Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
94
INTRODUCTION
The existence of population growth and the development of science and technology provide
opportunities for producers to produce goods in large quantities and varied. Many companies
compete to produce quality products and create various products. This situation can affect the
viability of the business initiated by the actors involved. One thing that affects the company's
survival is warehouse management because the warehouse helps accommodate goods produced
before being distributed to customers. The warehouse is closely related to inventory and is directly
related to sales. Thus, good warehouse management is expected to help companies compete with
existing competitors.
In a company, a product or finished goods produced through the production process must
be maintained appropriately until they reach the hands of consumers. For this reason, the
company needs a warehouse to store production results so that the product can be maintained
safely. Lambert (2011) says that a warehouse is part of a company's logistics system that stores
products (raw materials, parts, goods-in-process, and finished goods) at and between the origin
and the point of consumption (point-of-consumption), as well as providing information to
management regarding the status, condition, and disposition of stored items.
THE EFFECT OF WAREHOUSE LAYOUT ON WORK
PRODUCTIVITY AT PT PERKASA PRIMARINDO
Volume: 4
Number: 1
Page: 94 - 114
Ernawati ERNAWATI1, Degdo SUPRAYITNO2, Yuli EVITHA3, Wahyuddin
Latunreng4
1.2.3.4Program Study Logistics Management Faculty of Social Sciences and
Management Stiami Institute of Social Sciences and Management, Jakarta,
Indonesia, Indonesia
Corresponding author: Ernawati
Email: ernawati0234@gmail.com
Article History:
Received: 2022-11-04
Revised: 2022-12-12
Accepted: 2023-01-15
Abstract:
The background of this research is the ineffective warehouse layout and the
need for more utilization of storage space capacity in the warehouse; it affects
operational activities at the PT Perkasa Primarindo warehouse, which results in
less than optimal work productivity. This study aims to determine how much
influence the warehouse layout has on work productivity at PT Perkasa
Primarindo. This research uses quantitative research methods. The population
in this study were PT Perkasa Primarindo's warehouse employees, as many as
25 people, and the sample in this study were 25 employees. Sampling in this
study used the Non-Probability Sampling technique. The results showed that
the warehouse layout variable could affect work productivity by 75.4%, and the
remaining 24.6% is influenced by other variables not included in the study. At
the same time, the t-test obtained t-count values more significant than the t-table
(8.388 > 2.068) with a significant level of work productivity so that it can be
concluded that H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted, which means that the
warehouse layout variable has a significant effect on work productivity
variables.
Keywords: Warehouse, Warehouse Layout, Work Productivity.
Cite this as: ERNAWATI., SUPRIYITNO D., EVITHA Y., & LATUNRENG, W.
(2022). “The Effect of Warehouse Layout on Work Productivity at PT Perkasa
Primarindo.” International Journal of Environmental, Sustainability, and Social
Sciences, 4 (1), 94 - 114.
95
A warehouse in a company indicates that the production results are large enough so that the flow
of goods in and out and the stock of goods must be controlled. Warehousing stores goods
produced in a certain amount and timeframe, which are then distributed to the destination
location based on consumer demand.
In warehouse management for a company, the vital thing is layout management, where the
layout has many strategic impacts on the company and can affect the company in terms of
capacity, process, flexibility, cost, quality of the work environment, and so on. According to
Wignjosoebroto (2003), the layout is a primary foundation in the industrial world. A good layout
in the warehouse will provide efficient flow, shorter distances for moving goods, shorter
transportation times, and minimum moving costs. In the warehouse layout, it is necessary to pay
attention to effectiveness and efficiency in entering and releasing goods. This can be achieved by
arranging goods by making optimal use of the available space. In addition, positioning, placement,
and grouping of goods are also needed so that removing goods from the warehouse can be done
quickly.
PT. Perkasa Primindo is one of the companies located on Jl. Setia Mekar Km. 38-39 Tambun -
East Bekasi. This company is engaged in the production of ceramic tiles, and later the products
produced by the company will be distributed to domestic areas in Indonesia. PT. Perkasa
Primindo has produced ceramic tiles of 20 cm x 40 cm; 25 cm x 25 cm; 25 cm x 40 cm; 40 cm x 40 cm
with embossed and flat surface types. These products are stored in a warehouse before being
distributed to consumers—a warehouse for storing finished goods at PT. Perkasa Primindo has a
storage capacity of 80,000 m2.
Table 1. Product Size, Type, Brand, and Surface Type.
Source: Warehouse Staff of PT. Mighty Primindo
In this case, the company needs to know how effective the warehouse layout management is
by measuring productivity. Because to be able to know the success of the company, productivity is
an essential determining factor. If productivity increases from time to time, the company will
quickly achieve the goals that have been set. Hasibuan in Busro (2018: 340) says that productivity
is the ratio between output (results) and input (input). Therefore, if productivity increases, it will
increase the efficiency of time, materials, and labor as well as work systems and production
techniques and increase the workforce's skills.
SIZE
TYPE
BRAND
SURFACE TYPE
20 cm x 40 cm
Ancelotti Specta White
Octagon
Emboss
25 cm x 25 cm
Gomez Series
Octagon
Emboss
Starla Series
Valencia
Milano Series
Mandalay
25 cm x 40 cm
Versace Series
Octagon
Emboss dan Flat
Adena Series
Valencia
Selena Series
Artemis
Adenium Series
Mandalay
40 cm x 40 cm
Maldini Series
Octagon
Emboss dan Flat
Gofasa Series
Valencia
Benelli Series
Mandalay
96
Figure 1. Current Warehouse Conditions
Source: PT. Mighty Primindo
From the results of observations made by researchers, it can be seen that the current
condition of the warehouse is ineffective and does not even match the existing warehouse layout,
causing several problems such as the placement of manufactured goods not well organized, many
products are placed haphazardly or are not following the size and type of product, as well as the
placement of the product also changes. This causes many products to be tucked in or mixed with
other types of products, making it difficult for workers and taking quite a long time to search for
goods when loading and removing them. Furthermore, because the arrangement or placement of
products is different from the type and size, conditions like this will make the warehouse very
cramped and result in an inefficient process of moving goods and complicate warehouse
operations during picking up or releasing goods. As a result, activities in the warehouse and the
process of loading goods for delivery need to be improved.
Table 2. Total Production of Ceramic Tiles PT. Mighty Primindo
Source: Warehouse Staff of PT. Mighty Primindo
Table 2 shows that data on the number of production products stored or entered in
warehouses from October 2021 to January 2022 is unstable every month, so the management of
warehouse layout and utilization of warehouse capacity could be more optimal and helps work
productivity. Therefore, to determine how effective a company's warehouse layout management
is, measuring productivity by adjusting the number of goods produced with the number of goods
released in the warehouse is necessary. Based on the background above, the writer is interested in
raising this problem so that the title "The Influence of Warehouse Layout on Work Productivity at
Pt Perkasa Primarindo" is obtained.
According to Lucas Dwiantara and Rumsari (2014: 20), logistics management is a collection
of activities such as planning, organizing, and supervising all procurement activities, recording,
No.
Month
Production Amount
Type
1.
October
123.363
All Types
2.
November
94.340
All Types
3.
December
141.050
All Types
4.
January
112.930
All Types
97
distribution, storage, and maintenance to support an organization's goals to be more effective and
efficient.
METHODS
The research approach is divided into two, namely quantitative research and qualitative
research. This study uses a quantitative research approach. The quantitative research method is a
type of research whose specifications are systematic, planned, and structured from the start to the
creation of the research design.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Brief Company History. PT Perkasa Primarindo is one of the companies engaged in
ceramics production in Bekasi Regency, located on Jl. Setia Mekar Km. 38 - 39 Tambun - East
Bekasi. This company is one of the ceramic-producing companies that distributes its products to
the domestic area of Indonesia.
In the beginning, before this company produced ceramics and changed its name to PT. Perkasa
Primindo, in 1988 the company was established under the name PT. Perkasa Ruberindo with
PMDN (Domestic Investment) status, located at Jalan Setia Mekar Km 38 - 39 Bekasi Timur -
Jakarta. Then, on January 24, 1989, PT. Perkasa Ruberindo started its operations with the
production of rubber gloves. However, considering that rubber gloves have yet to receive a
positive response at the level of traditional and international markets, the management has begun
to project an analysis of the transfer of business fields that are better for its development. After
that, in 1992, PT. Perkasa Ruberindo changed its name to PT. Perkasa Primindo with a focus on
ceramic production. And in 1993, PT. Perkasa Primindo has officially started ceramic production in
the form of ceramic tiles.
Overview of Respondents. The general description of the respondents provides an overview
of the characteristics of the respondents, who are all warehouse employees at PT. Mighty
Primindo. In this study, the authors determined a sample of 25 respondents. Then, the authors
distributed the questionnaires and gave them to n = 25 respondents who were warehouse
employees at PT. Mighty Primindo. Based on the distribution of questionnaires, taking the
questionnaires answered by the respondents can be seen in table 4.1 below:
Table 3. Number of Samples and Level of Questionnaire
Description
Total
Total distribution of 25 questionnaires
25
The total return of questionnaires 25
25
Number of questionnaires that were not returned 0
0
Respondent rate (rate of return) 100
100
Total Questionnaires that can be processed 25
25
Total Questionnaires that cannot be processed 0
0
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS version 26, 2022
Based on table 3, it is explained that the questionnaire was distributed to 25 respondents
with a level of 100% means that the entire questionnaire is returned and can be processed. From
the results of distributing the questionnaires, it was possible to obtain data regarding the
characteristics of the respondents according to the gender of the respondent, age of the
respondent, and length of time the respondent worked.
98
Table 4. Respondents by Gender.
Gender
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Male
25
100.0
100.0
100.0
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS version 26, 2022
Based on table 4, it can be seen that the characteristics of respondents based on gender
consist of 25 respondents, or 100% are male. This shows that all respondents are male.
Table 5. Respondents by Age
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Source: Data
Processing Using SPSS version 26, 2022
In table 5 above, it can be seen that the characteristics of respondents based on age consist of
24% for ages 20-30 years, as many as six respondents, 24% for ages 31-40 years, as many as six
respondents, and 52% for ages > 41 years as many as 13 respondents. This shows that the majority
of respondents based on age were aged > 41 years, namely 52%.
Table 6. Respondents Based on Length of Work
Length of work
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1-5 Years
12
48.0
48.0
48.0
6-10 Years
5
20.0
20.0
68.0
11-15 Years
2
8.0
8.0
76.0
> 16 Years
6
24.0
24.0
100.0
Total
25
100.0
100.0
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS version 26, 2022
Table 6 shows that the characteristics of respondents based on length of service of
employees are 48% for 1-5 years for 12 respondents, 20% for 6-10 years for five respondents, 8% for
11-15 years for two respondents, and 24% for > 16 years as many as six respondents. This shows
that the highest number of respondents based on length of work, namely for 1-5 years, is 48%.
Descriptive Analysis Index analysis for the answers to each variable aims to describe the
respondents' responses in this study, especially regarding the variables used in the study, namely
the warehouse layout variable and the work productivity variable.
In this study, an analysis technique was used by multiplying the number of Likert scale weights by
the number of respondents who chose specific answer categories for each correct question item.
The results are summed up and totaled from all respondents and then compared with the interval
scale listed in the research methodology chapter so that conclusions can be drawn.
a. Warehouse Layout Variable Descriptive (X)
Age
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
20-30 Years
6
24.0
24.0
24.0
31-40 Years
6
24.0
24.0
48.0
>41 Years
13
52.0
52.0
100.0
Total
25
100.0
100.0
99
The warehouse layout variable on the researcher's questionnaire has four dimensions with eight
questions. Warehouse layout variables are measured with the following dimensions:
1. Equipment and handling of materials or materials.
Table 7. Equipment used according to SOP (Company Operational Standards)
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation table 7 above, it is explained that there were no respondents who
strongly disagreed. Instead, there were three respondents, or 12%, who disagreed. Five
respondents, or 20%, stated neutral, 13 respondents, or 52%, agreed, and four respondents, or 16%,
stated strongly agree, so the average score of respondents' answers obtained for this question is
3.72, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
Table 8. Selection of reliable and efficient equipment for material handling in the warehouse
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation, table 9 above explains that no respondents strongly disagreed.
There were five respondents, or 20%, who disagreed, 7, or 28%, who stated neutral, 8 or 32%, who
agreed, and 5, or 20%, strongly agreed, so the average score of respondents' answers obtained for
this question is 3.52, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
Table 9. Efficient use of space can facilitate activities in the warehouse
No
Alternative Answer
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
1
4%
1
1
No
Alternative Answer
Frequency (F)
Percentage (%)
Weight (X)
X.F)
1
Strongly Disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
3
12%
2
6
3
Neutral
5
20%
3
15
4
Agree
13
52%
4
52
5
Strongly Disagree
4
16%
5
20
Total
25
100%
93
Description
Fine
No
Alternative Answer
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weight
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly Disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
5
20%
2
10
3
Neutral
7
28%
3
21
4
Agree
8
32%
4
32
5
Strongly Disagree
5
20%
5
25
Total
25
100%
88
Information :
Fine
100
2
Disagree
1
4%
2
2
3
Neutral
8
32%
3
24
4
Agree
8
32%
4
32
5
Agree
7
28%
5
35
Total
25
100%
94
Information:
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation table 9 above, it is explained that one respondent, or 4%, stated that
they strongly disagreed. Therefore, there was one respondent, or 4%, who stated that they did not
agree; 8 respondents, or 32%, who stated neutral; eight respondents, or 32%, who stated that they
agreed; and seven respondents, or 28%, who stated that they strongly agreed so that the average
score of respondents' answers obtained for this question is 3.76, which is included in the scale of
3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
Tabel 10. Availability of space for each component
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
5
20%
2
10
3
Neutral
6
24%
3
18
4
Agree
7
28%
4
28
5
Agree
7
28%
5
35
Total
25
100%
91
Information :
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation table 4.8 above, it is explained that there were no respondents who
strongly disagreed. However, on the other hand, there were five respondents, or 20%, disagreed;
six respondents, or 24%, stated neutral; seven respondents, or 28%, and seven respondents, or 28%,
strongly agreed, so the average score of respondents' answers obtained for this question is 3.64,
which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
Table 11. Work environment according to Occupational Safety and Health Standards
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
1
4%
1
1
2
Disagree
5
20%
2
10
3
Neutral
2
8%
3
6
4
Agree
9
36%
4
36
5
Agree
8
32%
5
40
Total
Total
100%
93
Information :
101
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation, table 11 above explains that one respondent, or 4%, stated that they
strongly disagreed. There were five respondents, or 20%, who stated that they did not agree; two
respondents, or 8%, who stated neutral, nine respondents, or 36%, who stated that they agreed;
and eight respondents, or 32%, who strongly agreed, so the average score of respondents' answers
obtained for this question is 3.72, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating
category.
Table 12. The work environment is made as good as possible so that employees feel comfortable
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency (F)
Percentage (%)
Weights (X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
1
4%
1
1
2
Disagree
5
20%
2
10
3
Neutral
8
32%
3
24
4
Agree
3
12%
4
12
5
Agree
8
32%
5
40
Total
25
100%
87
Information :
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation, table 12 above explains that one respondent or 4% stated that they
strongly disagreed. Five respondents, or 20%, stated that they did not agree; eight respondents, or
32%, stated neutral; three respondents, or 12%, stated that they agreed; and eight respondents, or
32%, strongly agreed so that the average score of respondents' answers obtained for this question
is 3.48, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
Table 13. There is a clear indication of the product
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
2
8%
2
4
3
Neutral
4
16%
3
12
4
Agree
11
44%
4
44
5
Agree
8
32%
5
40
Total
25
100%
100
Information:
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation table 13 above, it is explained that there were no respondents who
strongly disagreed. There were two respondents, or 8%, who stated that they did not agree; four
respondents, or 16%, who stated neutral, 11 respondents, or 44%, who agreed; and eight
respondents, or 32%, who stated that they strongly agreed so that the average score of
102
respondents' answers obtained for this question is 4.00, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20
with a good rating category.
Table 14. Accuracy of stock information in the warehouse
No
Alternative
Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
1
4%
1
1
2
Disagree
2
8%
2
4
3
Neutral
6
24%
3
18
4
Agree
10
40%
4
40
5
Totally Agree
6
24%
5
30
Total
25
100%
93
Information:
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation, table 4.12 above explains that one respondent, or 4%, stated that
they strongly disagreed. There were two respondents, or 8%, who stated that they disagreed. Six
respondents, or 24%, stated neutral, and ten, or 40%, stated that they agreed. Six respondents, or
24%, stated that they strongly agreed, so the average score of respondents' answers for this
question is 3.72, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
b. Recapitulation of Warehouse Layout Variables
The following is the recapitulation of respondents' responses to the warehouse layout variable:
Table 15. Warehouse Layout Variables Recapitulation
No
Indicator
Value
Category
1
Equipment used following SOPs (Company Operational Standards)
3,72
Good
2
Selection of reliable and efficient equipment for warehouse material
handlers
3,52
Good
3
Efficient space utilization can facilitate activities in the warehouse
3,76
Good
4
Availability of space for each component
3,64
Good
5
A work environment following K3 Standard (Occupational Safety Health)
3,72
Good
6
The work environment is made as good as possible so that employees feel
comfortableLingkungan kerja dibuat sebaik mungkin agar karyawan
merasa nyaman
3,48
Good
7
The presence of a clear indication of the product
4,00
Good
8
Accuracy of stock information in warehouses
3,72
Good
Total Value
29,56
Average
3,69
Good
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the table 15 recapitulation calculation above, it can be obtained that the overall
category of indicators is good, with the highest score obtained by the indicator of a clear indication
of the product with a value of 4.00 and the lowest value obtained by the indicator of the work
environment as well as possible so that employees feel comfortable with a value of 3.48.
103
So that on the interval scale, it has been determined that the average result for the warehouse
layout variable is 3.69. Therefore, this figure is included on a scale of 3.41 – 4.20 with a good rating
category.
a. Work Productivity Variable Descriptive (Y)
The work productivity variable on the research questionnaire has five dimensions with ten
questions. The following dimensions measure the work productivity variable:
1) Quality of Work
Table 16. Quality of good employee performance
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
6
24%
2
12
3
Neutral
6
24%
3
18
4
Agree
6
24%
4
24
5
Totally Agree
7
28%
5
35
Total
Total
100%
89
Information:
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation table 16 above, it is explained that there were no respondents who
strongly disagreed. There were six respondents, or 24%, who stated that they did not agree; six
respondents, or 24%, who stated neutral; 6 respondents, or 24%, who agreed; and seven
respondents, or 28%, who strongly agreed so that the average score of respondents' answers
obtained for this question is 3.56, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating
category.
Table 17. Accuracy in completing each job
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation, table 17 above explains that there were no respondents who
strongly disagreed. Instead, there were five respondents, or 20%, who disagreed; 10 respondents,
or 40%, who stated neutral; 4 respondents, or 16%, who agreed; and six respondents, or 24%, who
stated strongly agree so that the average score of respondents' answers obtained for this question
is 3.44, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
5
20%
2
10
3
Neutral
10
40%
3
30
4
Agree
4
16%
4
16
5
Totally Agree
6
24%
5
30
Total
25
100%
86
Information:
Fine
104
Table 18. Achievement of planned work targets
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
3
12%
2
6
3
Neutral
5
20%
3
15
4
Agree
12
48%
4
48
5
Totally Agree
5
20%
5
25
Total
25
100%
94
Information:
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation table 18 above, it is explained that there were no respondents who
strongly disagreed. Instead, three respondents, or 12%, disagreed; five respondents, or 20%, stated
neutral; 12 respondents, or 48%, agreed; and five respondents, or 20%, strongly agreed, so the
average score of respondents' answers obtained for this question is 3.76, which is included in the
scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
Table 19. Employees' ability to understand tasks to achieve targets
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency (F)
Percentage (%)
Weights (X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
3
12%
2
6
3
Neutral
5
20%
3
15
4
Agree
11
44%
4
44
5
Totally Agree
6
24%
5
30
Total
25
100%
95
Information:
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation table 19 above, it is explained that there were no respondents who
strongly disagreed. Instead, there were three respondents, or 12%, who disagreed; five
respondents, or 20%, who stated neutral; 11 respondents, or 44%, who agreed; and six
respondents, or 24%, who firmly agreed so that the average score of respondents' answers
obtained for this question is 3.80, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating
category.
2) Punctuality
Table 20. Making work effective and efficient
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
7
28%
2
14
105
3
Neutral
5
20%
3
15
4
Agree
9
36%
4
36
5
Totally Agree
4
16%
5
20
Total
25
100%
85
Information:
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on table 20 above, it is explained that there were no respondents who strongly
disagreed. Instead, there were seven respondents, or 28%, who disagreed; five respondents, or
20%, who stated neutral; nine respondents, or 36%, who agreed; and four respondents, or 16%,
who firmly agreed so that the average score of respondents' answers obtained for this question is
3.40, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
Table 21. Encouraging employees to improve their performance
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
2
8%
2
4
3
Neutral
4
16%
3
12
4
Agree
8
32%
4
32
5
Totally Agree
11
44%
5
55
Total
25
100%
103
information :
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on table 21 above, it is explained that there were no respondents who strongly
disagreed. Instead, there were two respondents, or 8%, who disagreed; four respondents, or 16%,
who stated neutral; eight respondents, or 32%, who agreed; and 11 respondents, or 44%, who
firmly agreed so that the average score of respondents' answers obtained for this question is 4.12,
which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
3) Work Spirit
Table 22. Mood can affect employees in completing work
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
5
20%
2
10
3
Neutral
4
16%
3
12
4
Agree
10
40%
4
40
5
Totally Agree
6
24%
5
30
Total
25
100%
92
information :
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
106
Based on the calculation table 22 above, it is explained that there were no respondents who
strongly disagreed. Instead, there were five respondents, or 20%, who disagreed; four respondents,
or 16%, who stated neutral; ten respondents, or 40%, who agreed; and six respondents, or 24%,
who firmly agreed so that the average score of respondents' answers obtained for this question is
3.68, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
Table 23. Teamwork can increase employee morale
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
1
4%
1
1
2
Disagree
4
16%
2
8
3
Neutral
5
20%
3
15
4
Agree
6
24%
4
24
5
Totally Agree
9
36%
5
45
Total
25
100%
93
information :
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation, table 23 above explains that one respondent, or 4%, stated that they
strongly disagreed. Four respondents, or 16%, stated that they did not agree; five respondents, or
20%, stated neutral; six respondents, or 24%, stated that they agreed; and nine respondents, or
36%, stated that they strongly agreed so that the average score of respondents' answers obtained
for this question is 3.72, which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
4) Work Discipline
Table 24. Comply with existing regulations to produce maximum work
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
1
0
2
Disagree
2
8%
2
4
3
Neutral
3
12%
3
9
4
Agree
12
48%
4
48
5
Totally Agree
8
32%
5
40
Total
Total
100%
101
information :
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on table 24 above, it is explained that there were no respondents who strongly
disagreed. Instead, there were two respondents, or 8%, who disagreed; three respondents, or 12%,
who stated neutral; 12 respondents, or 48%, who agreed; and eight respondents, or 32%, who
firmly agreed so that the average score of respondents' answers obtained for this question is 4.04,
which is included in the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
Table 25. Perform tasks according to the allotted time
No
Alternative Answers
Frequency
(F)
Percentage
(%)
Weights
(X)
X.F)
107
1
Strongly disagree
2
8%
1
2
2
Disagree
2
8%
2
4
3
Neutral
3
12%
3
9
4
Agree
12
48%
4
48
5
Totally Agree
6
24%
5
30
Total
25
100%
93
information :
Fine
Source: Results of Data Processing and Research 2022
Based on the calculation table 4.23 above, it is explained that there were two respondents, or
8%, who stated that they strongly disagreed. There were two respondents, or 8%, who stated that
they did not agree; three respondents, or 12%, who stated neutral; 12 respondents, or 48%, who
stated that they agreed; and six respondents, or 24%, who stated that they strongly agreed so that
the average score of respondents' answers obtained for this question is 3.72, which is included in
the scale of 3.41 - 4.20 with a good rating category.
Work Productivity Variable Recapitulation. The following is the recapitulation of
respondents' responses to the work productivity variable:
Table 26. Work Productivity Variable Recapitulation
No
Indicator
Value
Category
1
The quality of good employee
3,56
Good
2
Accuracy in completing each job
3,44
Good
3
Achievement of planned work targets
3,76
Good
4
The ability of employees to understand the tasks in the achievement of targets
3,80
Good
5
Make work effective and efficient
3,40
Good
6
Encouraging employees to improve their performance
4,12
Good
7
Mood can affect employees in completing work
3,68
Good
8
Teamwork can increase employee morale
3,72
Good
9
Comply with existing regulations to produce maximum work
4,04
Good
10
Perform tasks according to the specified time
3,72
Good
Total Value
37,24
Average
3,72
Good
Source: Data Processed by Researchers, 2022
Based on the recapitulation calculation above, the results for the overall category of
indicators are good, with the highest score obtained by the indicator encouraging employees to
improve their performance with a value of 4.12 and the lowest score obtained by the indicator for
making work effective and efficient with a value of 3.40, the average result has been determined -
the average for the work productivity variable is 3.72, and this figure is included in the scale of
3.41 – 4.20 with a good rating category.
Validity test. In this study, the authors used a validity test to measure the accuracy of an
item said to be valid or not in the questionnaire. A questionnaire is valid if the items correctly
measure what you want to measure. Measure the validity can be done by doing a correlation
between item scores in an indicator. Meanwhile, to find out whether the score of each question
item is valid or not, statistical criteria are set as follows:
108
a. If rcount ≥ rtable and is positive, then the variable is valid
b. If rcount ≤ rtable, then the variable is not valid
Following the results of calculations with the help of the SPSS for Windows version 26
program, it is known that the level of validity of the research data is as follows:
Table 27. Validity Test Results
Variable
Question Items
r table
r count
Information
Warehouse Layout (X)
1
0,396
0,599
Valid
2
0,396
0,448
Valid
3
0,396
0,631
Valid
4
0,396
0,488
Valid
5
0,396
0,568
Valid
6
0,396
0,468
Valid
7
0,396
0,575
Valid
8
0,396
0,537
Valid
Work Productivity (Y)
1
0,396
0,543
Valid
2
0,396
0,659
Valid
3
0,396
0,582
Valid
4
0,396
0,584
Valid
5
0,396
0,534
Valid
6
0,396
0,410
Valid
7
0,396
0,521
Valid
8
0,396
0,606
Valid
9
0,396
0,460
Valid
10
0,396
0,467
Valid
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS Version 26, 2022
Based on the data in table 27, it can be seen that the data tested consists of one independent
variable, namely the warehouse layout variable, and one dependent variable, namely the work
productivity variable. In the analysis of the results of the validity test, the results of calculations
from the questionnaire, which are rcounts, are then compared with r-tables. In this study, the
rtable value n = 25 with the conditions df = (n-2) = 23 and a significance level of 0.05, the rtable
value of 0.396, is obtained. In the table above, all correlation values or rcount for each question are
more significant than the rtable value (0.396). This can be interpreted as the validity testing results
showing all valid data.
b. Reliability Test
The reliability test in this study was used to determine whether the data collection tool
showed a level of accuracy, level of accuracy, stability or consistency in expressing specific
symptoms. For example, a variable can be reliable if it gives a Cronbach Alpha value > 0.60.
Reliability testing in this study used the SPSS application program version 26.
Table 28. Warehouse Layout Variable Reliability Test Results
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
0.639
8
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS Version 26, 2022
109
Based on table 28, the reliability test results for the variable score of research data with 25
respondents obtained the value of statistical reliability (Cronbach alpha) for the warehouse layout
variable of 0.639 or above 0.60. Thus the data from the research is reliable and meets the
requirements for good data quality.
Table 29. Work Productivity Variable Reliability Test Results
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
0.724
10
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS Version 26, 2022
Based on table 29 above, the reliability test results for the research data variable score with 25
respondents obtained a statistical reliability value (Cronbach alpha) for the work productivity
variable of 0.724 or above 0.60. Thus the data from the research is reliable and meets the
requirements for good data quality.
Normality test
Normality Test. This normality test aims to determine the data distribution in the variables
used in this study. Data that is good and feasible to use in a study is usually distributed. If the
significance value is > 0.05, the variable is stated to be normally distributed; if the significance
value is <0.05, the variable is declared not customarily distributed (Ghozali, 2013).
The Normality test in this study was carried out using the graphical and Kolmogrov-
Smirnov approaches using a significance level of 5%.
The results of the normality test using the SPSS version 26 program are as follows:
Table 30. Normality Test Results
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Warehouse
Layout
Work
Productivity
N
25
25
Normal Parameters,b
Mean
29.56
37.24
Std.
Deviation
4.601
5.681
Most Extreme Differences
Absolute
0.153
0.157
Positive
0.153
0.157
Negative
-0.113
-0.107
Test Statistic
0.153
0.157
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.136c
.114c
a. Test distribution is
Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
c. Lilliefors Significance
Correction.
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS Version 26, 2022
Based on the results of the Kolmogrov-Smirnov normality test in table 30, it can be seen that
the significance of Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) warehouse layout is 0.136, and work productivity is 0.114.
The significance value of each variable tested is > 0.05, so it can be concluded that these variables
are normally distributed. The results of the normality test using the SPSS version 26 program with
the P-Plot model are as follows:
110
Figure 2. Normal P-Plot Graph
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS Version 26, 2022
The dots spread around the diagonal line on the standard probability plot graph. The
distribution of these points follows the direction of the diagonal line so that the test results show
that the points are not far from the diagonal line. This means that the regression model is typically
distributed and feasible to use.
d. Hypothesis testing
a. Correlation Coefficient Test
The correlation coefficient test is used to determine the strength of the relationship between
the correlations of the two variables where other variables considered influential are controlled or
fixed (as control variables). Because the variable studied is interval data, the statistical technique
used is Pearson Correlation Product Moment using the SPSS Version 26 program.
Table 31. Correlation Coefficient Test Results
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. An error in the Estimate
1
.868a
0.754
0.743
2.880
a. Predictors: (Constant), Warehouse Layout
b. Dependent Variable: Work Productivity
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS Version 26, 2022
Table 31 above shows that the calculation results show a correlation coefficient value of
0.868. This value means that the influence of the warehouse layout variable on work productivity
variables is powerful. So there is a strong relationship between warehouse layout variables and
work productivity variables. The probability between warehouse layout and work productivity
can be seen from the Sig value. (2-tailed) 0.000 is less than 0.05, meaning there is a significant
relationship between the warehouse layout and work productivity variables.
111
Determination Coefficient Test (R2). This test of the coefficient of determination (R2) aims to
see or measure how far the model can explain the dependent variable. The value of the coefficient
of determination is between zero and one. If the coefficient value is close to zero, then the ability of
the independent variable to influence the dependent variable in the study is minimal. If the
coefficient value is close to one, then the ability of the independent variable provides almost all the
information needed to predict the dependent variable (Ghozali: 2013). The following is the result
of the coefficient of determination of the warehouse layout variable (X) which can be seen in the
table below:
Table 32. Test Results for the Coefficient of Determination (R2)
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. An error in the Estimate
1
.868a
0.754
0.743
2.880
a. Predictors: (Constant), Warehouse Layout
b. Dependent Variable: Work Productivity
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS Version 26, 2022
Based on table 32, it can be seen that the coefficient of determination (𝑅2) is 0.754. This shows
that the warehouse layout variable (X) can explain or explain work productivity (Y) of 75.4%. At
the same time, the remaining 24.6% (100% -75.4%) is influenced by other variables not included in
the model or equation in this study. Therefore, this 24.6% figure is explained by other factors not
included in this study.
c. Simple Linear Regression Test
The simple linear regression test is a measuring tool used to measure whether or not there is
a correlation between variables.
Table 33. Simple Linear Regression Test Results
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
5.558
3.821
1.455
0.159
Tata Letak Gudang
1.072
0.128
0.868
8.388
0.000
a. Dependent Variable: Work Productivity
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS Version 26, 2022
From the table above, a simple linear regression equation is obtained
Y = a + bX
Y = 5.558 + 1.072X
Information :
Y: Work Productivity
X: Warehouse Layout
5.558: Constant value
1.072: The magnitude of the regression coefficient of the warehouse layout variable
The results of the Simple Linear Regression Test show that a constant value of 5.558 means
that if the independent variable (warehouse layout) is zero, then the value of the dependent
variable (work productivity) is 5.558. The value of the regression coefficient X is 1.072, which
112
means that the warehouse layout (X) positively affects work productivity (Y). This shows that by
adding one layout unit, there will be an increase in work productivity of 1.072 or vice versa. If
there is a decrease in one layout unit, it will be followed by a decrease in work productivity of
1.072.
Partial Test (t-test). Ghozali (2018: 88) argues that the t-test is used to test the effect of each
independent variable (X) used in the study on the dependent variable (Y) partially.
This study partially used the t-test with a significance level of 0.05. The basis for decision-making
is as follows:
1. Decision-making based on probability values
a) If the significance is <0.05 then H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted
b) If significance > 0.05 then H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected
2. Decision-making based on t-count
a) If t-count > t-table then H1 is accepted and H0 is rejected
b) If t-count <t-table then H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected
Table 34. Test Results t
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
5.558
3.821
1.455
0.159
Tata Letak Gudang
1.072
0.128
0.868
8.388
0.000
a. Dependent Variable: Work Productivity
Source: Data Processing Using SPSS Version 26, 2022
Table 34 above shows that the warehouse layout variable (X) has a t-count value of 8.388
with a significance level of 0.000. The value of the t-table, the expected value in making a
hypothesis decision, can be found by determining df. Value df = n–k, where n is the number of
respondents and k is the sum of all variables in this study (df=25-2=23). Then the t-table value is
obtained with a significance level of 0.05, equal to 2.068.
In this study, there is a hypothesis:
H0: There is no influence between Warehouse Layout on Work Productivity
H1: There is an influence between Warehouse Layout on Work Productivity
The analysis results show that the t-count is 8.388 > t-table 2.068, and the significance level is
0.000 <0.05. This means that H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted, or there is an influence between
Warehouse Layout on Work Productivity.
Discussion
Based on the title that the researcher will examine and the research results above, the
researcher verifies how much influence the warehouse layout variable has on work productivity.
The results of statistical values obtained from each test criterion starting from the validity test,
reliability, descriptive analysis, normality test, and hypothesis testing, which consists of the
correlation coefficient, the coefficient of determination, simple linear regression analysis, and the t-
test (Partial) can be explained through the discussion as follows:
1) Based on the recapitulation results of the warehouse layout variable, the average result is
3.69. For the recapitulation results of the work productivity variable, a value of 3.72 is
obtained so that the two research variables are included in the excellent category.
113
2) In this study, researchers tested the correlation coefficient. The results of the correlation
coefficient test showed a value of 0.868 which means that the effect of the warehouse layout
variable on work productivity variables was powerful. Therefore, warehouse layout
positively relates to work productivity with a degree of perfect correlation.
3) In this study, researchers also tested the coefficient of determination to determine the ability
of the independent variables to explain the dependent variable. From the test results of the
coefficient of determination, the R2 value is 0.754 or 75.4%. This means that the warehouse
layout variable can explain or explain the work productivity variable of 75.4%. The
remaining 24.6% is explained by other factors outside this study's variables.
4) In addition, researchers also conducted a simple linear regression test in this study and
obtained the following results:
1. Y = a + bX
2. = 5.558 + 1.072X
The constant value is 5.558, which means that if the value of the independent variable
(warehouse layout) is zero, then the value of the dependent variable (work productivity) is 5.558.
The regression coefficient X is 1.072, which states that for every addition of one layout unit, there
will be an increase in work productivity of 1.072. The regression coefficient is positive, so the
direction of the influence of variable x on variable y is positive.
Furthermore, based on the t-test results shows that the Warehouse Layout variable affects
Work Productivity, as evidenced by the t-count of 8.388 > t-table 2.068 with a significance level of
0.000 <0.050. So, the Warehouse Layout variable has a significant effect on Work Productivity. This
means that H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted, or there is an influence between the layout of the
warehouse on work productivity at PT. Mighty Primindo.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the data analysis that has been carried out and the discussion of the
results of data analysis in research regarding the effect of warehouse layout on work productivity,
it can be concluded that the results of the study indicate a positive and significant influence
between warehouse layout variables on work productivity variables. Based on the descriptive
research variables, the warehouse layout variable has a grand mean value of 3.69, and the work
productivity variable has a grand mean value of 3.72, both of which are categorized at a reasonable
level. Therefore, the warehouse layout variable can explain the work productivity variable of
75.4%, and the remaining 24.6% is influenced by factors not included in this study. Then based on
the t-test, the value of t-count > t-table (8.388 > 2.068) is obtained with a significance level of 0.000
<0.050. This means that H1 is accepted and H0 is rejected, which indicates that the warehouse
layout variable significantly affects work productivity.
REFERENCES
Abdullah, N. K., Rashid, R. S. A., & Esa, M. F. (2016). We are assessing the Effectiveness of
Warehouse Layout at a Logistic Company using Structural Equation Modeling Approach.
6, 117–123.
Cahyadi, D. (2021). ANALYSIS OF REPAIR COIL WAREHOUSE LAYOUT WITH. 7(2), 166–172.
Doaly, C. O., & Gozali, L. (2021). Proposed Design of Improvement of Raw Material Warehouse
Layout Using Class-Based Storage Method (Case Study of Pt Multi Optimal Roda Internet).
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699.
114
Fernanda, G., & , Gesit Thabrani, M. R. L. (2019). The Effect of Layout on the Daily Production of
PT. Rubber Valley Trade and Industry. Journal of Management and Entrepreneurial Studies, 01,
146–150. http://103.216.87.80/students/index.php/mnj/article/view/5443
Hakim, M. H. (2018). Improvement of Raw Material Warehouse Layout Using the Class-Based
Storage Method. 1–6.
Ival Abdi Hilmansyah, W. H. (2021). Effect of Production Layout on Business Efficiency and
Competitiveness of UD. Barokah Lamongan. 23(1), 185–194.
Januarny, T. D., & Harimurti, C. (2020). The Effect of Warehouse Layout on the Smooth Loading
and Unloading Productivity in the Warehouse of Pt. Nct. Indonesian Journal of Logistics, 5(1),
55–64. https://doi.org/10.31334/logistik.v5i1.1185
Karim, N. H., Abdul Rahman, N. S. F., & Syed Johari Shah, S. F. S. (2018). Empirical Evidence on
Failure Factors of Warehouse Productivity in Malaysian Logistic Service Sector. Asian
Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 34(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.06.012
Layla Anggraeni, R. S. (2019). The Effect Of Teamwork On Employee Productivity At Pt. Pln
(Persero) Transmission Of Central Java. 274–282.
Riski, S. F. R. (2021). The Influence of Operational Inspection, Warehouse Layout, and Warehouse
Management System on Increasing the Effectiveness of Inventory Warehouses of PT.
Kamigumi Cikarang Logistics. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 21(1), 1–9.
Sanjaya, S. S. (2019). The Influence of Layout and Work Environment on the Work Productivity of
BreadTalk Tasikmalaya Employees. 1–36.
Septiany, M. (2021). Bachelor of Applied Marketing Management Study Program, Bandung State
Polytechnic.
Wahyuningsih, S. (2018). The Influence of the Work Environment on Work Productivity. News
Issue 60, April, 91–96.
Wijaya, R. (n.d.). The Effect of Assignment Problems and Facility Layout on Productivity at Dariza
Jaya Hotel Jakarta.
