Designing Jobs in Manufacturing v3c · • Maps are then combined for an Exec Team (n 7)Maps are then combined for an Exec. Team (n=7) ... 11 Increased flexibility 6 Improved Quality

CRE-MSD Fatigue Conference, Dec. 4, 2012

Designing Jobs in Manufacturing: Designing Jobs in Manufacturing: Rest Allowances

Patrick Neumann Ryerson University

Linda RoseRoyal Institute of

&Ryerson University, Human Factors Engineering Lab, Toronto

Royal Institute of Technology,Stockholm, Sweden

Ergonomics contributes to company strategiesErgonomics contributes to company strategies…

Operator

Production

OperatorEffects

SystemEffects

Production

$

Dul, J. and Neumann, W.P., 2009. E i C t ib ti t CErgonomics Contributions to Company Strategies. Applied Ergonomics, 40(4): 745-752.

Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012

How Human and System Effects are connectedy

Operator

Production

Effects

SystemEffects

Neumann, W.P. and Dul, J., 2010. Human Factors: Spanning the Gap between OM & HRM. International journal of operations & production management, 30(9): 923 950


30(9): 923‐950.

How Human and System Effects are connectedy

• FatigueOperator g

Production

Effects

SystemEffects

• ?


WorkshopWorkshop

How can employee fatigue affect your operational goals?


Effects of the working environment i ibl d hidd ff t- visible and hidden effects

’direct’ costs for e.g. injuries

HumanEffectsOPERA-

TIONS SYSTEM

Working Environment

$Financial

SystemEffects

SYSTEM EnvironmentOutcomes

’direct’ system effects and ’indirect’ human and ’indirect’ human effects costs and benefits [Rose et al., In press]


Concept MappingConcept Mapping

• Used to tap into Executives strategic thinking

• An interview process• Concepts are linked by hand on a ’map’

Maps are then combined for an Exec Team (n 7)• Maps are then combined for an Exec. Team (n=7)• Results are analysed for trends and linkages

T h i li d t t f E i i M• Technique applied to a team of Engineering Managers in electronics manufacturing

• Focus on: How can HF help you reach your strategic• Focus on: How can HF help you reach your strategic goals?


Goal

Strategy 1 Strategy 3Strategy 1

Strategy 2

Strategy 3(Central concept)

Concept CLoop

Concept CConcept B

p

Concept A

pConcept B

(tail)


31 Reduce controland dexterity

d d

51 Improvedpsychosocial factorsdemands

32 Reduced workerpain and fatigue

psychosocial factors

30 Reduced physical

pain and fatigue 36 Increase varietywith workstationlevel changes

30 Reduced physicalforces 38 Improve work-rest

recovery 46 Reduce awkwardpostures

39 Reduce shortcycle jobs

Sample Concept Linkages for Fatigue


5 Rapid Ramp-Up

7 Increased Yieldand throughput

8 Improve changeoverof Assembly Line

(Ramp down)p p p(Operationally) 9 Faster to achieve

design 11 Increasedflexibility

6 Improved Quality

12 Improved modelfor setting up

assembly (consideroptions)

13 I d t

21 less errors

33 Reduceddistraction 34 Define chunks of

work that can be run38 Improve work-rest 13 Improved set-upof assembly


work that can be runin parallell rather

than seriel

37 Use goodprocesses

38 Improve work restrecovery

58 increases jobscope

68 Improve design ofoff-time tasks

31 Reduce controland dexterity

demands

36 Increase varietywith workstationlevel changes

processes

39 Reduce shortcycle jobs

44 Reduce reaches

51 Improvedpsychosocial factors

53 Increased controland reduced demands

57 Improves effortreward balance

level changes

40 Less attentionfocus rather thanassembling whole

41 Increasedmotivation

46 Reduce awkwardpostures

psychosocial factors

70 less monotony


assembling wholeproduct

1 Release NewProducts on Regular

Basis2 Increased Product 7 Increased Yield

64 Increasedefficiency

65 Increased profit66 Increased volune

Variety

3 Need to adaptquickly

4 Rapid set-up 5 Rapid Ramp-Up(Operationally)

7 Increased Yieldand throughput

8 Improve changeoverof Assembly Line

(Ramp down)

9 Faster to achievedesign

10 Less retrofitting

12 Improved modelfor setting up

60 Determine newtasks

61 Determine newprocedures

62 Explore single

63 Increase workerparticipation

6 Improved Quality

10 Less retrofitting

11 Increasedflexibility

assembly (consideroptions)

15 Correct mistakesquickly

16 Improve errordetection

20 Simplify assembly

21 less errors

34 Define chunks ofwork that can be run

42 Improved varietyof workstations

43 Lessminiaturization

47 Less need to dealwith unfamiliar

62 Explore singleminute dye changes

67 Improves rapidset-up

71 Improvedcommunication

13 Improved set-upof assembly

14 Improve designfor assembly toimprove product

design

17 Improved MaterialSupply Strategy

18 Ensure mentalmodel of assembly

19 Increase ease ofunderstanding

23 Increase feedback(visual, tactile) 24 Reduced need to

learn (moreautomatic)

26 Improve training

in parallell ratherthan seriel

35 Improve lighting

37 Use good

components

48 Increases needfor all components

to be available 52 Autonomy

56 Cartridge 57 Improves effortreward balance

69 Use right tools72 Improve

assessments

model of assemblycorrect

33 R d d

36 Increase varietywith workstationlevel changes

37 Use goodprocesses

38 Improve work-restrecovery

39 Reduce short

40 Less attentionfocus rather than

assembling wholeproduct41 Increased

motivation

49 Improvemanagement of

materials

51 Improvedpsychosocial factors

54 Watch tray supplyapproach

55 Kit

58 increases jobscope59 increases

supervisor support

68 Improve design ofoff-time tasks

70 less monotony

22 Increasedcognitive

performance27 Cluster into

subsystems

28 Improve sequences

29 Improvepositioning of tools30 Reduced physical

forces31 Reduce controland dexterity


33 Reduceddistractioncycle jobs44 Reduce reaches

46 Reduce awkwardpostures

53 Increased controland reduced demands

supervisor support

25 Improvedinstructions for

assembly

ydemands50 Improves

arrangement ofmaterials

RESULT: Engineering Management Team Concepts

Merged Map on Quality: Central Concepts Score #Concepts

Increase quality 110 198

Improve systems design 100 191Improve systems design 100 191

Reduce injury and/or fatigue 91 186

Increase understanding of how to do the task 87 186

Improve service to design teams 83 188

Reduce repetitive activities 78 166

Increase motivation 77 178

Improve repeatability 77 184

Improve layout of process on mfg floor 75 175Improve layout of process on mfg floor 75 175

Build process from point of view of operator 74 160

Improve lessons learned (quality) 71 169


Reduce Injury and/or FatigueReduce Injury and/or Fatigue


Quotes from Engineering Managers

• “fatigue and quality seem to go hand-in-hand, and that g q y g ,fatigue is not only the root cause of our quality problems, but one of the biggest factors”

• “fatigue seems to sum it up”


IE’s are used to thinking about Allowances

Niebel/Freivalds, 2009

• Allowances account for unavoidable (normal) delays • Allowable delays may depend on company policyAllowable delays may depend on company policy

• Table 11.8


Table .8

% REST =(W‐5.33)/(W‐1.33)% REST (W 5.33)/(W 1.33)80%

60%

70%

ce

30%

40%

50%

est A

llowan

c

10%

20%

30%

% Re

0%

10%

0 5 10 15WORKLOAD (kcal/min)


WORKLOAD (kcal/min)

Ergo-Index:Ergo-Index: Assessing recovery need in manual work


Background

• Fatigue and Injury compromise strategic goals

• MSDs

• Recovery

• Load level

• Performance

• Possible to combine assessment of ‘ergonomics’ and production economics?


Different ways to analyse work

Chiselling/drilling in concrete wall

I: No support II: With support [Glimskär et al.]


Traditional comparisonp

ERGONOMICS ECONOMICSUNIT TIMEC t f

Minutes/hole

3000 5.85

6.13Cost for supportCost for

drillingNSEK/hole

3

2000

1000

2

1

[Glimskär et al.]

Would you invest in alternative II?


Ergo-Index rationale

SEK/hole

PRODUCTION TIME ECONOMICS

C t fSEK/hole

3 6Cost for support

Recovery

Chisseling

Cost for drilling

Minutes/hole5.85

2

1

4

2

ppChisseling3.50

1

I II I II[Glimskär et al.]

Would you invest in alternative II?


A d l t l t j b t k di l d l l ti t

Ergo-IndexA model to evaluate job tasks regarding load level, time aspects and risk of injury, to be able to choose the “best” alternative from both ergonomic and production economics aspects.

1980s: Model based on literature and experimental studies

1990-2001: Further developed

2004: Call from industry GM in North America among the users

Current project: Focus on:1. Endurance time and Resumption time modelling 2 Repeated loading situations

Subjective assessment of recovery need

2. Repeated loading situations3. Rating of Perceived Discomfort


j y

Quotes about use of the Ergo-IndexQuotes about use of the Ergo Index

• “It is used both proactively (design) and reactively “

• “It is used to make determinations about recovery time in jobs and if there is insufficient recovery time then the job is changed. “

[GM]


An applied examplebl d

Manually: With robot:

Assembling windows at a construction site

Manually: With robot:

At first glance:“Heavier, but faster” “Easier, but slower”


ea e , but aste as e , but s o e

Manual window transportation 1(2)


Manual window transportation 2(2)


Robot window transportation 1(2)Robot window transportation 1(2)


Robot window transportation 2(2)


Ergo-Index summary

Ergo‐Index results


Borg’s CR-10 &

Ergo-Index summary

Ergo‐Index resultsBorg s CR 10 & body map

Discomfort rating: 6

Discomfort rating: 0.5


Example: Same load level, same loading timePerceived discomfort prediction model

p , g

Short pause in work cycle:

Rapid increase in discomfort

Longer pause in work cycle:

“Steady state” discomfortRapid increase in discomfort

Probably production &

health issues

Steady state discomfort

Probably less production &

health issues

9

10

Resumption Time= 38 sEndurance Time= 184 s

8

9

10

Resumption Time= 38 sEndurance Time= 184 s

Discomfort Discomfort

health issues ea t ssues

4

5

6

7

8

4

5

6

7

8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500

1

2

3

relative load = 25 % MVC, Load Time = 50 s ; Rest Time = 25 s

0 50 100 150 200 2500

1

2

3

relative load = 25 % MVC, Load Time = 50 s ; Rest Time = 5 s

Time Time


5 Key Points5 Key Points

1 Fatigue affects system performance1. Fatigue affects system performance2. Engineering Managers ‘get’ that fatigue

compromises quality etccompromises quality etc.3. Engineering Directors don’t think about

' i ‘ b b f i'ergonomics‘, but about fatigue4. Higher loads need higher rest allowances5. Rest allowance models allow you to balance

fatigue & productivity concerns


g p y

C t t i f tiContact information

Linda Rose Patrick NeumannKTH, The Royal Institute of Technology Ryerson UniversitySchool of Technology and Health Department of Mechanical and Division of Ergonomics Industrial EngineeringStockholm Human Factors Engineering LabSweden Toronto, Ontario, CanadaE mail: linda rose@sth kth se E mail: pneumann@ryerson caE‐mail: [email protected] E‐mail: [email protected]


Documents

Designing Jobs in Manufacturing v3c · • Maps are then combined for an Exec Team (n 7)Maps are then combined for an Exec. Team (n=7) ... 11 Increased flexibility 6 Improved Quality