Majorkumar Govindaraju
Technical Information Management Services, Inc., Ohio, USA
Arunkumar Pennathur
University of Texas at El Paso, Texas, USA
Anil Mital
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Keywords
Quality, Performance,
Manufacturing, Productivity,
Ergonomics
Abstract
In the increasingly competitive
global economy, survival of an
industry depends on catering to
customer needs by quickly
producing quality products and
providing quality service at an
affordable price. In production, or
in service, ergonomic
considerations have manifested
themselves in two distinct, yet
related, domains. Focuses on the
humans who contribute to product
manufacture/ service. It is
frequently advocated that since
humans are unreliable and less
consistent, compared to
machines, they are primarily
responsible for lowering product
and service quality. Ergonomic
considerations, which, ironically,
can improve human performance,
are paid lip service during
manufacturing system design.
Compounding the problem is the
current inability of most
ergonomists to make ergonomic
recommendations that do not run
counter to the productivity and
quality goals of system designers.
Addresses these two issues by
illustrating, through four case
studies, the relationship between
quality and variables that affect
human performance.
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/5 [2001] 360367
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0957-6061]
[ 360 ]
Introduction
The quality movement in product
manufacturing and delivery of service has
undergone change from its initial emphasis
on quality through inspection, to the presentday emphasis on quality through the
development of robust processes capable of
performing consistently in developing
products and services that meet and exceed
user needs and expectations (Drury, 1997;
Eklund, 1997). Since humans are known to
increase process variability by being less
reliable and less consistent compared to
machines (Bullinger and Warnecke, 1985;
Orpana and Lukka, 1993; Sata, 1986), it is
frequently advocated that machines are
preferable in situations characterized by
design accuracy and tight tolerancing
requirements. During the 1980s, it was
believed that the demand for manufactured
goods would be met by a small workforce
operating in a modern automated
environment employing advanced
manufacturing technologies (OBrien, 1991).
Automatic identification systems
(transponders, barcodes, radio frequency,
speech input), automated storage and
retrieval systems, conveyor and automated
guided vehicle systems, machine assembly
and test systems, robotics workstation,
flexible manufacturing cells, and automated
packaging are all examples of such advanced
manufacturing technology. It is being
realized, however, that an effective
integration of modern manufacturing
technologies and information, and therefore
complete automation, is difficult to achieve,
at least in the foreseeable future, without
human input, for technical, economic and
cybernetic reasons.
Hard automation does not lend itself to
situations where products have to be
The current issue andfull text archive of this journal is available at
http://w ww .emerald-library.com /ft
Majorkumar Govindaraju,
Arunkumar Pennathur and
Anil Mital
Quality improvement in
manufacturing through human
performance enhancement
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/5 [2001] 360367
Case studies
There is a scarcity of literature on
experimental investigations clearly
demonstrating how different human
performance variables (summarized in
Figure 1), directly affect the quality of
products and services. When the demands
due to these variables exceed the physical,
mental, and sensory abilities of an
individual, it results in the deterioration of
human performance and a resultant decline
in quality (Figure 2). This section presents
four case studies which attempt to relate how
work conditions affect human performance,
and hence output quality. These studies also
suggest the ergonomic interventions needed
in each case to improve the quality of
product, or service, rendered.
[ 361 ]
Majorkumar Govindaraju,
Arunkumar Pennathur and
Anil Mital
Quality improvement in
manufacturing through human
performance enhancement
Figure 1
Performance shaping factors
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/5 [2001] 360367
Figure 2
Relationship between human performance and quality
[ 362 ]
Majorkumar Govindaraju,
Arunkumar Pennathur and
Anil Mital
Quality improvement in
manufacturing through human
performance enhancement
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/5 [2001] 360367
Table I
Assembly time and quality deficiencies during various phases
P has e
Se cond p hase
Third pha se
Fou rth phase
Tasks w ith
ergono m ic
problem s
Tasks w itho ut
ergono m ic
proble m s
25
4,088 (5 0)
2.95
221 (39)
1.94
19
342 (30)
1.85
75
4154 (50 )
1.00
3 41 (61)
1.00
81
7 94 (70)
1.00
[ 363 ]
Majorkumar Govindaraju,
Arunkumar Pennathur and
Anil Mital
Quality improvement in
manufacturing through human
performance enhancement
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/5 [2001] 360367
[ 364 ]
Majorkumar Govindaraju,
Arunkumar Pennathur and
Anil Mital
Quality improvement in
manufacturing through human
performance enhancement
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/5 [2001] 360367
Conclusions
This paper illustrates, through four case
studies, how ergonomic work conditions
affect human performance and quality.
Presently, quality improvements are
primarily sought by improved process
techniques and materials. However, a
holistic approach toward quality assurance
requires that due consideration be given to
improving operator efficiency. Paucity of
experimental investigations in clearly
demonstrating the link between ergonomics
and quality suggests that more systematic
research needs to be performed to investigate
how quality is affected by ergonomic
variables such as work area, job design,
equipment design, man/machine design,
personal interaction, organizational
structure, and work environment.
Eventually, quality products can only be
created by making a process possible by
optimizing all the variables related to
production such as workers, material, and
machines. Further, experimental
investigations demonstrating clear linkages
between ergonomics, quality, and cost are
needed. Variables that affect human
performance, variables that affect quality,
and variables that affect cost must be
considered systematically in such
investigations.
[ 365 ]
Majorkumar Govindaraju,
Arunkumar Pennathur and
Anil Mital
Quality improvement in
manufacturing through human
performance enhancement
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/5 [2001] 360367
[ 366 ]
References
Ashby, W.R. (1962), Introduction to Cybernetics,
Heinemann, London.
Bessant, J. and Haywood, B. (1985), The
Introduction of FMS as an Example of CIM,
Department of Business Management,
Brighton Polytechnic, Brighton.
Brady, M., Gerhard, L.A. and Davidson, H.F.
(1984), Robotics and Artificial Intelligence,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Brehmer, B. (1988), ``Organization for decisionmaking in complex systems, in Goodstein,
L.P., Anderson, H.B. and Olsen, S.E. (Eds),
Tasks, Errors and Mental Models, Taylor &
Francis, London, pp. 116-27.
Brodner, P. (1986), ``Skill-based manufacturing
versus unmanned factory which is
superior, International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, Vol. 1, pp. 145-53.
Brodner, P. (1990), The Shape of Future
Technology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Bullinger, H.J. and Warnecke, H.J. (1985), Factory
of the Future, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
Drury, C.G. (1997), ``Ergonomics and quality
movement, Ergonomics, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 249-64.
Eklund, J. (1997), ``Ergonomics, quality and
continuous improvement conceptual and
empirical relationships in an industrial
context, Ergonomics, Vol. 40 No. 10,
pp. 982-1001.
Eklund, J.A.E. (1995), ``Relationship between
ergonomics and quality in assembly work,
Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 15-20.
Ferguson, D.A., Major, G. and Keldoulis, T. (1974),
``Visual defect and the visual demand of
tasks, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 5, pp. 84-93.
Gerwin, D. and Kolodny, H. (1992), Management of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology:
Strategy, Organization, and Innovation,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Hartley, J. (1984), Robots at Work, IFS
Publications, Bedford.
Helander, M.G. and Burri, G.J. (1995), ``Cost
effectiveness of ergonomics and quality
improvements in electronic manufacturing,
International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, Vol. 15, pp. 137-51.
Klatte, T., Daetz, W. and Laurig, W. (1997),
``Quality improvement through capable
processes and ergonomic design,
International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, Vol. 20, pp. 399-411.
Kopardekar, P., Mital, A. and Anand, S. (1995),
``Manual, hybrid, and automated inspection:
literature and current research, Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 4, pp. 18-29.
McFarling, L.H. and Heimstra, N.W. (1975),
``Pacing, product complexity, and task
perception in simulated inspection, Human
Factors, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 361-7.
Mital, A. (1991), ``Manual versus flexible
assembly: a cross comparison of performance
and cost in four different countries, in
Majorkumar Govindaraju,
Arunkumar Pennathur and
Anil Mital
Quality improvement in
manufacturing through human
performance enhancement
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/5 [2001] 360367
[ 367 ]