linking worker health and well-being with business performance

Transcription

LINKING WORKER HEALTH AND WELL-BEING WITH BUSINESS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN THE MAQUILADORA MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRY IN THE US-MEXICO BORDER REGION
SANTIAGO EDUARDO SEGOVIA VILLARREAL
Department of Industrial Engineering
APPROVED:
Luis Rene Contreras, Ph.D., Chair
Arunkumar Pennathur, Ph.D.
Peter Golding, Ph.D.
Pablo Arenaz, Ph.D.
Dean of the Graduate School
Copyright
by
Santiago Eduardo Segovia Villarreal
2008
LINKING WORKER HEALTH AND WELL-BEING WITH BUSINESS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN THE MAQUILADORA MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRY IN THE US-MEXICO BORDER REGION
by
SANTIAGO EDUARDO SEGOVIA VILLARREAL, B.S.
THESIS
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at El Paso
in Partial Fulfillment
of the requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Industrial Engineering
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
May 2008
1453840
2008
1453840
Abstract
The maquiladora manufacturing industry along the US-Mexico border (specifically in the
El Paso/Juarez border area) has easy access to plentiful inexpensive labor for manufacturing
operations that involve significant manual labor components such as product assembly
operations in plastics, automotive and electronic assembly plants. While the significant
advantage to be gained from the inexpensive labor market may alone dictate business
performance and productivity goals, these goals may be improved by applying ergonomics. The
hypothesis of this research is that workers health and well-being and the quality of working life
of workers in these maquiladora industries are significantly related to Business Performance
Measures. Under the assumption that worker motivation and the ergonomic conditions of the
workstation are highly related with the worker health and well-being diverse data from these
stations was gathered using surveys and ergonomic checklists and then analyzed using
descriptive statistics. Canonical correlations were used to establish correlations between the
ergonomic improvements; well-being and Business Performance Measures. Finally, from a
sample population of eight maquiladora industries; different success cases linking ergonomic
improvements and Business Performance Measures were studied in order to validate the
hypothesis that ergonomic improvements positively affect the measures of performance of the
maquiladora manufacturing industry in the US/Mexico border. Through all of these tools the
relationship between different ergonomic improvements; health and well-being and the Business
Performance measures was proved.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………....………………....iv
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………….….....v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………..………….xi
List of Figures…………………………………………………………….………….….......xii
CHAPTERS
Chapter 1: Introduction……………….…………………………………………………….....1
Chapter 2: Literature Review………....……………………………………………………….4
2.1 Maquiladora industry definitions….………………………………………………4
2.2 Worker health and well-being definitions….……………………………………..5
2.3 Business Performance Measures definitions………………………………….......6
2.3.1 Productivity……………………………………………………………..6
2.3.2 Quality………………………………………………………………..…7
2.3.3 Workers’ compensation……..………………………………………..…9
2.3.4 Mexican Institute of Social Security monetary penalties………………10
2.4 Outsourcing definitions…………………………………………………………..10
2.5 Ergonomics definitions and classifications………………………………………11
2.6 Ergonomic improvements studies related with BPMs…………………………...12
2.6.1 Printed circuit board case………………………………………………12
2.6.2 IBM case……………………………………………………………….12
2.6.3 Aventis Pharmaceuticals case………………………………………….15
2.6.4 Honda case……………………………………………………………..16
v
2.6.5 Lucent Technologies case……………………………………………...18
2.6.6 TRW’s automotive division case……………………………………….19
2.6.7 Goose Creek case……………………………………………………….20
2.6.8 Dow Corning Silicon case……………………………………………....21
2.6.9 Honeywell case………………………………………………………....23
2.6.10 Toyota Logistics case…………………………………………………24
2.7 Similar methodologies that relate ergonomic improvements and BPMs………...25
2.7.1 Identification of data…………………………………………………....25
2.7.2 Procedure……………………………………………………………….26
2.7 Conclusions of the Literature review…………………………………………….27
Chapter 3: Objectives…………………...................................................................................29
3.1 Objective 1……………………………………………………………………….29
3.2 Objective 2……………………………………………………………………….30
3.3 Objective 3……………………………………………………………………….30
3.4 Hypothesis ………………………………………………………………………30
3.5 Limitations……………………………………………………………………….31
Chapter 4: Methodology………………………………………………………………….….32
4.1 Methodology for objective 1 (Operators)………………………………………..33
4.1.1 Participants…………………………………………………………….33
4.1.2 Tools…………………………………………………………………...35
4.1.3 Procedure………………………………………………………………35
4.1.4 Method of analysis……………………………………………………..36
4.2 Methodology for objective 2 (Supervisors)……………………………………...36
4.2.1 Participants……………………………………………………………..36
vi
4.2.2 Tools……………………………………………………………………37
4.2.3 Procedure………………………………………………………………37
4.2.4 Method of analysis……………………………………………………..37
4.3 Methodology for objective 3…………………………………………………….38
4.3.1 Participants……………………………………………………………..38
4.3.2 Tools……………………………………………………………………38
4.3.3 Procedure……………………………………………………………….38
4.3.4 Method of analysis……………………………………………………...39
4.4 Validity and reliability treatments to collect data..…….…………………………39
Chapter 5: Results………………………………………………………………………….....40
5.1 Mid-West Textile Company (MWT) case………………………………………..40
5.1.1 Company background…………………………………………………..40
5.1.2 Ergonomic problem…………………………………………………….41
5.1.3 Ergonomic improvements………………………………………………43
5.1.4 Business Performance Measures………………………………………..44
5.1.5 Operator’s Surveys charts……………………………………………....45
5.1.6 Ergonomic checklist results…………………………………………….47
5.2 Alambrados y Circuitos Electricos X (ACE) case……………………………….48
5.2.3 Ergonomic improvements……………………………………………...51
5.2.4 Business Performance Measures……………………………………….52
5.2.5 Operator’s Surveys charts………………………………………………53
vii
5.3 The Woodbridge Group (WBG) case…………………………………………….57
5.4 Fisher Rosemount Tecnologías de Flujo (FRTF) case…………………………...68
5.5 Morse Automotive Corporation (MAC) case…………………………………….75
5.5.2 Ergonomic problem……………………………………………………..77
5.5.3 Ergonomic improvements……………………………………………….77
5.5.4 Business Performance Measures………………………………………...81
5.5.5 Operator’s Surveys charts……………………………………………….82
5.5.6 Ergonomic checklist results……………………………………..………84
5.6 Vishay Bravos (VIB) case………………………………………………………...85
5.6.1 Company background…………………………………………………...85
5.6.2 Ergonomic problem……………………………………………………..85
viii
5.7 CBC Connect (CBC) case………………………………………………………..93
5.8 Dale Electronics (DAE) case……………………………………………………..100
5.8.3 Ergonomic improvements……………………………………………...101
5.9 Summary of Cases………………………………………………………………..107
5.9.1 Mid-West Textile Co. (MWT) ………………………………………...107
5.9.2 Alambrados y Circuitos Electricos X (ACE) ………………………….111
5.9.3 The Woodbridge Group (WBG) ………………………………............114
5.9.4 Fisher Rosemount Tecnologías de Flujo (FRTF)……………………...117
5.9.5 Morse Automotive Corporation (MAC) ……………………………....120
ix
5.9.6 Vishay Bravos (VIB) ………………………………………………….123
5.9.7 CBC Connect (CBC) ………………………………………………….126
5.9.8 Dale Electronics (DAE) ……………………………………….………129
5.10 Summary of the Maquiladoras Data……………………………………..……...131
5.11 Canonical correlation analysis…………………………………………………..138
5.11 Conclusions of the Chapter…………………………………………………...…144
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………………148
6.1 Conclusions…………………………………………………………….……….…148
6.2 Future Research………………………………………………………………...….150
References…………………………………………………………………………………......152
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………..……..156
A.1 Questionnaire of operators (English version)……………………………………..156
A.2 Questionnaire of operators (Spanish version)………………………………..…....162
A.3 Questionnaire of supervisors (English version)…………………………...……….168
A.4 Questionnaire of supervisors (Spanish version)……………………………………171
A.5 Consent Form for operators (English version)……………………………………..174
A.6 Consent Form for operators (Spanish version)…………………………...………..176
A.7 Consent Form for supervisors (English version)………………………...………...178
A.8 Consent Form for supervisors (Spanish version)……………………..…………...180
A.9 Ergonomic Checklist………………………………………………………….……182
Curriculum Vita …………………………………………………………………..……………188
x
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Companies risk factor according to IMSS……………………………………....10
Table 4.1: Location, gender and codes of the sample of maquiladora industries……….….32
Table 4.2: Gender and range of ages of the sample of workers………………………….…33
Table 5.1: Cost of the conveyor belts in MWT………………………………………….…44
Table 5.2: Cost of the manpower for the installation of the conveyors in MWT….…….….44
Table 5.3: MWT Ergonomic checklist summary table…………………………..….............47
Table 5.4: ACE Ergonomic checklist summary table………………………………….…..56
Table 5.5: WBG Ergonomic checklist summary table……………………………………...67
Table 5.6: Specifications of the 8711 flowmeters………………………………………......70
Table 5.7: FRTF Ergonomic checklist summary table………………………………….…..74
Table 5.8: MAC Ergonomic checklist summary table……………………………………....84
Table 5.9: VIB Ergonomic checklist summary table…………………………………….….93
Table 5.10: CBC Ergonomic checklist summary table…………………………………..….99
Table 5.11: DAE Ergonomic checklist summary table……………………………………..100
Table 5.12: Summary of answers of operators survey and ergonomic checklist …………..132
Table 5.13: Cost-benefit summary table……………………………………………………136
Table 5.14: Descriptive statistics section……………………………………………………139
Table 5.15: Canonical correlation report……………………………………………………140
Table 5.16: Standard X canonical correlation coefficient section …………………………141
Table 5.17: Standard Y canonical correlation coefficient section .…………………………141
Table 5.18: Variable – variate correlation section….……………………………………….142
xi
List of Figures
Figure 4.1: Gender of the population of workers…...…………………………………….….….34
Figure 4.2: Ranges of ages of the population of workers………………………………………..34
Figure 5.1: Number of hoppers and material handlers before conveyor belts…………………...42
Figure 5.2: Number of conveyors, hoppers and material handlers after redesign……...………..43
Figure 5.3: MWT General information about the sample……………………………………….45
Figure 5.4: MWT Feedback of the operators………………………………………………….....46
Figure 5.5: MWT Psychology of the operators……………………………………………….....46
Figure 5.6: Visual aid of the solid taping…………………………………………..………….....50
Figure 5.7: Visual aid of the spiral taping………………………………………………………..51
Figure 5.8: Different types of cuts and residuals………………………………………………...52
Figure 5.9: ACE General Information about the sample…………………………..………….....53
Figure 5.10: ACE Feedback of the operators……………………………………………………54
Figure 5.11: ACE Psychology of the operators………………………………………………….55
Figure 5.12: Process flow of the roll compressor………………………………………………..57
Figure 5.13: WBG Percentage of injuries per type………………………………………………58
Figure 5.14: WBG Potential hazards of the operation…………………………….......................58
Figure 5.15: WBG Physical demands of the operation…………………………………………..59
Figure 5.16: Procedure to locate the rolls of foam on the rollers..………………………………60
Figure 5.17: Material moved by operator stretching, bending and pulling heavy a weight..........61
Figure 5.18: Proposed Action: Material will move by gravity…………………………………..61
Figure 5.19: Lapping rollers……………………………………………………………………..62
Figure 5.20: Relocation of the rollers……………………………………………………………62
Figure 5.21: WBG General information about the sample………………………………………64
Figure 5.22: WBG Feedback of the operators…………………………………………………...65
Figure 5.23: WBG Psychology of the operators…………………………………………………66
Figure 5.24: Type of flowmeters………………………………………………………………...69
Figure 5.25: Pneumatic piston and compression process……………………..............................69
Figure 5.26: FRTF General information about the sample……………………………………....72
Figure 5.27: FRTF Feedback of the operators…………………………………………………...73
Figure 5.28: FRTF Psychology of the operators…………………………………………………73
Figure 5.29: Sensor adapted to the stamping machine (before and after)……………………….77
Figure 5.30: Area assigned for receiving and returning boxes (before and after)……………….78
Figure 5.31: Bins installed in the riveting area (before and after)……………………………….78
Figure 5.32: Racks to storage vulcanized belts (before and after)……………………………….79
Figure 5.33: Dispatching rack for unassembled cardboard boxes(before and after)…………….79
Figure 5.34: Dispatching rack for built cardboard boxes (before and after)…………...……….79
Figure 5.35: Conveyors belts in the grinding area (before and after)…………….………...……80
Figure 5.36: Redesigned packing tables (before and after)………………………………….......80
Figure 5.37: Rework station (before and after)………………………………………….……….80
Figure 5.38: MAC General Information about the sample………………………………………82
Figure 5.39: MAC Feedback of the operators…………………………………………………...83
xii
Figure 5.40: MAC Psychology of the operators………………………………………………83
Figure 5.41: VIB Type of defects…………………………………………………………….86
Figure 5.42: Visual inspection scenario before the ergonomic improvement……………….87
Figure 5.43: Production card common errors…………………………………………………87
Figure 5.44: Example of chairs used before ergonomic improvement………………………..88
Figure 5.45: Worktables re-designed………………………………………………………….89
Figure 5.46: VIB General Information about the sample……………………………………..90
Figure 5.47: VIB Feedback of the operators…………………………………………………..91
Figure 5.48: VIB Psychology of the operators………………………………………………..92
Figure 5.49: Rack of assembly pieces…………………………………………………………94
Figure 5.50: CBC re-designed station…………………………………………………………95
Figure 5.51: CBC General Information about the sample…………………………………….97
Figure 5.52: CBC Feedback of the operators………………………………………………….98
Figure 5.53: CBC Psychology of the operators………………………………………………..98
Figure 5.54: Bobbins manually wounded……………………………………..………………101
Figure 5.55: Yellow light lamps set at 18 feet height…………………………………………102
Figure 5.56: White light lamps set at 7 feet of height…………………………………………102
Figure 5.57: DAE General Information about the sample…………………….………………104
Figure 5.58: DAE Feedback of the operators…………………………………………………105
Figure 5.59: DAE Psychology of the operators…………………………….…………………105
Figure 5.60: MWT General work satisfaction………………………………...………………107
Figure 5.61: MWT General work motivation…………………………………………………108
Figure 5.62: MWT modifications that would increase the motivation level………………….108
Figure 5.63: Improvements perceived by employees…………………………………………109
Figure 5.64: ACE General Work satisfaction…………………………………………………111
Figure 5.65: ACE General Work motivation……………………………….....………………111
Figure 5.66: Modifications that would increase the motivation level………...………………112
Figure 5.68: WBG General Work satisfaction………………………………..………………114
Figure 5.69: WBG General work motivation…………………………………………………114
Figure 5.70: Modifications that would increase the motivation level………...………………115
Figure 5.71: Improvements perceived by employees.………………………………………...116
Figure 5.72: FRTF General Work satisfaction………………………………………………..117
Figure 5.73: FRTF General work motivation…………………………………………………118
Figure 5.74: Modifications that would raise motivation level………………...………………118
Figure 5.76: MAC General Work satisfaction………………………………………………...119
Figure 5.77: MAC General Work motivation…………………………………...…………….120
Figure 5.78: Modifications that would raise motivation level……………….………………..121
Figure 5.80: VIB General work satisfaction…………………………………..………………122
Figure 5.81: VIB General work motivation…………………………………..……………….123
Figure 5.82: Modifications that would raise motivation level………………..…………..…….124
Figure 5.83: Improvements perceived by employees…………………………………………..125
Figure 5.84: CBC General Work satisfaction…………………………………………………..126
xiii
Figure 5.85: CBC General Work motivation…………………………………………………...126
Figure 5.86: Modifications that would raise motivation level……………………………….....127
Figure 5.87: Improvements perceived by employees…………………………………………..127
Figure 5.88: DAE General work satisfaction……………………………………………….…..129
Figure 5.89: DAE General work motivation………………………………….…………….......129
Figure 5.90: Modifications that would raise motivation level………………..……………..….130
Figure 5.91: Improvements perceived by employees………………………………………..…130
Figure 5.92 General Workers’ satisfaction of the population of workers……..……………..…133
Figure 5.93 General Workers’ motivation of the population of workers……..……………..…133
Figure 5.94 Modifications that would increase the motivation and Well-being
of the population of workers……...…………………...………………………….134
Figure 5.95 Management improvements perceived by the population of workers…………..…134
Figure 5.96 Overall ergonomic checklist results from the maquiladora companies……………135
Figure 5.97 Ergonomic improvements cost-benefit individual analysis…………………..…...137
Figure 5.98 Ergonomic improvements cost-benefit total analysis………………………...……137
Figure 5. 99: Matrices of the variables X and Y in NCSS…………………………………….. 139
Figure 5.100 Canonical correlations paired variables X and Y………………………………...144
xiv
CHAPTERS
Chapter 1: Introduction
The region of the United States-Mexico border is viewed as a source of inexpensive labor
market and many multinational companies provide work to nearly half a million workers. El
Paso and Ciudad Juarez make up the largest international metroplex in the world. The El Paso
metropolitan statistical area is ranked 16th in trade in the US; nearly a quarter of the trade
between the United States of America and Mexico crosses the border of El Paso/Juarez. More
than 70 Fortune 500 companies are installed in El Paso Texas in primarily plastics, automotive,
telecommunications, electronic assembly and medical-device manufacturing plants (El Paso
County, 2008). Ciudad Juarez is the prime maquiladora location in Mexico, providing about
one-fifth of the nation’s overall maquila employment (El Paso County, 2008).
El Paso derives significant economic benefit from the maquiladora industry in Ciudad
Juarez, including a payroll of $247.8 million for maquila employees who live on the U.S. side of
the border. In addition, the production-sharing sector of the border economy has attracted
companion industries to the area with the maquiladora industry purchasing $1.6 billion worth of
services in El Paso. The industry has generated jobs in El Paso in indirect support industries
including retail sales, manufacturing support services, professional support services,
transportation, banking and home building. The area has representation of companies like Delphi
automotive, Boeing, Phillips, Black & Decker, Eureka, Leviton Corporation, Yazaki
Corporation, Hoover, Johnson & Johnson and Siemens. The manufacturing operations involve
significant manual labor components such as product assembly operations, material handling and
quality inspection.
The average labor force in 2003 reached 26,500 workers just in the
manufacturing industry in El Paso Metropolitan area, reaching one of the highest peaks in years.
In the mexican side there are about 395 maquiladora industries in Ciudad Juarez; that represents
about 303,388 workers in January 2007 (INEGI, 2007).
1
It is known that many companies all over the world have applied the principles of
ergonomics to develop the processes and to solve certain problems in a specific part of their
assembly/manufacturing methods, material handling activities or quality inspection of parts. In
many cases, these actions have impacted the well-being, commodity or health of labor while
increasing the efficiency and efficacy of the manufacturing practices. Companies that have
applied ergonomic improvements have had the idea that the most important asset of one
organization is the human factor; even when in many automated companies the use of manual
labor has been reduced to its minimum.
Through many experiences the companies have
recognized that every single modification in the manual labor conducted to different outcomes in
the performance of their firms. Many instances exist where a simple change in lighting, noise
leveling or layout updating solved a huge variety of problems in the manufacturing floor. In the
worst of the cases, companies that had not implemented any ergonomic improvement left the
good or bad performance to factors like changes of market, increase of production levels or
acquisition of new production technologies such as the automation of the main processes.
Many studies related with ergonomic improvements and the effect in human health have
been written, the relationship between those two topics exists and also it is reasonable to think
that there is a direct relationship between the health, well-being and the quality of work life of
workers in the maquiladora industries. In a logical equation if the most important asset of the
company is upgraded then another positive impacted issue will be the indicators in which the
company measures its efficiency. These indicators are defined in this research as Business
Performance Measures or BPMs; these BPMs can be categorized under different criteria
depending on the type of manufacturing company, its products and the customers that it has.
Business Performance Measures are reflected in the number of defects per batch of production
from the quality point of view; the number of lots produced or the shipped orders; reduction of
the penalties from both governmental organisms that control the labor in both countries OSHA,
FDA and the IMSS (Mexican Institute of Social Security in its Spanish translation); or simply a
2
reduction in turnovers rates, absenteeism, injuries or any other situation that might add cost to
the final product.
This chapter reflects the relevance of the binational region; El Paso, Texas, USA and
Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico as two important industrial/manufacturing cities with certain
peculiarities that justify this research. Some issues are the characteristics of the labor, most of
them mexican-american workers with certain anthropometric measurements and also
psychological behaviors that differs from other economical regions like North America, Europe
or Asia. Finally; this chapter explained how the well-being and the improved health of the labor
affect the different Business Performance Measures of the companies.
3
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The purpose of this chapter is to be familiar with the six broad concepts of this thesis.
The first part covers some definitions of the maquiladora industry; the second part consists in
various definitions of worker health and well being; the third part are some concepts and
examples of Business Performance Measures; the fourth section presents some definitions of
ergonomics and its classifications; the fifth section addresses studies that present a relationship
between ergonomic improvements and Business Performance Measures. The last section talks
about some methodologies used to describe similar ergonomic improvements activities and the
effect in the BPMs of some particular industries.
2.1 MAQUILADORA INDUSTRY DEFINITIONS
There are many concepts of maquiladora industry that might be applied; one of them
states that ‘the maquila or maquiladora is a concept that involves all the foreign owned factories
in Mexico or in many countries and which imported parts are assembled by lower-paid workers
into products for export; generally conformed by automotive or technology firms’ (MerriamWebster, 2007). The National Council of the Industry Maquiladora of Export considers a
maquiladora as a form of sub-hiring between two companies, generally of different countries,
with the purpose of complementing the productive process and elevating the competitiveness
through greater volumes of production, higher levels of quality and minor costs (National
Council of the Industry Maquiladora of Export, 2007).
The term maquiladora was born in Spain where the first assembly plant was represented
by the mills; these mills received to processes wheat providing by the local agriculturists. The
current concept states that a maquiladora assembles any partial manufacture, packs and ships a
final product but never is considered as an original owner of all the components.
4
In Mexico, the maquiladora plant was born properly in the sixties, as an economic answer
to the increase of labor that took place in two countries highly industrialized: The United States
and Japan. In the first place the low cost of the mexican manual labor originated the
establishment of these plants, mainly in the border strip of Mexico and the United States; taking
advantage of the physical proximity with the United States that resulted in lower costs of
exportation of assembled products in addition with the great potential of the consuming markets
of both countries (National Council of the Industry Maquiladora of Export, 2007).
Now the
concept of maquiladora is internationally known and due to economic policies it is in continuous
growth.
2.2 WORKER HEALTH AND WELL BEING DEFINITIONS
Worker health or occupational health is a concept that is related with another similar
notion that is well-being. As part of the definition of worker health, many authors classified it
as the sickness absence under the work exposures (Torp & Moen, 2001).
The simplest
definition is a reduction or changes in rates of employee injury or illness (Robson et al, 2005).
Among the various illness and occupational diseases; the Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are
the most common form of occupational illness (Whysall et al. 2006).
‘Well-being is a multi-faceted phenomenon that comprises both positive and negative
aspects (rewards and punishments) and other factors like stress and fatigue, and job satisfaction
and job involvement as two negative and two positive indicators of well-being respectively’
(Van der Linden et al., 2007). A definition took from the Encyclopedia Britannica establish that
Well-being is a state of being happy, healthy or prosperous (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2007); this
last definition can be used in the work environment if we translate all of this adjectives to the
state of an ideal worker. Any of these definitions can be used to better understand the concept of
health and well being under the work environment of the maquiladora industry. Both link a
5
healthy state for the worker in many aspects that include the physical and psychological issues in
the work environment.
2.3 BUSINESS PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEFINITIONS
In the first chapter if this thesis a brief explanation of Business Performance Measure
(BPMs) was provided; to better understand what a Business Performance Measures is; in this
section, several definitions from different sources are presented. Depending on the organization
(e.g. manufacturing, service) Business Performance Measures is also known as Organizational
Performance.
An study conducted with 968 firms in which 13 human resources practices were applied,
the outcomes to be modified were the organizational performance issues as turnover, employee
productivity, and company financial performance (Huselid et al., 2003); these issues can be
considered BPMs for many industries not only from the manufacturing side but also for the
service industries, financial firms, etc.
BPMs not always are quantified in terms of money but in all of the cases, the general
characteristic is that they need to be measurable in any way. In the following points some
classifications of BPMs are exposed, but these are not the only classification that can be found.
These classifications are productivity, quality, Workers compensation and the Institute of Social
Security’s risk of factor premium.
2.3.1 Labor productivity
The Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary considers productivity as the rate at
which a company or country makes goods, usually judged in connection with the number of
people and the amount of materials necessary to produce goods. The AACE International
6
Standard 10S-90, Standard Cost Engineering Terminology, defines the productivity factor as a
‘relative measure of labor efficiency, either good or bad, when compared to an established base
or norm as determined from an area of great experience’ (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary, 2005).
‘Productivity is essentially a physical measure expressed as a ratio of outputs to
inputs, this ratio can be readily converted in to a value measure by converting outputs into
revenue and inputs into labor and other costs’ (Hodgkinson, 1999). A very simple definition is
that productivity is output per man-hour, not per man (Buggie, 1982).
In conclusion, productivity is directly related with the yield and the resources that a
company has provide in order to increase or maintain the levels of products; in the maquiladora
manufacturing industry this productivity usually refers to assemblies or subassemblies of
components. Labor productivity can be defined as the efficiency of the workers in transform the
inputs into outputs.
2.3.2 Quality
From the manufacturing side, quality pertains to a product's degree of conformance to
engineering and design specifications (Garvin, 1984).
A product exhibiting a high level of conformance and relatively low monetary costs
would be classified as a high ‘value’ product; that is an extended definition of good quality
(Houser et al, 1998). The objective quality refers to measurable and verifiable superiority on
some predetermined ideal standard or standards (Zeithaml, 1988). The traditional marketing
definition of product quality is ‘the degree of conformance, on all relevant attributes, to customer
requirements.’(Dekeyser, 1992). This definition does not differ in substance from the one that
affirms that ‘quality can be defined as the extent to which a variety of a product provides the
characteristics the individual desires’ (Maynes, 1998). For research purposes quality depends of
7
the particular philosophy, process and products that the maquiladora has; and also the
requirements and specifications of quality of its internal and external customers. For these
reasons, the definition of quality and quality improvements differs entirely of one maquiladora to
another one.
2.3.3 Workers’ Compensation
In the United States, Workers' compensation insurance is typically required by the state
for every employee; it provides benefits to those workers who suffer immediate and long term
effects of occupational exposures. The exposure may have occurred recently or have occurred
many years previously. Individuals are able to seek benefits for occupational exposure to toxic
substances at work including asbestos, lead, latex and many other chemicals. Employees may
seek benefits for: repetitive stress disorders, i.e. carpal tunnel syndrome; occupational exposure
to loud noise, i.e. binaural hearing loss; cardiovascular disorders, i.e. myocardial infarctions, and
hostile work environments, i.e. psychiatric and possible physical disorders.
There are three major components to workers' compensation:
1. Medical Expense: the cost for hospitals, doctors, medical treatment, etc.
2. Disability Pay: either temporary while you are getting back to normal or permanent if you
will never fully recover. The amount varies, but can be as high as one-half to two-thirds
of your normal pay.
3. Vocational Rehabilitation: if your injury renders you unable to perform the usual duties
of your occupation, you may need re-training so that you can enter into a new trade or
business. Also, you may need physical therapy to get your normal strength back.
The insurance company or your self-insuring employer will pay 100% of your
‘reasonable and necessary’ medical bills plus disability benefits according to the approved
8
formula of the state. Normally, workers’ compensation also provides replacement income in the
form of income loss benefits, compensation for permanent disability and vocational
rehabilitation benefits (job re-training, education or job placement help) in addition to medical
expenses (Employment labor law, 2008)
2.3.4 Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) monetary penalties
In Mexico, the Mexican Institute of Social Security is the organism in charge to establish
monetary penalties to those companies that present a higher risk of injuries, illnesses or fatalities
in their work areas. For effects of the fixation of monetary penalties; the companies must
calculate their level of risk, this is stipulated in the articles 72 and 73 of the IMSS law; this is
done by multiplying the sinisterness of the company by a risk factor and adding a fixed quantity
of 0.005. The result will be the percentage of risk that will fall in to certain classes of risk
companies. Depending on the class of company then a different monetary penalty will apply.
Table 2.1 represents the class and the percentage of risk of some types of companies (IMSS,
2008)
The formula shown below is used to determine the level of risk:
Level of risk= [(S/365) +V * (I + D)] * (F/N) + M
V= 28 years, that it is the average duration of active life of an individual that has not been
victim of a fatal accident or total permanent incapacity.
F= 2.3, risk factor
N= Number of average employees expose to the risk.
S= Total of the days subsidized because of temporary incapacity.
I= Sum of the percentage of permanent, partial and total incapacities, divided by 100.
D= number of deaths
M= 0.005, minimum level of risk.
9
Table 2.1 Companies risk factor according to IMSS
CLASS
RISK
(%)
EXAMPLE
I
II
III
IV
V
0.42%
1.13%
2.34%
4.90%
7.15%
Pharmaceutical Industry
Cork article manufacturing
Circuit boards soldering industry
Manufacture of harnesses
Asbestos and insulating materials production
2.4 OUTSOURCING DEFINITION
Outsourcing is contracting with another company or person to do a particular function.
Typically, the function being outsourced is considered non-core to the business. The outside
firms that are providing the outsourcing services are third-party providers, or as they are more
commonly called, service providers (Sourcingmag, 2008).
Companies began employing the outsourcing model to carry out narrow functions, such
as payroll, billing and data entry. Those processes could be done more efficiently and therefore
more cost-effectively, by other companies with specialized tools and facilities and specially
trained personnel.
Organizations still hire service providers to handle distinct business
processes, such as benefits management. But some organizations outsource whole operations.
The most common forms are information technology outsourcing (ITO) and business process
outsourcing (BPO). An estimation of 400,000 U.S. jobs had moved abroad by 2003 and that the
total would hit 3.3 million by 2015. Over 200,000 jobs will be lost in the U.S. each year to
global outsourcing (Forrester Consulting, 2008).
10
2.5 ERGONOMICS DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS
The term “ergonomics” comes from the Greek root words, ‘ergos’ meaning ‘work’ and
‘nomos’ meaning ‘laws’ -the laws of work. The concept ergonomics represents the ways to
‘work smarter, not harder’ and ‘Fit the work to the worker.’ Ergonomics is the study of the
physical and cognitive demands of work to ensure a safe and productive workplace.
Ergonomics is designing and improving the workplace, workstation, tools, equipment, and
procedures of work in order to limit fatigue, discomfort and injuries while efficiently achieving
personal and organizational goals. Is also and improvement in the design of jobs and
workstations that have unsafe qualities or have caused injuries. Ergonomics is also defined as
controlling errors, wasted motions, tools, material damage and quality. Another definition states
that is ‘the discipline that strives to develop and assemble information on people’s capacities and
capabilities for use in designing jobs, products, workplaces and equipment’ (NIOSH,2007).
The term health ergonomics is based on the science of human physiology, pathology and
its relationship to work. The healthcare professional already has the knowledge base and training
in human physiology and the mechanisms of injury, required to decrease the incidence and
severity of injuries in the workplace. This knowledge and experience base can also be used to
optimize work capacity of both healthy and injured workers. Health ergonomic specialists use
this knowledge of the relationship between human physiology, pathology and work to safely
match the work demands to the capacity of the worker.
All of these definitions concede that ergonomics is a multidisciplinary science that
includes concepts of physics, work physiology, anthropometry, biomechanics, human factors
engineering and work organization factors. The practice of health ergonomics is the application
of the science of ergonomics and the sciences of human physiology and pathology, to the design
and evaluation of work and work capacity.
11
2.6 ERGONOMIC IMPROVEMENT STUDIES RELATED WITH BPMs
In this point, several examples that address the relationship between ergonomic
improvements and BPMs are shown; these cases involve the cost-benefit of ergonomic
improvements application in different types of companies.
2.6.1 Printed circuits board case
In Malaysia, some ergonomics studies were performed in the workstation of a printed
circuit assembly factory, through questionnaires and direct observation methodologies certain
problems were found such as poor workstation design, missing or incorrect test steps, and
difficulties with color inspection criteria, savings after implementing ergonomic improvements
were of US$574,560.
The ergonomic interventions were inexpensive but they result in many
benefits, quality, productivity and Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) compliance (Yeow et
al., 1999).
2.6.2 IBM Case
The company IBM was having some ergonomic problems in one of the plants in Boulder,
Colorado; that plant has a manufacturing assembly workstation for copier machines.
The
workstation was disorganized, there were uncomfortable hand postures for both hands; the
illumination level was below the requirements for inspection tasks. To solve these problems a
redesign of the workstation was performed; the redesign consists in rearrange of the work area
and the addition of pneumatic screwdrivers. Before the redesign 4.2 operators were needed to
perform the activities of subassembly; after the redesign only 3.0 were needed to perform the
same activities; that is equivalent to a 29% of savings and a reduction from 0.70 hours per unit to
0.55 hours per unit, corresponding to 23% of improvement, in this case predetermined time and
12
motion studies were used to predict gains in productivity. The quality of the product was
improved and several potential causes of cumulative trauma disorders were eliminated. The cost
for the engineering analysis and design was one man-month at US$6,000. The installation of the
new workstations was US$3,200 for the labor and US$2,400 for the hardware for a total cost of
US$11,600. Based on the time and motion studies calculations and improved quality the savings
were US$60,000 the first year. (Short, 1981).
In IBM Austin some studies were performed, these studies were classified in different
issues, according with type of improvement applied.
The three main categories were:
illumination for visual inspection, making easier the manual material handling, improving
machine tools. In this facility, machine operators also performed activities of visual inspection
and quality control of inserted components, some areas had proper illumination levels of 1000
lux, many work areas were at 120 lux, so it was decided to increase the levels to 1000 lux, this
quantity of light is considered the minimum requirement of light for visual inspection of small
parts. With the increase of illumination the detection of defects improved; the yield of the
process increase dramatically and the mental load and stress of the inspectors also decrease.
There were several problems due to work posture of the task itself and the manual
handling; because of this the lifting requirements were analyzed using NIOSH lifting guidelines
and software called “material handling evaluator”. In the beginning the tote pans were designed
to hold 25 boards, this cause that many operators complained about back pains. After analysis,
12 tote pans were eventually eliminated and replaced by a pass-through cart system for
individual handling of boards. The yield increase and the number of injuries and complains also
increased (Burri & Helander, 1991). Another posture problem was noted when different types of
drill bits were stored in front of the location of the machine; this required a long reach from
machine operators to set up and remove the product from the machine, this caused an
uncomfortable body posture. Engineers located a drill machine where the drill bits positioned
next to the drill chuck, this allowed for a more reasonable work posture. Some calculations
13
using time studies revealed that using 20 machines in an operation day of 24 hours; savings
would correspond to US$270,000 per year (Burri & Helander, 1991).
The cost reduction in IBM-Austin was US$7,375,000 (Lakoski, 1988). The cost of
materials for ergonomic improvements (such as improved illumination) was $66,400, and for
engineering time about $120,000. The benefit-cost ratio for these improvements was
approximately 40 for the first year, or phrased differently the payback time was about one week.
Reduction of injuries was fairly minor compared to the improvements in productivity and
yield. However, there were additional intangible improvements of operator comfort, convenience
and job satisfaction.
Cost savings are difficult to be quantified in terms of cost savings;
nonetheless they were very important to IBM (Burri & Helander, 1991).
Another study was performed in a Video Display Terminal production line; the purpose
of this experiment was to evaluate the training program of the company in the reduction of injury
rates in musculoskeletal disorders MSDs. The training program goals were to teach the VDT
users to evaluate and adjust their own workstations and confer upon each user the responsibility
of maintaining an ergonomic workstation (i.e., a self-directed intervention), with the ultimate aim
of reducing musculoskeletal symptoms. Correct workstation posture, non-occupational risk
factors for the MSDs, the need to promptly seek medical attention when symptoms first
appeared, and other related materials were covered. A total of 292 (78%) of the 373 employees
who identified themselves as using a VDT for two or more hours a day attended the training.
Data for the site with monthly employee counts showed that there were approximately 630
employees in the pre-intervention period versus approximately 500 in the post-intervention
period.
The average cost per claim was considerably reduced in the post- (US$1553,
range=US$99–US$3764; standard deviation (SD) = US$1353) versus pre-intervention period
(US$15,141, range=US$89–US$65,445; SD=US$24,353). Similar reductions were seen in the
average claim cost per capita ($3 in the post versus $185 in the pre-intervention period) (Lewis et
al., 2002).
14
2.6.3 Aventis Pharmaceuticals case
In 1989, the Kankakee, Illinois manufacturing plant of Aventis Pharmaceuticals
employed 1,500 workers who were experiencing a large number of work-related musculoskeletal
disorders (WMSDs). Their jobs, ranging from drum handling, to cart and oven loading and
unloading, to palletizing, involved a significant amount of manual lifting, much of it from the
floor. The company determined that the injuries resulting from manual lifting (66 lost time
incidents and 156 recordable injuries) accounted for US$1.2 million, or 80% of its workers’
compensation costs during 1989. In response, the Aventis management staff committed itself to
making the changes necessary to improve employee health and safety, and to reduce workers’
compensation expenses (Vaughan & Haudrich, 2004).
The company faced two main obstacles when considering its course of action: all design
and process changes were subject to FDA approval and, as is common in the pharmaceutical
industry, there was only a limited time frame in which to implement improvements. Getting it
right the first time was absolutely essential. The company analyzed workers performing their
jobs, obtained information via employee surveys about work discomfort, and examined company
health and safety records.
Plugging this data into a computerized risk prioritization tool, the company was able to
identify those jobs involving the highest risk of injuries, and then turn its attention to the top 20%
in each department. Every plant employee (from management to engineering to maintenance
staff) received ergonomics training in preparation for the changes to come. After five years of
ongoing ergonomics instruction all employees were able to identify potentially risky job
situations, generate possible solutions, and operate equipment in a safer manner. Engineers
received instruction in design and build guidelines as well. With management support and a
dedicated Health and Safety Manager, the company began to move forward with ergonomic
improvements, and established regular follow-up activities to gauge their success.
The company redesigned the work processes in the plant to reduce lifting from
15
floor level by 80%. Most notable were the changes that occurred in the ingredient blending
operation, which originally involved maneuvering heavy drums by hand. Workers now use lift
assists to handle the full weight of the drums. Equally as effective were the changes made in the
filter press loading area. The company replaced metal filter press plates with lighter plastic
frames, thereby reducing the total weight lifted by about two thirds. Flexible conveyors,
additional lift assists, and reductions in weights lifted at any one time also significantly reduced
ergonomic risk in loading/unloading and palletizing tasks. Remarkably, throughout the five-year
effort, the company also managed to satisfy all FDA requirements while still meeting its
ergonomic needs. (Vaughan & Haudrich, 2004). The changes in work processes and equipment
redesigns, lost time incidents decreased from 66 to 4 between 1989 and 1994, and recordable
injuries decreased from 156 to 60. The plant virtually eliminated manual lifting from its
manufacturing process, reducing lost time incidents a remarkable 94% and recordable ergonomic
injuries by 62%. A corresponding ten-fold drop in workers’ compensation costs provided an
additional benefit, clearly demonstrating the value of ergonomics in the workplace (Vaughan &
Haudrich, 2004).
2.6.4 Honda case
Another example took effect in Honda’s Marysville Motorcycle Plant (MMP) were the
ergonomics process was focusing on the highest priorities, and achieving low-cost, high-impact
improvements. In 2001, Honda associates identified the fender finishing operation in the Weld
department as a candidate for an ergonomic redesign. The operation involved excessive forward
reaching to 28", awkward upper body postures, and an average of 24 lifts of a 12-pound part per
cycle. The workbench nature of the workstation (originally designed for performing operations
on a motorcycle gas tank) required associates to lift and reposition the fender multiple times,
resulting in a cycle time of 30 minutes. The fender also remained at a fixed height, making it
16
difficult for some associates to reach all areas of it. Although injuries were minimal among the
fender finishing workers, morale was low, as they avoided the job due to its physical demands
and difficulty. The job also produced a large amount of costly scrap material (Wing et al., 2002).
Using ergonomics principles and experiences at the workstation, Honda associates
worked through two iterations in just a few months to design the freestanding fixture they use
today a model for good ergonomics. The new fender positioner is height adjustable, and requires
only two lifts to load and unload the part. It's simple to operate, allowing associates to easily
maneuver and lock the part (without lifting) into an infinite number of positions. Its design
requires forward reaches of only 15", and eliminates the awkward postures. No injuries have
occurred at the new fender positioner, and associates who once avoided the operation have
enthusiastically accepted the new concept (Wing et al., 2002).
The redesigned fender positioner demonstrates the bottom line value of good ergonomics;
scrap material was reduced by 83%, and Honda attributes a US$500,000 per year savings to
injury avoidance, and to improvements in quality and productivity. The most significant impact
on cost has been the 50% reduction in cycle time–from 30 minutes to only 15 minutes–‘a critical
element in a business environment where people demand more for less.’ The new fixture earned
Honda of America MMP an “Ergo Cup” award at the 2002 Applied Ergonomics conference held
in Baltimore, Maryland. Conference voters felt it best demonstrated the combination of
ergonomic principles and innovation in the workplace (Banaag, 2007). Since implementing the
fender positioner, Honda has installed over a dozen similar fixtures, including one in an
automotive plant (Wing et al., 2002).
17
2.6.5 Lucent Technologies case
Lucent Technologies in Columbus Ohio was responsible for the design and manufacture
of wireless networking systems and software. In late 1999, responding to an increased volume of
cellular phone sales the company planned to ramp up production of an amplifier used at its
mobile telephone base stations (Stuhlreyer & Kerst, 2001).
Recognizing the importance of ergonomic design in terms of productivity and employee
health and safety, the engineers and health and safety staff took this opportunity to make
significant ergonomic improvements to the assembly process.
The ULAM (ultralinear amplifier) weighed 35 pounds and had an original bench top
assembly process of 40 minutes per unit. The process flow consisted of five different subassembly stations and a transfer cart. With increasing volumes, there were concerns about
production yields as well as ergonomic challenges due to manual material handling. Process
engineers recognized the need to promptly redesign the operation.
They searched for existing vendor solutions and ordered customized modifications. The
final design included articulating arms for line loading and a custom conveyor that integrated the
workstation components. After the initial receipt and review of the equipment, it was clear that
more modifications were necessary. Additional vertical supports were added to workstations and
air-lift ball transfers and rollers were added to work surfaces to minimize transfer forces.
Performance testing was then done at a fabrication shop. After several production runs,
operators, engineers, and health and safety specialists were able to identify additional
improvements. (Stuhlreyer & Kerst, 2001).
When all modifications were made, the workstation components were shipped fully
assembled and installed in place. Some of the final modifications included workstation mounted
lighting and easily adjustable footrests. The company began using the line in June of 2000. The
results of the new assembly line were indeed impressive a 44% reduction in product build time
(from 40 minutes per unit to 22.4 minutes per unit) as well as a 61% improvement in first test
18
yields. It was estimated that the new line will save the company approximately US$1.2 million
dollars per year. Equally as important, operators were very enthusiastic about the improvements
(Stuhlreyer & Kerst, 2001).
2.6.6 TRW’s automotive division case
At TRW’s Automotive Division in Mogadore, Ohio; measurable improvements in lean
metrics such as work-in-progress and throughput were achieved through focused initiatives. In
parallel, TRW targeted improvements in injury/illness rates to harness the power of lean
manufacturing’s impact on worker health and safety. Lean manufacturing initiatives rely on
quantifiable measures to prioritize improvement needs and track success. To effectively integrate
ergonomics with Lean manufacturing, ergonomic risk must also was measured. TRW also
utilized a job improvement process emphasizing operator involvement. The division embraced
operator involvement through formal reviews of new job designs and Kaizen processes for
continuous improvement, welcoming the operator’s expertise into the process and, at the same
time, gaining their approval and support (Bucholtz & Schneider, 1999).
TRW’s experience with ergonomics and Lean manufacturing evolved over time. Early
success bred senior staff confidence and assured operators that the lean initiative made their jobs
better and safer. Ergonomics action teams submitted low-cost, high-impact issues for immediate
resolution, and a health and safety action list reviewed weekly to ensure that issues are being
addressed. Ergonomics was applied proactively to new assembly lines and in areas outside the
main assembly lines.
The site achieved a 90% reduced severity rate in the first 24 months. This impressive
achievement was reached with little capital investment during a time when production volume
was increasing by 15%. From 1995 to 1999, MSD incidence rates were reduced by 83% and the
total lost workday incidence rate by 85% (Bucholtz & Schneider, 1999).
19
2.6.7 Goose Creek case
A study that relates the ergonomic improvement with the quality was performed in
Corning Goose Creek South Carolina facility; the core drill process that consisted of six
operations, with manual handling of lens blanks and precision loading in machines each step of
the process. The lens blanks are extremely delicate, yet awkward to control, and chips may occur
if the blanks are mishandled. A chipped blank is refurbished and used for a smaller core,
resulting in a US$30,000 revenue loss (Biolchin & Liebl, 2003).
The Goose Creek team faced the challenge of the lens blanks increasing from 20-30
pounds each to 70 pounds each. Several operations were going to be high risk for the hands,
wrists, and back. Given these findings, management anticipated that chipped blanks would
increase by 10 or more per month, resulting in at least US$300,000 lost revenue per month.
Then the company identified three major areas of ergonomic concern:
• Part positioning in certain machines
• Part transportation between operations
• Hand work with powered hand tools
Low-cost enhancements were identified to resolve the issues associated with hand work.
However, the positioning and transporting of parts required a more systematic improvement to
the process.
The next step was to design a material handling system to address blank
transporting and positioning. Transfer carts with jib hoists were considered, but this was a costly
proposition and did not address the precision placement of the blanks into the manufacturing
equipment. An articulating arm on a rail system was chosen as the best approach. This required a
reconfiguration of the work cell to ensure that all operations could be serviced by the arm
(Biolchin & Liebl, 2003).
The solution was agreed upon by all parties, (health & safety, production, quality), and
the final step was to design the arm. Corning Goose Creek successfully deployed the cell
redesign and articulating arm achieving an 83% reduction in ergonomic risk.
20
After the
improvements, no operations presented high ergonomic risk and all manual lifting were
eliminated from the process. The improvements reduced the number of chipped blanks, increased
the company revenue by at least US$3.6 million per year. Most importantly, no injuries occurred
and no shipments were affected by the larger parts. Safety, quality, delivery, and cost were all
improved through cost-effective ergonomic improvements (Biolchin & Liebl, 2003).
2.6.8 Dow Corning Silicon case
The processing operations of Dow Corning silicone in its facility of Hemlock, Michigan
was designated as the highest risk area. Employees in this area were manually handling between
4,000 and 6,000 pounds of silicone material during an eight hour shift. The operation had a
history of injuries, a high incident rate of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, and a high
OSHA recordable rate.
Silicone processing operation contained four distinct job tasks including; cutting the base,
operating a compound mixer, milling, and straining and packaging. Each of these tasks required
the operators to handle, manipulate, and lift silicone chunks weighing between 15lb – 50lbs
repetitively throughout the shift resulting in high ergonomic risk for the hands, wrists, shoulders,
neck, and back. The operation had a history of injuries, a high incident rate of work-related
musculoskeletal disorders, and a high OSHA recordable rate (Wasek & Wynn, 2004).
Silicone processing operation contained four distinct job tasks including; cutting the base,
operating a compound mixer, milling, and straining and packaging. Each of these tasks required
the operators to handle, manipulate, and lift silicone chunks weighing between 15lb – 50lbs
repetitively throughout the shift resulting in high ergonomic risk for the hands, wrists, shoulders,
neck, and back. In 2000, an ergonomic design review of the operation was conducted, which
included collecting forces, workstation measurements, operator comments, and performing
ergonomic risk assessments. The review identified areas where the greatest ergonomic risk
21
existed along with recommendations for ergonomic improvements (Wasek & Wynn, 2004).
The recommendations were prioritized based on cost and time to implement, as well as
ergonomic impact. These were divided into four regions ranging from immediate priorities,
identified as high impact and easy-to-implement, to future improvements, identified as highimpact but difficult-to-implement. The result was a prioritized implementation plan with both
short-term solutions and long-term design changes. In total, over 90 potential improvements
were identified.
The facility quickly took action on the high-impact and easy-to implement
recommendations, resulting in an initial reduction of recordable injuries while gaining the
support of the employees. Over the course of two years, the facility redesigned the operation to
include a conveyor system, an automated cutter, and an automated strainer all which created a
continuous feed of materials (Wasek & Wynn, 2004).
Ergonomic surveys applied in 2003 indicated that the redesign process had reduced the
ergonomic risk of two job tasks from high ergonomic risk, combining them into one operation
with medium ergonomic risk. In the process of reducing ergonomic risk, the facility dramatically
reduced the operation’s manual material handling to less than 1,000 pounds per employee per
eight hour shift. Remarkably, productivity in the straining area alone has increased three fold
since the redesign. In addition, there was no OSHA recordable since the implementation. With
such success Dow Corning’s Hemlock Plant has had a complete shift in their safety culture and
is looking forward to applying similar strategies to their remaining operations.
22
2.6.9 Honeywell case
In its facility of Torrance, California, Honeywell’ engineering and technical staff were
trained in solving ergonomics challenges and all operators were trained in ergonomics
awareness. At the conclusion of this phase, the high volume turbocharger assembly cell was
targeted for expansion. This cell was one of the highest ergonomics priorities, and management
knew that a fresh approach was needed to assure that the new production area did not replicate
the problems associated with the existing one.
The redesign of the process included
brainstorming improvements, evaluating vendor-supplied equipment, and improving set-ups as
the cell came together.
It was estimated that the improved layout was approximately
US$300,000 more than the cost of replicating the original work cell (Stuart & Schneider, 1999).
Plant management was eager to see a quantifiable return on investment for the increased
costs. Completion of the new work cell represented the culmination of a two-year process to
prioritize ergonomic risks throughout the facility, to train operators and engineers in ergonomics,
and to put in place a showcase ergonomics project. The ergonomic and lean manufacturing
design of the turbocharger assembly work cell resulted in substantial reduction of ergonomic risk
and improved productivity. Several high-risk tasks were designed out altogether. Given that
some parts weigh as much as 75 pounds, a 60% reduction in high-risk lifting tasks was quite
significant. Productivity increased by 37% translating to US$94,000 per year in reduced labor
costs. By 1999, plant-wide workers’ compensation costs were down almost $2 million per year.
While there were other definable benefits to the new cell design, labor costs were simple to
quantify. Items such as improved employee morale and reductions in defective products were
anticipated; but these were difficult to track and were often viewed as “soft” costs by
management. The productivity increased alone providing a 3.2 year payback period, sufficient
for the capital requirements of the plant (Stuart & Schneider, 1999).
23
2.6.10 Toyota Logistics case
Toyota Logistics in Georgetown, Kentucky was facing significant design changes
between two model years, resulting in potential injury risk and inefficiencies, particularly with
the rear spoiler installation. The job process in question entailed nine specific tasks ranging from
removing the trim panels to attaching the spoiler to a final check and cleanup. The operation,
which required workers to climb inside the trunk, included such risks as extended reaches,
deviated postures, and mechanical stress to numerous body areas. The cycle time of the operation
totaled 20.4 minutes, with drilling, trunk preparation, and cleanup accounting for over half of
that time (Love & Schneider, 1998).
The recommendations ranged from being easy to implement with moderate effects on
risk and productivity to breakthrough improvements requiring a moderate investment and effort,
which produced significant impacts on risk and productivity.
The easiest of the
recommendations was to decrease tool reach and design new hand tools for the wire harness
installation. Tools were removed from the suspension system, placed in a mobile tool cart, and
angled 15 degrees, reducing the awkward postures and extended reaches, and resulting in
reduced cycle times. A newly designed tool allowed operators to install the harness from outside
of the trunk, thus eliminating wasted motions, significantly reducing ergonomic risk, and saving
1.8 minutes. The breakthrough improvements, requiring more effort and investment, included
changing drill bits and designing an additional trunk part. By switching from a standard drill bit
to a multi-flute end mill bit, operators were able to drill a hole through multiple layers of sheet
metal, eliminating the need to vacuum up metal shavings. This recommendation significantly
reduced awkward postures and resulted in a time savings of 8.9 minutes (Love & Schneider,
1998).
Due to the added weight of the spoiler, the trunk lid would not stay open, requiring the
operator to climb into the trunk to replace the torsion rods with higher tension rods. Rather than
replacing these rods, a compression spring was designed to be inserted into both hinges of the
24
trunk, increasing the force required to close the trunk lid. This eliminated non-value-added
motions and wasted material, significantly reduced injury risks, and resulted in a savings of 2.0
minutes.
The impact of these recommendations resulted in greatly increased operation efficiency
and time savings at the highest risk operations. Toyota’s US$9,000 investment resulted in
increased throughput and less waste. The task cycle time was reduced from 20.4 minutes to 7.7
minutes, a 62% reduction, translating into a projected annual savings of US$262,000 in direct
labor cost. Long term savings include decreased medical and workers’ compensation expenses,
lower absenteeism, and reduced training of new associates (Love & Schneider, 1998).
2.7 SIMILAR METHODOLOGIES THAT RELATE ERGONOMIC IMPROVEMENTS
AND BPMs
A study methodology that related efficiently the cause and effects of various ergonomic
improvements with the BPM of IBM, this methodology is summarized and exposed in the
following lines (Burri & Helander, 1991).
2.7.1 Identification of data
The sources of data collection are split in two broad categories; the production
environment and the operator characteristic. Under the category of production environment some
sub-classification are proposed in order to separate the possible sources of data. The subclassifications were equipment, process, environmental factors and job procedures.
Under
equipment, the machines, tools, computers and level of automation were taking in account. In
the process type the location, configuration, flow and material handling equipment were
considered as important. Under environmental factors
25
the
lighting,
noise,
vibration;
temperature and even esthetics and housekeeping were issued for the research.
The job
procedures categories covered the training, shift work, rest breaks and turnovers.
The operator was studied under three main categories: manufacturing and assembly
activities that is the perception of the operator regarding the actual task that is performing and
analysis of the manufacturing or assembly task. The other category is the quality control that
involves the decision making during the quality process and the techniques used. The process
monitoring is the last category and it involves the analysis of the decision making during the
monitoring process and the techniques used.
2.7.2 Procedure
The first step of the procedure was to inspect the facility and the workstations using an
ergonomic checklist in order to identify possible deficiencies in workstation designs and
production processes. The ergonomic variables are defined taking in consideration the type of
maquiladora and adapting each element of check list to the particular workstation. The types of
elements are viewed since an ergonomic point of view; these elements were environmental
factors, anthropometric factors, data presentation, biomechanics, workstation design and job
design.
The information that is linked with the operators is captured by direct observation,
recording the task or taking photos, this is useful to identify possible inconsistencies with
biomechanics, work postures, possible injuries with cumulative trauma disorders, etc. Asking
the operators how they feel about opinions and alternatives of improvements for processes and
workstations. In this step some data regarding workstation design, hand tools, fixtures, work
heights, shift work, job rotation, training, lighting, noise, temperature, job satisfaction, aches,
pains, accidents, etc. is collected.
The next step is to quantify the possible ergonomic
improvements and the actual state of the work station that was analyzed by providing
26
questionnaires to the supervisors. At this point the elements that are analyzed depend of the
company and these elements were production analysis, machine reliability, production
machinery, throughput, yield, defects and rework percentage, among other quantitative elements.
While the questionnaires measure some quantitative aspects of the process and
workstation design, at the same time some of the questions gathered qualitative data that is
important in the research; this data might be job satisfaction, injuries types, absenteeism,
comfort, general motivation, and of course some personal information and comments from the
supervisor and workers.
2.8 CONCLUSIONS OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW
There are certain elements that interact in a manufacturing environment; the worker
health and well being are two concepts related between them, both are known as the absence of
illness or injuries due to the task performed while working and with the motivation to execute the
daily work activities. All the classifications were used to describe the different improvements in
the area of ergonomics in previous research studies. As shown in the cases of this chapter, the
Business Performance Measures vary depending of the company; meanwhile for one company
the BPM is based on productivity; for another company the most important issue would be the
quality. Can be concluded that there are no substantial differences between the organization of
the manufacturing companies installed in the border of Mexico and the United States; the main
difference are the labor laws of the different countries; and the rates of outsourcing of the
maquiladora installed in the United States increase the recordable incidents and accidents
statistics in the United States; while increasing such numbers in some other countries like China,
India or Mexico. The authors link the changes and improvements in the workstation with the
possible effects in the BPM of the maquiladora and take the improvements in workers’ health as
a collateral consequence; their methodologies will serve as the foundations of this research in
terms of methodologies and data collection tools.
27
Chapter 3: Objectives
The objectives of this research are presented in this chapter. These objectives go from
particular to general. The primary purpose of this study is to establish if there is a relationship
between the ergonomic improvements and the Business Performance Measures of the
maquiladora industry in the area of El Paso/Juarez. Three particular objectives are addressed in
this chapter to complement the main objective; the first objective is to realize the actual state of
the workstation in terms of ergonomics; considering the point of view of the workers. The
second particular objective consists in obtain the technical knowledge from supervisors in order
to measure the degree of improvement; the particular issues that were modified in the
workstation and changes in the worker health and well being. The third particular objective
consists in quantify the positive outcomes in the BPM that resulted after the implementation of
ergonomic improvements. Once these three goals are reached, it is necessary to prove the initial
hypothesis through different statistics tools.
3.1 OBJECTIVE 1
This objective is based in the necessity of get consistent data from workers to figure out
the actual state of the work center, realize some of the needs that the workers had and the
difficulties to perform their job. At the same time get some reliable data to establish differences
between the past and the ergonomic improved state.
Factors like stress and fatigue, job
satisfaction and job involvement are some of the indicator of well being that serve to establish
the interrelation between the two states (Van der Linden et al., 2006).
29
3.2 OBJECTIVE 2
This objective consists in collect enough data from the supervisors in charge of the
production lines or manufacturing cells with the following purposes: classify the different
ergonomic improvements considering the type, quantify and qualify the number of ergonomic
improvements applied, and also the changes in health of the workers after the redesign of the
work centers; collect diverse point of views of the new processes and other important
information related with ergonomics and health relationship.
3.3 OBJECTIVE 3
The third objective is to compare the Business Performance Measures before and after
the application of the ergonomic improvements, quantify and qualify these business performance
measures depending of the type of maquiladora.
Also show the cost-benefit of the ergonomic
improvements and the impact in the BPMs indicators of the companies.
3.4 HYPOTHESIS
The hypothesis tested was that the ergonomic improvements affect positively the health
and well being of the workers and at the same time the business performance measures of the
maquiladora industry in the binational area of El Paso/Juarez. This hypothesis was tested by
determining an association between the three particular objectives. If a positive relationship
exists, it will be possible to identify and quantify the positive impacts of the ergonomics
improvements on worker’s well being and BPM for companies in the El Paso/Juarez region.
30
3.5 LIMITATIONS
There are diverse types of limitations that may affect the analysis of this study. The two
types of constraints are the availability of data and the analysis of these data. Under the category
of availability of data, the main difficulties lie in find those maquiladoras where any ergonomic
improvements were applied; even when there are many ‘maquilas’ in the area the policy of some
of these companies is very strict; in some of the cases they consider the possibility of stealing
information and sharing this information with some other companies. They close their doors to
any other part that intends to get data; even when it is going to be used for research purposes. At
the same time the number of persons that participate in the research is limited by the size of the
company.
The ergonomic projects that exist in some maquiladoras are such small that they are not
traceable to other stages like the worker health or the BPMs of the company. In these type of
cases it is difficult to get reliable data to be analyzed; and the universe of the population of
maquiladoras is shrink to a very few ones.
The other constraint is the method of analysis to be used; because a large percentage of
the data recollected it is not quantifiable; some of the times the causes can only be quantified in
number but not in the specific measurements or units of the ergonomic improvement and in the
other hand some of the positive or negative outcomes that the company had are stunned in
several occasions with some other external causes that are not directly related with any
ergonomic issue. For this reason there would be certain bias in the final result and in the
validation of the hypothesis.
31
Chapter 4: Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to present the methodology, resources, samples, tools and
procedures used in this research in order to address the three particular methodologies discussed
in the previous chapter. Every section is divided in four sections. The first section focuses on
the characteristics of the participants; the second section is related with the tools used to capture
information; the third sections is referent to the procedure used to capture the necessary data;
finally the fourth section covers the method used to analyze the data gathered.
The table 4.1 shows the companies, the gender of the company, location and the
codification used to identify each company along the research.
Table 4.1: Location, gender and codes of the sample of maquiladora industries.
No.
Company
Location
1
Mid-West Textile Co.
2
Alambrados y Circuitos Electricos, S.A. de C.V.
3
4
The Woodbridge Group
Fisher Rosemount Tecnologías de Flujo S.A. de
C.V.
5
Morse Automotive Corporation
6
Vishay Bravos, SA. de C.V.
7
CBC Conect, S.A. de C.V.
9
Dale Electronics, S.A. de C.V.
32
El Paso, TX
Ciudad Juarez,
MX
El Paso, TX
Ciudad Juarez,
MX
Ciudad Juarez,
MX
Ciudad Juarez,
MX
Ciudad Juarez,
MX
Ciudad Juarez,
MX
Gender
Secondhand
clothes
recycling
Code
MWT
Automotive
ACE
Automotive
WBG
Flowmeters
FRTF
Automotive
MAC
Electronics
VIB
Automotive
CBC
Electronics
DAE
4.1 METHODOLOGY FOR OBJECTIVE 1 (OPERATORS)
4.1.1 Participants
The number of participants depends of the number of available operators in the
manufacturing lines where the ergonomic improvements took place; the table 3 shows the
number of participants per maquiladora, and the ranges of ages of the workers in the work areas.
The total number of workers that answer the questionnaires was 124; 98.5 % of the workers were
Hispanic Latino and 1.5% of the workers were Anglo; 42% were male and 58% were females.
Table 4.2: Gender and range of ages of the sample of workers.
# of
Gender
Ranges of Ages (years)
Code
Operators
MWT
16
ACE
20
WBG
6
FRTF
13
MAC
25
VIB
25
CBC
10
DAE
9
TOTAL
124
%
100%
Male
3
8
4
10
16
6
3
2
52
42%
Female
13
12
2
3
9
19
7
7
72
58%
18-25
3
7
1
5
5
6
10
5
42
34%
33
26-30
1
5
2
3
6
8
0
4
29
23%
31-35
4
3
2
1
9
2
0
0
21
17%
36-40
3
3
1
3
5
8
0
0
23
19%
41 or
more
5
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
9
7%
GENDER OF THE POPULATION OF WORKERS
100%
58%
80%
42%
60%
%
40%
20%
0%
Male
Female
GENDER
Figure 4.1: Gender of the population of workers.
Ranges of Ages
50%
40%
34%
23%
30%
19%
%
17%
20%
7%
10%
0%
18-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41 or more
Years
Figure 4.2: Ranges of ages of the population of workers.
The mode of the range is equivalent to the range of 18-25 years; because it corresponds to
the 42 workers that represent the 34% of the total population of workers of this research.
34
4.1.2 Tools
In order to collect all the data related with the job satisfaction and well being of the
operators; the perception of the conditions of the workstation by the workers and the possible
feedback provided to the supervisors regarding the ergonomic issues in the manufacturing line;
a questionnaire was applied (Yeow et al, 1999). The questionnaire consisted in 16 questions, 8 of
them with multiple options, 7 of free answer questions and 1 following the Likert scale. See
questionnaires in appendixes A1 and A2. An ergonomic checklist with seven different
evaluations (machine evaluation, motion economy evaluation, task evaluation, tool evaluation,
wage incentive evaluation, environmental evaluation and workstation evaluation) is another tool
that registered the ergonomic state of the workstations (Freivald, 2006). See the ergonomic
checklist in appendix A.9. The answers were classified in ‘conformance’, ‘non-conformance’
and not apply for that particular company then the option to be check will be ‘n/a in any of the
ergonomic issues. The last tool to gather information was direct observation of the workstation
activities.
4.1.3 Procedure
After select the sample size of workers from the ergonomically upgraded workstation; a
series of steps were followed; the sample size depends of the availability of the workers to
answer the questionnaires in their free time (lunch time, break time, etc.) and also from the
number of workers in the station; if the number of workers was low then the sample size will be
high and vice versa. The first step consists in provide instructions regarding the consent form to
the workers in the manufacturing line or workstation, this information will cover a brief
explanation, confidentiality and purposes of the research. The second step consists in ask the
workers to answer a questionnaire of 16 questions. The tentative answering time of every
questionnaire is 10 to 15 min.
35
The third step consists in give the instructions and general information regarding the
format of the questionnaires, answering procedures and possible questions that may be confusing
to answer. The check list with different ergonomic issues will be fulfilled in order to have a wide
idea of the actual state of the workstation meanwhile the operators answer the questionnaires.
Finally, by direct observation capture all the extra information about the methods,
environment and general conditions of the workstations.
4.1.4 Method of analysis
The analysis of the data from the questionnaire was performed by descriptive statistics,
summarizing all the answers in histograms and pie charts to better understand the gathered data.
The results from the ergonomic checklist were summarized and categorized in the different
evaluations and by assigning parameters an overall grade was given to every company. Finally
the observations were state to get more valuable data from the workstations and the workers in
the production lines. Microsoft Excel 2007 was the software used to obtain the charts and the
descriptive statistics from the questionnaires.
4.2 METHODOLOGY FOR OBJECTIVE 2 (SUPERVISORS)
4.2.1 Participants
The participants are any supervisor or engineers in charge of the production line, work
station or manufacturing cell where the ergonomic improvements were applied. The number of
supervisors was 9 with an average actual experience as supervisors of 2 years and another 2
years of previous experience. The gender or ethnicity is not relevant.
36
4.2.2 Tools
The tool used is a questionnaire (Yeow et al., 1999) of 11 questions; 6 multiple answer
questions; 4 open answer questions and 1 question following the Likert scale. This questionnaire
served to obtain data regarding the ergonomics applied in the workstation, the health and wellbeing of the workers and the effect in the BPMs of the maquiladora; see questionnaires in
appendixes A.3 and A.4.
4.2.3 Procedure
The first step is to contact the engineer or supervisor at charge of the workstation where
possible ergonomic improvements are needed or were applied before. The second step consists
in provide instructions regarding the consent form to supervisors or engineers in charge of the
manufacturing line, this information will cover a brief explanation, confidentiality and purposes
of the research. The third step consists in ask the engineers or supervisors of the line to answer a
questionnaire of 11 questions. The tentative answering time of every questionnaire is 10 to 15
min. The last step consists in give the instructions and general information regarding the format
of the questionnaires, answering procedures and possible questions that may be confusing to
answer. The available time to answer the questionnaire depended on the available time of the
supervisors.
Comments of the supervisor are not related with quantitative analysis; those answers are
taken in consideration in a qualitative analysis and added as an additional data to have a global
view of the conditions of the workstations and other important data that is not easily quantifiable
37
or analyzed with descriptive statistics. Microsoft Excel 2007 was used to analyze all the data
that can be put it in charts.
4.3 METHODOLOGY FOR OBJECTIVE 3
4.3.1 Participants
Any department in the maquiladora facility who can provide enough statistical and
historical data to establish comparisons before and after applying the ergonomic improvements
and the relationship with the BPM of the maquiladora is considered as a good source of
information to fulfill the third sub-objective of chapter 3.
4.3.2 Tools
At this point any data base of the company which provides enough data to relate the
ergonomic improvements, worker health and well being and the Business Performance Measures
of that particular maquiladora serve as a tool in this part of the methodology.
4.3.3 Procedure
Look for the proper department which can provide valuable data to establish correlations
between the elements of this research (ergonomic improvements, worker health, well being, job
satisfaction and the BPM) then perform and analysis after gathering all the data.
38
Due to the difficulty to deal with different incomes (ergonomic improvements) and
outcomes (Business Performance Measures); and the less reliability of the information when this
is transformed in to numerical data; every project was analyzed from two points of view; the cost
of the ergonomic improvements applied in the workstation and the Business Performance
Measures impacted after applying those ergonomic improvements. A table will help to integrate
the total data from the whole population of maquiladoras and also to visualize the benefits of the
ergonomics in the maquiladora manufacturing industry in the different categories of BPMs and
the total cost of these improvements. A canonical correlation analysis is performed in order to
analyze, the interactions between the Business Performance Measures and the representative
ergonomic improvements; both categories have to be present in the majority of the maquiladoras.
The software used to perform this analysis is NCSS version 0.7.1.8.
4.4 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY THREATMENTS TO COLLECTED DATA
The application of questionnaires and interviews was performed separately; isolating
every group from each other; during lunch and break times. All the questionnaires were checked
first by the Human Resources department; but no other member of the maquiladora company had
previous knowledge of the content of these questionnaires. The consent form given to operators
and supervisors explained the importance of the research; objective and its confidential
characteristic. Even when another limitation in this process was the level of education or
ignorance of the workers of the maquiladora; the results and graphs in chapter 5, show the
diversity in answers from either supervisors and operators; giving validation an reliability to the
data collection process.
39
Chapter 5: Results
The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the cases of the different maquiladoras that link
an ergonomic improvement applied in any area or workstation to the Business Performance
Measures; and also to show the data collected with the questionnaires of supervisors and
operators; in the areas where the ergonomic improvements took effect, finally illustrate the actual
state of the workstation presenting the ergonomic checklist analysis.
The whole population of maquiladoras was split in to different sections that are called
ergonomic cases; each case covers the background of the company, an explanation of the
workstation or work area where ergonomic improvements were applied as well as the ergonomic
problem; the details of every ergonomic improvement related with the case and finally the
positive effects of these ergonomic changes.
At the end of every case, the results of the
operators’ questionnaire, the supervisors’ questionnaire and the results from the ergonomic
checklist are shown.
Integration of all the results from all the maquiladoras are shown in order to have a
overall view of the population that was analyzed and to get some fundaments for the final
conclusions of this research.
5.1 MID-WEST TEXTILE COMPANY (MWT) CASE
5.1.1 Company background
Mid-West Textile, Co. is a company dedicated to extract value from recycled clothing by
sorting and grading secondhand clothes and shoes. The facility of El Paso, Texas has 423
employees that manually performed almost the 90% of the activities of sorting and material
handling. The company differentiate its processes according with the quality, percentage of
40
value obtained from raw material (clothes and shoes), and the raw material presentation from the
suppliers.
The first area is called mixed rags, the quality and value obtained from these clothes is
variable and generally produces the lowest value when the product is sold. The process starts in
the receiving dock (PIT) where approximately 1,200,000 Lbs. arrives every week. The clothes
presentation is either bales of about 1000 Lbs. of weight or bags that weight varies from 80-90
Lbs. Then the bales/bags are opened and the clothes start traveled trough a system of conveyor
belts along three different mezzanines. While the clothes pass trough the conveyors belts, the
sorters grab the clothes and throw them in to different holes according with the type of cloth. The
holes goes directly to containers called ‘hoppers’, this hoppers carry a weight of 1000 Lbs. and
they are movable, material handlers pushes the hoppers to diverse stations where the clothes are
graded according to their quality, type and in some cases fashion. In this second phase of the
process the clothes are thrown to barrels, clothes in these barrels are dumped in to hoppers to
transport the different clothes to the balers, where the clothes are compacted and baled. After
this step the bales are transported to the shipping docks.
5.1.2 Ergonomic problem
The first mezzanine of the mixed rags area was conformed by 16 sorters in the top, 5
sorter in the bottom and 4 material handlers. Material handlers deal with 22 different hoppers.
Figure 5.1 shows the number of hoppers and the personnel in the area denominated PIT and
mezzanine 1. The set-up time of every hoppers includes the time to remove the full hopper from
the mezzanine; quitting the obstructing hopper, replacing it with an empty hopper and position
the obstructing hopper in its original place. The figure also shows the number of hoppers filled
per day and the time to fill every hopper.
41
The ergonomic problem was in the set-up time of the hoppers, because the material
handlers have to move and accommodate hoppers of 1000 Lbs. of weight several times per day.
Conveyor belts in the top of the mezzanine never stop running and by consequence the
production of clothes never stop as well; if there is no hopper in the bottom to receive the
clothes; then the area becomes chaotic and a completely mess. This situation increases the stress
of the material handlers because they want to maintain the situation under control. Another
condition that increases the stress of the material handlers is the availability of hoppers that will
replace the full ones.
Figure 5.1: Number of hoppers and material handlers before conveyor belts.
Clothes from mezzanine 1 are considered Work in Process (WIP) and they have to travel
to another workstation to be processed; it is the responsibility of the material handlers from
mezzanine 1 to take these hoppers to the next station in phase 2.
42
5.1.3 Ergonomic improvements
A redesign of the station (mezzanine 1) took effect; the management installed 6 conveyor
belts under the mezzanine 1. With the integration of the conveyor belts the number of hoppers
was reduced from 22 to only 12 hoppers, and the number of material handlers changed from 5 to
only 3. The availability of hoppers also increased and the cleanliness of the upgraded area. The
ergonomic benefits with this action were reduction in the stress of the material handlers and
decrease of workload. The Figure 5.2 shows the number of hoppers and the material handlers
needed when the new redesign.
Figure 5.2: Number of conveyors, hoppers and material handlers after redesign.
43
5.1.4 Business Performance Measures
The cost of installation of the conveyor belts is presented in table 5.1 and the cost of
manpower is in Table 5.2 shown below:
Table 5.1: Cost of the conveyor belts in MWT.
DESCRIPTION
18 FT.
A CONVEYOR
11.5 FT.
B
CONVEYOR
10 FT.
CONVEYOR
C
13 FT.
D CONVEYOR
18 FT.
CONVEYOR
E
13 FT.
F
CONVEYOR
MOTOR
&
GEAR
BOX
DRIVE
PULLEY &
TAKE UP
$ 641.00
$
335.00
$ 641.00
$
335.00
$ 641.00
$
335.00
$ 641.00
$
335.00
$ 641.00
$
335.00
$ 641.00
$
335.00
END
ROLLERS
$
120.00
$
120.00
$
120.00
$
120.00
$
120.00
$
120.00
FLANGE
BEARING &
IDLERS
$
356.00
$
356.00
$
356.00
$
356.00
$
356.00
$
356.00
BELTS
INSTALLATION
TOTAL
$ 166.00
$
104.00
$ 1,722.00
$ 112.01
$
104.00
$ 1,668.01
$ 99.60
$
104.00
$ 1,655.60
$ 124.50
$
104.00
$ 1,680.50
$ 166.00
$
104.00
$ 1,722.00
$ 124.50
$
104.00
$ 1,680.50
$10,128.61
Table 5.2: Cost of the manpower for the installation of the conveyors in MWT.
No.
DESCRIPTION
WAGE/HR
HOURS
TOTAL
8
ELECTRICIANS
$ 13.50
48
$5,184.00
2
MECHANICS
$ 11.00
20
$ 440.00
$5,624.00
The total investment was US$15,752.61; under the same production level of the
mezzanine (83,734 Lbs/day); the turnover rate represented one new material handler every 21
days.
The turnover was reduced to 1 new material handler rotated to another station or
terminated every 120 days. The training cost, cost of rework result of material handler’ mistakes
were reduced, and the company recover the investment in 7 months; having an annual profit of
US$32,725.00 at the same level of production.
44
5.1.5 Operator’s surveys charts
Figure 5.3: MWT General information about the sample.
The mode of the ranges of ages falls in to 41 or more years and the majority was females;
for workers with these characteristics the ergonomic improvements are important because they
facilitate their work; also can be assumed that the necessity to keep a job is high so they resist
unsafe and unhealthy issues.
.
45
Figure 5.4: MWT Feedback of the operators.
Feedback in the company is very rare, and the percentage of suggestions that are
considered by the management is considered low with only 13%.
Figure 5.5: MWT Psychology of the operators.
46
According with Figure 5.5 the percentage of absenteeism; the injuries in the workstation
are high with 19% of injuries; the important issue here is that the operator does not know the
contribution to the growth of the company; being this an important factor in the motivation and
satisfaction at the work.
5.1.6 Ergonomic checklist results
The analysis performed to the company with the ergonomic checklist is summarized in
Table 5.3; the format of the ergonomic checklist is presented in Appendix A.9.
The ergonomic
checklist is divided in machine evaluation, motion economy evaluation, tool evaluation, wage
incentive evaluation, environmental evaluation and workstation evaluation. The graphs of every
evaluation performed are shown below.
Table 5.3: MWT Ergonomic checklist summary table.
CONFORMANCE
NONCONFORMANCE
N/A
MACHINE EVALUATION
17%
50%
33%
MOTION ECONOMY EVALUATION
27%
34%
39%
TASK EVALUATION
50%
50%
0%
TOOL EVALUATION
0%
100%
0%
WAGE INCENTIVE EVALUATION
60%
40%
0%
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
38%
48%
14%
WORKSTATION EVALUATION
20%
50%
30%
Table 5.3 shows that 6 out of 7 categories fall in the non-conformance categories; the
most evident problems are the tool evaluation, workstation evaluation. The company shows
good grades in the wage incentive evaluation; this means that the salaries are well paid and the
mechanisms of promotion are fairs.
47
5.2 ALAMBRADOS Y CIRCUITOS ELECTRICOS ACEX (ACE) CASE
Alambrados y Circuitos Electricos ACEX is an assembly plant located in Ciudad Juarez
Chihuahua, belongs to the corporative DELPHI, which has companies assembly plants all over
the continent. ACEX is the plant number fifty of this corporative. It is considered a world-wide
class manufacturing company of automotive wiring denominated ‘harnesses’, at the moment
counts with two units of business called modules. The most recent head count is 1904 people,
1672 are direct personnel (the one direct related with the manufacturing in the work floor), 205
indirect and 31 salaried divided in shift A and shift B. The clients of ACEX are General Motor
Company (GMC) and Toyota Company, to GMC the maquiladora supplies harnesses to North
America and Canada, and to Toyota Company supplies harnesses to the cities of Indiana,
Pennsylvania and San Antonio, Texas in the United States.
To General Motor supplies 9 types of harnesses which consist in 2 body, 2 chassis, 3
engine and 2 door, whereas to the Toyota company supplies 5 types of harnesses divided in floor
1, floor 2, frame, console and sonar, all of them exclusively for the truck Toyota Tundra.
This raw material consists of a cable, a component, cellophane and a conduit. The
company is divided in the following areas: Lead Prep, Manufacture, Quality, Engineering,
Materials, and within each of these areas are several departments, each one of them has defined
functions that are detailed in the manual of work, where specify the activities which they carry
out each one, as well as the relations and inter-phases that have the departments with the others.
The area where the construction of the harness begins is Lead Prep, since it is where the
cable necessary is cut to form the harness, this department counts with forty cutting machines of
four types: megopenta, komax, megomat and modelers; the number of different cuts in this stage
is approximately 200. The greatest area of the company is the one of manufacture, all the
48
operative level is grouped in this area that is in charge to coordinate and to direct the efforts
oriented towards the final joint of the harness.
During the past 5 years almost the 90% of the production of harnesses belongs to General
Motor Company. With GMC a taping called ‘solid or closed taping’ was used according with
the specifications that the company provided; this taping consisted of transferring half of the
wide of the tape in the trunk of the harness, beginning with two returns movements in the same
place and finishing with two returns, doing straight cut and without leaving residuals of tape at
the end. The Figure 5.6 shows this design of taping.
49
Figure 5.6: Visual aid of the solid taping.
The ergonomic problem of this method of taping was that the number of wrist
movements around the component was about fifteen; besides this action the operator had certain
level of dexterity using a cutter to cut the tape. In this area there are 300 operators that used to
perform this repetitive procedure about 240 times per day increasing the probabilities of injuries
of wrist and fingers and possible cuts due to the use of the cutter.
50
Engineers in charge of the manufacturing department develop a new taping technique, it
born from the necessity to match the products with the specifications that Toyota wanted in the
harnesses; the new panorama changed from 90% of the production of harnesses to GMC to 75%
to Toyota and only 25% to GMC.
The main aspects to improve were the angle of taping that includes changes in the
position of arms, back and feet, improving the movement coordination of hands, handling and
holding of the tape. The new taping also increases the accuracy of the taping, avoiding quality
problems while using the electrical system of the car.
The current taping method is called ‘spiral taping’, which initiate transferring wide of the
tape in two returns movements in the same place leaving openings of tape and at the end
finishing with two returns in the same place doing a straight cut without leaving residuals of
tape, the techniques in Figure 5.7.
Figure 5.7: Visual aid of the spiral taping.
51
The recommendations of these techniques are to maintain and guide the tape with the
whole hand; the top of the tape has to be iron using the thumb finger, and maintaining an
approximate taping angle of 65 degrees. The differences between the angle cut and the straight
cut are shown in Figure 5.8.
Figure 5.8: Different types of cuts and residuals.
With this new taping technique the wrist movements decrease because the numbers of
taping movements were reduced due to the angle around the component. The wrist, finger
injuries and cuts in fingers were decreased because the taping procedure was easier to be
performed and the operator had less contact time with the sharp side of the tape and the cutter,
making the operation easier and safer with only one modification in the method.
With the change of taping procedure, the cycle time of this activity was reduced in almost
30 sec. The cycle time of the solid taping was 2:40 seconds; the new cycle time obtained with
the spiral taping varies between 2:00 sec. to 2:10 sec.
52
The production of harnesses in their different categories for the Toyota Tundra increases
in 33%. The average value of these harnesses is varies between US$65- US$70. Analyzing the
cost benefit of this ergonomic improvement we have that there were no investment in this case,
and the annual profit during 2007 was US$49,200.00.
Another advantage of this new procedure involves the better handling and the better
fitness of the tape in the trunk of the harness, increasing the quality of the product and the
reduction of insurance payments because of the bad functioning of the electrical system of the
car.
Figure 5.9: ACE General Information about the sample.
53
The mode of the ranges of ages falls in to 41 or more years and the majority was females;
for workers with these characteristics the ergonomic improvements are important because they
facilitate their work; also can be assumed that the necessity to keep a job is high so they resist
unsafe and unhealthy issues.
Figure 5.10: ACE Feedback of the operators.
This company shows good grades in the feedback issue, the feedback received from the
employee regarding improvements of the workstation is high with an 80%, the number of
suggestions considered by the management is also high; and the perception of the improvements
by employees can be considered as high.
54
Figure 5.11: ACE Psychology of the operators.
Figure shows higher percentage of injuries levels as well of a considerable level of
absenteeism. Workers in this case know the importance in the organization and could be the key
for good individual performance; motivation and well-being in the work.
Table 5.4; the format of the ergonomic checklist is presented in Appendix A.9. The ergonomic
55
Table 5.4: ACE Ergonomic checklist summary table.
CONFORMANCE
67%
NONCONFORMANCE
N/A
11%
22%
78%
22%
0%
TASK EVALUATION
67%
33%
0%
TOOL EVALUATION
25%
50%
25%
86%
14%
0%
69%
14%
17%
50%
0%
50%
MACHINE EVALUATION
Table 5.4 shows good grades in the ergonomic checklist, and conformance in all the
analyzed categories; this is another point that has to be considered in the worker’s health,
motivation and satisfaction at work.
The outstanding grades were in the wage incentive
evaluation and in the motion economy evaluation; this reflects a good commitment with the top
management and middle management regarding the salaries and methods, machines, tools and
environmental issues at work.
.
56
5.3. THE WOODBRIDGE GROUP (WBG) CASE
The Woodbridge Group is a leader in automotive urethane technologies and a specialist
in just-in-time assembly and sequencing systems. The company has facilities in North and South
America, Europe, Australia and Japan.
The group has developed a very specialized
manufacturing processes; the facility in El Paso produces a variety of foams in different sizes
and with different packing.
One process that has an outstanding importance due to the level of manual labor involved
in the process and because of its repetitiveness around the facility is the one that involves the roll
compressor. The process flow of the equipment (roll compressor) is shown in Figure 5.12.
Start Machine
Set
Automatic
Mode(key
must be in
on position)
Press Control
On on the
main control
Press
Automatic
Start on main
control
Load roll of
foam on lifting
table
Press Start
on the
operator
control
Running cycle
Unload roll of
foam from
lifting table
Figure 5.12: Process flow of the roll compressor.
Several injuries have occurred in one of the process at SW-Foam a world class
manufacturer of polyurethane foam. The injuries arise in a specific process which consists of a
compressing machine used for packaging. This piece of equipment was validated on mid 2006
57
and production qty’s and shift has increased dramatically since. The engineers analyze the
historic data of the injuries generated due to the equipment, they made an analysis of the
operator’ task and the potential hazards involved and the physical demands to perform the
activities. The results are shown in Figures 5.13, 5.14, 5.15.
INJURIES PER TYPE
10%
10%
LOWER BACK
50%
WRIST
SHOULDER
FOOT
30%
Figure 5.13: WBG Percentage of injuries per type.
Figure 5.14: WBG Potential hazards of the operation.
58
Figure 5.15: WBG Physical demands of the operation.
General physical demands include but are not limited to: Walking, Standing, Bending,
Pushing, Stretching Lifting and Pulling. Compressor systems works with a platform that moves
up and down using hydraulics which is fully automated, once the roll of raw material is loaded
the operator will press the “Start” bottom to initiate the compression process then platform will
come down with roll. Once material at lowest position (12” under floor level) the operator will
pick the J-Hook tool and stretch with the tool over the roll and hook it around the roll of foam
then the operator pull the material walking backwards for about 4 ft.
The activities of stretching involves carrying the tool, bending and reaching, pulling (150
lbs) and walking backwards while pulling are very probable factor that while influence back
injuries and/or discomfort. The operator bends up to six inches above floor level or lifts up to 7ft
height= 2133.6mm when he set the rolls (raw material) to the compressor. The figure 5.16
shows how the machine is set up for the feeding of raw material, the lower roll is at six inches
59
above the floor level, either way the operator has to bend or lift. The rolls weight around 75
pounds.
Figure 5.16: Procedure to locate the rolls of foam on the rollers.
A platform was designed the platform does not move until the floor level and the
hydraulics are redesigned to tilt the roll towards the operator instead of him pulling the material
out. The figure 5.17 shows the previous action where the operator needs to stretch, bend his body
and pull the heavy weight. In the figure 5.18 shown the new method that moves the material by
gravity; avoiding awkward positions and lifts of heavy weights.
60
Material movement (By operator)
31"
Floor Level
Platform
46"
Figure 5.17: Material moved by operator stretching, bending and pulling heavy a weight.
Material movement (By gravity)
31"
Platform
Floor Level
46"
Safety stop to prevent
roll from hitting
operator.
Figure 5.18: Proposed Action: Material will move by gravity.
61
The implementation of lapping rollers connecting them to cylinders mounted to the lifting
table of the roll compressor machine allow unloading the material from the lifting table once the
compression cycle finished and the material is ready to be unloaded. The action eliminates the
current use of the J-hook and reduces paint related activities of unloading finish goods by the
operator. See figure 5.19.
Figure 5.19: Lapping rollers.
The relocation of the rollers loaded/unloaded at elbow height prevents both bending and
lifting of the operator, leaving raw material at an optimal level. Safety clamps would hold the
rolls onto the rotary machine, and with a motor the operator could switch the position of the roll
to be fed onto the machine. See Figure 5.20.
Figure 5.20: Relocation of the rollers.
62
With the implementation of the ergonomic/engineering design in the equipment, not only
the reduction of paint related activities of unloading finish goods by the operator were reflected
by a reduction of 30% but also an increment in the production by the operator/ shift was noticed.
Before the ergonomic/engineering design was implemented in the roll compressor, the maximum
amount of compressed roll produced per shift was 90 rolls. This amount of compressed roll
reflected a profit to the company of US$18,968.00. With the implementation of ergonomic
design, the total amount of compressed roll that we produce per shift is 120 rolls. This amount of
compressed rolls is the equivalent of US$25,291.00. This reflects an increment of compressed
rolls of 25%.
The cost for the implementation of this mechanism in the roll compressor machine is
outline as follow:
2 Cylinders for transfer finish good = US$584.00
1 Mini Air regulator = US$12.86
2 lapping roller = US$51.64
¼” NPT black pipe, union, lock washers and tube = US$30.00
Labor (2 mechanics/8hrs each) = US$240.00
Total cost involved = US$918.50
63
Figure 5.21: WBG General information about the sample.
According with Figure 5.21 ranges of ages fall are within 26 years and 35 years,
primarily males. It is assumed that ergonomic improvements are important because people in
this range of ages are looking for a stable job and good conditions at work.
64
Figure 5.22: WBG Feedback of the operators.
Figure 5.22 states that the company has some problems with the communication between
levels and because of this, the response to the necessities of the employees is very low; creating
problems of motivation and satisfaction at work and of course decreasing the levels of wellbeing.
65
Figure 5.23: WBG Psychology of the operators.
Figure 5.23 shows a large percentage of injuries and absenteeism; being two categories
that demonstrate that satisfaction at job is low in this workstation and that sometimes workers do
not perceive any improvement by the management.
the Table 5.5; the format of the ergonomic checklist is presented in the Appendix A.9. The
ergonomic checklist is divided in machine evaluation, motion economy evaluation, tool
evaluation, wage incentive evaluation, environmental evaluation and workstation evaluation.
The graphs of every evaluation performed are shown below.
66
Table 5.5: WBG Ergonomic checklist summary
CONFORMANCE
NONCONFORMANCE
N/A
MACHINE EVALUATION
83%
0%
17%
34%
29%
37%
TASK EVALUATION
67%
33%
0%
TOOL EVALUATION
75%
25%
0%
50%
43%
7%
69%
24%
7%
30%
20%
50%
Table 5.5 shows that all 7 categories are in conformance with the ergonomic checklist
analysis; even tough many of these categories have large percentages of non-conformance.
67
5.4. FISHER ROSEMOUNT TECNOLOGIAS DE FLUJO (FRTF) CASE
F.R.T.F. is a metal-mechanic company that born in Ciudad Juarez Chihuahua at the end
of 1995 under the name of Fisher Rosemount Tecnologias de Flujo. The company is dedicated
to the complete production of flowmeters. The company has two facilities which integrate the
two companies of Fisher Rosemount Corporation, Miccromotion Inc. and Rosemount Inc. both
members of the Corporation Emerson Process.
Rosemount Inc. is dedicated to the manufacture of 3 different flowmeters designated by
code numbers; the 8705 are flange type flowmeters, 8707 are also flanges type but with a signal
of electromagnetic field stronger; and finally the 8711 which they are none flanges flowmeters.
The company also manufactures 3 different transmitters denominated as types 8732, 8742 and
8712, each of one with more than 100,000 different models this is due to the different
combinations from options that exists. The facility has a production capacity of 11,000 units per
month and serves customers from the chemical and alimentary industry in the United States and
Europe.
FRTF also manufactures the magmeter flowmeters; these are elaborated to be used
mainly with corrosive fluids. Figure 5.24 shows the two types of flowmeters flange and non
flange and also the transmitter.
Between its main clients they are Dupont, 3M, Liquid America,
Bayer Corp., Dunlop Tire and Rubber Co, Firestone Tire and Rubber Co, Dow Corning Corp.
and GE plastics among others.
68
Figure 5.24: Type of flowmeters.
The manufacturing process of the 1.5” to 8” non-flange flowmeters require the soldering
of circuit boards (CKTs) to the top of the flowmeters. A pneumatic piston is utilized to fixate the
round flowmeters to the base of the worktable because these pieces tend to fall. Figure 5.25
shows the pneumatic piston, the circuit board and the flowmeter.
Figure 5.25: Pneumatic piston and compression process.
69
The operator activated the pneumatic piston of 70 to 100 Psi with a button; the person
placed his/her hand between the piston and the flowmeter to hold the meter because it has a
considerable weight; Table 5.6 shows the weights in the 8711 flowmeter models; and the rapidly
he/she removes the arm before the base of the pneumatic piston touch the meter.
Table 5.6: Specifications of the 8711 flowmeters.
One operator delay in remove her hand from the piece and one of her fingers was broken
by the pneumatic piston. A corrective action from the safety department was placed to the area,
in order to correct this issue, instead of a button a pedal was placed. This made that the person
could still place both hands between piston and the meters. This occurred into another accident,
not as severe as the broken finger. Another change to the area was made, this time placing two
buttons to assure both hands of the operator were used to activate the piston. The buttons were
placed too close together. The operators used the forearm to activate the buttons at the same time
and accidents continue happening.
The engineers in charge applied the final corrective action, this time the buttons were
placed far enough to make the operator utilize both hands to activate the pneumatic pistons.
With this ergonomic improvement zero accidents happened in this area while working with the
pneumatic piston; the levels of safety were improved and also the levels of motivation, health
and well-being of the 13 operators that operated the pneumatic piston.
70
The cost of install the two button systems in 5 worktables was US$1,015.00; this is
taking in consideration the price of connectors, modifications of the pistons and the other valves;
with the improvement in safety the price paid per employee in the social security institute
doesn’t get any higher; if there are no accidents in the station, there will be no temporary
disabilities, so the production levels will be kept as they should.
Production objectives per shift in the 8711 area are 23 flowmeters with the 5 stations
working at 100% (5 stations – 5 employees). With only 4 employees, the operations on each
station are reassigned and only 17 flowmeters can be assembled per shift, this represents a 26%
reduction on production. Also when a person of the area has a temporary disability and the
production demands are high, overtime has to be involved, this means higher cost of the product
since overtime hours are paid double the first 9 hrs, and triple from hour 10 and on.
The absence of the person involved in the accident lasted 4 months, and the demand of
the product was high, then a temporary operator was hired since the training on each station lasts
4 weeks plus the certification from the area engineer to assure that the employee quality of
assembling the products is all right.
The cost of training is high as it is a complicated product not a repeatable and easy
assembly. Also when training a new employee, one of the team members is in charge of training,
this is extra work for the employee since train and assembly at the same time decreases the
production rate.
The main advantage of implanting these ergonomic improvements were the
savings resulted from the reduction of the Mexican Institute of Social Security’s risk factor;
having saves of approximately US$4500.00 per year.
71
Figure 5.26: FRTF General information about the sample.
Figure 5.26 shows a workstation that is primarily conformed by males which mode of
ranges falls within 18 and 25 years old; according with these data we may assume that the
worker have many options among the maquiladoras in Ciudad Juarez, and the good ergonomic
conditions in addition with good salary wages will result in well being, occupational health and
motivation at work.
72
Figure 5.27: FRTF Feedback of the operators.
Figure 5.28: FRTF Psychology of the operators.
73
According with Figures 5.27 and 5.28 the company has good levels of communications
and feedback, absenteeism is very low and can be assumed that the motivation and satisfaction at
work is high.
Table 5.7: FRTF Ergonomic checklist summary table.
CONFORMANCE
NONCONFORMANCE
N/A
MACHINE EVALUATION
72%
11%
17%
32%
24%
44%
TASK EVALUATION
50%
50%
0%
TOOL EVALUATION
50%
25%
25%
50%
50%
0%
62%
21%
17%
60%
30%
10%
Table 5.7 shows that all 7 categories are in conformance with the ergonomic checklist
analysis; even tough many of these categories have large percentages of non-conformance.
74
5.5 MORSE AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION (MAC) CASE
Morse is an independently owned manufacturer of brake shoes and disc pads; supplies
products to the largest retail and wholesale distributors in the United States under a variety of
private labels identities. With seven manufacturing facilities in countries like China, Mexico and
the United States and with more than fifteen hundred employees, Morse is known as the low cost
provider of premium friction products.
The plant in Ciudad Juarez has 5 production lines for the manufacture of Premium Brake
Shoes and brake pads; in the production floor work 282 persons. Many of the activities are semiautomated; most of the machinery of the company is conformed by cure presses, EDM centers,
lathes and milling machines among others. A higher accuracy in the dimensions and
specifications of the parts and excellence quality of the parts shipped is guaranteed. The level of
material handling is considerable high and it is performed with forklifts, pallet jacks and pallet
racks.
5.5.2
Ergonomic problem
In 2006, Morse was subscribed to an International quality system and the standards of the
OE’s, and began the certification of ISO 9001:2000. This certification brought the necessity of
consistent product quality and dependability as a vendor and manufacturer, focusing in zero
defects, making durable products and orientating the efforts on a continuous improvement of
products and processes.
The company then started a program of continuous improvement that involved many
ergonomic actions that upgraded the process and at the same time the commodity and well-being
of the workers. Here are some of the ergonomic problems that were identified:
75
1a. Stamping machines served for the production of a variety of different products, the operator
needed to be changing the fixtures every time that the products changed. The time necessary to
change the dies was about 1:00 to 3:00 min.; this was because the fixtures and the tools not
always were in the workstation. Also the stamping machines were activated with a pedal, and
because the production of pieces were high this cause discomfort and pain in the joints of the
operator’s foot.
2a. No assigned area exists for the received or returned products, the boxes used to be positioned
on the floor and they had to be picked up, manually counted and returned to the warehouse by
the material handler. The weight of the pieces transported fell between the range of 8Lbs/pc to
15Lbs/pc.
3a. The worktable were the riveting machine was operated; the levelers (R and L) and also the
pins were located, the operator had to be dealing with space problems and these activities
generated a lot of quality problems because of the characteristics of the R and L levers were
significantly different.
4a. Vulcanized belts were storage in a vertical position at the floor height; the material handler
had to bend his body in order to obtain the last belt from the pile.
5a. In the packaging area, the un-built boxes were delivered in pallets without identification
number; the material handler had a lot of troubles to get these boxes from the floor level and to
identify them.
6a. In the grinding machine, the products fell by gravity in a container; this container transported
the brake pads to the riveting area. The problem was that the pieces tend to break when they fall;
creating scrap and in general quality problems. Also the container got full very easily and
caused a problem to the material handler who transported the pieces with a pallet jack to the next
station.
7a. In the packaging area there were 6 operators in every table, every operator has different task
to perform. When the products were accumulated, the shipped material was mixed.
76
8a. The area of rework had limited space and looks very disordered, this generated idle times,
mixed pieces and a lot of discomfort to the worker while performing his job.
Listed below are the ergonomic improvements that the company implemented to solve
the problems shown in the previous point, some of them are a combination of ergonomics and
lean manufacturing techniques such as a poka yoke or the implementation of a 5’s.
1b.
A sensor was adapted to the fixture in order to activate the cycle of operation in the
stamping machine every time that the operator position the piece in the base of the machine.
Also this machine was altered to run all the models. With these improvements the setup time was
minimized to zero, and the discomfort due to the pedal was eliminated, reducing the possible ills
in the joints of the workers’ feet. See figure 5.29.
Sensor
Figure 5.29: Sensor adapted to the stamping machine (before and after).
2b. An area was assigned for the receive and return of accessories and a table with a scale and
work instruction was set up. With this the awkward positions and the lifting movements were
eliminated. See figure 5.30.
77
Figure 5.30: Area assigned for receiving and returning boxes (before and after).
3b. Three different bins were installed in order to differentiate the levelers and the parts, this
decrease the mental load of the workers and at the same time, he has all the items in his reach
zone. See Figure 5.31.
Figure 5.31: Bins installed in the riveting area (before and after).
4b. Engineers designed different racks to storage the vulcanized belts, they were sorted by part
number. With this improvement the access and storage of the parts was upgraded, making the
material handling more easily because the racks were located to a higher position. See Figure
5.32.
78
Figure 5.32: Racks to storage vulcanized belts (before and after).
5b. A dispatching rack was designed to locate cardboard boxes, this reduced the bending position
and the difficulty to grab the boxes from the floor. See figure 5.33 and figure 5.34.
Figure 5.33: Dispatching rack for unassembled cardboard boxes (before and after).
Figure 5.34: Dispatching rack for built cardboard boxes (before and after).
6b. Conveyor belts were installed to link the grinding and the stamping operation. Broken pieces
were reduced to a minimum amount, the workload of the material handlers was reduced and also
the distances that the material handlers walked transporting material. See figure 5.35.
79
Figure 5.35: Conveyors belts in the grinding area (before and after).
7b. Engineers redesign the packing tables and placed 4 operators, having all the tools within the
reach zone, the height of the tables set to the elbow of the persons; operators with the same
height were assigned to the same worktable. See figure 5.36.
Figure 5.36: Redesigned packing tables (before and after).
8b. A rework cabin was installed, it counted with a paint extractor and rods to locate pieces;
making the rework operation faster, ordered and safe, and at the same time comfortable to the
operator. See figure 5.37.
Figure 5.37: Rework station (before and after).
80
5.5.4
Business Performance Measures
The management was impressed with the results obtained from the implementation of
ergonomic improvements. The cost of these improvements is listed below:
•
Three Static sensors for the stamping machines, total cost of US$200.00 each
•
Metal structure, rods, rollers for racks, worktables, and rework cabin US$752.00
•
2 scales, 3 feet conveyor belts (motors, rollers, idlers and installation), with a total
cost of US$1,415.00.
The total investment was US$2,367.00; the management calculated the benefits of these
improvements in an increment of production of the stamping, grinding and riveting processes of
25%, an increment of quality of the break pads of 23%; this includes a reduction in the number
of pieces rejected by the Q.A department. Under the same production levels and taking the price
list of the market, the benefits of quality and productivity produced total revenue of
US$9,850.00.
The number of rejected orders due to mixed pieces was eliminated, what
increment the satisfaction of the customers. Even when the productivity of brake shoes and disc
pads was increased, the main issue that convinces the management to continue applying, kaizen
activities, ergonomic improvements and lean techniques was the quality of the pieces, what
means an increment in the market and positioned the company as one of the most important
manufacturing companies of friction products.
81
5.5.5 Operator’s survey charts
Figure 5.38: MAC General Information about the sample.
According with Figure 5.38 the mode of the ranges of ages falls within 31-35 years old
with a majority of males working in the workstation. This is a difficult range to analyze because
in some cases the motivation and satisfaction at work can be increased by ergonomic
improvements and salary wages and sometimes and some of the times just an increment in the
salary wages and promotions represents well-being and occupational health.
82
.
Figure 5.39: MAC Feedback of the operators.
Figure 5.40: MAC Psychology of the operators.
83
According with Figure 5.39 and 5.40 the channels of communication are open and
several improvements have been perceived by the workers; and at the same time the absenteeism
levels are considerable hi. In this case some other factors would affect the motivation and
satisfaction of the workers beside the attention of the necessities of the worker.
Table 5.8: MAC Ergonomic checklist summary table.
CONFORMANCE
NONCONFORMANCE
N/A
MACHINE EVALUATION
56%
44%
0%
34%
54%
12%
TASK EVALUATION
50%
50%
0%
TOOL EVALUATION
50%
50%
0%
40%
60%
0%
79%
21%
0%
80%
10%
10%
According with Table 5.8, there were non-conformance ergonomic issues in the motion
economy evaluation, task evaluation, tool evaluation and wage incentive evaluation. In this case
the wage incentive evaluation diverse problems in the assignation of salaries and promotions at
work; this issue affects negatively the motivation at work.
84
5.6. VISHAY BRAVOS (VIB) CASE
Vishay is known as the world’s leader in manufacturing of foil resistors, photo-stress
products and strain gages. The company was founded in 1962 manufacturing bulk metal foil
resistors. Through strategic acquisitions, Vishay’s original strain gage business has become the
foundation of an extensive portfolio of products for weighing and measurement that includes
resistance strain gages (in which Vishay is the worldwide leader), transducers (the metallic
structures to which strain gages are cemented), electronic instruments that measure and control
output of the transducers, and complete systems for process control and on-board weighing
applications that include hardware and software. Vishay designs, installs, and maintains
customized systems for process control in paper mills, food processing plants, and other facilities
worldwide. Vishay on-board weighing systems are used in the waste handling, trucking, forestry,
quarry and mining, and aerospace industries.
The manufacturing plant in Ciudad Juarez represents one of the most important
manufacturing centers of a broad line of resistors, capacitor networks, resistors arrays, inductors,
magnetics, connectors, thermistors. The plant has 5 production lines and runs 2 shifts, the first
shift with 180 operators and the second shift with 70 operators; and 2 supervisors per line.
One of the most important production lines is the one of axial resistors; these resistors
have a value of electrical resistance since 0.25 ohms to 3000 ohms. The area counts with 22
persons who work with semi-automated machines that spin the wire around the resistors and the
only actions that operator has to perform are to activate the machine and cut the wire with a hot
needle.
85
Three quality inspectors took a batch sample from the worktables according with the final
quantity of the order. The inspection is performed using visual, mechanical or electrical criteria;
this is a daily repetitive task and thus boring, inefficient, fatiguing, monotonous and
discouraging. The number of lots inspected per shift is 40 with an average number of samples
inspected per day of around 2000.
The decisions opportunities are only pass or fail; this corresponds to 30,000 types of
visual defects, 6000 types of electrical defects and 6000 types of mechanical defects. In some of
the cases the visual defects are not such obvious and the decisions need to be taken using a
magnification lamp of 4X. Figure 5.41 shows different types of visual defects.
Figure 5.41: VIB Type of defects
After the visual inspection, the inspectors performed the electrical test; they placed the
resistors in a testing bridge connected to an ‘eadorl’ machine. This machine measured the ohms
that the resistance can hold. The readings obtained from the testing bridge appeared in a display.
If the value fell in to the specification limits then the piece is accepted, what is noticeable is that
the orders vary from 15 pieces to 10,000 pieces.
Three different evaluations were performed by the engineering department; the mental
workload, the physical workload and the production cards usability. The physical workload is
due to a repetitive movement when he/she looks down to place the piece on the tester clips and
86
then looks up to read the display. The mental workload is because the inspector visually
evaluate whether the piece pass or fail by reading the measurements on the display. See Figure
5.42.
Figure 5.42: Visual inspection scenario before the ergonomic improvement.
It was also evaluated the usability of the production card where, historically, there have
been a lot of mistakes when recording the information on each operation row. The common
mistake is that the operator recorded the information (scrap code, quantity, signature, etc) on the
incorrect row (always and adjacent row); for military products it is critical that the physical
quantity matches the quantity on the production card. See figure 5.43.
Figure 5.43: Production card common errors
87
An extra evaluation was the one for the worktable and the work chair of the inspectors;
conclusions were that the shape of the table and height were very uncomfortable for the
inspectors, there were no feet rest and there were some restrictions for the free movement of the
legs; the wheels of the chair do not permit chair to be anchored or static to the floor surface; the
inspector does not use the back rest which is quite small. See figure 5.44.
Figure 5.44: Example of chairs used before ergonomic improvement.
The inspection tables were modified, the new design included rounded edges and corners,
adjustable feet rest to place the whole foot; table’ legs placed more to the inside and the middle
table leg was eliminated to permit freely horizontal chair movement. See figure 5.45.
88
Figure 5.45: Worktables re-designed.
A temporary permanent feet rest was placed under the inspection table; Chair wheels
were removed from the chair to make it static or anchor to the floor in such a way that when
exerting strength on the back rest, the chair did not move; with these actions the chair comfort
was improved.
After evaluating several control methods, the final recommendation was to change the
visual control for a hearing control; this means add a system that beeps every time a piece is
tested and pass. Since it is expected that most pieces pass, the “beep” sound would be checking
if the system is working, the sound level of this noise is considerable below the 90dBA, the
system does not beep for a failing piece, and the visual inspection is now a double check. In this
way, the mental and physical fatigues were reduced.
Usability of production cards was upgraded by changing the language from English to
Spanish, changing the font size from 6 to 12; increasing row width to prevent information
overlapped.
89
The cost of redesign 3 inspection tables and 3 chairs was US$550.00. The price of every
‘eadorl’ machine was around US$8,000.00 (25 installed around all the plant in different
production lines PC, LH, WW, SRP AND WCS); these machines were just altered with the beep
system with and overall cost of US$2,500.00. The benefits obtained with these improvements
were a reduction in the customer complaints of 95%; mainly originated because of the lack of
equipment; the quality costs were reduced in about $25,000 in an annual basis.
5.6.5 Operator’s survey charts
Figure 5.46: VIB General Information about the sample.
90
According with Figure 5.46 the mode of the ranges of ages falls within 31-35 years old
with a majority of females working in the workstation. Motivation and satisfaction at work can
be increased by ergonomic improvements and in some degree by changes in the salary wages.
Figure 5.47: VIB Feedback of the operators.
91
Figure 5.48: VIB Psychology of the operators.
Figures 5.47 and 5.48 show the state of a company with problems in absenteeism and a
medium percentage of injuries at work.
The feedback is in a point when workers and
management can increase the means of communication with each other, improving the
motivation and satisfaction at work.
92
Table 5.9: VIB Ergonomic checklist summary table.
CONFORMANCE
NONCONFORMANCE
N/A
MACHINE EVALUATION
39%
6%
56%
44%
22%
34%
TASK EVALUATION
71%
14%
14%
TOOL EVALUATION
100%
0%
0%
95%
5%
0%
41%
38%
21%
90%
10%
0%
Table 5.9 shows good grades in every evaluation; nevertheless there are environmentally
can be upgraded in certain degree in order to increase the worker health of the labor.
5.7 CBC CONNECT (CBC) CASE
5.7.1
Company background
CBC connect is a branch of WESCO Distribution, dedicated to manufacture wiring
harnesses for heavy machinery. The locations for this company are in Miamisburg OH and
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Miamisburg location handles all management and administrative tasks
(purchasing, sales, AR/AP, reporting, etc). Mexico assembly operations commenced 2003. It has
about 120 Employees (100 assembly) w/ onsite Quality and Industrial Engineering.
Some of the most important operations in CBC Connect are: wire harnesses and cable
assemblies, high volume harnesses, automated wire processing equipment, focalized assembly
cells, labor intensive wiring harnesses, specializing in complicated assemblies requiring
significant testing and multiple assembly processes, integrated electrical testing, engineering and
technical support services, drawing and design, prototyping, alternative design services (lower
cost and speed assembly), broad engineering services offered to meet customer needs (design,
quality, packaging, etc), logistics and supply chain, CBC-Connect can source nearly any type of
wire or connecter, CBC-Connect handles all import and export functions.
93
The material used to assemble harnesses such as connectors, locks, seals, plugs, etc.,
were placed in a rack near the board assembly (about 10 Ft. from the workstation in this case a
rotary) which caused that the operator had to walk in the direction of the rack every time they
need to assemble the components to the circuits. This caused that the assembly time was long
and also tiring for the operator; and also they; this caused in many occasions the low productivity
of the line and to pay for special shipments and overtime costs. See Figure 5.49.
Figure 5.49: Rack of assembly pieces
94
The ergonomic improvement proposed by CBC’s engineers was to attach a half of a pipe
into the assembly board, in which it can be place most of the components needed for the
assemble harness, thus avoiding the time it takes to walk to the rack, take the component and
walk back to the board. The only problem in this case was that the only available space to place
this pipe in the lower level of the board, so at the same time, engineers provide a bag to the
operator in order to have all the pieces on hand and leaving the rest of the pieces not frequently
used in the pipe. With this the bending of the trunk was eliminated. See Figure 5.50.
Figure 5.50: CBC re-designed station
With this implemented improvement, the cost benefit for the company was improved
greatly. Taking as inversion zero dollars, since the half pipe was taken from a recycled material
95
and it was only attached to the board. The assembly time was improved about 35% faster. Taking
the example of a harness that takes about 1hr assemble, the time is reduced to 39 minutes.
The cost of labor is listed at 6 dollars per hour; this would have a cost of manpower of 3.9
dollars,
with
the
savings
that
derived
from
the
ergonomic
improvement.
Taking into account a production standard of 500 harnesses per month, the total savings are:
US$1,050 per month, or US$12,600 per year.
These improvements brought economic benefits to the company and also to the worker in
aspects such as reduction in fatigue, eliminate unnecessary movements and increase the
productivity of the company.
It is concluded that the implementation of ergonomic improvements brings yield in all
aspects, therefore it allowed CBC connect to be a competitive firm in prices and quality in its
service and products, in order to meet the demands of their customers.
96
Figure 5.51: CBC General Information about the sample.
Figure 5.51 shows that all the sample of workers fall within the range o 18 to 25 years old
and most of them females; this could mean that satisfaction at work is affected by the work
conditions; and upgraded by increments in the salary wage.
97
Figure 5.52: CBC Feedback of the operators.
Figure 5.53: CBC Psychology of the operators.
Figure 5.52 and Figure 5.53 show the higher levels of feedback from the workers, and
slight problems with absenteeism and injury levels.
98
Table 5.10: CBC Ergonomic checklist summary
CONFORMANCE
NONCONFORMANCE
N/A
MACHINE EVALUATION
50%
33%
17%
80%
20%
0%
TASK EVALUATION
67%
33%
0%
TOOL EVALUATION
75%
25%
0%
60%
40%
0%
86%
14%
0%
60%
40%
0%
Table 5.10 shows good grades in the 7 ergonomic evaluations of this company; with certain
degree of problems in the wage incentive evaluation.
99
5.8 DALE ELECTRONICS (DAE) CASE
Dale Electronics S.A. de C.V. has been manufacturing high quality resistor products for
Commercial and Military application for over 54 years. Maintaining a good reputation in the
market because the high quality and versatility of the products. The high quality standards that
we maintain are reflected in the fact that they are a certified supplier to some of our nations
largest Military, Aerospace, and Computer Companies. The confidence level that the company
has earned from these companies is such that most do not perform incoming inspection on the
resistor products. We have been a listed qualified supplier to Military and Government programs
for over 50 years. Our resistor products can be found in a variety of equipment as well as
Commercial, Military and Aerospace programs and applications.
Starting in 1985, Vishay Corporation acquired resistor companies Dale Electronics,
Draloric Electronic, and Sfernice. These acquisitions helped produce dramatic sales growth. In
the early 1990s, Vishay applied its acquisition strategy to the capacitor market by purchasing
Sprague Electric, Roederstein, and Vitramon.
Nowadays, Vishay operates three manufacturing plants in Mexico, all of them in Juarez,
Chihuahua, Mexico. These three plants build resistors, inductors and transformers.
Dale
electronics is the branch of transformers of Vishay Corporation; it has 2 lines of production with
9 operators working one shift from 6:00 am to 3:30 pm.
The main component of a electrical transformer is the bobbin; most of them are very
small an are hard to see with bare eyes. This make the production process very difficult and the
probabilities to commit quality errors are high. The bobbins are manually wounded and the laces
100
are counted while winding; see Figure 5.54. The production line of transformers presented high
rates of scrap of 20-30%; and the workers of the production line complained because of the
tiredness of the work. Some plans were implemented aimed at reducing the scrap rates, such as
creating handy tools, implementing different designs of scopes and pre-selecting the operators by
their physical characteristic.
Figure 5.54: Bobbins manually wounded.
The thought was that the smaller the hand and fingers, the better the operators could wind
parts. However, this improved job satisfaction but scrap rates never decreased. Defects such as
contamination of particles and damaged wire were the causes of scrap. Finally, the lighting
changed from yellow light lamps to white light lamps; and the lamps were moved from 18 feet to
7 feet of height; also the wattage of each lamp changed from 25 watts to only 45 watts, see
Figure 5.55 and Figure 5.56. A room was built to control the illumination and the contamination.
101
The final conclusions obtained with these improvements were that the illumination was so low
that the operators made a great effort to see and detect such defects in a very small part.
Figure 5.55: Yellow light lamps set at 18 feet height.
Figure 5.56: White light lamps set at 7 feet of height.
102
The cost of the all the ergonomics improvements applied in this company are listed
below:
•
Cost of build the control room was US$3,150.00
•
Cost of the white light lamps was US$1,680.00
•
Manpower cost was US$1,200.00
The total cost of the ergonomic improvements was US$6,030.00. The management
considered as positive results the reduction of the scrap from an average rate of 25% to only 6%;
being an approximately cost of scrap reduced from US$58,000.00 per year to $26,000.00 every
year. At the same time the job satisfaction was increased and the turnover rate of the line
decreased by 20%.
103
5.8.5 Operators’ surveys charts
Figure 5.57: DAE General Information about the sample.
Figure 5.53 shows that all the sample of workers fall within the range o 18 to 330 years
old and most of them females; this could mean that satisfaction at work is affected by the work
conditions; and upgraded by increments in the salary wage.
104
Figure 5.58: DAE Feedback of the operators.
Figure 5.59: DAE Psychology of the operators.
105
Figure 5.58 and Figure 5.59 show good level of communications, low levels of injuries
and absenteeism and also good responses by the management to the suggestions of employees,
increasing the degree of satisfaction and motivation at work and at the same time the
occupational health.
Table 5.11: DAE Ergonomic checklist summary
CONFORMANCE
NONCONFORMANCE
N/A
MACHINE EVALUATION
61%
22%
17%
24%
54%
22%
TASK EVALUATION
57%
43%
0%
TOOL EVALUATION
100%
0%
0%
65%
35%
0%
79%
21%
0%
60%
40%
0%
Table 5.11 shows some problems in the motion economy evaluation and in the task
evaluation; being this two the most significant among all and can be two of the main issue that
affect the well-being and also the BPM’s of the company.
106
5.9 SUMMARY OF CASES
In this section different graphs were presented in order to show the results gathered using
the operators’ surveys, the supervisors’ questionnaire, and the ergonomic checklist. The general
motivation in the work environment; the general satisfaction while performing the work;
possible ergonomic improvements that would increase the motivation level of the workers (from
the workers point of view); the percentage of management improvements perceived by workers
of the maquiladora and finally the results obtained from the checklist that show the positive and
negative answers of the ergonomic issues of this checklist. At the end of this section, the
information acquired from the supervisors is divided in positive improvements, impact in the
Business Performance Measures and ergonomic opportunity areas.
5.9.1 Mid-West Textile Co. (MWT)
Figure 5.60 shows the general work satisfaction of the sample of workers taken from
MWT GENERAL WORK SATISFACTION
50%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
% 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
31%
19%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.60: MWT General work satisfaction.
107
Figure 5.61 shows the general Work motivation of the sample of workers taken from
GENERAL WORK MOTIVATION
44%
45%
40%
31%
35%
25%
30%
%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.61: MWT General work motivation.
Figure 5.62 shows the answers of the operators’ sample taken at MWT when they were
asked to list the possible ergonomic modifications that would increase their motivation level.
MODIFICATIONS THAT WOULD INCREASE THE MOTIVATION LEVEL
90%
81%
80%
70%
60%
50%
%
40%
30%
20%
25%
19%
6%
10%
0%
25%
19%
0%
WORK METHOD
TOOLS AND/OR
MACHINARY
0%
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS
ELEMENTS OF THE SALARIES AND/OR
WORKSTATION
BENEFITS
BREAK TIMES
SAFETY ISSUES
OTHERS
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.62: MWT modifications that would increase the motivation level.
108
Figure 5.63 shows the perception of improvements performed by the management from
the point of view of the sample taken of the employees of MWT.
PERCENTAGE OF MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS PERCEIVED BY
EMPLOYEES
25%
YES
75%
NO
Figure 5.63: Improvements perceived by employees.
a. Positive improvements
The company has applied ergonomics with modifications of width and height of
conveyor belts and worktables. Fans, air conditioners, heaters have been installed in some
workstations. Several studies have been performed and implemented in order to use the correct
technique when sorting, pushing hoppers or dumping barrels to avoid injuries. Studies with
mental load and the decision making when grading have been performed in order to facilitate the
work of the sorters. The number of grades per station has been reduced considerable from an
average of 40 grades (barrels) to only 17 grades.
b. Impact in the Business Performance Measures
By applying ergonomics, the quality has been improved and this has positively impact the
value per pound that is graded. The turnover rate has been diminished when the commodity of
the workstation is improved; also, the motivation in the work has increase. The company
109
measures its performance measuring the incomes per year; these depend in sales made, the
market fluctuations. The sales depend in a large percentage in the quality of the clothes which is
upgraded due to ergonomics.
c. Ergonomic opportunity areas
The company has diverse problems with the heat conditions during the hot months of the
year and with the cold conditions during the winter months; generating many respiratory
problems among the workers. Dust is an issue that is affecting not only the personnel in the
production floor, but also, the people who is in the offices; causing discomfort and allergies.
Remain in the company certain jobs that are not ergonomically designed; example of these jobs
are the material handlers and the truck unloaders who have to be dealing with bags, bales, and
hoppers of a considerable weight during long period of time. A good program of training will
help to maintain the ergonomic policies implemented by the management in the different areas of
the company.
110
5.9.2 Alambrados y Circuitos Electricos X (ACE)
Alambrados y Circuitos Electricos X.
GENERAL WORK SATISFACTION
50%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
% 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
30%
20%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.64: ACE General Work satisfaction.
Figure 5.65 shows the general work motivation of the sample of workers taken from
Alambrados y Circuitos Electricos.
50%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
% 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
40%
10%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.65: ACE General Work motivation.
Figure 5.66 shows the answers of the operators’ sample taken at ACE when they were
asked to list the ergonomic modifications that would increase their motivation level.
111
90%
83%
80%
80%
70%
60%
50%
%
40%
27%
30%
20%
17%
10%
0%
13%
10%
3%
WORK M ETHOD
TOOLS AND/OR
M A CHINARY
ENVIRONM ENTA L
CONDITIONS
ELEM ENTS OF THE
WORKSTATION
SALARIES A ND/ OR
BENEFITS
BREAK TIM ES
SA FETY ISSUES
0%
OTHERS
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.66: Modifications that would increase the motivation level.
the point of view of the sample taken of the employees of ACE.
112
Worktables have suffered several changes in many of the stations, many of this changes
are directly related with the wire providers and the workstation layout; the reach distances in
every table were reduced in order to facilitate the tasks.
By applying ergonomics, the quality of harnesses was increased, this produce less
customer complaints; there were a reduction in the cycle time of the harnesses.
Due to
ergonomics, the production of harnesses in diverse car models was boosted; for this reason the
management is creating more test workstation with new ergonomically designed workstation.
Another opportunities are not only in the manufacturing floor; but also, in the warehouse
or in the shipping dock when the parts and the final goods are shipped or received; these
activities are performed 80% manually performed and in many cases the workers are used to
perform the loading and unloading activities in an ergonomically incorrect way.
113
5.9.3 The Woodbridge Group (WBG)
Figure 5.68 shows the general work satisfaction of the sample of workers taken from The
Woodbridge Group.
GENERAL WORK SATISFACTION
50%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
% 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
33%
17%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.68: WBG General Work satisfaction.
Figure 5.69 shows the general work motivation of the sample of workers taken from The
Woodbridge Group.
50%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
% 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
33%
17%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.69: WBG General work motivation.
114
Figure 5.70 shows the answers of the operators’ sample taken at WBG when they were
100%
100%
90%
83%
83%
83%
80%
67%
70%
67%
67%
60%
%
50%
40%
33%
30%
20%
10%
0%
WORK M ETHOD
TOOLS AND/ OR
M ACHINARY
ENVIRONM ENTAL
CONDITIONS
ELEM ENTS OF THE
WORKSTATION
SALARIES AND/OR
BENEFITS
BREAK TIM ES
SAFETY ISSUES
OTHERS
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.70: Modifications that would increase the motivation level.
the point of view of the sample taken of the employees of WBG.
115
The production process is semi-automated; the engineering department is focusing their
efforts in those machines which modification or implementation of new fixtures may
ergonomically be improved. Layout and facility distributions are being analyzed in order to
decrease the transportation of WIP.
With the integration of ergonomic improvements and falling within the machine
specification limits; the productivity of foam rolls was dramatically increased in 25%. While
reducing the workload in loading and unloading and handling the rolls; injuries due to material
handling were reduced too.
Implementation of new electro-mechanic fixtures to all the models of roll compressors is
one opportunity area that is planned to be attacked. Use of ergonomics in other departments like
116
maintenance will reduce the time in some of the preventive or corrective activities that right now
take a lot of time and involve uncomfortable positions to the personnel in charge. Also the
response time in case of an emergency will be diminished due to ergonomic design in tools or
methods.
5.9.4 Fisher Rosemount Tecnologías De Flujo (FRTF)
Fisher Rosemount Tecnologias de Flujo.
Figure 5.72: FRTF General Work satisfaction.
Fisher Rosemount Tecnologías de Flujo.
117
92%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
% 50%
40%
30%
20%
8%
0%
10%
0%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
CATEGORIES
.
Figure 5.73: FRTF General work motivation.
Figure 5.74 shows the answers of the operators’ sample taken at FRTF when they were
asked to list the ergonomic modifications that would increase their motivation level.
100%
100%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
%
54%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
WORK M ETHOD
TOOLS A ND/ OR
M A CHINA RY
ENV IRONM ENTAL
CONDITIONS
ELEM ENTS OF THE
WORKSTA TION
SALA RIES AND/ OR
BENEFITS
B REAK TIM ES
SA FETY ISSUES
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.74: Modifications that would raise motivation level.
118
OTHERS
the point of view of the sample taken of the employees of FRTF.
Activation buttons of every piston were located in different places of the worktable, to
ensure safety and ergonomics at the same time. Lighting was improved by installing local lamps
in every station, and the shine was avoided by the installation of blinds in the station close to
external windows. The management acquired a new drill with the reverse function; this change
in machinery avoided the formation of metallic residuals, and the rework in the mechanical drill.
The number of rejected flowmeters by the calibration department was reduced also.
Temporary disabilities were reduced, what avoid fines by the Social Security Institute.
The productivity is not diminished because of the turnover. Rework activities also decreased
while the quality of the flowmeters was increased; this because there were no rejects due to non
concordance with the specification.
119
A new system to gather the complaints and suggestions from the operators is necessary in
order to increase feedback. Standardization of the methods from every single type of flowmeters
and every type of piston it is another area of opportunity. Creating an extensive training program
in the use of every calibrator, piston and circuit boards will have a positive impact in quality and
productivity.
5.9.5 Morse Automotive Corporation (MAC)
Morse Automotive Corporation.
Figure 5.76: MAC General Work satisfaction.
Morse Automotive Corporation.
120
60%
60%
50%
40%
28%
% 30%
20%
12%
10%
0%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.77: MAC General Work motivation.
Figure 5.78 shows the answers of the operators’ sample taken at MAC when they were
100%
100%
100%
90%
80%
72%
70%
60%
%
48%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
WORK M ETHOD
0%
TOOLS AND/ OR
M ACHINARY
ENVIRONM ENTAL
CONDITIONS
ELEM ENTS OF THE
WORKSTATION
0%
SALARIES AND/ OR
BENEFITS
BREAK TIM ES
SAFETY ISSUES
CATEGORIES
121
0%
OTHERS
the point of view of the sample taken of the employees of MAC.
The company made many improvements in the storage devices; these eliminated the need
to bend the trunk and to perform excessive transportation. Transportation of pieces between
workstation was reduced due to changes in layout and integration of conveyor belts
ergonomically designed in height.
Packaging workstations were ergonomically upgraded;
accelerating the process and increasing the commodity of the workstation; because fewer
workers were placed in every worktable.
Quality of the break pads was increased in 23%; the rework process was improved
through the integration of the new rework cabin ergonomically designed. Tooling processes of
the company such as stamping, grinding and riveting were upgraded reducing awkward
positions, mental load to find pieces and order in every workstation. Making comparisons with
the production indicators of the previous year the productivity was increased in 45%.
122
Some other opportunities are in redesigning all the production lines; the studies of reach
zones in every table. Reduction of transportation of supplies to every station, and transportation
of finish goods to the warehouse in an ergonomically way suppose to be a great improvement for
the company.
5.9.6 Vishay Bravos (VIB)
Vishay Bravos.
Figure 5.80: VIB General work satisfaction.
Vishay Bravos.
123
48%
50%
45%
40%
35%
28%
30%
24%
% 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.81: VIB General work motivation.
Figure 5.82 shows the answers of the operators’ sample taken at VIB when they were
96%
100%
92%
90%
84%
80%
72%
70%
60%
60%
%
50%
40%
30%
24%
20%
12%
10%
0%
0%
WORK M ETHOD
TOOLS A ND/ OR
M ACHINARY
ENV IRONM ENTAL
CONDITIONS
ELEM ENTS OF THE
WORKSTA TION
SALARIES AND/ OR
BENEFITS
BREAK TIM ES
SA FETY ISSUES
CATEGORIES
124
OTHERS
the point of view of the sample taken of the employees of VIB.
Work chairs and worktables were ergonomically redesigned to increase the commodity
and comfort of the operators in the production area, and the quality assurance area. They were
ergonomically redesigned in height, support for back and feet and in some of the cases cushion.
The beep device decreased the mental load of the quality inspectors, and also relived the pressure
in neck due to several hours of being working and with high level of visual accuracy in every
check.
b. Business Performance Measures
Quality of pieces per shipped lot was increased, generating annual profits of
US$25,000.00. The customer complaints were considerably reduced due to the implementation
of these new engineering improvements.
There are some other ergonomic opportunities in the material handling of boxes, this is
because many of the activities of material handling are performed with forklifts and there have
been some complaints by the motorist due to back pains due to longer hours of sited work.
125
5.9.7 CBC Connect (CBC)
CBC Connect.
Figure 5.84: CBC General Work satisfaction.
Figure 5.85 shows the general work motivation of the sample of workers taken from CBC
Connect.
126
60%
60%
50%
40%
40%
% 30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.85: CBC General Work motivation.
Figure 5.86 shows the answers of the operators’ sample taken at CBC when they were
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
80%
80%
80%
70%
60%
50%
% 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
WORK M ETHOD
TOOLS AND/OR
M ACHINA RY
ENVIRONM ENTA L ELEM ENTS OF THE SALARIES AND/OR
CONDITIONS
WORKSTA TION
BENEFITS
BREAK TIM ES
SAFETY ISSUES
CATEGORIES
127
OTHERS
the point of view of the sample taken of the employees of CBC.
The company made considerable modifications in rotary tables, conveyor belts and
worktables, adjusting them in height and speed (in the case of the conveyor belts).
Implementation of different types of dispensers of wires with the objective of make the operation
more ease and less stressful for the operators. Management is preparing a safety program,
integrating ergonomic issues to enrich it.
The productivity of harnesses was increased because the transportation of pieces and
tools was eliminated. The number of accidents and incidents were reduced because the new work
method implemented in many stations. Management considered this as a BPM because not only
affect the risk factor and the fines to the Social Security Institute of Mexico; but also affected
turnover rates; this because the good work methods and work environment increases the
confidence in the company.
128
There are many opportunities in the implementation and maintenance of ergonomic
programs in methods and modification of the machinery. This would increase the productivity,
quality of harnesses; reduce the customer complaints, and the well being of the manpower of the
company.
5.9.8 Dale Electronics (DAE)
Dale Electronics.
Figure 5.88: DAE General work satisfaction.
Figure 5.89 shows the general work motivation of the sample of workers taken from Dale
Electronics.
129
89%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
%
40%
30%
11%
20%
0%
10%
0%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.89: DAE General work motivation.
Figure 5.90 shows the answers of the operators’ sample taken at DAE when they were
130
100%
100%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
%
50%
44%
40%
30%
22%
20%
11%
10%
0%
0%
WORK M ETHOD
0%
TOOLS AND/OR
M ACHINARY
ENVIRONM ENTAL ELEM ENTS OF THE SALARIES AND/ OR
CONDITIONS
WORKSTATION
BENEFITS
0%
BREAK TIM ES
SAFETY ISSUES
OTHERS
CATEGORIES
the point of view of the sample taken of the employees of DAE.
131
Due to the nature of the work, lighting is one of the major issues in this process; it is
involved in the quality and productivity of the bobbins (the main component of the electrical
transformers). The change and upgrading of the level of illumination relieve the mental and
workload of the workers, while working with the coils.
There were margin savings of US$32,000.00 and this was by the reduction of the
percentage of scrap due to human errors and tiredness of the operators.
There are some other ergonomic opportunities with the integration of other engineering
philosophies such as lean manufacturing to the ergonomic improvements.
5.10 SUMMARY OF THE MAQUILADORAS’ DATA
Information gathered from 124 operators and 9 supervisors is presented in Table 5.12;
answers obtained in every company regarding general motivation of the workers; general work
satisfaction, possible changes that would increase the level of motivation and well being in the
work; it also shows the perception of management improvement that workers had in every plant;
and finally the results obtained from the ergonomic checklist. The results are graphically shown
in Figures 5.92, 5.93, 5.94, 5.95, 5.96; answers are summarized in order to get a general
panorama of the workers motivation and perception and the ergonomic situation of the whole
population of maquiladoras taken to this research but also, the particular answers obtained from
every sample of workers.
132
Table 5.12: Summary of answers of operators’ survey and ergonomic checklist.
133
GENERAL WORKERS' SATISFACTION OF THE POPULATION
47%
50%
45%
40%
34%
35%
30%
% 25%
19%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LEVELS
Figure 5.92: General Workers’ satisfaction of the population of workers.
GENERAL WORKERS' MOTIVATION OF THE POPULATION
50%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
% 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
33%
17%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LEVELS
Figure 5.93: General Workers’ motivation of the population of workers.
134
MODIFICATIONS THAT WOULD INCREASE THE MOTIVATION AND
WELL-BEING LEVEL OF THE POPULATION OF WORKERS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
% 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
94%
85%
54%
33%
33%
23%
22%
4%
WORK METHOD
TOOLS &
ENVIRONMENTAL
ELEMENTS OF
SALARIES
MACHINARY
CONDITIONS
THE
AND/ OR
WORKSTATION
BENEFITS
BREAKTIMES
SAFETY ISSUES
OTHERS
CHANGES
Figure 5.94: Modifications that would increase the motivation and well-being of the population
of workers.
MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS PERCEIVED BY THE POPULATION
OF WORKERS
21%
YES
NO
79%
Figure 5.95: Management improvements perceived by the population of workers.
135
OVERALL ERGONOMIC CHECKLIST RESULTS FROM THE
MAQUILADORA COMPANIES
55%
60%
50%
40%
30%
% 30%
15%
20%
10%
0%
YES
NO
N/A
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.96 Overall ergonomic checklist results from the maquiladora companies.
The cost and the benefit of the ergonomic improvements and the Business Performance
Measures respectively are shown in the Table 5.13; the type of ergonomic improvement that
impacted the Business Performance Measures of that maquiladora manufacturing industries of
this research is also shown in the table. The individual and general ergonomic improvement
cost-benefit analysis is shown in Figure 5.97 and Figure 5.98; this two figures represent the
goodness and the impact in the financial outcomes of the different ergonomic improvements of
the cases. The revenues in all cases were calculated in every BPM impacted.
136
Table 5.13: Cost-benefit summary table
137
ERGONOMIC IMPROVEMENTS COST-BENEFIT INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS
$60,000.00
$50,000.00
ERGONOMIC IMPROVEMENTS
(BENEFIT)
$
$40,000.00
$30,000.00
ERGONOMIC IMPROVEMENTS
(COST)
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
MWT ACE WBG FRTF MAC
VIB
CBC DAE
COMPANIES
Figure 5.97 Ergonomic improvements cost-benefit individual analysis.
ERGONOMIC IMPROVEMENTS COST- BENEFIT TOTAL ANALYSIS
$191,166.00
$162,032.89
$200,000.00
$180,000.00
$160,000.00
$140,000.00
$120,000.00
$ $100,000.00
$80,000.00
$60,000.00
$29,133.11
$40,000.00
$20,000.00
$0.00
ERGONOMIC
IMPROVEMENTS (COST)
ERGONOMIC
IMPROVEMENTS
(BENEFIT)
REVENUES
CATEGORIES
Figure 5.98 Ergonomic improvements cost-benefit total analysis.
138
5.11 CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS
One set of 3 variables considered as dependent variables or BPMs results (X) were
chosen to be correlated with another set of variables considered independent variables or
ergonomic improvements (Y). The set of dependent variables were labor productivity, quality
issues, workers’ compensations/risk factor penalties. The set of independent variables was
conformed by the employee work motivation, employee work satisfaction, employee
absenteeism, employee turnover, posture improvements, and economy of movements.
In
canonical correlations each variable is represented as a linear combination of the indicator
variables. Thus,
X1= α1*y1 + α2*y2 + α3*y3 +… αn*yn
X2 = β1*y1 + β2*y2 + β3*y3 +…βn*yn
X3 = γ1*y1 + γ2*y2 + γ3*y3+… γn*yn
In this research the input values were presented in a percentage way for all categories,
except the workers’ compensation/risk factor that is measured in US dollars. Figure 5.99
represents the input data in the NCSS software; each row represents each company and the
columns are the dependent and independent variables of the analysis. The dependent variables
(BPMs) were labor productivity, quality issues, workers’ comp/ risk factor. The independent
variables (ergonomic improvements) were employee motivation, employee satisfaction,
absenteeism, turnover rates, posture improvements and economy of movements. Turnover rate,
employee absenteeism were considered as ergonomic improvements because they are part of the
definition of motivation at work and are two variables easy to be measured through surveys.
The canonical correlation analysis was performed under a level of significance of 0.10 in
order to include as many variables in the canonical correlation function; and the number of
correlation analysis was set to three in order to simplify the analysis as much as possible.
139
Figure 5.99: Matrices of the variables X and Y in NCSS
The canonical correlation report is presented below in Tables 5.14 to 5.18:
Table 5.14: Descriptive Statistics Section
Type Variable
X
Motivation
X
Satisfaction
X
Absenteeism
X
Turnover
X
Posture Imp.
X
E. of Moves.
Y
Labor Prod.
Y
Quality
Y
W. Comp/Risk F.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
0.4975
0.42875
0.1975
0.105
0.20625
0.37375
0.22375
0.08375
1562.5
0.2617933
0.1133185
0.1792644
7.801099e-02
0.285904
0.2889853
0.1419192
0.1064945
2161.968
Non-Missing
Rows
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
This report displays the descriptive statistics for each variable. The mean seems to be
reasonable according with the input data and also the number of non-missing rows is accurate.
140
Table 5.15: Canonical Correlation Report
Variate
Number
Canonical
Correlation
R-Squared
Num
Den
F-Value DF
DF
Prob
Level
Wilks’
Lambda
1
1.000000
1.000000
0.00
18
0
0.000000
0.000000
2
1.000000
1.000000
0.00
10
0
0.000000
0.000000
3
0.742104
0.550719
0.31
4
1
0.854854
0.449281
This report presents the canonical correlations plus supporting material to aid in their
interpretation. Every element of this table is analyzed in the following lines.
•
Variate Number: This is the sequence number of the canonical correlation. The first
correlation will be the largest; the second will be the next to largest.
•
Canonical Correlation:
The value of the canonical correlation coefficient. This
coefficient has the same properties as any other correlation: it ranges between minus one
and one, a value near zero indicates low correlation, and an absolute value near one
indicates near perfect correlation. Two of the three correlations are considered as perfect
correlation being the value 1.00 and the third correlation is considered as high correlation
between input and output variables.
•
R-Squared: Two of the canonical correlations have R-Squared values of 1.000 and the
third one has a value of 0.55; due to the higher fitting values; this represent a consistent
correlation between independent and dependent variables.
•
F-Value: The value of the F approximation for testing the significance of the Wilks’
lambda corresponding to this row and those below it. The first and second F-Value test
the significance of the first, second, and third canonical correlations in this case the value
of 0 represents a large significance of the first second and third canonical correlations;
while the value of 0.31 represents a higher significance value of the third canonical
correlation.
141
•
Prob Level: This is the probability value for the above F statistic. Two of the values are
zeros that mean a significant canonical correlation.
•
Wilks’ Lambda: The first two correlations indicate a high correlation; while the value of
the third correlations (0.44) represents a higher level of correlation.
Table 5.16: Standardized X Canonical Coefficients Section
X1
X2
X3
Motivation
-0.563859
-0.054929
-1.657163
Satisfaction
-0.595828
0.144771
0.711258
-0.352737
0.918752
-0.783492
Turnover
0.667182
0.129734
-0.690297
Posture Imp.
0.128159
0.578830
-1.106100
E. of Moves.
-0.531101
-0.642927
-1.111567
Absenteeism
Table 5.17: Standardized y Canonical Coefficients Section
y1
y2
y3
Labor Prod.
-0.822931
0.388542
-0.821692
Quality
0.166971
-0.535338
-0.944584
Work Comp/Risk F.
-0.167153
-1.062815
0.450674
These coefficients are used to estimate the standardized scores for the X and Y variables.
They showed the weight given to each variable in the construction of the canonical function.
142
Table 5.18: Variable - Variate Correlations Section
X1
X2
X3
y1
y2
y3
-0.721275
Motivation
0.174688
-0.721275 -0.102837
0.174688
Satisfaction
-0.851052
0.103451 -0.120270
-0.851052
0.103451 -0.089253
Absenteeism
-0.314172
0.769876 -0.322093
-0.314172
0.769876
Turnover
0.204709
-0.128105 -0.729209
0.204709
Posture Imp.
-0.050894
0.566932
E. of Moves.
-0.660030
Labor Prod.
0.254469
-0.076316
-0.239027
-0.128105 -0.541149
-0.050894
0.566932
0.188843
0.114258 -0.396616
-0.660030
0.114258
-0.294331
-0.975731
0.064757 -0.155232
-0.975731
0.064757 -0.209178
Quality
0.547115
-0.398245 -0.546375
0.547115
-0.398245 -0.736252
Work Comp/Risk
-0.632286
-0.716628 0.218459
-0.632286
-0.716628
0.294378
Figure 5.99 represents the plot of all the combinations of variables independent and
dependent (X and Y). It is concluded that X1 with y1; and X2 with y2 have a linear correlation.
Scores Plot of X1 vs y2
2.00
1.13
1.13
X1
X1
2.00
0.25
-0.63
-1.50
-1.50
0.25
-0.63
-0.63
0.25
1.13
2.00
y1
-1.50
-1.50
-0.75
0.00
y2
143
0.75
1.50
2.00
1.50
1.13
0.75
X2
X1
0.25
-0.63
0.00
-0.75
-1.50
-2.00
-1.13
-0.25
0.63
-1.50
-1.50
1.50
-0.63
0.25
y3
2.00
1.50
0.75
0.75
X2
1.50
0.00
-0.75
0.00
-0.75
-1.50
-1.50
-0.75
0.00
0.75
1.50
-1.50
-2.00
-1.13
-0.25
y2
0.63
1.50
y3
1.50
1.50
0.63
X3
0.63
X3
X2
1.13
y1
-0.25
-1.13
-1.13
-2.00
-1.50
-0.25
-0.63
0.25
1.13
-2.00
-1.50
2.00
-0.75
0.00
y2
y1
144
0.75
1.50
1.50
X3
0.63
-0.25
-1.13
-2.00
-2.00
-1.13
-0.25
0.63
1.50
y3
Figure 5.100: Canonical correlations paired variables X and Y
Based on the higher values of R-squared, the lower values of Wilks’ lambda, and the plot
of the comparisons between both set of variables; X1 with Y1 and X2 with Y2 represents the
higher canonical correlations. The final linear correlations are:
0.168971 Quality = -0.56359 (% motivation) + 0.66782 (% turnover)
0.388542Labor Prod = 0.918757 (% absenteeism) + 0.578530 (% posture)
-0.642927 (%E. of movements) + 0.1447 (% satisfaction)
5.12 CONCLUSIONS OF THE CHAPTER
Diverse cases of ergonomic improvements and their relationship with Business
Performance Measures were presented through this chapter; different graphs summarized the
results of field research obtained through questionnaires and checklist and a brief explanation of
the characteristics of the sample of workers taken in every company were listed. The ergonomic
difficulties that the companies deal with were also presented linked with the ergonomic
improvements that solve the problem. To see more clearly the importance of ergonomics the
cost-benefit analysis was also shown. A table that links the ergonomic improvements with the
145
BPMs and the cost – benefit of every single improvement applied in the maquiladora
manufacturing industries was presented. An inference was done using canonical correlation
analysis; in that analysis the quality is strictly related with the levels of motivation and turnover;
the labor productivity is related with the absenteeism, posture, economy of movements and
worker satisfaction. In other words, using the available data and under the assumption that
motivation and satisfaction are two issues that are related with the well-being; and at the same
time motivation and satisfaction interact with the absenteeism and turnover rates; the final
conclusion using canonical correlation was that labor productivity is related with motivation,
satisfaction, changes in posture and the economy of movements. Quality is more related with
motivation and satisfaction. The following points summarized the final conclusions of the cases.
•
Motivation at work of the workers of MWT is low; the company obtained very low grades
in the ergonomic checklist evaluation; it showed problems in every ergonomic evaluation
and according with the 75% of the sample of workers taken for this study no improvements
can be perceived from the management. The company has obtained good results in some
of the processes by the integration of ergonomic improvements and the recovery of
investment have been materialized in less than a year; with an investment of US$15,752.61
and benefit of US$32,725.00, ergonomics improvements increase the quality at work, the
health but only in one area of the company; with all these information the general
assumption is that the goodness of ergonomic improvements in motivation is evident and
the impact in BPM is real but there are still many areas of opportunities where the
ergonomic improvements can be applied.
•
An example of the relationship of good ergonomic improvements that greatly impact
health, motivation, satisfaction at work and well-being; and with minimum investment and
savings of US$49,200.00 is the case of ACE; as is shown in table 5.13. The company is
146
about to start a program of safety and ergonomics in all the lines of production of harnesses
as pilot program; even when the overall evaluation of the ergonomic conditions shown 70%
of positive answers and only 30% of negative.
•
The company WBG showed a distinctive phenomenon among the other companies of the
research. Good grades in all the ergonomic evaluations; operators give many suggestions
regarding positive improvements that could increase the motivation and well-being while
working; these improvements were totally different to the necessity of more salaries or
more break times. Unfortunately, the sample size of the operators was only 6; this number
corresponds to the number of elements beneficiated with a very evident ergonomic
improvement. The conclusions of this company are that a larger number of workers need
to be taken in consideration in order to know the real state of health and well-being of the
personnel. It is also noticeable that the investment in the ergonomic improvements resulted
in a good revenue for the company and also reduction of fatigue and workload to the
operators affected by these improvements.
•
The assumption obtained from the company FRTF is that ergonomic improvements may
upgrade the processes, increasing the health and well-being of workers; some of the times
the changes are not evident and is by recollecting suggestions of operators or when any
accident occurs where ergonomic studies and engineering analysis are launched.
Motivation, satisfaction, ergonomic evaluations and perception of improvements by the
operators are positively rated. The margin of revenue compared with other companies is
less; but the investment was also minimum according with the production. The final
conclusion in this case is that ergonomic improvements can be preventive and not always
corrective issues.
147
•
In the case of CBC, DAE the conclusions were that motivation is more related with the
ergonomic improvement non related with the salaries; in the case of CBC the percentage of
management improvements perceived by workers is 40% yes and 60% no and the
motivation was medium; in the case of DAE, the percentage of management improvements
perceived by workers was 100% yes and the motivation at work was high. In the case of
CBC the request of changes in machinery and equipment; environmental issues; work
method and safety issues was considerably high; being in the case of DAE only the salary
request considered as high. The final conclusion of these two cases is that the salary is an
issue that can be neglected and has very little relation with the motivation of workers.
•
In all the cases the request for increase in salaries and break times exist. The most natural
assumption is that by nature the workers always will request more economical and rest
benefits if the options is presented to them.
•
Overall cost- benefit analysis of the ergonomic improvements applied in the sample of
maquiladora manufacturing industries of this research; it is clear that it is very profitable
the implementation of ergonomic improvements; specially in those cases where the
ergonomic problems are evident. The cost of the ergonomic improvements represents the
17.98% of the revenues obtained.
148
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations
The analysis of results is performed in this chapter by the integration of all data under a
criticizing procedure. The chapter is split in two main sections; the first section covers the
conclusions acquired after the analysis of the data gathered in the previous chapter of the
previous chapter. The second section corresponds to the recommendations given for future
studies in the areas where very some more information can be gathered and more research can be
performed.
Every assumption while analyzing the data born from the initial hypothesis that the
ergonomic improvement of any kind applied in a workstations will have a positive impact in the
work motivation; work satisfaction; worker health and well-being of the workers and operators
of the maquiladora manufacturing industry; but at the same time these improvements will have a
positive effect in the Business Performance Measures of the maquiladora industries.
6.1 CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions of this research are summarized in the following points:
•
The binational area of El Paso and Juarez is a growing metroplex where many
maquiladora manufacturing industries have been installed and creating a very important
economical activity in both sides of the border.
•
The benefit from the application of ergonomics in health and well-being is clear; but the
employers do no apply ergonomics just to improve the quality at work of the employees;
the real objective is to improve the Business Performance Measures with ergonomics.
•
The outsourcing in the United States of some industrial activities in the recent years have
impact in the injuries and illness indicators in countries like China, India or Mexico;
creating the necessity to reduce those indicators through ergonomics.
149
•
In those companies where successful ergonomic improvement programs have been
applied also lean techniques have been applied, so it is very common see a combination
of ergonomic with some other techniques such as 5’s, SMED, poka yoke, etc.
•
Automation is one of the first options to more commonly improve methods, especially in
those companies where the material handling is considerable high and ergonomics only
solve few problems in methods or economy of movements. In the majority of cases
addressed in this research automation help to solve some ergonomic issues like bad
postures, transportations, safety issues among others; following the definition of
ergonomics; all the cited outcomes can be addressed as ergonomic improvements that
impact worker health and well-being.
•
Ergonomic improvements resulted in good revenue for the company and also reduction of
fatigue and workload to the operators affected by these improvements. Salary is an issue
that can be disregarded and in some of the cases have very little relation with the
motivation and satisfaction of the workers.
•
Age and gender of the workers is a factor that is important to take in consideration when
an increment in motivation and satisfaction is expected. The border region creates an
environment where there are many maquiladoras to work, so for ranges of ages within 18
to 30 years old motivation can be improved by increasing the salary wages; for ranges
from 30 to more years; motivation can be increased by modification the health and wellbeing. Satisfaction can be a combination of both ergonomic improvements and salary
increase.
•
Using the data available; the canonical correlation shows that labor productivity is related
with the absenteeism, posture, economy of movements and worker satisfaction. In other
words, using the available data and under the assumption that motivation and satisfaction
are two issues that are related with the well-being; and at the same time motivation and
satisfaction interact with the absenteeism and turnover rates. Quality is more related with
150
motivation and satisfaction; Quality can be also be related with other factors such as
environmental issues; but due to the lack of data can not be estimated in this research.
The final conclusion of this research is that the implementation of ergonomic
improvements have a long term effect in the health of the workers; through ergonomics many
illnesses can be prevented; the motivation is increased; unsafely issues are eliminated or
controlled (depending the case); sometimes these benefits are not easily perceived by workers;
but with a deeply analysis these benefits are evident. The number of companies that implement
ergonomics as preventive actions are much reduced; the execution of ergonomics is initiated by
labor laws requisition; when accidents occurred or when unsafely conditions in the work
environment are evident; in this case are considered corrective actions. In all the cases of this
study ergonomic improvements are very profitable for the company; impacting positively the
Business Performance Measures of the maquiladora industry. In conclusion, the implementation
of ergonomics in any way; impacts positively the health and well-being, motivation and
satisfaction of the workers of any maquiladora industry and at the same time impacts the
Business Performance Measures in some degree lucrative for the company.
Ergonomics
becomes a tool to create the relation win to win between workers and management.
6.2 FUTURE RESEARCH
In this section recommendations for future research are presented. Due to the limitations
presented in chapter 3 this research has some constraints that can be eliminated if a more specific
analysis is performed. The main recommendations are listed below:
The first limitation faced in this study was the availability of data; in order to validate the
results of this research, the sample size of the maquiladoras taken for the study need to be larger
enough. If possible, a study of maquiladora companies with the same characteristics and in the
151
same areas has to be performed; in order to have the same factors and create a correlation
between them. For future research, the education of workers, age, lifestyle an gender have to be
more extensively considered with a larger sample of workers per maquiladora industry. Also in
the canonical correlation more correlations can be performed and more numerical data need to be
input in the X and Y matrices.
152
References
Banaag, J.C. (2007). Evolution of Ergonomics program Honda of America. Retrieved Feb 1,
2007 from http://www.ergoexpo.com/EECE/indutrial.htm
Biolchin, J. & Liebl, S. (2003). Creating big ergonomic improvements with limited budget.
Applied Ergonomics 7 (5), 78-111.
Buggie, F. D. (1982). Strategies for new product development. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 15 (2), 21- 31.
Bucholtz, G. & Schneider, F. (1999). Integrating ergonomics with Lean Manufacturing. Applied
Ergonomics 34, 163-204.
Burri, G.J. & Helander, M.G. (1991). A field study of productivity improvements in the
manufacturing of circuit boards. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26, 114-116.
Cambridge Advanced Learner Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2007, from
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.oop?searched=health.
Carver, C.S. & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective
responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 319–333.
Corr, P.J. (2004). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality, Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews 14, 317–332.
De Lange, A.H., Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J., Houtman, I.L.D. & Bounger P.M. Bongers
(2002). Effects of stable and changing demand-control histories on worker health. Scandinavian
Journal of Work, Environment & Health 13 (2), 94–108.
Dekeyser, V. (1992). Why field studies?. In: M.G. Helander and M. Nagamachi, Editors, Design
for Manufacturability, Taylor and Francis, London 8, 128-134.
Delaney, K., Morgeson, F.P. ( 2004). Self-Presentation Processes in Job Analysis: A Field
Experiment Investigating Inflation in Abilities, Tasks and Competncies, Journal of Psychology,
6, 674-686.
El Paso Texas County (2008, February 14). City of El Paso information. Retrieved March 6,
2008, from http://www.elpasotexas.gov/_documents/pachet%206%20manufacturing.pdf
Elden, M. (1986). Sociotechnical systems ideas as public policy in Norway: empowering
participation through worker-managed change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 16 (9),
239–255.
Elliot, A.J. & Thrash, T.M. (2002). Approach–avoidance motivation in personality: approach and
avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10, 804–818.
153
Employment labor law (2008). General worker compensation question, retrieved May 11, 2008,
from http://employment-law.freeadvice.com/workers-comp/workers-comp-fillingtime.html.
Encyclopedia
Britannica
online.
(n.d.).
Retrieved
January
http://www.encyclopediabritannicaonline/search?query="quality"&act.
5,
2007,
from
Freivalds, A. (2006).
Forms and checklists.
Retrieved March 5, 2007, from
http://www2.ie.psu.edu/freivalds/courses/ie327classic/forms.htm
Garvin D.A. (1984). Product quality: an important strategic weapon, Business Horizons, 27 (3),
40-43
Gomez, R. & Gomez, A. (2005). Convergent, discriminate and concurrent validities of measures
of the behavioral approach and behavioral inhibition systems: confirmatory factor analytic
approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 87–102.
Hasselquist, R.J. (1981). Increasing manufacturing productivity using human factors principles.
In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, The Human Factors
Society, Santa Monica, CA 14 (4), 204–206.
Hodgkinson, G.P. & Crawshaw, C.M. (1999). Hierarchical task analysis for ergonomics
research: An application of the method to the design and evaluation of sound mixing consoles.
Applied Ergonomics, 289-299.
Houser, R. , Russel, G. R. & Miles. M.P. (1998). The Definition and perception of quality in
ISO9000 forms 19 (1), 215-288.
Huselid, M.A. & Day, N.E (1991). Organizational commitment, job involvement and turnover:
A substantive and methodological analysis. Journal of applied Psychology 76 (3), 361-391.
Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (2000, September 2). Ley Federal del IMSS. Retrieved
December 10, 2007, from http://idse.imss.gob.mx/imss/documentos/ley001.pdf.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica (2007, March 5). Informacion
economica del estado de Chihuahua.
Retrieved November 12, 2007, from
http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/metodologias/registro/economica/sm_eime.pdf.
Lewis, R.J., Krawiec, M., Confer, E., Agopsowicz, D., Crandall, E.(2002). Musculoskeletal
disorder worker compensation costs and injuries before and after and office ergonomics
program. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29 (2), 95-99.
Love, T. & Schneider, F. (1998). Ergonomic improvements reducing risk and Cycle time.
Applied Ergonomic 12, 74-92.
Maynes, A.V. (1998). Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in
multilevel analysis. Journal of Public Health 8 (4), 216–222.
Merriam Webster dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2007, from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary(maquiladora).
154
National Council of the Industry Maquiladora of Export (2006, November 10). Publications of
the
maquiladora
environment.
Retrieved
May
5,
2007,
from
http://www.cnime.org.mx/english/publications/environment.htm
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2008, January 1). OSHA audits relevance.
Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/stlowadisp.showdocument?tablesstandarizep_id=9763.
Quinn, D., Baughn, R. (1991). The ergonomic redesign of a packaging workstation for
automotive component parts. In: W. Karwowski and J.W. Yates. Advances in Industrial
Ergonomics and Safety III, Taylor & Frances, London, 5, 549–553.
Rasmussen, J. (1992). Use of field studies for design of work stations for integrated
manufacturing systems. In: M.G. Helander and M. Nagamachi, Editors, Design for
Manufacturability, 6, 85-102.
Redinger, C.F. & Levine, S.P. (1998).Development and evaluation of the Michigan occupational
health and safety management system assessment instrument: A universal OHSMS performance
measurement tool. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 59, 572–581.
Reilly, B., Paci, P. & Holl, P. (1995). Unions, safety committees and workplace injuries. British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 33, 275–288.
Robson, L., Clarke, J., Cullen, K., Bielecky, A., Severin, C., Bigelow, P., Irvin, E., Culyer, A.,
Mahood, Q., (2005). The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management systems: a
systematic review. Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, Canada.
S.L. Gable, S.L. Reis, H.T. & Elliot, A.J. (2000). Behavioral activation and inhibition in
everyday life, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6, 1135–1149.
Sen, R.N. & Yeow, P.H.P. (1999). Ergonomic study on printed circuit assembly lines for better
productivity and quality. In: M.A Hanson, E.J. Lovesey and S.A. Robertson. Contemporary
Ergonomics 1999, Taylor & Francis, London 4, 38–42.
Sen, R.N. & Yeow, P.H.P. (2003). Ergonomic weighted scores to evaluate critical instructions
for improvements in a printed circuit assembly factory. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing 14, 41–58.
Short, M. (1981). Improvement of Workstations for Subassemblies for Copier Machines. IBM
Corporation, Department of Industrial Engineering and Manufacturing Support, Boulder, CO.
Stuhlreyer, B. & Kerst, J. (2001). Fast track ergonomic design. Applied Ergonomics, 264-248.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2005, February 12). Data bases and
Information
resources.
Retrieved
December
9,
2007,
from
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ergonomics.
155
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2005, February 12). Data bases and
Information
resources.
Retrieved
December
9,
2007,
from
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ergonomics.
Torp, S., Riise, T. & Moen, B.E. (2001). The impact of psychosocial work factors on
musculoskeletal pain: a prospective study. Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine 25
(5), 120–126.
Van der Linden, D., Taris, T.W., Beckers, D.G. (2007). Reinforcement sensitiviy theory and
occupational health: BAS and BIS on the job, Personality and Individual Differences. Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 16, 1127-1138.
Vaughan, T. & Haudrich, D. (2004). Aventis Pharmaceutical lowers injury rates and costs.
Applied Ergonomics 33, 52-66.
Wasek, R. & Wynn, M. (2004). Optimizing worker health and productivity in silicone
processing. Applied Ergonomics 21(6), 120-127.
Whysall, Z., Haslam, R.A.& Haslam, C. (2006). Reducing the risk of work-related
musculoskeletal disorders: processes, barriers, and outcomes of ergonomics consultancy, Applied
Ergonomics 2, 343–351.
Wing, J., Gross, G. & Love, Z. (2002).
Ergonomics 9, 121-135.
Injury Reduction through Ergonomics.
Applied
Yeow, P.H.P. & Sen, R.N. (1999). Ergonomic improvements on the manual insertion line of a
multimedia printed circuit assembly factory. In: L. Straker and C. Pollock,: The Second
International Cyberspace Conference on Ergonomics, International Ergonomics Association
Press, 711–721.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. & Parasuraman, A. (1988). The service-quality puzzle, Business
Horizons 31 (5), 35-43.
156
Appendix
A1. QUESTIONNAIRE OF OPERATORS (ENGLISH VERSION)
Company:_____________________ Position:_____________ Age: _________ Gender: M__F__
Weight:____ Height:_____ Right handed____ Left handed____ Current experience:________ years/months
Previous experience: ____________years/months
Workstation:_____ Job satisfaction: High ___ Medium___ Low___
Work Motivation: High ___ Medium____ Low ___
Personal protective equipment: Safety glasses ___ hard hat___ Safety shoes__ ear plugs___ Other___
Please DO NOT write your name in this questionnaire.
Instructions: Answer the questions or check the answer according with your own experience in the job. Each
question has different answers, so read carefully each sentence before answer it. If you consider that the answers
can not be applied to your job; please select the option N/A, or select the option “OTHER” whenever necessary.
1.
Do you think that your job is:
Does not
apply
Very little
N/A
a. Monotonous
b. Tiring
c. Boeing
d. Discouraging
e. Unsafe
f. Other:__________
157
Little
Regular
Much
Too much
2.
Rate the state of your workstation according with the following characteristics:
Good
Regular
Bad
Does not apply
N/A
a. Lighting
b. heat
c. cold
d. Ventilation
e. Noise
f. Vibrations
g. Dust/gases
h. Humidity
i. Other______
3.
Have you perceived any improvement in the conditions in question 2 performed by the management.
Yes
Which ones?________________________________________________
Since when these changes were applied?_________________
No, never
158
4.
If the tasks that you perform DO NOT require the use of tools, machines or displays, please pass to
question 6. Do you think that tools in your workstation :
Does not apply
Yes
No
N/A
a.
Perform their function in a correct and efficient way?
b.
Have very little maneuverability
c.
Are heavy
d.
Are hard to use
e.
Require a lot of technique to be used
f.
Are exhausting and too much force is required to apply to use
them.
g.
Are hard to find
h. Other_________________________________
5. When working with machines:
Yes
a.
They perform their function in a correct and efficient way
b.
The data is hard to read and understand at the display
c.
Are easy to use because you have had enough training to use
them
d.
Every button, valve, handle or display is correctly identified
and you do know its function
e.
Every problem that shows up is easily fixed
159
No
Does not apply
N/A
f.
You use the personal protective equipment (gloves, lenses,
etc.).
g.
They have a maintenance Schedule.
6.
In your workstation:
Yes
No
Does not
apply
N/A
a. Is your work chair comfortable and adjustable in height?
b. Is the work table comfortable and adjustable in height?
c. Has your chair support for the back and feet?
d.
Do you have your tools and everything necessary to perform your tasks
within reach?
e.
The conveyor belt was set up to a comfortable speed for you to work?
f. Do you combine standing and sitting work?
g. Do you have a mat that cushions and lightens the standing work?
h.
While working in a standing position the Work table or the conveyor
belt was set to the elbows height?
i. Do you carry objects above your head?
j. Do you carry objects and/or tools for long periods of time in the same
position while working?
k.
You use your knees, feet, or legs to move objects in your job?
l. The weight that you lift is greater or closer to 51 Lbs?
160
7.
Do you warn your supervisor about possible improvements to the workstation, problems or situations that
make performing your job difficult and about possible risks to your health or well-being?
Yes
8.
No
why not?__________________________________________________
In the case that you made some suggestions to the company, how many of them were taken in consideration
and applied?
None
1 to 3 suggestions
More than 3 suggestions
9. Your Workstation has change since you began working in the company?
Yes
which changes?__________________________________________________________
No
why not?___________________________________________________________
10. Have you ever suffered any injury originated in the work place?
Yes
which injuries?__________________________________________________________
No
11. How many times have you missed work in the past two months?
Never
One time
1 to 3 times
More than 3 times
12. What is your overall grade of the workstation conditions?
Very good
good
regular
bad
13. What is your motivation level to perform your job?
Highly motivated
Moderately motivated
Little motivated
161
Not motivated at all
14. Which changes would increase the motivation and well-being level at the work?
Yes
No
Does not
apply N/A
Work method
Tools and/or machinery
Environmental conditions (heat, cold, noise,
humidity, etc.)
Elements of the workstation (chairs, tables,
conveyor belts, etc.)
Salaries and/or benefits
Break times
Safety issues (Personal Protective Equipment,
signals, etc.)
Others:_________________
15. Do you know how important your job and the activities that you perform to achieve the goals of the
company?
Yes
No
Why?__________________________________________________________
Why?___________________________________________________________
16.
Comments_________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________
162
A2. QUESTIONNAIRE OF OPERATORS (SPANISH VERSION)
Compañía:________________________ Puesto:__________________ Edad: _________
Genero: H____ M____ Peso:____ Estatura:_____ Diestro____ Zurdo____
Experiencia actual:________ años/meses
Experiencia previa:____________años/meses
Nombre de la estación de trabajo:___________________________
Satisfacción en el trabajo: Alta __ Media __ Baja __ Motivación en el trabajo: Alto __ Medio __ Bajo__
Equipo de proteccion personal: Lentes__Casco__ Zapatos de seguridad__ Tapones auditivos__ Otros ___
Por favor NO escriba su nombre en este cuestionario.
Instrucciones: Conteste las preguntas o marque la respuesta de acuerdo a su propia experiencia en el
trabajo. Cada pregunta es particular y las opciones de respuesta son diferentes; lea cuidadosamente cada
pregunta. Si considera que las opciones no se aplican en el trabajo seleccione la opción No Aplica N/A, o
marque la opción “Otro” cuando sea necesario.
1. Considera que su trabajo es:
No aplica
Muy poco
N/A
a. Monótono
b. Cansado
c. Aburrido
d. Desalentador
e. Peligroso
f. Otro:__________
163
poco
Regular
Mucho
Demasiado
2. Como considera que se encuentran las siguientes condiciones en tu estación de trabajo:
Buenas
Regulares
Malas
No aplica N/A
a. Iluminación
b. Calor
c. Frío
d. Ventilación
e. Ruido
f. Vibración
g. Polvos/gases
h. Humedad
i. Otro_______
3. Has percibido alguna mejora en las condiciones presentadas en la pregunta 2 por parte de la
gerencia.
Si
Cuales?________________________________________________
hace cuanto tiempo se aplico el cambio_________________
No, nunca
164
4. Si la actividad que realizas NO requiere el uso de herramientas o maquinas o indicadores
(displays), pasa a la pregunta 6.
Considera que las herramientas que utiliza en su trabajo:
Si
No
No
aplica
N/A
Si
No
No
aplica
N/A
h. Desempeñan su función correcta y eficientemente
i.
Son poco maniobrables
j.
Son pesadas
k. Difíciles de entender
l.
Se requiere mucha técnica para utilizarlas
m. Son agotadoras y/o se requiere fuerza para usarlas
n. Difíciles de conseguir
h. Otra_________________________________
5. Cuando trabaja con maquinas:
i.
Desempeñan su función correcta y eficientemente
j.
Difíciles de leer y/o entender las lecturas de los
indicadores
k. Son fáciles de usar porque tuvo suficiente entrenamiento
previo en ellas
165
l.
Cada botón, palanca o indicador esta identificado y
conoce su función
m. Sabe que hacer si alguna maquina muestra algun
problema en uno de los indicadores
n. Usa el equipo de proteccion personal (guantes, lentes,
etc.) para el uso de la maquina
o. Tienen un programa de mantenimiento
6
En la estación de trabajo:
Si
a. Su silla de trabajo es cómoda y ajustable en altura?
b. La mesa de trabajo es cómoda y ajustable en altura?
c. Tiene respaldo para la espalda y/o apoyo para los
pies? en caso de que realice el trabajo sentado(a)
f.
Tiene sus utensilios de trabajo a una distancia de
fácil alcance? (en caso de que se aplique)
g. La banda transportadora esta proa
h. ramada a una velocidad
cómoda para usted? (en caso de que se aplique)
f. Combina el trabajo de pie con el trabajo sentado?
g. Tiene algún tapete que amortigüe y aligere el
166
No
No
aplica
N/A
cansancio mientras trabaja de pie?
h. Mientras trabaja de pie, la mesa o la banda transportadora,
esta a la altura de los codos?
i. Mientras trabaja, carga objetos por encima de su cabeza
j. Carga objetos y/o herramientas por largo tiempo y en una
misma posición de brazos mientras trabaja
k. Utiliza rodillas, pies o piernas para mover o levantar objetos
en tu trabajo
l. El peso que levantas es mayor o cercano a 23 kg.
7. Avisa usted a su supervisor o jefe directo de posibles mejoras; así como problemas o situaciones
que dificulten el desempeño de su actividad en la estación de trabajo, salud o bienestar?
Si
No
porque?__________________________________________________
8. En caso de haber hecho algunas sugerencias a la compañía, cuantas fueron tomadas en cuenta?
Ninguna
De 1 a 3 sugerencias
más de 3 sugerencias
9. Su estación de trabajo a sufrido algún cambio desde que empezó a trabajar en la empresa?
Si
cuales?__________________________________________________________
No
porque?___________________________________________________________
10. Ha sufrido alguna lesión, herida o enfermedad originada en el lugar de trabajo o como
consecuencia de las actividades que realiza en el?
Si
cuales?__________________________________________________________
No
11. Cuantas veces has faltado a tu trabajo en los últimos dos meses?
Ninguna
Una vez
De 1 a 3 veces
167
Mas de tres veces
12. En general, como calificaría las condiciones de su estación de trabajo?
Muy buenas
buenas
regulares
malas
13. Cual es su nivel de motivación para realizar su trabajo?
Motivación alta
Motivación regular
Motivación baja
Sin motivación
14. Que cambios aumentarían el nivel de motivación por el trabajo?
Si
No
No aplica
N/A
Método de trabajo
Herramientas y/o maquinaria
Condiciones ambientales (calor, frío,
ruido, humedad, etc.)
Elementos de la estación de trabajo (silla,
mesa, banda transportadoras, etc.)
Salario y/o prestaciones
Descansos y recesos
Aspectos de seguridad
(Equipo de
protección personal, señalización,etc.)
Otro:_________________
15. Conoce usted la importancia que tiene su trabajo y la actividad que realiza para alcanzar los
objetivos de la empresa?
Si
cual es?__________________________________________________________
No
porque?___________________________________________________________
16.
Comentarios_______________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
168
A.3 QUESTIONNAIRE OF SUPERVISORS (ENGLISH VERSION)
Company:___________________ Position:__________________ Age:________
Current Experience:_______(Years, months) Previous Experience:___________(Years, months)
Department/Area:________________________
Please DO NOT write your name in this questionnaire.
Instructions: Answer the questions or check the answer according with your own experience in the job.
Each question has different answers, so read each sentence carefully before answer it. If you consider
that the answers can not be applied to your job; please select the option N/A, or select the option
“OTHER” whenever necessary.
1. Have you ever applied any ergonomic improvement in the workstation? If not continue to
question 3.
Yes
No
Why?______________________
2. Which of the following ergonomic improvements have been applied in the company’s
workstations?
• Modifications of chairs, conveyor belts, or work tables _____
• Modifications in the height of tables and conveyor belts _____
• Modifications in the layout of every work table _____
• Implementation of new ergonomic designs of any kind_____
• Changes in lighting _____
• Changes in thermal conditions _____
• Changes in ventilation _____
• Changes in noise levels _____
• Changes in vibration levels _____
• Changes in humidity levels _____
• Changes in dust and/or gases levels _____
• Changes in the work method _____
• Change of tools _____
• Modifications in the current tools _____
• Changes in equipment _____
• Changes in the equipment displays _____
• Changes in the work load and decision making of the workers _____
• Other (Specify) ______________________________________________
169
3. Based in your answer of question 2, briefly explain the details of the ergonomic improvement
applied.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________
4. What kind of results did you obtain by applying those improvements?
• Increase of quality _____
• Increase of productivity _____
• Decrease of accidents/incidents _____
• Changes in the turnover rate _____
• Reduction of the delivery time of products to internal or external customers _____
• None_____
• Other (Specify)______________________________________________
5. How do you measure the performance in the workstation?
• Number of defective pieces ______
• Number of produced pieces ______
• Number of lots shipped ______
• Number of accidents ______
• Number of incidents ______
• Turnover rate ______
• Other (specify)_____________________________________
6. What kind of ergonomic improvements would you apply in order to positively impact the health
and well-being of the workers and at the same time the performance of the workstation?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________
7. According with your experience, sort from 1 to 5 the most impacted issues of the workers when
you applied ergonomic improvements (1 being the most impacted and 5 the least impacted).
• Health_____
• Comfort _____
• Safety _____
• Well-being _____
• Motivation ____
• Other (specify) _____
8. The product of the workstation has:
• Internal customers _____
• External customers _____
170
9. Do you think that the improvement of workers health and well-being positively affect the
Business Performance Measures (BPM) of the company (quality, production levels, sales,
insurance, etc.)?
Yes
No
If yes, describe the effect in the BPM
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
If no, why?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
10. What other factors affect the Business Performance Measures of the company? Are these factors
controllable or uncontrollable?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________
11.
Comments____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
171
A.4. QUESTIONNAIRE OF SUPERVISORS (SPANISH VERSION)
Compañía:___________________
Puesto:__________________
Fecha:______________________
Edad:________
Experiencia previa:___________(años, meses)
Experiencia actual:_______(años, meses)
Departamento/Area:________________________
Por favor NO escriba su nombre en este cuestionario
Instrucciones: Conteste las preguntas o marque la respuesta de acuerdo a su propia experiencia en el
trabajo. Cada pregunta es particular y las opciones de respuesta son diferentes; lea cuidadosamente cada
pregunta. Si considera que las opciones no se aplican en el trabajo seleccione la opción No Aplica N/A, o
marque la opción “Otro” cuando sea necesario.
1. Se han aplicado algunas mejoras ergonómicas en la estación de trabajo? Si su respuesta es no
pase a la pregunta 3.
Si
No
porque?_________________________________
2. Cual de las siguientes mejoras ergonómicas han sido aplicadas en las estaciones de trabajo de la
compañía
• Modificaciones a sillas, bandas transportadoras o mesas de trabajo _____
• Modificaciones a la altura de mesas o bandas transportadoras _____
• Modificaciones en la distribución de las mesas de trabajo _____
• Implementación de nuevos diseños ergonómicos de cualquier tipo_____
• Cambios en iluminación _____
• Cambios en las condiciones térmicas _____
• Cambios en la ventilación _____
• Cambios en los niveles de ruido _____
• Cambios en los niveles de vibración _____
• Cambios en los niveles de humedad _____
• Cambios en los niveles de partículas de polvo y/o gases _____
• Cambios en el método de trabajo _____
• Cambios en las herramientas ______
• Modificaciones a las herramientas existentes _____
• Cambios en la maquinaria ______
• Cambios en los controles de la maquinaria ______
• Cambios en los indicadores de las maquinas ______
• Cambios en la carga mental y toma de decisiones del trabajador ______
• Otras (especifique) _______________________________________
172
3. De acuerdo con la pregunta 2, especifique brevemente que mejoras se
aplicaron:______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________
4. Que clase de resultados se espero tener después de aplicar las mejoras ergonómicas en las
estación de trabajo:
• Incremento en la calidad ___________________
• Incremento en la productividad _____________________
• Decremento en los accidentes/incidentes ___________________
• Decremento en el ausentismo _________________
• Decremento en la rotación del personal ______________
• Reducción del tiempo de entrega de productos a clientes internos o externos_________
• Ninguno ________
• Otros (especifique) ____________________
5. Como mide el desempeño de la estación de trabajo?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Numero de piezas defectuosas ______________
Numero de piezas producidas _______________
Numero de lotes embarcados ______________
Numero de accidentes _______________
Numero de incidentes _______________
Porcentaje de ausentismo _______________
Otro (especifique) _______________________________
6. Que tipo de mejoras ergonómicas aplicaría para mejorar la salud y el bienestar de los trabajadores
y al mismo tiempo el desempeño de la estación de trabajo?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
173
7. De acuerdo a su experiencia, ordene del 1 al 5 las características de los trabajadores que mas son
impactadas cuando se aplican mejoras ergonómicas (Escriba 1 para la mas mejorada y 5 para la
menos mejoradas)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Salud ____________
Comodidad __________
Seguridad __________
Bienestar __________
Motivación ____________
Otro (especifique) _____________
8. El producto de la estación de trabajo tiene:
• Consumidores internos ____________
• Consumidores externos ____________
9. El mejoramiento de la salud y bienestar de los trabajadores afecta positivamente las medidas de
desempeño de la compañía (calidad, producción, ventas, pago de seguro, etc.)
Si
No
Si la respuesta es si, describa el efecto :
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Si la respuesta es No, porque?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
10. Que otros factores considera que afectan en las medidas de desempeño de la compañía? Son estos
factores controlables o incontrolables?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________
11. Comentarios
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
174
A.5 CONSENT FORM FOR OPERATORS (ENGLISH VERSION)
CONSENT FORM
The hypothesis to be tested in this research is that the ergonomic improvements applied
in the workstation positively affect the health and well being of the workers but also the business
performance measures (quality, productivity, revenues, etc.) of the maquiladora industry in the
area of El Paso/Juarez region. If this hypothesis is correct, further research will be carried out in
order to apply ergonomic improvements in the maquiladora binational area.
As volunteers you will help to gather consistent data to figure out the past state of the work
center, realize some of the needs that the workers had or have and the difficulties to perform their
job. At the same time get some reliable data to establish differences between the past and the
ergonomic improved state and to get and idea of the worker’s health and well being while
performing your task. Any personal information will be coded so that the confidentiality will be
preserved through out the entire research. Data will be used for research purposes only; all
information will be presented using codes, thus protecting your confidentiality.
The procedure is listed below:
1.
The first step consists in provide instructions regarding the consent form to the workers
in the manufacturing line or workstation, this information will cover a brief explanation,
confidentiality and purposes of the research.
2.
The second step consists in ask the workers to answer a questionnaire of 16 questions.
The tentative answering time of every questionnaire is 10 to 15 min.
175
3.
The third step consists in give the instructions and general information regarding the
format of the questionnaires, answering procedures and possible questions that may be
confusing to answer.
4.
A check list with different ergonomic issues will be fulfilled in order to have a wide idea
of the actual state of the workstation.
The results of the questionnaires will be statistical analyzed, and some correlation
analyses will be applied to this data.
As participants, no monetary compensation will be received or required at any time, all
activities are in a volunteer basis and will be schedule according with availability.
I have read and understood the information provided. I am aware of what I will be asked to
answer and that I may withdraw at any time.
Print name:_______________________________________________
Signature:________________________________________________
Date:____________________________________________________
176
A.6 CONSENT FORM FOR OPERATORS (SPANISH VERSION)
UNIVERSIDAD DE TEXAS EN EL PASO
FORMA DE CONSENTIMIENTO
La hipótesis que se probará en esta investigación es que las mejoras ergonómicas
aplicadas en el sitio de trabajo afectan positivamente la salud y el bienestar de los trabajadores
pero también las medidas de rendimiento de la compañía (calidad, productividad, réditos, etc.) en
la industria maquiladora en el área
del El Paso/Juárez. Si esta hipótesis es correcta,
investigación adicional será realizada para aplicar mejoras ergonómicas en el área binacional.
Como voluntario usted ayudará a recopilar datos consistentes para conocer el estado
actual del centro del trabajo, conocer algunas de las necesidades que los trabajadores tenían o
tienen y las dificultades para realizar su trabajo. Al mismo tiempo obtener ciertos datos
confiables para establecer diferencias entre el pasado y el estado mejorado de la estación de
trabajo.
Cualquier información personal será codificada para mantenerla anónima toda la
información recaudada durante la investigación. Los datos serán utilizados únicamente con
propósitos de investigación; toda la información será presentada usando códigos.
El procedimiento se enumera abajo:
1. El primer paso consiste adentro proporciona instrucciones con respecto a la forma del
consentimiento a los trabajadores en la línea de manufactura o estación de trabajo, esta
información cubrirá una breve explicación, del anonimato y propósitos de la investigación.
2. El segundo paso consiste en pedir a los trabajadores que contesten un cuestionario de 16
preguntas. El tiempo tentativo de cada cuestionario es 10 a 15 minutos.
177
3. El tercer paso consiste en dar las instrucciones y la información de carácter general con
respecto al formato de los cuestionarios, de los procedimientos para contestar y de las preguntas
posibles que pueden ser confusos contestar.
4. Una lista de verificación con diversas clasificaciones ergonómicas será llenada para tener una
idea amplia del estado real del sitio de trabajo.
Los resultados de los cuestionarios serán analizados estadísticamente, y algunos análisis de la
correlación serán aplicados a estos datos.
Como participantes, no recibirán ninguna remuneración monetaria en ningún momento, todas
las actividades son en una base voluntaria y serán en horarios de acuerdo con su disponibilidad.
He leído y he entendido la información proporcionada.
Estoy enterado de lo que me pedirán contestar y que puedo retirarme en cualquier momento.
Nombre:_______________________________________________________
Firma:_________________________________________________________
Fecha:___________________________________
178
A.7 CONSENT FORM FOR SUPERVISORS (ENGLISH VERSION)
CONSENT FORM
The hypothesis to be tested in this research is that the ergonomic improvements applied
in the workstation positively affect the health and well being of the workers but also the business
performance measures (quality, productivity, revenues, etc.) of the maquiladora industry in the
area of El Paso/Juarez region. If this hypothesis is correct, further research will be carried out in
order to apply ergonomic improvements in the maquiladora binational area.
As volunteers you will help to gather consistent data to figure out the past state of the
work center, realize some of the needs that the workers had or have and the difficulties to
perform their job. At the same time get some reliable data to establish differences between the
past and the ergonomic improved state and to get and idea of the worker’s health and well being
while performing your task. Any personal information will be coded so that the confidentiality
will be preserved through out the entire research. Data will be used for research purposes only;
all information will be presented using codes, thus protecting your confidentiality.
The procedure is listed below:
1. The first step consists in provide instructions regarding the consent form to supervisors or
engineers in charge of
the manufacturing line, this information will cover a brief
explanation, confidentiality and purposes of the research.
179
2. The second step consists in ask the engineers or supervisors of the line to answer a
questionnaire of 11 questions. The tentative answering time of every questionnaire is 10
to 15 min.
3. The third step consists in give the instructions and general information regarding the
format of the questionnaires, answering procedures and possible questions that may be
confusing to answer.
4. A check list with different ergonomic issues will be fulfilled in order to have a wide idea
of the actual state of the workstation.
The results of the questionnaires will be statistical analyzed, and some correlation
analyses will be applied to this data.
As participants, no monetary compensation will be received or required at any time, all
activities are in a volunteer basis and will be schedule according with availability.
I have read and understood the information provided. I am aware of what I will be asked
to answer and that I may withdraw at any time.
Print name:_______________________________________________
Signature:________________________________________________
Date:____________________________________________________
180
A.8 CONSENT FORM FOR SUPERVISORS (SPANISH VERSION)
UNIVERSIDAD DE TEXAS EN EL PASO
FORMA DE CONSENTIMIENTO
La hipótesis que se probará en esta investigación es que las mejoras ergonómicas
aplicadas en el sitio de trabajo afectan positivamente la salud y el bienestar de los trabajadores
pero también las medidas de rendimiento de la compañía (calidad, productividad, réditos, etc.) en
la industria maquiladora en el área
del El Paso/Juarez. Si esta hipótesis es correcta,
investigación adicional será realizada para aplicar mejoras ergonómicas en el área binacional.
Como voluntario usted ayudará a recopilar datos consistentes para conocer el estado
actual del centro del trabajo, conocer algunas de las necesidades que los trabajadores tenían o
tienen y las dificultades para realizar su trabajo. Al mismo tiempo obtener ciertos datos
confiables para establecer diferencias entre el pasado y el estado mejorado de la estación de
trabajo.
Cualquier información personal será codificada para mantenerla anónima toda la
información recaudada durante la investigación. Los datos serán utilizados únicamente con
propósitos de investigación; toda la información será presentada usando códigos.
El procedimiento se enumera abajo:
1. El primer paso consiste adentro proporciona instrucciones con respecto a la forma del
consentimiento a los supervisores a cargo de la linea de manufactura o estación de trabajo, esta
información cubrirá una breve explicación, del anonimato y propósitos de la investigación.
2. El segundo paso consiste en pedir a los supervisores que contesten un cuestionario de 11
preguntas. El tiempo tentativo de cada cuestionario es 10 a 15 minutos.
181
3. El tercer paso consiste en dar las instrucciones y la información de carácter general con
respecto al formato de los cuestionarios, de los procedimientos para contestar y de las preguntas
posibles que pueden ser confusos contestar.
4. Una lista de verificación con diversas clasificaciones ergonómicas será llenada para tener una
idea amplia del estado real del sitio de trabajo.
Los resultados de los cuestionarios serán analizados estadísticamente, y algunos análisis
de la correlación serán aplicados a estos datos.
Como participantes, no recibirán ninguna remuneración monetaria en ningún momento,
todas las actividades son en una base voluntaria y serán en horarios de acuerdo con su
disponibilidad. He leído y he entendido la información proporcionada. Estoy enterado de lo que
me pedirán contestar y que puedo retirarme en cualquier momento.
Nombre:_______________________________________________________
Firma:_________________________________________________________
Fecha:___________________________________
182
A.9 ERGONOMIC CHECKLIST
ERGONOMIC CHECKLIST
MACHINE EVALUATION
YES
NO
DOES
NOT
APPLY
1. Are handles, wheels, and levers designed for best mechanical advantage?
2. Are fixtures used to, avoid holding with the hand?
3. Are guards or interlocks used, to prevent unintended entry?
4. Are different colors used for different controls?
5. Are controls clearly labeled?
6. Are shape and texture coding used for tactual identification?
7. Are power-on controls designed to prevent accidental activation?
8. Are activation controls colored green?
9. Are emergency controls designed for quick activation?
10. Are stop buttons protruding?
11. Are emergency controls large and easy to activate?
12. Are emergency controls easily reachable?
13. Are emergency controls visible and colored red?
14. Are emergency controls placed away from other normally used controls?
15. Are primary controls placed in front of the operator at elbow height?
16. Are three or less foot pedals utilized?
17. Are foot pedals located at floor level, to avoid raising the leg?
18. Is a sit/stand stool provided for extended foot pedal operation?
T
O
T
A
L
S
1. A suboperation has been eliminated?
a. As unnecessary?
b. By a change in the order of the work?
c. By a change of tools or equipment?
d. By a change in layout of the workplace?
e. By combining tools?
f. By a slight change of material?
g. By a slight change in product?
h. By a quick-acting clamp on the jigs or fixtures?
2. A suboperation has been made easier?
a. By better tools?
b. By changing leverages?
c. By changing positions of controls or tools?
183
0 0
YES
NO
0
DOES
NOT
APPLY
d. By better material containers?
e. By using inertia where possible?
f. By lessening visual requirements?
g. By better workplace heights?
3. A movement has been eliminated?
a. As unnecessary?
b. By a change in the order of work?
c. By combining tools?
d. By a change in tools or equipment?
e. By a drop disposal of finished material?
4. A movement has been made easier?
a. By a change in layout, shortening distances?
b. By changing the direction of movements?
c. By using different muscles?
5. A holding has been eliminated?
a. As unnecessary?
b. By a simple holding device or fixture?
6. A hold has been made easier?
a. By shortening its duration?
b. By using stronger muscle groups, such as the legs with foot-operated vises?
7. Are the joints maintained in a neutral position (most are straight, elbow is at 90E)?
8. Is the work or load held close to the body?
9. Are forward bending postures avoided?
10. Are twisting postures of the trunk avoided?
11. Are sudden movements or jerks avoided?
12. Are static postures avoided? i.e., Are there changes in posture?
13. Are excessive reaches avoided?
14. Are the hands utilized in front of the body?
T
O
T
A
L
S
0 0
YES
TASK EVALUATION
NO
0
DOES
NOT
APPLY
1. Are materials and tools placed within the normal working area?
2. Are gravity bins and drop deliveries utilized?
3. Are tasks carried out below shoulder level and above knuckle height?
4. Are lifts performed slowly with knees bent?
5. Are mechanical assists or additional help utilized for loads exceeding 50 pounds?
6. Are frequent, short rest breaks provided?
T
O
T
A
L
S
184
0 0
0
YES
TOOL EVALUATION
NO
DOES
NOT
APPLY
1. Does the tool perform the desired function effectively?
2. Does the tool match the size and strength of the operator?
3. Can the tool be used without undue fatigue?
4. Does the tool provide sensory feedback?
T
O
T
A
L
S
0 0
YES
NO
0
DOES
NOT
APPLY
1. Is there agreement between management and labor on general principles?
2. Is there a sound foundation of job evaluations and wage rate structures?
3. Are there individual, group, or plant-wide incentives?
a. Is the most weight applied to individual incentives?
4. Are incentives in direct proportion to increased production?
5. Is the plan as simple as possible?
6. Is quality tied in with the incentives?
7. Are the establishment of incentives preceded by methods improvements?
8. Are the incentives based on proven techniques
a. From detailed time studies?
b. From basic motion data or predetermined time systems?
c. From standard data or formulas?
9. Are the standards based on standard performance under normal conditions?
10. Are standards changed when methods change?
a. By mutual agreement between management and labor representatives?
11. Are temporary standards kept to a minimum?
12. Are basic hourly rates guaranteed?
13. Are incentives established for indirect workers?
14. Are accurate records of piece counts, unmeasured work, setup, and downtime kept?
15. Are human relations maintained?
T
O
T
A
L
S
ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION
1. Is the illumination sufficient for the task?
2. Is there general lighting, as well as supplementary lighting?
3. Are the workplace and lighting arranged so as to avoid glare?
a. Are direct luminaires placed away from the field of vision?
185
0 0
YES
NO
0
DOES
NOT
APPLY
b. Do the luminaires have baffles or diffusers?
c. Are work surfaces laid out perpendicular to the luminaires?
d. Are surfaces matted or nonglossy?
4. If necessary, are screen filters available for computer monitors?
5. Is the worker within the thermal comfort zone?
6. Are procedures in place for the control of potential heat stress conditions?
c. Is ventilation provided?
d. Is the air dehumidified?
e. Is air-conditioning provided?
7. Is the worker adequately clothed for the equivalent wind chill temperature?
8. Are auxiliary heaters provided?
9. Are gloves provided? . .
10. Are ventilation levels acceptable?
11. If necessary, are local fans provided for workers?
12. For local heat sources, is spot cooling provided?
13. Are noise levels below 90 dBA?
a. If the noise levels exceed 90 dBA, is there sufficient rest such that the 8-hour
dose
Is less than 100%?
14. Are noise control measures in place?
a. Is the noise controlled at the source with better maintenance, mufflers, & rubbes?
b. Is the noise source isolated?
15. If there is vibration, can the vibration-causing sources be eliminated?
16. Have vibration absorbing handles been attached to power tools?
17. Have resilient, fatigue-resistant mats been supplied to standing operators?
T
O
T
A
L
S
0 0
0
T
O
T
A
L
S
0 0
0
1. Is the chair easily adjustable according to the following features:
a. Height and slope
b. Footrest
c. Distance from table
2. Has the chair been adjusted properly?
a. Is there approximately a 90E angle between the trunk and thigh?
b. Is the lumbar area of the back support in the small of the back (~ belt line)?
c. Is there sufficient legroom (i.e., to the back of the workstation)?
3. Is the workstation surface adjustable?
4. Is sitting alternated with standing or walking?
5. Is a sit/stand stool (adjustable in height) provided?
186
Curriculum Vita
Santiago Eduardo Segovia Villarreal was born in San Francisco del Oro, Chihuahua,
Mexico on October the 20th. of 1982. Son of Lucila Alicia Villarreal Caballero, he spent all of
his childhood at Parral, Chihuahua, Mexico, where he accomplished almost all of his studies. He
completed his undergraduate degree with honors at the Instituto Tecnologico de Parral on
Industrial Engineering with a minor in Productivity and Quality. Due to his outstanding
achievements he was considered within the top 50 engineers of the Institutos Tecnologicos and
spent a summer Queretaro, Mexico performing research studies in the area of quality of
materials at the Non-destructive Test of Materials Department; working for companies such as
Volkswagen and General Motors. Began his master degree in Industrial Engineering with minor
in quality Engineering. During his graduate studies, he worked as Teaching Assistant in the
Mechanical and Industrial Department. On 2007, he got an internship with Mid-West Textile
Company where he could apply his college education as a Project engineer.
Permanent address: 5115 N. Mesa St. Apt. A-107
El Paso, Texas, 79902.
This thesis was typed by Santiago Eduardo Segovia Villarreal.
187

linking worker health and well-being with business performance

Transcription

Similar documents

ERGONOMIC SYSTEM ANALYSIS OF ROAD TRANSPORTATION

View Free PDF - IRMA

OSKU. Digital Human Model in the Participatory Design Approach. A

Ergonomic Guidelines for Manual Material Handling

Interfax mobile gaming market presentation-rvsd IH

welcome to the active generation

HP AND EIZO IMAGING SOLUTIONS

AGI Remote Access Guide - Allianz Employee Remote Access

NEWSBRIEFS New law aims to make local school boards more

Satisfaction And Loyalty To Airlines In Mexico