it, and then at some point we have to then put it back onto the table and release it. So MTM will look at each of those movements using the various influence and factors for each of those moves, and then we can use those influence and factors to drive us in the right direction using the rules applied to come up with a code. And that in turn can uh give us the time. Okay. Along with the reach, grasp, remove position, and release, we also have other movements of the body, so that'd be sidesteps, turns, walks. We also have other motions like uh turn of the wrist, re grasping, and then things use the use of the eyes as well. So put all those combinations together, we can then code virtually any repeatable action and uh be able to come up with a time value for each of those.

SPEAKER_01: 2:21

And it it's fair to say that to break that down and do that analysis, you can video that process with somebody hopefully doing it the correct way, because why would you want to base it on somebody not and and then kind of recreate that in terms of the the reach, the graphs, the move based on you starting and stopping and watching that video. So I suppose the point I'm trying to make is there's not a reliance to have to capture this in real time.

SPEAKER_00: 2:47

No, absolutely, you know. So the the benefit there is as you say, you can video it. I would always recommend that you you video a number of cycles just to ensure that we all got a level of repeatability in there because the human will sometimes make mistakes. So uh it just allows us to sort of uh ignore those if necessary. The beauty there is that you don't have to be watching that person to do it. So I ideally, you know, you can have somebody in Newcastle filming the emotions and somebody in Plymouth doing the coding if if necessary. So it's very good for that point of view that uh you don't have to send people all around the country to do the analysis and and spend lots of time on hotel and travel. And then, yes, the the the other beauty with the video is that you can slow it down and have a look at the motions in real detail. So a good good camera uh that will allow that uh in good quality would always be ideal as well.

SPEAKER_01: 3:48

Brilliant. We've mentioned a couple of times what at the moment probably feels like strange words to people. So MTM1, MTM2, MTM log, MTM UAS. Do you want to just explain to people how that fits in then? So we've got the categories, the the physical movements, and then you've got these buckets of of codes. How do they all how do they work together or not as the case may be?

SPEAKER_00: 4:13

Okay. So MTM1 is the the lowest form. So that's the most granular, the most detailed. And when you consider we've probably got around about 1600 different codes that we can use there, so we can cover it. That looks at reaches and grasps in very minute detail, and a lot of the movements are as low as two centimeters in distance as well. So it's very, very detailed. That forms the basis of each of the other building blocks that we can we can work on. Okay, MTN1 is very good for highly repeatable short cycle methods. So you think about if somebody is aimed to do a cycle that lasts 15 seconds and they're doing it thousands of times a day, MTN1 will be very good because the minute changes will make a big difference when when multiplied up. Okay, MTN1 is also very good for looking at two-handed work, and also where the foot may be used as well. So ultimately, you can be coding for the left hand, right hand, and for the foot motions as well at the same time. So ultimately, that would be three different motions all happening at the same time. We then look at MTM2, and what we do there is we've we've combined a number of the key motions together. So in MTM2, the reach and the grasp are coded together along with the release, and then we have the move and the positioning because it's a separate code. So essentially, where we had five in MTM1, we only have two codes, the get and the put available to us in MTM2. That's very good if you're using slightly longer cycles work. Very good for using for two-handed, and it still takes into consideration the weight, as does MTM1. So very good if you want some detail there, but it is quicker to analyze because, as I say, we are reducing five codes down to two. We then have UAS or the Universal Analyzing System, and that is very good for repeatable work of longer cycle, whereby the individual operator will have a certain level of autonomy as to how that method transpires. So providing the starting point and the ending point are met, the bit that happens in between can happen in any order. So that that'd be ideal for say longer cycles, very good for things like logistics, where they're having to pack some boxes because each box may be packed with different items uh every single time. So we can group each of those together, and that puts the get and the place uh all in one code. So that's that's very good for that one. Very quick to analyze that one in comparison to MTM1, probably about 10 times quicker. We do lose a little bit of detail, probably about 10%. So the times could be plus or minus 10% of the equivalent time in MTM1. So the benefit is it is 10 times quicker to analyze. Okay, and that feeds into logistics as well. So if you've got a logistics business where you've got packing workbenches, where you're driving forklift trucks, pushing trolleys down aisles, uh logistics has got codes there, and that'll help you work out for those as well. And that is a combination of lots of UAS codes to come up with that one.

SPEAKER_01: 7:36

So something for everybody, every type of organisation, and one of one of your roles is to help people understand the differences and then to help them select the one that they think is fit for their business.

SPEAKER_00: 7:48

Yeah, yeah, that's correct.

SPEAKER_01: 7:49

Yeah, so Ed, just talk us through how the motion rules remove kind of subjectivity from the time setting and the fine light book.

SPEAKER_03: 8:02

It's probably best to explain it within the context of MTM1. So that's what Salmon was referring to in terms of the most detailed level that you can get to with MTM and it forms a foundation for all the other code types built from. So it's almost like the the foundation building block of all the different methods. All of the codes are built from the films that were called back in the 1940s. And those films, once they were being recorded, they had a group of industrial engineers sitting around and after they recorded them, re-watched the videos and rated the performance of each of those videos. So they made sure that everything was back to a it was a different measurement system compared to what we use in the UK, but it's an LMS system of performance rating. They made sure that the times were equivalent to a fair day's work in LMS, 100% of their performance rating. So it takes away that subjective rating that our engineers will do whilst they're on site doing a time study. So that's one aspect of the subjectivity removed from MTM because it's in included in the predetermined time. Then all of the other subjectivity is pretty much taken care of by the level of detail that you go into. So for each of the codes Simon was mentioning, in terms of reach grasp, etc., you'll have to describe each one of those using a data card. So it breaks it down into steps that as you're analyzing, you'd be looking at and saying, What am I watching? What code should I be giving to that to that emotion that I'm seeing? So you break it down, you say, Well, number one, what they're doing, are they reaching and they're grasping, etc. So if we assume that they're reaching, then you say, Great, I know that they're doing that. How far then is their hand travelling? So you give it a distance class based on how far that the arms travelled and the hands travelled. And the next step is to look at what it is that they're reaching to and how it's positioned. So in MTM1, there's five different ways an item can be positioned that would affect the timing that you give to it. So is it against something and is it there all the time? Is it a really easy grasp, an easy reach because it's always going to be in the same position? If it's a single item where it moves around between time, then it's still an easy reach to it, but it's a bit more difficult than the first one because it's going to have moved and you're going to have to look to see where it is. So it will vary slightly from cycle to cycle. And you break it down like that and you just run through those rules. If you were so that's sort of reach, there's different rules for the different sort of motions, but they follow a similar pattern of you're looking at how far it is that something is is traveling, you're looking at the the weight, you're looking at the positioning of it, and how tight things are, how loose things are, how easy they are to get, how tricky they are to place. And from that, you're able to build that that foundation of if I've got it in this level of detail, then actually there's no subjectivity because we know that that item's travelled four centimetres. We know it's against something. It can be nothing else than, in this case, the R4A that we've coded it as.

SPEAKER_01: 11:48

So it builds kind of ultimate confidence in terms of the robustness of and the heritage of the data and where it's come from, and takes out the subjectivity of page rating, is what you're saying.

SPEAKER_03: 12:00

Yeah, yeah. It takes takes out that and it also takes out the I guess the subjectivity that you sometimes get around breakpoints within a normal time study of when does one action start, when does it finish. That's all removed from MTM as well. It's it's all you already know what you're going to be looking for, and you know when something's, you know, when the hand reaches an object, the reach is finished, the graph starts. So it takes care of that as well.

SPEAKER_01: 12:27

Yeah, and again, we we shouldn't forget how small and quick some of these movements may be, which is why this type of approach is much better than using a stopwatch when we get down to this level of granularity. And I think we touched in episode one about TMUs. So that the what would we call it? The the output is isn't necessarily directly in seconds. So MTM works in TMUs. Do you want to explain that a bit more and then how we ultimately get to seconds?

SPEAKER_03: 12:57

Yeah. So with the TMUs, there are there are a unit that was basically of time that was invented around MTM to allow you to get down to that level of granularity. The most common code that you'd use in MTM1 that gets down to the smallest of the level of detail is two TMUs. It's a tiny amount of time. So one TMU is 0.036 of a second. So hardly anything. It would be something like someone blinking will be one TMU. Um so you can get 27.8 TMUs in a in a second. You basically use that calculation of how many TMUs have you got divided by 27.8. That's going to be how many seconds that you've that you've got to work with. And we take that, and you'd then use that as you would do any other time to apply contingencies allowances to get to a standard minute value. So it it works up quite easily to a usable value, but you've still got that TMU level of detail behind it that allows you to start to strip things out by fractions of seconds rather than um looking at if it was it again at a time study, you'd be taking or you'd be looking at sort of six, twelve second blocks at your lowest levels of detail, and you won't get much past that, whereas you've got potentially 10, 20, 30 codes in MTM that can be behind that sort of similar level of detail.

SPEAKER_01: 14:36

Yeah, so just really really shows the level of detail that you can get down to. And just remind everybody what TMU stands for.

SPEAKER_03: 14:44

Time measurement unit, simple as that.

SPEAKER_01: 14:47

Good. And between yourself and Simon, you've both seen lots of organizations apply MTM, clearly used it yourself in kind of work at rethink. If we start with you, Ed, have you got any top tips for people in terms of how they apply MTM, maybe some things they should do or some things they should definitely avoid?

SPEAKER_03: 15:10

I've probably used it consistently. It is one of the one of the key bits for me. So I find if I've not done any for a while and if I'm switching between the different sort of systems, the MTM systems, then I need to just make sure I'm refreshed and know what I'm doing. I'll generally code with the data card that has all of the descriptions in front of me, but I'll also have the manuals open and by my side. So if I want to check something, I've got that standard that I can go back to and refer to. A lot of the time that will stop me from making any silly mistakes, or if I'm unclear on something, it allows me to justify the code that I'm given, which is really helpful for me. I also find that it's really good if you can have another person who's not necessarily doing the coding with you, but is available to check the work that you've done and offer a second opinion. So I'll often use Simon. Simon will often come to me with some codes and we'll check other members of the teams if they've been out doing the coding themselves, then they'll show it to us. We can give them our opinions, and it just makes sure that everything goes back to that sort of that international standard that we've that we're basing the codes on.

SPEAKER_01: 16:30

Brilliant. And Simon, from your experience?

SPEAKER_00: 16:33

Yeah, I mean, th the first and probably the key one for me was probably Ed's very last point there, and that's to use your peers to help. So a number of our clients who've got a a reasonable number of people that are trained in MTM quite often have groups set up so they'll uh they can assess each other's work, go through common issues and problems, and come up with a a common solution within the group of businesses to to overcome that. So I suppose collectively then they'll they're all singing from the same song sheet. If you're from a smaller team, as Ed's alluded to, it's quite often just to go to another colleague and just sort of get them to cast their eyes over because it's quite easy to see things. And in in in MTM UAS, we particularly use estimating for distances. So just using some common themes and tools and accessories that are within the workplace to help with the estimating of distances is common. So just using things like an A4 piece of paper, which we know we've got sort of approximately 20 by 30, will be a very good point of reference when it comes to judging how far hands move with a piece of paper or a notebook or a pen. You know, when you when you've got these common things that are around, so you can use those as a good reference point for distances. So they're certainly a uh a good one to use your colleagues for. Also, common mistake is analysing what the operators do. Okay, we shouldn't be coding that, we should always be coding what the intended method is. And this is something I reiterate always on our training. The intended method is always geared up to ensure that both health and safety and quality assurance are hit. If you think about putting a wheel onto a car, we're actively encouraged to put opposite bolts on, not going around in clockwise or anticlockwise fashion because the wheel could go on uh in the incorrect manner. So making sure that we follow the intended method because the intended method is the method that we know is going to hit the quality assurance and the health and safety tick boxes. Um, and that means that we're giving them the right amount of time to do the job correctly, not the amount of time that the the operator believes he can do is in because he's trying to chase the number.

SPEAKER_01: 18:48

Good. And I I really like the peer review one that you both mentioned. And and again, Simon, from your experience, I suppose that the benefit of that is if I've not been involved in the coding, you should really be able to give me the video and then your analysis, and I should be able to watch that journey play out in the the code. So I pick the cup up and I put it down, that's you know, that should be reflected in that code. So I suppose that that's that quality assurance check that gives everybody the confidence in the result.

SPEAKER_00: 19:18

Absolutely, yes. So whilst we're all trained in the same way, we all receive the same training. Quite often, certainly in some circumstances, uh, we see things slightly differently. So it's great that the peer can come along, your peers can come along and review it and help and guide your way through because it's it's I I say it's always best to be consistent because it's easier to make any remedial actions later on as well, to be consistent in that. So yeah, it's a good good point of reference to be able to help each other out there, and uh it's something I actively encourage and we certainly do here at Rethink as well, you know, especially if people have got a situation that they're they're less familiar with, or particularly if uh analysis is done by somebody who's who doesn't use MTM on a regular basis. Is a great way of just uh helping them to make sure their skills are uh get into top condition.

SPEAKER_01: 20:11

Perfect. We'll we'll finish episode two there. We'll be back with episode three looking at how we use MTM to improve methods. So thank you once again, Simon and Ed, and we will speak in episode three.

SPEAKER_00: 20:24

Thank you.

SPEAKER_01: 20:25

Yeah, thank you.