Ergo Jounral

8/3/2019 Ergo Jounral

1/16

American Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-223X Issue 3(2009), pp.51-66

EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2009http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.htm

Ergonomics Awareness and Identifying Frequently Used

Ergonomics Programs in Manufacturing Industries Using

Quality Function Deployment

Shaliza Azreen Mustafa

School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus

14300 Nibong Tebal, Malaysia

Shahrul Kamaruddin



E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: 603-5996382; Fax: 603-5941025

Zalinda Othman

Industrial Computing Department, Faculty of Information Science and Technology

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Mohzani Mokhtar



Abstract

Ergonomics in Malaysia has been introduced over a decade ago with the

establishment of the ergonomics division in the National Institute of Occupational Safetyand Health (NIOSH) on 1

stDecember 1992. This study aims to evaluate the level of

ergonomics awareness in Malaysian manufacturing industries and to determine the best practices of ergonomics program using Quality Function Deployment (QFD) among the

manufacturing industries with the highest awareness of ergonomics. A questionnaire was

developed and distributed to 200 manufacturing industries where the respond rate was only

22.5%. The evaluation showed that 35.6% of the industries were classified as having highlevel of ergonomics awareness, 51.1% with moderate levels and 13.3% having low level of

ergonomics awareness. The results from the Ergonomics House of Quality (EHOQ)analysis showed that the orientation program (124 point) was the best practice in helping toincrease the awareness of ergonomics amongst the employees. Besides, ergonomics need to

be formalised via the creation of ergonomics team within the organisation. This is based on

the results where, 62.2% of the respondents agreed that organised ergonomics team willhelp to improve the awareness of ergonomics.

Keywords: Ergonomics, Manufacturing Industries, Quality Function Deployment (QFD),

Ergonomics House of Quality (EHOQ)


2/16

Ergonomics Awareness and Identifying Frequently Used Ergonomics Programs in

Manufacturing Industries Using Quality Function Deployment 52

1. IntroductionErgonomics deals with the application of information about human behaviour, capabilities andlimitations to the design of systems, machines, tools, tasks or jobs and environments for productive,

safe and effective human use (Chapanis, 1985). The goal of ergonomics is to ensure a good fit between

the workers and their job, thereby maximising workers comfort, safety and health, productivity and

efficiency. Derived from the Greek words ergon, which means work and nomos, which meanslaws, ergonomics literally means the laws of the work (Sluchak, 1992). The term initially introduced

into the literature by the Polish natural scientist Jastrzebowski in 1857 (Bridger, 2003). Later, the term

ergonomics was independently reinvented and formally established by Murrell in 1949 (Edholm andMurrell, 1974). Ergonomics activities and researches in Industrial Developing Countries (IDCs) mainly

began during the early 1960s (Banerjee, 1962). However some work has been carried out earlier. For

example, Sen, one of the founders of ergonomics in India, reported ergonomics work at a cotton textilemill in West Bengal as early as 1953 (Sen, 1984). Although Malaysia is one of the IDCs, only about a

decade ago ergonomics was introduced with the establishment of the ergonomics division in the

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) on 1st

December 1992.

2. Ergonomics2.1. Application Ergonomics in Manufacturing Industries

A manufacturing industry is a complex human-machine-organisation system. According to the study

by Shikdar et. al, (2002), a system consists of six major components, which are human operator,

equipment, task, workplace, environment and management. Efficient function of ergonomics in thesystem components can attain stability between workers characteristics and task demands. This in turn

will increase job satisfaction which resulted into workers productivity, provide workers safety thatlead to reduce compensation cost and reduced musculoskeletal disorders (MSD

1).

In order to enhance the awareness of ergonomics among workers, ergonomics programs should

be implemented in manufacturing industry. Ergonomics program is a systematic process for

anticipating, identifying, designing, developing, analysing and controlling ergonomics risk factors toensure the health and safety of the workers. Ergonomics risk factors such as forceful exertion, awkward

postures, repetitive exertions and environmental factors may cause MSD amongst the workers

(Dahalan et al, 2003). There are many types of ergonomics programs carried out in manufacturingindustries such as orientation, ergonomics training, monthly/yearly inspection, risk assessment,

ergonomics campaign, ergonomics representatives, publicity campaign and ergonomics topic of the

month. Ergonomics program ought to contain basic of ergonomics principles, how to recognisesymptom and risk factors of MSD. In addition, top management has to ensure optimum functioning of

the system components (human operator, equipment, task, workplace, environment, management) for

effective ergonomics programs. According to Munck-Ulfslt et al, (2003), ergonomics programinvolving reactive and proactive measures have increase the ergonomics awareness among all levels of

workers.In Joseph, (2003), ergonomics programs have been developed in Ford Motor Company andimplemented by Local Ergonomics Committees (LECs). The responsibilities of LECs are to identify

and evaluate jobs, develop and implement solutions in managing issues related to MSD and to ensure

appropriate use of human resources in the plant. In addition, Ford launch of a new comprehensive

documentation system, the Ergonomics Evidence Bookto record information about plant ergonomicsprocess. There are five steps in the book that required to successfully implementing ergonomics in a

new region. One of the steps is securing leadership commitment by implementing a preliminary

leadership orientation program.The orientation program must be scheduled and organized to ensure the leadership aware of the

incoming process of ergonomics (Joseph, 2003). The orientation program must be carried out about


3/16

53 Shaliza Azreen Mustafa, Shahrul Kamaruddin, Zalinda Othman and Mohzani Mokhtar

two hours and has the objectives such as to create awareness among local leadership of whatergonomics is, why it is important and why the company needs it. It also provides the leadership with

an overview of the design structure of the ergonomics process and to discuss local laws and contracts

that may affect the implementation of the ergonomics in the plant.Furthermore, ergonomics training program also presents positive results in creating awareness,

increasing ergonomics knowledge to prevent work related MSD and motivates employees to utilise

their creative problem solving capacity (Munck-Ulfslt et al, 2003; Shahnavaz, 2000). In Munck-

Ulfslt et al, (2003), Occupational Health Department in Volvo Car Corporation implementedergonomics training for the top management to operators to develop knowledge in the area of

ergonomics. The ergonomics training program must be continued in order to maintain a high level of

knowledge. However, learning followed by practice is the best way to confirm and reinforce theergonomics knowledge.

Ergonomics program such as risk assessment and monthly/yearly inspection has also been

conducted to reduce MSD (Munck-Ulfslt et al, 2003; Joseph, 2003; Smyth, 2003). The trainedworkers were provided with tools such as checklist corresponding to the function of the respective

tasks to record ergonomics risk assessment. Tasks were identified and tasks that have high risk of

injuries are set at the highest priority for recommendations action to be taken. Once the improvementshave been implemented, the same checklists are used to give a direct comparison of how effective the

ergonomics intervention has been in reducing the risk that had originally been identified. Theseassessments are reviewed by ergonomists every month/year and updated as required if there are anychanges made to the tasks or equipments.

Ergonomics representative programs were also one of the ergonomics programs that have been

conducted. For example in The Boots Contract Manufacturing Company (Smyth, 2003), a

representative from each department was trained by the ergonomist to act as Ergonomics Champion.Each of the Ergonomics Champion is involved in a 12 weeks project to develop their understanding of

workplace ergonomics and risk assessment. Once the project has been completed, they were required

to implement the risk assessment program in their department.Another way to disseminate the ergonomics knowledge through the ergonomics programs are

campaigns and topics of the month. For instance, the GTI Company in Netherlands choose ergonomics

campaign on two popular cartoon characters that appeared on posters, hand-outs and mouse pads toattract the workers to distribute information regarding the ergonomics (Niggebrugge and Schelle,

1999).

The implementation of ergonomics programs give positive impact to manufacturing industry

such as to enhance the ergonomics awareness, knowledge, reduce MSD and motivate workers to workin ergonomically manner.

2.2. Ergonomics in Malaysian Manufacturing Industries

The knowledge and application of ergonomics field in Malaysian manufacturing industries are still at

an early stage (Sen, 1984; Sen, 1998). Groups such as foreign top management, foreign academicians

and local educational institutions have introduced ergonomics in various Malaysian manufacturingindustries. The ergonomics movement started from the foreign top management (such as from Japan

and USA) working in the Malaysian multinational manufacturing industries. They could see the

benefits of ergonomics implementation in terms of improving the productivity, quality andOccupational Safety and Health (OSH) towards the workers when it was implemented in their own

countries. Thus they encouraged local industry to adopt ergonomics. In addition, foreign academicians brought their ergonomics expertise to Malaysian local universities offering ergonomics courses and

ergonomics research in the engineering and management undergraduate and postgraduate degree

programs. They also conducted seminars, workshops and conferences and did consultancy with thelocal industries. In term of local educational institutions, various centres and institutes were established

over the years. For example Multimedia University established the Centre of Excellence for


4/16


5/16


the rates of response to mail questionnaires. Sending follow-up letters, keeping the questionnairesbrief, providing the respondent with self-addressed and stamped return envelops are helpful (Sekaran,

2000). The reliability of the questionnaires were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Science

(SPSS) 12.0 for Windows. SPSS is the most popular method that has been used by many researchersespecially in this type of study (Gotzamani and Tsiotras. 2001). The reliability of the measurements is

measured using Cronbachs Alpha values, also known as coefficient alpha (). The rule of thumb for

acceptable applied in most situations should be 0.70 or higher (Cronbach, 1990). For validation

purposes, the questionnaires were distributed to four experts in Universiti Sains Malaysia and threemanufacturing industries in Pulau Pinang. The experts and manufacturing industries were asked to

review each of the questions regarding to content validity, face validity and construct validity. The

feedbacks from the experts and manufacturing industries lead to some modifications in terms ofcontent, wording and structure of some of the questions.

3.1. Questionnaire Development

The mail questionnaire was developed and divided into two sections. Section I consists of questions of

demographic information of the sample. This section is aim to get information on the type of industry,

years of company established and status. In Section II, the questionnaire was divided into three parts.In Part A, (with the reliability statistics of alpha, = 0.939, significant level, P = 0.01) the questions

were develop to identify the person responsible in introducing and applying ergonomics and also the

level of ergonomics awareness in the in the company. In Part B, the dissemination of ergonomicsknowledge for workers was evaluated by identifying whether the company has implement ergonomics

programs and the type of ergonomics programs that has been implemented. For respondents who are

not implementing ergonomics programs, questions on factors for not implementing ergonomics programs were constructed. The reliability statistic used for Part B is = 0.934, P = 0.01. The

development of an ergonomics team in the company and their task were also highlighted in Part C with

the reliability statistic of = 0.978, P = 0.01. The 5-points Likert Scale with the response category

ranging from 1 point for strongly disagree to 5 points for strongly agree was used to observe howstrongly respondent agree or disagree with the statements in Section II. The questionnaire developed

for this research is given in Appendix 1.

3.2. Sample of Manufacturing Industry in Malaysia

The sample sizes are determined according to the rule of thumb by Roscoe, (1975). Sample size larger

than 30 and less than 500 are appropriate for most research is one of the rules of thumb given byRoscoe, (1975). Following the Roscoe rule of thumb, the mail questionnaires were distributed to 200

manufacturing industries. It is including multinational companies and small and medium industry

throughout Peninsular Malaysia as well as Sabah and Sarawak. In addition to that cluster sampling wasused in identifying the samples because of manufacturing industry have heterogeneous type of

industry. This rule is based on the work of Sekaran, (2000). The target group consists of managers,

human resource officer, engineers and safety and health professionals who were involved with the

ergonomics application and implementation.

4. Results and Discussion4.1. The Demographic Information of the Respondents

From the 200 manufacturing industries, selected only 45 of companies responded, even after theauthors have used the effective techniques as stated in Sekaran, (2000) to increase the response rate.

Although the respond rate was low, it still consists of all type of manufacturing industries as defined

during the cluster sampling as stated in section 3.2. The electric and electronic (EE) industry was thehighest respondent, at 24.44% from the overall respondent. It is followed by materials, steel and


6/16



rubber/polymer industry that shares the same percentages, which is 11.11%. Automotive industry was

8.91%, oil palm and chemical industry were 4.44%, paper products/wood processes and petroleum

industry were 2.22% and 20% for others industries. The majority of the companies responded (64.4%)were established more than 10 years. More than half of the respondents are from the small and medium

industry sector. Table 1 shows the demographic information of the respondents in this study.

Table 1: The demographic information of the respondents

%

Electric and electronics 24.40

Materials 11.11

Steel 11.11

Rubber/polymer 11.11

Automotive 8.91

Oil Palm 4.44

Chemical 4.44

Paper products/wood processes 2.22

Petroleum 2.22

Type of industry

Others 20.001-5 years 4.44

5 to 10 years 22.20Years of established company

> 10 years 64.40

Multinational 35.60Status of company

Small and medium industry 55.50

4.2. Ergonomics Awareness in Malaysian Manufacturing Industry

As mentioned in Section 2.3, the objective of this study is to identify the level of ergonomics

awareness among Malaysian manufacturing industries. The level of ergonomics awareness in

Malaysian manufacturing industries is illustrated in Figure 1. The data was analysed using SPSSfollowing the reliability statistics stated in section 3.1. Referring to Figure 1, only 35.6% respondents

have high awareness of ergonomics, 51.1% with moderate level of ergonomics awareness and 13.3%

with low awareness of ergonomics. It also shows that most Malaysian manufacturing industries were inmoderate level of ergonomics awareness. In fact, most of the respondents were not actually aware of

even the most basic knowledge of ergonomics. This will improve if participatory from all levels plays

their roles in disseminating the knowledge of ergonomics. The results from this section will be used to

develop steps in helping to promote the knowledge and information about ergonomics, which willfurther discussed in Section 5.

Figure 1: Percentage level of ergonomics awareness in industries

13.30% 35.60%

51.10%

High level Moderate level Low level


7/16


4.3. Ergonomics Programs in Malaysian Manufacturing Industry

As stated in Section 2.3, there are challenges that need to be dealt with when implementing ergonomics

programs especially in Malaysian manufacturing industries. Moreover, in the questionnaires distributedfor this research (Section II, Part B) the questions were developed in order to have a better

understanding of the reasons why Malaysian manufacturing companies do not implement ergonomics

programs.

The results obtained from the questionnaire indicated that (refer Figure 2) lack ofinformation/education/training (40%) and no pressure from the top management to initiate the

ergonomics programs (40%) were the highest factors that hamper them for carrying out the ergonomics

programs in the industries. Furthermore, lack of top management support (31.1%), human resources(24.4%), lack of time (20%), financial resources (17.8%) and not interested to implement ergonomics

in their industries (6.7%) were some of the factors which may contribute to the lack of awareness on

ergonomics and implementation of the ergonomics programs.

Figure 2: Factors industries not implement ergonomics programs

0%

5%

10 %

15 %

20 %

25 %

30 %

35 %

40 %

45 %

Type of factors

Percentage

(% )

Lack of information /education / training

No pressure to initiate

Lack of top managementsupport

Lack of human resources

Lack of time

Lack of financialresources

Not interested toimplement

From the analysis, Figure 3 showed the percentages of industries that implement ergonomics

programs. Referring to the result, only 33.3% of the respondents were totally implementing theergonomics programs. The other 33.3% of the respondents just implementing few ergonomics

programs between 1 to 4 programs, and 31.1% of the respondent were not implementing any

ergonomics programs at all.

Figure 3: Percentage of implemented ergonomics programs in industries

33.33%

33.33%

31.10%

Totally implement Few implement Not implement at all


8/16



Figure 4 illustrates the percentage of the type ergonomics programs that have been

implemented in Malaysian manufacturing industries. Orientation was the highest program

implemented with 44.4 %, followed by ergonomics training (33.33%), monthly/yearly inspection(31.11%), risk assessment (28.89%), ergonomics campaign (24.44%), ergonomics representatives

(22.22%), publicity campaign (20 %) and topic of the month (17.78%). Efficient implementation of

ergonomics programs can enhance ergonomics awareness.

Figure 4: Ergonomics programs in manufacturing industries

33.33%

31.11%28.89%

24.44%

22.22%

20.00%17.78%

44.40%

Orientations Ergono mics t raining

M o nth ly/Y ea rly in spe ctio n R isk a s se ssm e ntE rgo no mics cam paig n Ergo no mics rep resen tatives

P ub licity camp aign Ergo no mics t op ic o f th e m on th

As illustrated in Figure 3, only 33.33% of the Malaysian manufacturing industries totally

implemented ergonomics programs. The types of ergonomics programs also play a vital role in identify

the level of awareness in ergonomics. Therefore due to the small percentage of industries pursuing thisapproach, there is a need to understand and identify the most suitable ergonomics programs to be

implemented and this will result a better awareness of ergonomics among Malaysian manufacturing

industries. These issues will be further discussed in the following section.

4.4. Ergonomics Team

In order to comprehend the person or group responsible in implementing ergonomics in the industries,a questionnaire regarding this matter was developed under the theme of ergonomics teams. Ergonomics

teams are small groups of people, usually multi-functional, with a shared vision related to achieving

ergonomics activities within the organisation, as defined by the team or management. They usuallyinclude engineers, general employees, health and safety representatives, and plant and union

management [10]. They are capable of acting swiftly to identify ergonomic risk factors, develop and

implement the appropriate solution. Ergonomics teams provide a good tool for ensuring workers participation and a broad approach to apply ergonomics in the industry. They are effective and

extremely efficient. For example Ford Motor Company has formed the Local Ergonomics Committee

(LECs) [10] for identifying, evaluating problems jobs, developing and implementing solutions thatinvolves with ergonomics process. This will assist in enhancing awareness and knowledge amongstworkers about ergonomics.

From the analysis, Figure 5 shows 86.7% respondents were not organising ergonomics team in

their industries and which means only 13.3% established an ergonomics team in their organisation.From the 86.7% respondents that did not organising ergonomics team, 62.2% had agreed that they

should organise ergonomics team in the future. The reasons were they believe that the application of

ergonomics can improve productivity, health and safety of their workers and will results in a betterquality of work. The result from the analysis of the questionnaires with Pearson correlation (r= 0.491,

P = 0.01), shows there are significant relationship between implementing ergonomics programs in

increasing ergonomics awareness among respondents. Therefore, it shows that implementing


9/16


ergonomics programs can help the industries in enhancing the awareness and knowledge ofergonomics among the workers, which also stated by Shahnavaz, (2000) and Rohmert and Lauring,

(1977).

Figure 5: Percentage of organize ergonomics team in manufacturing industry

13.3 %86.7 %

Organize ergonomics team

5. Identifying Frequently Used Ergonomics Programs using Quality Function

DeploymentAs shown in the previous sections, only 35.6% from the total of respondents have high level of

ergonomics awareness. One of the main factors was the lack of information, education or training (as

shown in Figure 2). Thus, to overcome this factor, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) was used toidentify the most frequently used ergonomics program by the respondents. Once the frequently used

ergonomics programs have been identified further analysis can be carried out on how it can beimplemented in other industries. This will help industry in enhancing ergonomics knowledge and

application as well as increasing the awareness of ergonomics especially industries with low level of

ergonomics awareness. The used of QFD in this study is new especially in identifying the mostfrequent used ergonomics programs to enhance ergonomics awareness, but in the ergonomics fields

itself it is not new. For example, Marsot, (2005) had applied QFD method to be a vector for integrating

ergonomics into hand tools design and more generally, occupational risk prevention into work

equipment design. QFD, House of Quality (HOQ), Ergonomics House of Quality (EHOQ) frameworkand the analysis of EHOQ will be further discussed in the following sections.

5.1. Quality Function Deployment

Historically, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Mizuno and Akao developed Quality Function

Deployment (QFD) in Japan (Cohen, 1995). QFD was originally proposed through collecting and

analyzing the voice of the customer, to develop products or services with higher quality to meet or

exceed customers needs. QFDs early applications focused on industries such as automobiles,electronics and software. The fast development of QFD has resulted in its applications to many

manufacturing industries. Eventually, QFD has also been introduced to the service sector such asgovernment, banking and accounting, health care, education and research. Now it is hardly to find an

industry to which QFD has not yet been applied. Lam and Zhao, (1998), had used QFD with analytic

hierarchy process (AHP) in identifying teaching methods and techniques and also in evaluating theireffectiveness in achieving educational objectives.


10/16



5.2. House of Quality

QFD process involves constructing one or more matrices (sometimes called phases or quality tables),which is, product planning (House of Quality), product design (Parts Deployment), process planning

and process control. The first matrix referred to as House of Quality (HOQ) because of its shape (refer

Figure 6), is the most recognised form of QFD. Referring to Figure 6, the QFD approach is based on

deploying customer wants and needs (the WHATs) in Section A in term of technical response (theHOWs) in Section C for new product or service. This process is represented by a succession of

double entry WHATs/HOWs tables allowing the correlations between entries to be identified and

prioritized (Section D). Section B shows a planning matrix for rank ordering the customer want andneeds such as strategic goal setting for new product or service. Section E contains the development

teams assessments of the implementation interrelationships between elements of the technical

response. Section F contains three types of information such as the computed rank ordering of thetechnical responses, based on the rank ordering of customer wants and needs from Section B and the

relationships in Section D, comparative information on the competitions technical performance and

technical performance targets. For further details of QFD method and its application, we recommend

the reader to refer to the bibliographical references Cohen, (1995).

Figure 6: The House of Quality Source (Cohen, 1995)

A: Customer needs and benefits (WHATs)

B: Planning matrix (Market research and strategic planning)

C: Technical response (HOWs)

D:Relationships WHATs / HOWs (Impact of technical response on

customer needs and benefits)

E: Technical correlations

E

C

D

BA

F F:Technical matrix (Technical response priorities, competitive technical

benchmarks, technical targets)

5.3. Ergonomic House of Quality Framework

Ergonomics House of Quality (EHOQ) Framework (refer Figure 7) was developed based on HOQ

(Cohen, 1995). This EHOQ Framework is used to identify the most frequently used ergonomicsprogram to enhance ergonomics awareness and in manufacturing industry. The construction of EHOQ

Framework in Figure 7 did not use the full-blown features of conventional HOQ. Planning matrix(Section B1) and ergonomics correlations (Section E1) were excluded from the EHOQ Framework.The planning matrix was not carried out because it was impossible to obtain complete information of

the programs that improve ergonomics awareness from any sources. The correlation matrix forms the

roof of the house was not used because the information from this section are sometimes necessaryduring the design stage of new development product which is not related to the development of the

framework.

Section A1 (WHATs) identify manufacturing industries with high level of ergonomics

awareness. The identifying was based on result in Section 4.2. Section C1 (HOWs) lists the type ofergonomics programs such as orientation program, monthly/yearly inspection, ergonomics campaign,

publicity campaign, ergonomics training, risk assessment, ergonomics representatives and ergonomics


11/16


topic of the month as elaborated in Section 2.1. Section D1 shows the relationships between types ofergonomics programs that implemented amongst the respondents with high level of ergonomics

awareness. The relationships were demonstrating using matrix key shows in Section 5.4. Section F1

shows the matrix results to obtain the most frequently practiced ergonomics program. The analysis ofEHOQ was done in Section 5.4 below.

Figure 7: Ergonomics House of Quality (EHOQ) Framework

A1: Industries with high level of ergonomics awareness (WHATs)

B 1: Planning matrix

C1: Type of implement ergonomics program (HOWs)

D1: Relationships WHATs/ HOWs

E1: Ergonomics correlations

E

C

D

BA

F F1: Technical matrix

5.4. Ergonomic House of Quality (EHOQ) Analysis

Referring to Figure 8, Section A1 shows the list of 16 respondents (industries) with high level of

ergonomics awareness. This is taken from the results in section 3.2, 35.6% out of 45 respondentsrepresents 16 high level of ergonomics awareness industries. The relationship matrix key is used to

shows the relationship between Section A1 and C1 as indicated in Figure 8. The symbols of the

relationship matrix key were used based on the respondents answer from the questionnaires return,

which use Likert scale. Each of the symbols of the relationship matrix key carrying different point isshown as follows:

Likert Scale 5 or 4 3 2 or 1

Relationship Matrix Key

Point for Relationship Matrix Key 9 3 1

The point of relationship matrix key for each program was added vertically and was put under

absolute importance. After that, the most frequently used ergonomics programs are determinedaccording to the ranking from the highest to the lowest point.From the result of EHOQ chart, the

highest points from relationship matrix and most frequently used ergonomics program implemented in

high ergonomics awareness manufacturing industries is orientations program which score 124 points. Itis respectively followed by ergonomics training (114 points), risk assessment (102 points) and

monthly/yearly inspection (100 points). Most of the later programs exceed the 100 points which

indicates that these programs are effective in increasing the knowledge of ergonomics in the industries.

This is followed by publicity by campaign (88 points), ergonomics campaign (86 points), ergonomicsthrough representatives (70 points) and ergonomics topic of the month (64 points).


12/16


13/16


the best programs in enhancing ergonomics awareness, information and applications that suit theirrequirements and needs. In addition, the impediment in implementing ergonomics programs in

Malaysian manufacturing industries can be resolved if top management in the industries aware of the

cost benefits in implementing ergonomics in their organisation and employees also aware about thepositive impact if they work in ergonomically manner.

6. ConclusionsThe survey results showed only 35.6% Malaysian manufacturing industries have a high level of

ergonomics awareness. There is clear indication there is a need for greater ergonomics awareness inMalaysian manufacturing industries. Lack of information, education or training is the highest factor to

be the challenges in implementing ergonomics programs. These challenges should be undertaken by

researchers to ensure Malaysian manufacturing industries implement ergonomics in its fullest sense.By conducting the survey using questionnaires, it has help to encourage top management to know and

learn about ergonomics especially for those who never heard and do not know anything about

ergonomics before. This is a starting point in promoting ergonomics in the Malaysian manufacturing

industries. Besides, from the EHOQ developed, the most frequently used ergonomics program amongstthe high level of ergonomics awareness in Malaysian manufacturing industries was identified. It

indicated that the orientation program is the best approach to be adopted in enhancing ergonomicsawareness. Finally, in a broader context, by increasing the knowledge and awareness of ergonomics,this will lead in increasing of productivity, safety and health of employees in the manufacturing

industries. Only then this will transform Malaysian manufacturing industries into World Class

Manufacturing (WCM) organisation.

References[1] Banerjee, S. 1962. Studies on Energy Metabolism. Indian Council of Medical Research. New

Delhi. Special Report . 43:1-31.

[2] Bridger, R.S. 2003. Introduction to Ergonomics. 2nd Edition. London: Taylor and Francis.Brooke, J. 1996. SUS: A Quick & Dirty Usability Scale. In P.W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B.A.

[3] Weerdmeester, and I.L. McClelland. Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor andFrancis.

[4] Chapanis, A. 1985. Some Reflections on Progress. Proceedings of the Human Factors 29thAnnual Meeting. Santa Monica. USA. 1-8.

[5] Cohen, L.1995. Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work For You. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.

[6] Cronbach, L.J. 1990. Essentials of Psychological Testing. 2nd Edition. New York: Harper andRow.

[7] Cruez, A.F. 2002. Workplace Accidents Alarming-Steady Rise Since 1998 Due To PoorEnforcement. New Straits Times, May 4, 2002. 1&4. Malaysia: New Straits Times Press.

[8] Dahalan J., Z.R. Shamsdin, N.H. Osman, S. Abd. Ghafar, A. Arimuthu, R. Daud, R.Shaharudin, Y. Matsuno, and N. Hisanagi. 2003. Musculoskeletal Disorders Among VisualDisplay Terminal Users in Malaysia. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health,

Malaysia.

[9] Due To Poor Enforcement. New Straits Times, May 4, 2002. 1&4. Malaysia: New StraitsTimes Press.

[10] EC. 2002. Ergonomics Centre, Multimedia University, Malaysia. (URL)http://www.mmu.edu.my/~fom/home.htm.

[11] Edholm, O.G., and K.F.H. Murrell. 1974. The Ergonomics Research Society: A History, 1949-1970. Ergonomics. London: Taylor and Francis.


14/16



[12] Gotzamani, K.D., and G.D. Tsiotras. 2001. The True Motives Behind ISO 9000 Certification:Their Effect on the Overall Certification Benefits and Long Term Contribution Towards TQM.International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management. 19(2):151-169.

[13] IDEA. 2000. Institute of Design and Ergonomics, University Malaysia Sarawak. (URL)http://www.unimas.my/idea/mission.html.

[14] Joseph, B. 2003. Corporate Ergonomics Programme at the Ford Motor Company. AppliedErgonomics. 34(1): 23-28.

[15] Kogi, K., and T. Kawakami.1997. Current Research-Ergonomics. Environmental Managementand Health. 8(5): 88-190.

[16] Lam, K., and X., Zhao. 1998. An Application of Quality Function Deployment to Improve theQuality of Teaching.International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management15(4): 389

413.

[17] Marsot, J. 2005. QFD: A Methodological Tool for Integration of Ergonomics at The DesignStage.Applied Ergonomics .36: 185192.

[18] Munck-Ulfslt, U., A. Falck, A. Forsberg, C. Dahlin, and A. Eriksson. 2003. CorporateErgonomics Programme at Volvo Car Corporation.Applied Ergonomics. 34(1): 17-22.

[19] Niggebrugge, D., and D. Schelle. 1999. Common Sense at GTI. In: B. Wikstrm, G. Hgg.Corporate Initiatives in Ergonomics, Arbete and Hlsa, Stockholm: NIWL. 10:100-103.

[20] Rohmert, W., and W. Lauring. 1977. Increasing Awareness of Ergonomics By in CompanyCourses- A Case Study.Applied Ergonomics. 8(1): 19-21.

[21] Roscoe, J.T. 1975. Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

[22] Sekaran, U. 2000. Research Methods for Business - A Skill-Building Approach. New York :John Wiley.

[23] Sen, R. N. 1998. Recent Trends of Ergonomics Research in India and Malaysia.HQL Quarterly(Japan). 12: 2-4.

[24] Sen, R.N. 1984. Application of Ergonomics to Industrially Developing Countries.Ergonomics.27:1021-1033.

[25] Shahnavaz, H. 2000. Creating Ergonomics Awareness in Industrially Developing Countries.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 4: 91-100.

[26] Shikdar, A., S. Al-Araimi, and B. Omurtag. 2002. Development of a Software Package forErgonomics Assessment of Manufacturing Industry. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 43:

485-493.

[27] Sluchak, T.J. 1992. Ergonomics: Origins, Focus and Implementation Considerations. AAOHNJournal. 40(3): 105-11.

Smyth, J. 2003. Corporate Ergonomics Programme at BCM Airdrie. Applied Ergonomics.

34(1): 39-43.

[28] Yeow, P.H.P., and R.N. Sen. 2002. The Promoters of Ergonomics in Industrially DevelopingCountries (IDCs) Their Work and Challenges. Proceedings of 3

rdCybErg 2002: The third

international Cyberspace Conference on Ergonomics. In A. Thatcher, J. Fisher and K.Miller.The International Ergonomics Association Press, University of the Witwatersrand.Johannesburg. 18-30.

Appendix 1

The results from this questionnaire will be used for research purpose only and no attempt will be madeto identify any individual or organsations. There is no right or wrong answer. We are seeking your

judgement or opinion only. We would very much appreciate your participant and help since the success


15/16


of this research depends upon our respone. All responses to this questionnaire will be treat with theutmost confidential.

Section 1

1. Companys Profile

Companys Name and Address:

_________________________________________________________________________

Companys Website(s) (if any): _____________________________________________

1.1. About the respondents Name (optional): Position:

Phone Number: Position Held Since:

Email:Note: The respondents particular are subjected for further contact use only. All information given will be treated strictly

confidential.

Please tick (/) your responses in the boxes provided.

1.2. Type of industryTextile Oil Palm Industry Automotive Industry, (e.g: car or

motorcycle)

Rubber or Polymer

Materials

Paper product or Wood

processes

Chemical Indusry, (e.g: resin material,

Coating, soap etc)

Materials Food & Drinks Steel Industry, (e.g: Metal or Iron)

Petroleum Industry Electrical or Electronic

Others (please specify):______________________________________________________________________

1.3 How long has your company been established?Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 5 to 10 years

(please specify):_______

More than 10 years (please specify):_______

1.4 Status of companyMultinational Supporting multinational Public / Government Small and Medium Industry

Section 2

Part A: General Ergonomics / Human factors Awareness

This section deals with the issue of ergonomics / human factors.

Please tick (/) the usage of tool listed below according to their importance at your company.

1 2 3 4 5

Not Emphasis at all Low Emphasis Some Emphasis High Emphasis Very High Emphasis

1 2 3 4 5

1. Awareness on ergonomics / human factor on your company

2. In your company, who is responsible for the need of ergonomics / human factors?

a) Top management (Chief Executive Officer, General Manager)

b) Manager c) Engineer

d) Technician

e) Employees (supervisor, operator) Others, (please specify): ______________________________________


16/16



Part B: Ergonomics ProgramThis section deals with the issue of ergonomics program.

Please tick (/) the usage of tool listed below according to their importance at your company.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1. Company totally implement ergonomics program

(if your answer is 1 or 2, go to question 4)

2. Please indicate which of these programs are implemented used in your companyregarding ergonomics

a) Orientation / indications

b) Publicity campaign

c) Risk assessment

d) Ergonomics campaign e) Ergonomics representative

f) Ergonomics topic of the month

g) Ergonomics training

h) Monthly / yearly inspection Others (please specify): _______________________________________

3. Manager support ergonomics program or training for the employees

4. Why do you think your organisation has not implemented ergonomics programsa) Not interested

b) Lack of time

c) Lack of top management support

d) Lack of human resources e) Lack of financial resources

f) No pressure to initiate

g) Lack of information/education/training Others (please specify): _______________________________________

Part C: Ergonomics Team / Ergonomics Group / Participatory Ergonomics.Please tick (/) the usage of tool listed below according to the importance at your company

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1. Company totally organise ergonomics team

(if the answer is 1 or 2, go to question 3)2. Who should lead the ergonomics team?

a) Top management

(Chief Executive Officer, General Manager)

b) Manager c) Engineer

d) Technician

e) Employees (supervisor, operator)

Others, (please specify): ______________________________________3. In your opinion, should ergonomics team be organised at your company in the

future

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION

Ergo Jounral

Documents

Transcript of Ergo Jounral