Comparison of different layouts of inspection instructions for the production department of a company in the electronic industry

*Corresponding author.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 439—450

Comparison of different layouts of inspection instructions forthe production department of a company in the electronic

industry

Martin Schutte!,*, Uwe Dettmer!, Horst Klatte", Wolfgang Laurig!

! Institut fu( r Arbeitsphysiologie an der Universita( t Dortmund, Ardeystrabe 67 D-44139 Dortmund, Germany" Klo( ckner Moeller GmbH-Werk Unna, Massener Strabe 119-121 D-59423 Unna, Germany

Received 23 July 1996; received in revised form 14 July 1997; accepted 15 July 1997

Abstract

As the result of keen producer competition in an increasingly international market, product quality has become thequintessential selling point. Early identification of deviations occurring during the production process is also an issue tobe tackled by companies. In order to produce a product which lives up to its optimal quality standard, an effective andefficient series of testing methods has been developed, whereby employees utilize specially evolved inspection instructionsto carry out the so-called self-inspection. Containing pictorial representations of the products to be checked, theseinspection instructions were introduced in work settings. To obtain a point of reference, as to exactly which criteria is tobe examined during the inspection, a drawing containing technical inspection instructions was compared with twovariants. Of the two variants, the first was a simplified drawing reduced only to the specific details necessary forinspection, and the second was a photograph of the object to be inspected. The ensuing experiment was carried out withthe participation of 78 female students at the University of Dortmund who assessed the quality of the inspection bymeans of a self-administered questionnaire. The verdict reached based upon the subjective evaluation of the three varieddepictions verified that comprehension and subsequent transfer of information to the inspection process is dependentupon unambiguous markings of each particular control characteristic, as well as the clarity of the illustration. Thephotograph included also provided no additional benefit.

Relevance to industry

The result of the implemented experiment show that institution of inspection instructions from detailed technicaldrawings to simple line drawings should waived. ( 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Self-administered inspection; Inspection instructions; Representation of the object to be checked; Discrimina-tion analysis

1. Introduction

Due to the growing market internationalizationevident throughout the past several years, in

0169-8141/99/$ — see front matter ( 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 8 1 4 1 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 7 3 - 5

addition to the increase in product competition, thequality of manufactured goods has taken on a moreprominent position as a selling point (Womack etal., 1992). With the implementation of the Euro-pean Community guidelines defining product lia-bility into German legislation, reliability standardsregarding internal measures of quality safeguardsconsequently rose (Cromme, 1990). As a result,many companies are attempting to meet theseguidelines by the introduction of quality safeguardsystems which are in accordance with DIN EN ISO9000, 9001, 9002, 9003, 9004 (Grabert et al., 1993;Korn and Schmidt, 1993; Parsch, 1991), in order toachieve a superior level of good quality throughcontrolled production.

Moreover, companies are now deploying variousother additional instruments in an effort to increaseor safeguard quality. Many of these instrumentscan be roughly categorized as (a) product related,e.g. the Quality Function Deployment, (b) workrelated, e.g. the increased frequency of team workand finally (c) employee related, e.g. the establish-ment of quality circles (Bungard, 1992; Hansen,1988; Haug et al., 1993; Imai, 1992; Kirstein, 1988;Klatte, 1995; Wittig, 1991). Accompanying this,there has been a rise in the principle of self-adminis-tered inspection (DIN EN ISO 8402) in whichemployees are endowed with a greater responsibil-ity for quality control (Braun, 1986; Hirano, 1988;Ishikawa, 1985; Seibel, 1981; Shingo, 1986). In or-der to simplify the fulfillment of the examinationtasks, work sites were equipped with examinationinstructions (DIN 55350, part 11). These are, how-ever, only beneficial in task examination executionwhen the information is easily transferable, in otherwords, when the information is self-evidently ex-pressed. Among other conditions, the informationcan be simply registered, processed and transferred(Inaba, 1989).

Until now, results have shown that “readyto use” pictorial descriptions of the objects to betested, for example photographs or drawings areadvantageous in respect to specific graphic sup-ports which can serve to increase the rate andprecision with which fallacies are detected (Chaneyand Teel, 1967). Such visualizations are funda-mentally important, especially in relation to correctfulfillment of spatially related tasks, in particular,

exact examination locations (Swander and Vail,1992). Lacking, however, are general regulationsand relating standards as to the structure of exam-ination instructions. Specially developed recom-mendations intended for the maintenance industry,for example, contain statements as to the presenta-tion of such graphic information (Patel et al., 1994).In particular, simple line drawings are preferrableto highly detailed descriptions of objects to beexamined when used concurrently during examina-tion. The views of objects should present the exam-iner with angles that naturally, extensivelycorrespond to the angles seen from a normal per-spective. Moreover, it seems reasonable to institutea chosen standard in order to differentiate betweenenlargements and reductions. Furthermore, thegraphics have to follow certain prevailing regula-tions, not only for the construction of technicaldrawings, but also for the customary terminology,for example the naming of varying perspectives(Patel et al., 1994).

It is problematic to require knowledge or at leastexperience in reading such technical drawings.Many companies in which these examinations areinstituted rely on temporary workers to fill in forfull-time employees, for example during times ofholiday or vacation. Most of these temporaryworkers have had no previous experience or educa-tion in such procedures or examination methods ofquality assessment. Therefore, it seems reasonableto examine whether a photograph or graphic depic-tion of objects is preferrable to abstract technicaldrawings.

2. Description of examined test instructions

For this purpose, a self-evaluation analysis waschosen to be implemented in a mid-size companyresponsible for assembling low-voltage switch ap-pliances. First of all, the work sequence entailedlocation of a small metal hook on connective wirecoils to be bent through a manually operated appli-ance. This procedure is carried out on an industrialremote control switch. Next, a visual check wasconducted to ascertain whether or not the attainedcurve angle corresponded to the prescribed angle.The test required a simple yes or no confirmation.

440 M. Schu( tte et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 439—450

Fig. 1. Original of the technical drawing.

Fig. 2. Simplified drawing.

Test examinations currently located at worklocations contained technically based drawingsdepicting objects to be tested in two differing views.These are an overhead view and a silhouetted view.An accompanying text identifies the characteristicsto be checked in both views (Fig. 1). The pictorialrepresentations utilized present all details locatedon objects, which contradicts the postulation ofsimple line drawings. Therefore, consultation ofa formal presented drawing alternative criteria issuggested. Newly developed variations contain testobject contours relevant only for examination. Fur-ther, there is the standard of one to one, i.e. the viewremains constant in that it corresponds to the nor-mally viewed perspective under which the object isseen (Fig. 2). In addition to a simplified abstractdrawing, a photograph was introduced (Fig. 3) toincrease visual clarity of identical perspective,showing the object to be tested in actual proportion(standard one to one).

M. Schu( tte et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 439—450 441

Fig. 3. Photographical representation of the object to bechecked.

Table 1Description of the items of the questionnaire

Item No.

Information absorption

1 Print quality of illustrations on the inspection in-structions

2 Complexity of illustrations on the inspection instruc-tions

3 Size of characters in the texts4 Size of illustrations in order to recognize the checking

characteristics5 Indication of the checking characteristics in the illus-

tration6 Number of elements in the illustrations in order to

recognize the checking characteristics7 Finding of the checking characteristics in the illustra-

tion8 Perspective in which the object to be inspected is

represented in order to find the checking character-istic on the object to be inspected

9 Layout of the complete set of inspection instructions

Information processing

10 Comprehensibility of the text

Information transfer

11 Number of elements in the illustrations in order tomove the object to be inspected into the positionshown

12 Finding of the checking characteristics on the objectto be inspected

13 Moving the object to be inspected into the positionshown with help from the illustration

Fig. 4. Example of a rating scale.

3. Investigative methodology

Information as to whether the modified descrip-tions offered advantages in comparison to the de-pictions currently being used in the industry weremethodologically analyzed through the subjective-ly assumed quality of the pictoral descriptions(Patel et al., 1994). An accompanying questionnairewas necessarily constructed containing 13 charac-teristic items of information identification, processand conversion (Table 1).

A general construction of the rating scales wasundertaken with the purpose of evaluating subjec-tively perceived distances as constant between scaleunits (Guilford, 1954; Sixtl, 1982). A series of ver-bally suitable expressions were selected, wherebythe previously calibrated terminology can be ex-tented (Pitrella and Kappler, 1988; Rohrmann,1978; Trankle, 1987). Verbally anchored 7 - leveledcontinually graphic rating scales having a totalarea of 160 mm were used to rate the intensity ofthe specified features (Fig. 4). Participants wereasked to circle the corresponding scale point, indic-ating their judgement and measurement conforms

to the point at which the circle is marked andto the point of zero on the rating scale. Thus,measurement was always undertaken in thismanner.


Table 2Description of the random samples

Characteristics Group

1 2 3

Type of inspectioninstructions

Original Drawing Photo

Sample size 26 26 26Mean age 24.3 24.2 23.3Standard deviation (age) 2.7 4.6 3.8

Table 3Mean rating values (mm) of the items of the questionnaire

Item-No. Group

Original Drawing Photo

1 95.85 118.77 99.922 58.12 69.46 58.653 128.50 126.50 126.124 86.92 102.00 75.275 83.39 95.58 73.656 91.27 85.85 82.657 81.31 114.85 79.548 40.62 76.65 89.319 52.12 66.69 71.46

10 65.46 77.12 62.6911 77.62 62.35 72.2312 31.04 75.65 73.8113 61.65 64.00 96.65

The criteria of self-evidence is further supportedby the possible infallible conversion lead to theinformation offered. A corresponding indication,by the determination of the number of participantsable to position the object as shown in the pictorialdescription, without additional aid and to correctlyidentify the specified feature, is to be gained.

4. Sample description

The examination consisted of 78 participants se-lected from a variety of subject areas at the Univer-sity of Dortmund. All, however, were female, as thecompany involved in the study employ exclusivelyfemales in this field. Total participants were furtherdivided into 3 groups of 26 to oversee, read andimplement quality tests. Participants, previouslyunexperienced in such tasks, were asked to rate thetest instructions after completion of the examina-tion task. Age differences existing between partici-pants (Table 2) were accounted for, to allow forvalid comparison (one-factor analysis of variance;factor group: F "0.57; df"2, 75; p"0.57).

In order to minimize possible negative effects dueto poor visual acuity on the part of participants, anadditional eye test was administered (BinoptometerOculus; testdisk number 59710) assuring visualacuity at the distance of 0.5 m minimally as 1.0 (indecimal units).

5. Course of test

Frequent employment of temporary workers,untrained in regard to test instructions and ability

of self-explanatory situated work situations, ob-liged participants to also remain untrained. Partici-pants, however, were presented the opportunity ofbeing given standard definitions and explanationsregarding industry-specific terminology deemed in-comprehensible. After that, participants were sup-plied with actual objects to examine and wererequested to assemble the object into the positionshown in the diagram, as well as to locate the citedcharactersitic (namely, the small metal hook onconnective wire coils). Targeted results were thenrecorded and results rated according to the 13questionnaire items.

6. Results

6.1. Subjective evaluations

According to Table 3, mean scale values of the 13questionnaire items differentiated themselves ex-tensively in judged ascertainments. In particular,characteristics 1, 7, 8, 12 and 13, particularly inrelation to the original test instructions and the2 modifications (drawing and photo), generallyobtained more positive ratings.

Further univariate test statistic evaluation ofdata was omitted, as the 13 items could be inter-preted as valid features of the broad variable


Fig. 5. Mahalanobis distances of persons and s2-values for theoriginal drawing.

Fig. 7. Mahalanobis distances of persons and s2-values for thephoto.

Fig. 6. Mahalanobis distances of persons and s2-values for thesimplified drawing.

“quality of test instruction”. This required a statist-ical method allowing the analysis of a variety ofdependent variables (Bortz, 1993). However, theapplication of suitable parametric methods presup-poses multivariate normally distributed data. Ex-amination of multivariate normality has been, untilnow, void of statistical tests. Instead, approximatesolutions were disposed of (Bortz, 1993). The pro-cedure used here is based upon the fact that theMahalanobis distances of the participants fromtheir group mean are in accordance with the s2-distribution if the empirically gained data corres-pond to multivariate normality (Johnson andWichern, 1992; Stelz, 1980; Thompson, 1990). Forthat purpose, the distances calculable from the rat-ings of the 13 items had to be arranged in ascendingorder. Furthermore, the s2-values corresponding tothe distances had to be determined in order to plotthe Mahalanobis distances against the s2-values. Ingeneral, empirical data fulfill the distribution re-quirements when the value pairs acquire nearlya straight line (Johnson and Wichern, 1992), where-by through the Kolmogoroff—Smirnov test, thepeak of the empirical distance distribution can beproved to conform to the theoretically expecteds2-distribution (Bortz et al., 1990; Stelz, 1980).

The computed distances and the correspondings2-values were not completely linear (Figs. 5—7).

Significant deviations between the distribution ofthe distance and s2-values were verified by theKolmogoroff—Smirnov test to be non-existent(Table 4). The results therfore justify the applica-tion of parametric statistical procedures in the fur-ther data evaluation.


Table 4Results of the Kolmogoroff—Smirnov test

Type of inspection instruction D-value p-value

Original 0.59 '0.20Drawing 0.88 '0.20Photo 0.80 '0.20

Table 5Result of the discrimination analysis

Characteristic values Discriminatingfactor

1 2

Eigenvalue j 0.84 0.69»-value 78.37 36.16df 26 12p-value (0.01 (0.01Share of total discriminating

potential55.06% 44.94%

uL 2 66.70%

Table 6Standardized loadings of the items for the two discriminationfactors

Item No. Discriminating factor

1 2

1 !0.46 #0.572 !0.29 #0.093 #0.07 !0.044 #0.05 #0.435 #0.33 !0.316 #0.41 !0.067 !0.18 #0.568 !0.63 !0.509 #0.13 !0.26

10 #0.09 #0.0111 #0.33 #0.1312 !0.46 #0.3413 #0.04 !0.61

Assessment of the 3 graphical representations(original, drawing, photo) as independent variablescarried out through a one-factor multivariate anal-ysis of variance verified a high degree of differenti-ation between the three graphical variants (Wilk’s""0.32; F"3.71; df"26, 126; p(0.01).

In order to gain more precise information as towhich degree the individual variables contributedto the differences, an additional discriminationanalysis was conducted, through which two signifi-cant discrimination factors could be ascertained(Table 5). The first records 55% and the second45% of the discrimination potential. 67% of thetotal variability on both factors is caused by differ-ences in the ratings of the three groups (original,drawing, photo).

Regarding content, the discriminant factorscould generally be characterized in each casethrough the variable which possesses a maximumabsolute load (Bortz, 1993). Consequently, the firstfactor is indicated by item 8 (view of the examina-tion object to find examination features) havinga standardized discriminant coefficient of !0.63and thematically belonging to the group of itemsdescribing the reception of information (Table 6).On the other hand, the second factor is describedthrough item 13 (moving the object to be inspectedinto the position indicated, with the help of theillustration) with a standardized discriminant coef-ficient of !0.61 and thematically belonging to thegroup of items describing the conversion of in-formation (Table 6).

The way in which the first discrimination factordifferentiates the three groups from each other,results from the distribution of the factor values ofpersons (Bortz, 1993). Participants confronted withthe original examination instructions obtained pre-dominantly positive factor values, whereby those

who were presented with the simplified drawing orphoto mainly received negative factor values(Fig. 8). Taking the negative factor loading of item8 into consideration, the original instruction wasevaluated less favorably than the simplified draw-ing or photo related to finding the examinationfeature.

The second discriminant factor differentiated theparticipants using the photo from those utilizingthe simplified drawing (Fig. 9). Participants usingthe photo mainly received negative factor values.Participants belonging to the simplified drawinggroup predominantly received positive factor


Table 7Results of the reclassification of the test persons

Group Correctly assigned persons (%) Number of persons assigned to group Significance of hit rates

Original Drawing Photo z-value p-value

Original 73.1 19 4 3 4.30 (0.01Drawing 80.8 3 21 2 5.13 (0.01Photo 80.8 2 3 21 5.13 (0.01Total 78.2 24 28 26 8.41 (0.01

Fig. 8. Cumulated distribution of the factor values for the 1stdiscrimination factor.

Fig. 9. Cumulated distribution of the factor values for the 2nddiscrimination factor.

values. Negative loading of item 13, typical for thisfactor, has the possibility of being derived as par-ticipants were able to position the object as shownin the illustration with greater ease using the photothan with the simplified drawing.

In order to gain further information as to theextent to which participants could actually besucessfully related to their original groups, basedon their individual evaluation of items, a furthercalculation of the so-called classification functionsfollowed (Table 7). Based on the fundamentalgroup affiliation of 61 of the 78 participants werecorrectly prognosticated corresponding to a highlysignificant quota of 78.2%. The obtained hit rates

of the individual groups, with values of 73.1%(original) and 80.8% (simplified drawing and photo)respectively, were likewise statistically significant.

6.2. Behavior-related data

The examination instruction modifications toease implementation of examination tasks were fur-ther scrutinized, to determine the differing structurevariations among the number of participants locat-ing specified characteristics on objects to bechecked.

Correct object positioning succeeded with fourparticipants in the group utilizing the original


Fig. 11. Number of persons who found the checking character-istics without support.

Fig. 10. Number of persons who were sucessful in the correctpositioning of the object to be checked without support.

description, one utilizing the drawing and twenty-four utilizing the photo (Fig. 10). Dependencyexisted between description type and task solutionquality (s2"51.49; df"2, p(0.01), funda-

mentally resulting from a significantly higherproportion of sucessful positionings carried out asa result of the photo. This is higher, as would beexpected, than if description type and task solutionquality were independent of each other.

Four participants belonging to the originalgroup, twenty-one participants in the group usingthe simple drawing and sixteen in the group usingthe photo, found examination features without ad-ditional aid (Fig. 11). Meaningful interdependenceof both the examined variables (s2"23.55; df"2,p(0.01) can be traced back to the higher thanexpected incidence of correctly identified examina-tion features by the original group participantsthrough additional support.

7. Evaluation of the implemented examination

The ability of laboratory-gained evidence is fun-damentally dependent upon sufficient examinationof internal and external validity, as well as logicaland unambiguous interpretation and generaliz-ation of results (Cook and Campbell, 1976, 1979;Nachreiner et al., 1987; Schmidt and Kleinbeck,1994). The following study is, therefore to exam-ine the extent to which examination require-ments attain control and allow results to begeneralized.

7.1. Internal validity

Comparable analysis of the three varying de-scriptions in the available experiment pursued thegoal of identifying those graphic descriptions whichmost correctly represented and lead to correct ap-plication, process and conversion of the formermentioned information. In order to validate thatthe deviations existing in the assessments betweenthe three graphical variants are unambiguously re-sulting from experimental requirements, possibleadditional influencing factors of the dependentvariables are examined to be constant. All of thetest instructions contained identical font. Further-more, each description was identically sized. More-over, all participants were of the same gender andalso had comparable age, visual acuity and tech-nical knowledge.


Generally implicit in the use of judgementmethods is the assumption that persons are innate-ly capable of perceiving and assessing different as-pects in a manner that corresponds to thegradiations of the utilized rating scales. The inquiryinstrument used was based on general principles ofscale construction and on scaled intensity-relatedconcepts as anchors of judgement. This fulfilled thefundamental prerequisite for the establishment ofintra- and inter-individually comparable referencesystems. The influence of differing styles duringselection of scale points cannot be entirely ex-cluded. However, psychometrically designed ratingscales, such as those applied here, can be assumedto limit such variabilities (McDonnell, 1968;Pitrella and Kappler, 1988; Trankle, 1987).

7.2. External validity

Although results gained throughout the courseof this study relate to one particular company andexamination, they represents typical characteristicsof pictorial descriptions used in a variety of indus-trial settings. Students chosen to participate in taskfulfillment, those of who had no previous experi-ence, limit the result applicability to the otherwiseengaged temporary workers and exclude resultapplicability to the regular work force.

8. Discussion

Multivariate data evaluations showed an influ-ential relationship of quality to exist between thethree variations and their respective subjective per-ception. Further discriminatory analysis wasundertaken to ascertain which variables were sig-nificantly differentiated between the three graphicalvariants.

The first discriminating factor separates the pic-torial description currently used in industrial set-ting from the two new graphic constructions, asthese two new graphic constructions proved tofunction better for identification of examinationcharacteristics. Graphic visual clarity exhibited inthe photo compared to that of the simplified linedrawing was, however, of no additional help.

Simple implementation of the test task confirmedthe disadvantage of the original drawing, in thata significant portion of test participants had moredifficulties locating the specified test feature thanexpected. All in all, an assumption to conclude istechnical drawings reduced to fundamental detailssignificantly simplifies graphically represented testexamination instructions.

The second discriminating factor involved in dif-ferentiations is exhibited between subjective assess-ment of the simple line drawing and the photo inthat the separation of both can be limited to re-corded difficulty in manipulations of the test objectinto the specified position. According to the partici-pants, as well as the results, those using the photoencountered less difficulty in position implementa-tion than those using the drawing. This ease be-comes relative, however, when it is considered thatcorrect execution of the test task requires specifictest characteristic identification and is probablymore important than the proper object handling.

Overall, the examination confirmed that detaileddrawing remaining faithful to the technical objectare less favorable in comparison to simple linedrawings. The previously held hypothesis thatphoto descriptions provided advantages, especiallyin cases where engaged participants had little or noprevious knowledge, could not be empirically sup-ported.

In summary, the gained findings demonstratethat guidelines specificially developed and con-structed for service and maintenance are also sen-sible and applicable to the structuring of textexamination descriptions in the quality assurancearea. Also, a strived for standard of simple linedrawings should be the rule in industrial settings.As complexity in production of such a standard isnow avoided due to the CAD system, such draw-ings and further adaptations and modifications tosuch products can be easily produced. In addition,print quality has also been improved.

A point relevant to future investigation iswhether or not descriptions showing high graphicclarity, in particular, explosion drawings as op-posed to simple line drawings prove advantageousto the identification and location of object charac-teristics in cases where objects possess complexarea geometry.


References

Bortz, J., 1993. Statistik. (Statistics), 4th ed., Springer, Berlin.Bortz, J., Lienert, G.A., Boehnke, K., 1990. Verteilungsfreie

Methoden in der Biostatistisk. (Non-parametric methods inbio-statistics). Springer, Berlin.

Braun, C.F., 1986. Die Organisation der Arbeit (The organiza-tion of work). In: Herold, R. (Ed.), Das Industrieunterneh-men in Japan. Schmidt, Berlin, pp. 107—119.

Bungard, W., 1992. Qualitatszirkel in der Arbeitswelt - Ziele,Erfahrungen, Probleme (Quality circles in industry — Aims,experiences, problems). Beitrage zur Organisa-tionspsychologie, vol. 7. Verlag fur Angewandte Psychologie,Gottingen.

Chaney, F.B., Teel, K.S., 1967. Improving inspector performancethrough training and visual aids. Journal of AppliedPsychology 51, 311—315.

Cook, F.D., Campbell, D.T., 1976. The design and conduct ofquasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. In:Dunette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 223—326.

Cook, F.D., Campbell, D.T., 1979. Quasi-experimentation:Design and analysis issues for field settings. Rand McNally,Chicago.

Cromme, I., 1990. Produzentenhaftung - Die gegenwartigeRechtslage (Liability of the producers — The actual adminis-tration of justice). Fortschrittliche Betriebsfuhrung und In-dustrial Engineering 39, 16—20.

DIN EN ISO 8402: 08.95. Qualitatsmanagement - Anmerkun-gen zu Begriffen (Quality Management and Quality Assur-ance — Remarks to Concepts). Beuth, Berlin.

DIN EN ISO 9000: 08.94. Normen zum Qualitatsmanagementund zur Qualitatssicherung/QM-Darlegung (Standards forQuality Management and Quality Assurance). Beuth, Berlin.

DIN EN ISO 9001: 08.94. Qualitatssicherungssysteme - Modellzur Darlegung der Qualitatssicherung in Design, Entwick-lung, Produktion, Montage und Wartung (Quality Systems— Model for Quality Assurance in Design, Development,Production, Installation and Servicing). Beuth, Berlin.

DIN EN ISO 9002: 08.94. Qualitatsmanagementsysteme -Modell zur Qualitatssicherung/ QM-Darlegung in Produk-tion, Montage und Wartung (Quality Systems — Model forQuality Assurance in Production, Installation and Servi-cing). Beuth, Berlin.

DIN EN ISO 9003: 08.94. Qualitatsmanagementsysteme -Modell zur Qualitatssicherung/ QM-Darlegung bei derEndprufung (Quality Systems — Model for Quality Assur-ance in Final Inspection and Test). Beuth, Berlin.

DIN EN ISO 9004: 08.94. Qualitatmanagement und Elementeeines Qualitatssicherungssystems (Quality Management andQuality System Elements). Beuth, Berlin.

DIN 55350: 05.87 (Part 11). Begriffe der Qualitatssicherung undStatistik — Grundbegriffe der Qualitatssicherung (Conceptsof Quality Assurance and Statistic — Fundamental Principlesof Quality Assurance). Beuth, Berlin.

Grabert, S., Kaminske, G.F., Malorny, C., Michael, H., Sander,H.D, 1993. Qualitatsmanagementsysteme nach DIN/ISO

9000: Wo liegen die Schwierigkeiten? (Quality ManagementSystems According to DIN/ISO 9000: Where are the difficul-ties?). Qualitat und Zuverlassigkeit 38, 269—274.

Guilford, J.P., 1954. Psychometric methods. 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London.

Hansen, W., 1988. Selbstprufung (Self-inspection). In: Masing,W. (Ed.), Handbuch der Qualitatssicherung. 2nd ed., CarlHanser, Munchen, pp. 815—828.

Haug, N., Martens, B., Pudeg, R., 1993. Prozeboptimierungdurch Mitarbeiterbeteiligung — Beurteilung von KVP undKaizen aus der Sicht eines Anwenders (Process optimiza-tion through employee participation — Evaluation ofCIP and Kaizen from the view of an applicant). Fortschritt-liche Betriebsfuhrung und Industrial Engineering 42,148—153.

Hirano, H., 1988. Poka-Yoke: Improving Product Qualityby Preventing Defects. Productivity Press, Cambridge,MA.

Imai, M., 1992. Kaizen. (Kaizen), 6th ed., Langen Muller-Herbig,Munchen.

Inaba, K., 1989. Converting technical publications into main-tance performance aids. In: Proceedings of the Second Inter-national Conference on Human Factors in Aging Aircraft.Biotechnology Incorporation, Falls Church, VA,pp. 167—193.

Ishikawa, K., 1985. What is Total Quality Control? Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Johnson, R.A., Wichern, D.W., 1992. Applied Multivariate Stat-istical Analysis. 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kirstein, H., 1988. Standige Verbesserung als Schlussel furProduktivitat durch Qualitat (Continuous improvement asa key for productivity via quality). Qualitat und Zuverlassig-keit 33, 677—683.

Klatte, T., 1995. Menschliche Zuverlassigkeit bei visueller Quali-tatsprufung. (Human reliability through visual quality in-spection). VDI, Dusseldorf.

Korn, G., Schmitt, H., 1993. Auf dem Weg zum produktiven,qualitatsorientierten Unternehmen — Zertifizierung nachDIN/ISO 9000 als Startpunkt fur kontinuierliche Verbes-serung (On the road to a productive and quality-orientedcompany — Certification according to DIN/ISO 9000 as thestarting point for continuous improvement). Qualitat undZuverlassigkeit 38, 275—277.

McDonnell, J.D., 1968. Pilot rating techniques for the estima-tion and evaluation of handling qualities - AFFDL-TR-68-76. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patter-son Air Force Base, OH.

Nachreiner, F., Muller, G.F., Ernst, G., 1987. Methoden zurPlanung und Bewertung arbeitspsychologischer Interven-tionsmabnahmen (Methods for planning and evaluation ofwork-related psychological intervention measures). In:Kleinbeck, U., Rutenfranz, J. (Eds.), Enzyklopadie derPsychologie — Wirtschafts-, Organisations- und Arbeits-psychologie — Arbeitspsychologie. Hogrefe, Gosttingen,pp. 360—439.

Patel, S., Drury, C.G., Lofgren, J., 1994. Design of workcards foraircraft inspection. Applied Ergonomics 25, 283—293.


Parsch, J.G., 1991. Nachweis eines Qualitatssicherungssystems(Proof of a quality safeguarding system). Qualitat undZuverlassigkeit 36, 677—680.

Pitrella, F.D., Kappler, W.-D., 1988. Identification and evalu-ation of scale design principles in the developement of theextended range, sequential judgement scale. Forschungs-gesellschaft fur angewandte Naturwissenschaften e.V.,Wachtberg.

Rohrmann, B., 1978. Empirische Studien zur Entwicklung vonAntwortskalen fur die sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung(Empirical studies for the development of rating scales forresearch in social sciences). Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie9, 222—245.

Schmidt, K.H., Kleinbeck, U., 1994. Experimentelles und quasi-experimentelles Vorgehen in Feld und Labor (Experimentaland quasi-experimental procedures for field and laboratorystudies). In: von Rosenstiel, L., Hockel, C.M., Molt, W.(Eds.), Handbuch der Angewandten Psychologie: Grund-lagen — Methoden — Praxis. ecomed-Verlag, Landsberg -Lech, pp. 1—9.

Seibel, H., 1981. Selbstprufung — Anmerkungen zur Vor-bereitung und Einfuhrung (Self-inspection — Remarks forpreparation and introduction). Deutsche Gesellschaft furQualitat, Frankfurt am Main.

Shingo, S., 1986. Zero Quality Control: Source Inspection andthe Poka-Yoke system. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Sixtl, F., 1982. Mebmethoden der Psychologie. (Measurementmethods in psychology), 2nd ed., Beltz, Weinheim.

Stelz, I., 1980. Ein Verfahren zur Prufung der Hypthese multi-variater Normalverteilung (A procedure for testing the hy-pothesis of multivariate normal distribution). Psycho-logische Beitrage 22, 610—621.

Swander, A.J., Vail, R.E., 1992. Building procedures for repeata-bility and consistency in job performance. In: Proceedings ofthe International Conference on Hazard Identification andRisk Analysis — Human Factors and Human Reliability inProcess Safety. Orlando, FL. American Institute for Chem-ical Engineers, New york, pp. 339—352.

Thompson, B., 1990. MULTINOR: A FORTRAN programthat assists in evaluating multivariate normality. Educa-tional and Psychological Measurement 50, 845—848.

Trankle, U., 1987. Auswirkung der Gestaltung der Antwortskalaauf quantitative Urteile (Effects of the design of rating scaleson quantitative judgements). Zeitschrift fur Sozial-psychologie 18, 88—99.

Wittig, K.J., 1991. Selbstprufer im QS-System (Self-inspectors ina QS-system). Qualitat und Zuverlassigkeit 36, 465—467.

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Ross, D., 1992. Die zweite Revo-lution in der Automobilindustrie. (The second revolution inthe automobile industry), 7th ed., Campus, Frankfurt amMain.


Documents

Comparison of different layouts of inspection instructions for the production department of a company in the electronic industry