Mech81003.qxd The Journal of Engineering Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2005) 69-76 1. Introduction Worker productivity and satisfaction improvements are a major concern in industry, especially for repetitive tasks such as short-cycled assembly. These tasks are considered boring, monotonous, fatiguing and de-motivating. This, in turn, results in reduced worker productivity, poor work quality, higher absenteeism and causes detrimental effects on worker physical and mental well being Shikdar and Das, (1995). Improving worker productivity in such tasks is, therefore, a major challenge, especially for the manage- ment. Ergonomics is concerned with making the workplace as efficient, safe and comfortable as possible. Effective _______________________________________ *Corresponding authors E-mail: ashraf1@squ.edu.om application of ergonomics in work system design must achieve a balance between worker characteristics and task demands. This can enhance worker productivity, provide worker safety as well as physical and mental well-being and job satisfaction. Many research studies have shown the positive effects of applying ergonomic principles in workplace design, machine and tool design, and envi- ronment and facilities design (Hasselquist, 1981; Schnauber, 1986; Ryan, 1989; Das, 1997; Resnik and Zanotti, 1997; Burri and Helander, 1991; Shikdar and Das, 1995; Das and Sengupta, 1996; Das and Shikdar, 1999). Research studies in ergonomics have produced data and guidelines for industrial applications. The features of ergonomic design of machines, workstations, and facili- ties are well known (Grandjean, 1988; Konz, 1995; Das and Grady, 1983; Salvendy, 1987; Melamed et al. 1989; Sanders and McCormick, 1992; Wilson and Corlett, 1992; Operator Performance and Satisfaction in an Ergonomically Designed Assembly Workstation A.A. Shikdar* and M.A. Al-Hadhrami Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 33, Al-Khod 123, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman Received 8 August 2003; accepted 2 October 2004 Abstract: The objective of this study was to investigate the effects on operator performance and satisfaction of an ergonomically designed workstation for performing a repetitive industrial assembly task. Experiments were conducted in a company with industrial workers using existing and newly developed workstations. Operator performance on the ergonomically designed workstation was 27% higher compared to the existing non-ergonomically designed workstation. Worker satisfaction score was also improved by 41% in the ergonomically designed workstation condition. The new workstation for a repetitive assembly task had high- ly significant positive effect on worker performance and satisfaction. Special features of the ergonomically designed assembly workstation were an adjustable and adequate worktable, an adjustable and ergonomical- ly designed chair, ergonomically designed hand tools and a systematic layout of the workstation components. Keywords: Cycle time, Operator performance and satisfaction, Ergonomically designed work- station, Assembly task ¢¢üü∏∏îîàà°°ùŸŸGGGG” å«M .™fÉ°üŸG ‘ IQôµàŸG ™«ªéàdG ∫ɪYC’ »eƒfƒZQEG º«ª°üJ hP πªY á£fi ΩG~îà°SÉH ∫ɪ©dG É°VQh AGOG ‘ äGôKDƒŸG øY åëÑdG ‘ á°SGQ~dG Iòg ±~¡J : .πª©dG ¢ùØæH ¿ƒeƒ≤j ø‡ ∫ɪY ΩG~îà°SÉH á°SGQ~dG √ò¡d √QÉ«àNG ” …òdG ™æ°üŸG ‘ »eƒfƒZQh’G º«ª°üàdG hP I~j~÷G h á«dÉ◊G πª©dG á£fi ΩG~îà°SÉH ÜQÉéàdG πªY ¿É«Ñà°S’G èFÉàf äô¡XCG ɪc .á«dÉ◊G πª©dG á£ëà áfQÉ≤e I~j~÷G πª©dG á£fi ΩG~îà°SÉH %27 áÑ°ùæH ∫ɪ©dG i~d á«LÉàf’G ‘ kGQƒ£J èFÉàædG äô¡XG ÜQÉéàdG ∫ÓN øe ‘ »HÉéj’G ôKC’G É¡d ¿Éc QôµàŸG ™«ªéà∏d áe~îà°ùŸG »eƒfƒZQh’G º«ª°üàdG hP I~j~÷G πª©dG á£fi ¿G .I~j~÷G πª©dG á£fi ΩG~îà°SÉH %41 áÑ°ùæH äOGR ∫ɪ©dG É°VQ ¿ÉH º«ª°üàH ájh~j äGhOCG ,á«eƒfƒZQhG äGõ«Ã »°Sôc .πª©∏d á«aÉc áMÉ°ùe OƒLhh ádhÉ£dG ´ÉØJQG §Ñ°V ƒg I~j~÷G πª©dG á£fi õ«Á Ée ºgCG .∫ɪ©dG i~d É°VôdGh á«LÉàf’G IOÉjR .πª©dG á£fi AGõLC’ º¶æe ™jRƒJh »eƒfƒZQhCG Gáá««MMÉÉààØØŸŸGG ääGGOOôôØØŸŸ.™«ªéàdG πªY ,»eƒfƒZQhG º«ª°üàH πªY á£fi ,…OÉY º«ª°üàH πªY á£fi ,πeÉ©dG É°VQh AGOG ,IQh~dG øeR : »eƒfƒZQhC’G º«ª°üàdG hP ™«ªéàdG á£fi ΩG~îà°SG ‘ πeÉ©dG AÉ°VQh AGOCG 70 The Journal of Engineering Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2005) 69-76 McLeod, 1995). However, there is still a low level of acceptance and limited application of ergonomics in industry, especially in developing countries. The main concern of work system design is the improvement of machines and tools. Inadequate or no consideration is given to the design of the work system as a whole. Therefore, poorly designed systems are a common place in industry (Konz, 1995; Das, 1987). Neglect of ergonom- ic principles brings inefficiency and pain to the workforce. An ergonomically deficient workplace can cause physical and emotional stress, low productivity and poor quality of work (Ayoub, 1990a, 1990b). A workstation should be laid out such that it minimizes the working area so that while carrying out the operations the worker uses shorter motions and expends less energy. This will reduce fatigue. The concept of workspace design and the application of anthropometric data had been reviewed by Das and Grady (1983). It was established that an adjustable chair was highly desirable for the work- place as well as a standard size workbench. However, the standard height of the workbench cannot be defined with- out the anthropometric data of the user population. It was believed that application of ergonomics in the design of repetitive assembly tasks, including redesigning workstations and tasks, would not only improve worker safety and work quality, but it would also reduce cycle time and thus improve worker productivity significantly. An earlier study conducted in the laboratory with a simu- lated repetitive manufacturing task showed significant improvement in operator performance Shikdar et al. (1997). However, this study did not consider a fully adjustable workstation and a real life task situation. The objective of this research was to study the effects on oper- ator performance and satisfaction of an ergonomically designed workstation for a repetitive industrial assembly task. 2. Methodology The methodology adopted in the conduct of this study was to select a representative real life industrial assembly task, study the workstation thoroughly and task perform- ance on the workstation, redesign the workstation ergonomically and conduct experiments to assess the effects on operator performance (measured in terms of work cycle time) and satisfaction. 2.1. Assembly Task The selected task was an assembly of an electrical switch (molded case circuit breaker, MCCB) that consist- ed of 14 parts. Usually, simulated tasks chosen for research purpose does not represent real life industrial tasks. Manual assembly of switches is a common task in the electrical industry. The selected assembly task was a highly repetitive task. It was performed on workstations that were not designed ergonomically. Also, the task method was not designed following ergonomic principles. The assembly task involved picking up the base and cover from the incoming bins, assembling all the inside parts in the base, putting the cover on, tightening the assembly using a power screwdriver and placing it in the outgoing bin. Considerable maneuvering and correcting motions were required for the task performance. The assembly steps were modified in the new design by incor- porating motion study and ergonomic principles. 2.2. Participants The participants were ten assembly operators from a local electrical manufacturing company. They were select- ed based on their experience in the selected and similar tasks, adequate training in the selected task, education and commitment to complete the study. All the participants were Omani and Indian male and their average age was 25.2 yrs, with a standard deviation of 6.18 yrs. The mean stature of the sample was 1679 mm with a standard devi- ation of 55.47 mm. Education of the participants ranged from primary to trade diplomas. The average experience of the participants in this and similar tasks was 2.5 yrs. This was considered adequate for this study. The partici- pants had full support from the management. 2.3. Existing Workstation An existing workstation was provided by the company and brought to our Ergonomics Laboratory. The worksta- tion was thoroughly analyzed to identify ergonomic defi- ciencies with respect to work height, work areas, seating, posture, clearances, hand tools and layout. In general, it was found that no ergonomic consideration was given to the existing workstation. The task was performed in a sit- ting posture using a chair which did not have an adjustable back support, tilt mechanism and appropriate cushioning. The table height was too low and fixed (h=740 mm) with inadequate work area for laying out components. The operators were unable to maintain a natural work posture. Working under such conditions for prolonged period could lead to shoulder stress and back pain (Grandjean, 1988). The hand tools were poorly designed and not suit- able for operator's ease of use and comfort. These were not ergonomically designed, including no handle for the file and an inadequate handle for the screwdriver. Environment was not given adequate consideration as noise level was high and lighting was poor. The layout of the workplace did not consider any sys- tematic guidelines. The components were placed on the worktable without considering functional use and normal and maximum work areas. The incoming bin was placed on a side table and outgoing bin was placed on the floor on the same side. Figure 1 shows the layout of the exist- ing workstation with the normal and maximum work areas superimposed. It can be seen that the bins were laid out- side the maximum reach area. 2.4. Ergonomically Designed Workstation The workstation was then redesigned using ergonomic 71 The Journal of Engineering Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2005) 69-76 12 8 16 19 6 15 3 5 18 21 17 4 2 9 7 10 11 1 20 Legend: 1. Incoming bin (600x400); 2. Terminal lever bin (320x205); 3. Terminal clamp bin (140x110); 4. 3-pole body bin; 5. Handle base bin; 6. Handle springs, long screws, cover parts bin; 7. Handles bin; 8. Tripping lever bin; 9. Tripping lever springs bin; 10. Chutes; 11. Covers bin; 12. Outgoing bin; 13. Maximum reach; 14. Normal reach; 15. Grease container; 16. Assembly area; 17. Fixture; 18. Tool area; 19. Assembly table; 20. Side table; 21. Power screwdriver. Figure 1. Plan view of the existing workstation with normal and maximum reach superimposed. All dimensions are in mm. Figure 2. A conceptual ERGOMAS model of the workstation 72 The Journal of Engineering Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2005) 69-76 principles and data. A conceptual design was developed using Ergonomic Layout and Optimization of Manufacturing Systems (ERGOMAS) software package. The software is capable of developing workstation designs using a population anthropometry. Workstation components could be selected from a wide range of prod- ucts in the database. The conceptual model is shown in Fig. 2. The model used 90 percentile anthropometric dimensions of the US military male population as local anthropometric data is not available and it closely match- es the dimensions of the user population sample in the company (ERGOMAS, 2001). Considering the nature of the complexity of the assem- bly task it was decided to provide the worker with a fully adjustable ergonomic chair and an adjustable table so that the work could be performed in a posture that relieved the operator from unnecessary motions and fatigue. A footrest was provided for the worker. The existing hand tools were either modified or replaced with ergonomically designed ones. The workplace layout was made according to rec- ommended dimensions for table height, seat height, thigh clearance, and reach envelopes of normal and maximum work areas for a male population Al-Haboubi (1992). However, the worker had the flexibility to adjust the table height or the chair to his comfort. Figure 3 shows some of the specific features of the ergonomically designed work- station. An improved work method was developed for the task performance. 2.5. The Experiments A Methods-Time Measurement (MTM) analysis was conducted to establish the cycle time for the performance of the task on both workstations. They varied consider- ably. Experiments were conducted in the company using existing non-ergonomically designed workstation and new ergonomically designed workstation. Data on ten cycle times per participant (100 cycle times) were collect- ed at random times using the existing non-ergonomic workstation condition before the intervention. The ergonomically designed workstation was taken to the company and installed on the shopfloor. Participants were trained on the new workstation for two weeks and then allowed them to familiarize with the new method. The second set of experiments were scheduled three months later. Ten cycle times (in minutes) of each partici- pant to assemble the product were collected under the new condition. A total of 200 cycle times were collected in two experimental conditions (100 cycle times for each condition). 2.6. Satisfaction Questionnaire Satisfaction questionnaire was conducted at the end of both experimental conditions in order to measure worker satisfaction in using the existing and the ergonomically designed workstations. It consisted of 23 questions in three areas: satisfaction with regard to workstation, satis- faction with regard to task method, and satisfaction with regard to health attributes. The Human Factor Satisfaction Questionnaire was modified to suit this particular study Carlopio, (1991). The specific questions measured actual worker perception in the attributes using a Likert-type scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being very dissatisfied to 5 very sat- isfied. An example of satisfaction question with regard to workstation was 'How satisfied are you with the work space on the table?'. The data were summarized and ana- lyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The analyses were conducted with the cycle times and worker satisfaction scores. 3. Analysis of Results 3.1. Operator Performance Operator performance was measured in terms of work cycle time, converted to operator performance. A work cycle is defined as the time taken by an operator to com- plete one unit of the product. The mean cycle times of task performance in the two experimental conditions are pre- sented in Fig. 4. The mean cycle time under the existing workstation design was 13.38 min. with a standard devia- tion of 5.23 min. In contrast, the mean cycle time under the ergonomically designed workstation condition was 9.73 min with a standard deviation of 3.79 min. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the cycle time data showed that the difference between the two condi- tions was highly significant (F=334.72, p<0.01) in terms of cycle time (Table 1). A comparison between Condition 2 (Ergonomically designed workstation) and Condition 1 (Existing non-ergonomically designed workstation) showed that the mean cycle time of the participants work- ing on the ergonomically designed workstation condition was significantly less compared to the mean cycle time of the participants working on the non-ergonomic worksta- tion condition. The operator performance of the ergonom- ically design workstation condition (Condition 2) was 27% higher compared to worker performance in the non- ergonomically designed system. The higher worker per- formance was due to incorporating ergonomic principles and data in the design of the workstation and the task. Participants consistently performed better in the ergonomically designed workstation. Figure 5 shows the performance of participants on the two workstations. Major changes that were incorporated in the redesigned workstation and the task were: adequate table surface area with height adjustment mechanism, fully ergonomically designed chair with a comfortable seat pan, height adjust- ment, adjustable armrests, and an adjustable back rest with tilt mechanism, workspace layout in the normal and maximum work areas, ergonomically designed hand tools, and an improved work method. Since the worktable was adjustable, a flexible posture in the task performance was possible by the operators. The ergonomic changes incor- porated to the design of the repetitive assembly task and the workplace made the work more comfortable, less fatiguing and more efficient. This is evident from the results of the satisfaction questions in Section 3.2. An example of these questions was ' How satisfied are you 73 The Journal of Engineering Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2005) 69-76 15 10 18 9 8 7 14 19 16 6 5 4 3 17 1 2 11 Legend: 1. Incoming bin (600x400); 2. Arc chutes bin (140x110); 3. Terminal clamp bin; 4. Tripping lever bin; 5. Cover parts bin; 6. Handle springs and long screws bin; 7. Handle and handle base bin; 8. Line ter- minal bin; 9. 3-pole body bin; 10. Outgoing bin (600x400); 11. Assembly table; 12. Maximum reach; 13. Normal reach; 14. Fixture; 15. Assembly area; 16. Grease container; 17. Tool area 1; 18. Tool area 2; 19. Power screwdriver. Figure 3. Plan view of the ergonomically designed workstation. All dimensions are in mm. 0 4 8 12 16 Existing condition Ergonom ic condition M ea n c yc le t im e (m in u te s Figure 4. Mean cycle time for two conditions (minutes) Source df Ms F PR>F* r2** Model 20 1559.33 783.08 0.01 0.99 Conditions 1 666.53 334.72 Subjects 9 397.71 199.73 Conditions x Subjects 9 21.65 10.87 Errors 180 1.99 Total 200 df – degrees of freedom; Ms – mean square; F – F value; *PR>F = Probability that a random F value would be greater than or equal to the observed value; **r 2 = coefficient of determination. Table 1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of cycle time data M ea n cy cl e ti m e (m in ut es ) 74 The Journal of Engineering Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2005) 69-76 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Observations C yc le -t im e (m in ut es ) Existing workstation Ergonomic workstation Figure 5. Observed cycle times of typical participant on workstations 0 1 2 3 4 5 Ta ble H eig ht W ork Sp ac e A rea Th igh -ta ble C lea ran ce W ork tab le De sig n Ch air H eig ht Ad jus tab ilit y Ch air C om for t Fo otr est Bi ns L ay ou t o n t he Ta ble Po sit ion & H eig ht of Inc om ing B in Po sit ion & H eig ht of Ou tgo ing B in Ha nd le of the To ols Ea se of Us e Ov era ll W ork sta ion D esi gn W or ke rs S co re Existing workstation Ergonomically designed workstation Figure 6. Operator satisfaction with design attributes on two workstations Satisfaction attribute areas Mean satisfaction scores* Non-ergonomically designed workstation Ergonomically designed workstation Workstation design 3.14 4.52 Task method 3.03 4.35 Health related issues 3.03 3.95 * max possible score = 5.0 Table 2. Mean operator satisfaction scores 75 The Journal of Engineering Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2005) 69-76 with the posture you have to adopt in the task perform- ance?'. 3.2. Operator Satisfaction The mean operator satisfaction scores for the worksta- tion, task method and health attributes are presented in Table 2. It can be seen that the mean scores for the ergonomically designed workstation were higher com- pared to the mean scores for the non-ergonomically designed workstation condition. Results of ANOVA in Table 3, showed that the difference between the condi- tions was highly significant with regard to worker satis- faction (F=305.15, p<0.01). The improvement in worker satisfaction with regard to workstation design attributes is 45% (Fig. 6). A similar analysis of the satisfaction scores with regards to the task method and health attributes showed signifi- cant improvements in the ergonomically designed work- station. Worker satisfaction scores with regard to task attributes improved by 46%, while health attributes improved by 33%. Overall worker satisfaction improved by 41%. The improvement was due to incorporation of ergonomics in the workstation design and task method that was well perceived by the workers. 4. Conclusions The ergonomically designed workstation for perform- ing an assembly task had a highly significant positive effect on reducing the cycle time. The reduction in the mean cycle time was 27% in using ergonomically designed workstation. Worker satisfaction scores also improved significantly (i.e. 41%) on the newly designed workstation. A fully adjustable ergonomically designed system for assembly task was possible by using an adjustable work- table, an adjustable chair and a systematic layout. The new workstation could be used as a sit-stand workstation. The major changes made in the original workstation were in providing an ergonomic seat (i.e. an adjustable chair) an adjustable and adequate worktable, proper layout of bins and tools within the normal working area, ergonomically designed hand tools and an appropriate work method. Ergonomic principles and data should be applied system- atically in the design of repetitive assembly tasks to improve worker performance and satisfaction by making the tasks more comfortable, less fatiguing and more inter- esting. In closing, the current research was conducted for a short period, taking random cycles of assembly time for each operator. Future research should focus on validation using a longer time period. To maximize operator per- formance, the optimum number of units that could be han- dled by the operator in a cycle should be investigated. Worker satisfaction with regards to safety, health and sat- isfaction with the ergonomically designed workstation condition should also be investigated. Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support provided by SQU through Research Grant ENG/00/02. References Al-Haboubi, M.H., 1992, "Anthropometry for a Mix of Different Populations," Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 23(3), pp. 191-196. Ayoub, M.A., 1990a, "Ergonomic Deficiencies: I. Pain at Work," J. of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 32(1), 52-57. Ayoub, M.A., 1990b, "Ergonomic Deficiencies: II. Probable Causes," J. of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 32(2), pp. 131-136. Burri, G.J. and Helander, M.G., 1991, "A Field Study of Productivity Improvements in the Manufacturing of Circuit Boards," Int. J. of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 7, pp. 207-215. Carlopio, J.R., 1991, "Construct Human Factors Satisfaction Questionnaire," Working Paper 91-001, Australian Graduate School of Management, The University of New South Wales, Australia. Das., B, 1987, "An Ergonomic Approach to Designing a Manufacturing Work System," Int. J. of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 1(3), pp. 231-240. Das, B. and Grady, R.M. 1983, “Industrial Workplace Layout Design: An Application of Engineering Anthropometry,” Ergonomics, Vol. 26(5), pp. 433-443. Das, B. and Sengupta, A., 1996, " Industrial Workstation Design: A Systematic Ergonomic Approach," Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 27(3), pp. 157-163. Source df MS F PR>F* r² ** Model 20 200.70 496.98 0.01 0.98 Conditions 1 123.24 305.15 0.01 Subjects 9 4.15 10.27 0.01 Conditions x Subjects 9 5.08 12.58 0.01 Error 240 0.40 Total 260 Variables are same as in Table 1. Table 3. ANOVA of operator satisfaction scores with workstation design attributes 76 The Journal of Engineering Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2005) 69-76 Das, B. and Shikdar, A., 1999, "Participative Versus Assigned Production Standard Setting in a Repetitive Industrial Task: A Strategy for Improving Worker Productivity," Int. J. of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, Vol. 5(3), pp. 417-430. ERGOMAS., 2001, "Ergonomic Design and Optimization of Manual Work System," Training Manual, Delmia, Germany. Grandjean, E., 1988, "Fitting the Task to the Man: An Ergonomic Approach," Taylor and Francis, London, UK. Hasselquist, R.J., 1981, “Increasing Manufacturing Productivity Using Human Factors Principles,” Proceedings of the Human Factors Society - 25th Annual Meeting, pp. 204-206. Konz, S., 1995, "Work Design: Industrial Ergonomics,” (2nd edition), Grid Columbus, Ohio. McLeod, D., 1995, "The Ergonomics Edge: Improving Safety, Quality and Productivity,” John Wiley, New York. Melamed, S., Luz, J., Najenson, T., Jucha, E. and Green, M., 1989, "Ergonomic Stress Levels, Personal Characteristics, Accident Occurrence and Sickness Absence Among Factory Workers," Ergonomics, Vol. 32(9), pp. 1101-1110. Resnik, M.L. and Zanotti, A., 1997, "Using Ergonomics to Target Productivity Improvements,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 33(1-2), pp. 185-188. Ryan, J.P., 1989, "A Study of Selected Ergonomic Factors in Occupational Safety," Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety I, Ed. Anil Mital, Taylor and Francis, pp. 359-364. Salvendy, G., 1987, "Handbook of Human Factors," John Wiley, New York. Sanders, M.S. and McCormick, E.J., 1992, "Human Factors in Engineering and Design," 6th edition, McGraw Hill, New York. Schnauber, H., 1986, "Ergonomics and Productivity as Reflected in a New Factory. Trends in Ergonomics/Human Factors III," Ed., Karwowski, W., Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 459-465. Shikdar, A., Das, B. and Hall, R., 1997, "Ergonomics and Worker Productivity: A Study with a Repetitive Manufacturing Task," Proceedings of the International Workplace Health and Safety Congress and Ergonomics Society of Australia Conference, CD ROM 1-5. Shikdar, A.A. and Das, B., 1995, "A Field Study of Worker Productivity Improvements,” Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 26(1), pp. 21-27. Wilson, J.R. and Corlett, E.N., 1992, "Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology," Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia.