Designing Jobs in Manufacturing v3c · • Maps are then combined for an Exec Team (n 7)Maps are...
Transcript of Designing Jobs in Manufacturing v3c · • Maps are then combined for an Exec Team (n 7)Maps are...
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
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
30(9): 923‐950.
How Human and System Effects are connectedy
• FatigueOperator g
Production
Effects
SystemEffects
• ?
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
WorkshopWorkshop
How can employee fatigue affect your operational goals?
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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]
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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?
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
Goal
Strategy 1 Strategy 3Strategy 1
Strategy 2
Strategy 3(Central concept)
Concept CLoop
Concept CConcept B
p
Concept A
pConcept B
(tail)
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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
32 Reduced workerpain and fatigue
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
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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
32 Reduced workerpain and fatigue
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
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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”
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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)
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
WORKLOAD (kcal/min)
Background
• Fatigue and Injury compromise strategic goals
• MSDs
• Recovery
• Load level
• Performance
• Possible to combine assessment of ‘ergonomics’ and production economics?
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
Different ways to analyse work
Chiselling/drilling in concrete wall
I: No support II: With support [Glimskär et al.]
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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?
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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?
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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]
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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”
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
ea e , but aste as e , but s o e
Borg’s CR-10 &
Ergo-Index summary
Ergo‐Index resultsBorg s CR 10 & body map
Discomfort rating: 6
Discomfort rating: 0.5
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012
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]
Patrick Neumann & Linda Rose, 2012