PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 49th ANNUAL MEETING2005 837

ERGONOMICS IMPLEMENTATION,
THE RIGHT WAY AND THE WRONG WAY

Boris Povlotsky, Ph.D.,

ErgoNostic.com, LLC, Sarasota, FL

Abstract.

This paper illustrates some of authors views of the ergonomics implementation

challenges within diverse industries, manufacturing, office environments, and
machinery/product design. We intend to analyze and review the roots of problems
from different perspectives and recommend which ergonomics approaches are likely
to succeed or fail. Most importantly it is imperative to find the actual cause(s) of
obstacle(s) - problem(s) before looking for appropriate ergonomics solution(s) and
acceptance of ergonomics innovations by end users.
The presented material is based on the substantial authors experiences in human
factors engineering and ergonomics, in industry and academia and in various
countries.
Our objective is to present an integrated view of ergonomics within corporate
bureaucracy in the contexts of favorable and unfavorable environments - factors that
lead to success or failure.

Introduction.
The late Dr. Alphonse Chapanis asked Where
are you going ergonomics? Our questions are:
-Why ergonomic implementations succeed or fail?
-Why ergonomics, all ready recognized within
industry, is still ignored by corporate decision
makers?
-Are there deficiencies in ergonomics methods or
engineering tools to solve/prevent the work
environment problems?
-Are there any common causes in different
industries/corporations of ergonomics
implementation success and failure?
Two case studies are presented of successful
and unsuccessful ergonomics applications in
automobile manufacturing.
The most recent Ergonomicss boom started
during the 1980s triggered by computer use in
offices and labor union demand for better
occupational health and safety within
manufacturing.
The first of the two case studies reflects poor
use of ergonomics principles while designing and
launching new manufacturing facilities. This
case is a classical example of lack of management
appreciation of the value and uses of ergonomics.
The cost of failure was assembly line
operators injuries, high worker compensation
costs, worker compensation law suits, low
productivity and poor quality of work.
The other case study is a tribute to a more
appropriate approach to an ergonomics challenge.
The problems included expansion of a
manufacturing plant and a specific re-engineering
project within another manufacturing plant.
The key to avoid failure in ergonomics
application is to find integrated solutions
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 49th ANNUAL MEETING2005
developed by a team of ergonomists, engineers
and end users with the full cooperation and
management support.
Cases study overview.
Manufacturing Environment.
Despite of substantial differences of objective and
results of successful ergonomic implementation
the causes of application failure in most
manufacturing are the same.
We can hypothesize that in this time of debate
and bitter resistance to lean production, (Womack,
1990, Shingo, 1989) Western industry prefers for
some reasons ergonomics. In fact, ergonomics as
approach of improvement of work procedures,
safety and comfort is one of the major principles
of lean production.
Case Study No 1.
A new manufacturing plant for about up
to 2000 workers was built in a rural area to
produce a very profitable product (as marketing
specialists thought) by a low-cost of labor force.
The failure of a poor ergonomics approach began
right a way during the design, construction and
launching of the assembly lines production. The
failure of this poor implementation was very
recognizable and visible from day one of plant
operation. Many workers just couldnt operate the
hand tools and materials handling assists and quit.
The incidence of injuries and turnover was much
higher than the industry average. The failure in
ergonomics design and implementation resulted in
the employment of a very large work hardening
and rehabilitation approach for the relatively
young and enthusiastic workforce.
Within less than a year the market for plants
product became saturated and production was
switched from two shifts to one. At this time the
company , under union demand decided to hire an
ergonomics specialist. After less than a year the
company began to implement a plan for new
version of the product together with a new
conveyor line and tooling. Table 1 summarizes the
838
sources and effects of the problems.
Case Study 2.
This case study reflects a reactive ergonomics
approach and describes integrated analysis and
design during the re-engineering of a subassembly
line. Operators made many valuable suggestions
and facilitated a smooth transition to new tooling
and procedures. Face to face surveys, aided by a
specific questionnaire, optimized the assembly
process, eliminated many ergonomics risk factors,
and improved both the efficiency and quality of
work.
Ergonomics implementations were compliant
with the principles of lean production, including
team work, communication, elimination of waste,
and efficient use human resources, facilities and
materials. A significant result was a production
increase of 20% and operators accepted almost
100% of the re-engineering.
The project took place in a relatively new lean
manufacturing facility that produces vehicle
power train components. As with all new plants,
achieving a satisfactory line rate required a
learning period before the process matured. This
project needed to resolve a bottleneck (Figure 1.)
at the beginning of the main assembly line leading
to an output that was approximately 20 percent
less than expected. Several investigations turned
up a wide array of opinions and proposed
solutions to the bottleneck, each of which seemed
to be incompatible with the others. There was no
apparent single issue that accounted for the
problem. Each proposal focused on one aspect of
the problem. Often the source as well as the
corrective action proposed by the various
engineers, managers, and specialists seemed to be
dependent on their respective disciplines
(responsibilities/position). For example,
department supervisors claimed that social
loafing was the problem; engineers suggested
costly machinery and equipment change;
operators claimed that there was not enough
manpower assigned; and the unions ergonomics
representative cited fatigue related to a poorly
designed process as the fault.
Management was concerned with the need to
invest in capital equipment if the operators had
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 49th ANNUAL MEETING2005 839

Table 1.
Cause Factor Effect
Design criteria. Lack of space for
Cost reductions sidewalk and appropriate
1. Initial
without layout, as a result is a
design and
considering future congested traffic for
construction extension, layout, material and parts
and facilities. supply.
Management and - Plants ergonomist was
engineering staff hired one year after
2. Corporate was configured production launch
culture without IE and/or started.
ergonomist. - High cost of operation

Plant was built in - Recruiting

3.Staffing
rural area which inexperienced work Figure 1. A bottleneck of old operation.
lacked force
and
experienced - Higher than industry
recruiting
industrial workers average
injuries/turnover.
Design and/or - Lift assist equipment
selection without was bulky and heavy to
4.Tooling
preliminary operate
and lift
testing and user - Low productivity and
assists
approval quality
- Increased injuries
Parts supplys - Need for additional re-
container/racks orientation of parts for
5. Material
were designed by their installation.
handling
considering to -Increased cycle time
system
contain the bigger leading to operator
amount of parts. overload
Over reaction to This change became a
an accident and major cause of worker Figure 2. The new layout systems.
6.Unjustified injury happened complaints a new rash of
modification with one of the injuries and slowed
installation sub down assembly process. time to perform their individual tasks thus
contractors. favoring an administrative solution over an
engineering one. A time study revealed that the
Table 2. three operators involved, though independently
Object Approaches capable of performing their task at the rated
General - Expanding, - Combining, output, could not maintain the synchronization
Procedures- - Splitting, - Balancing, required, delaying the flow of parts through the
operations - Relocating, - Re-arrangement
department. These minute work stoppages accrued
Mechanization/automation design by
Separation the
simulation of operators activities,
throughout the shift.
most difficult What early on appeared to be "social loafing"
actions and motions.
elements of stemmed from a workers waiting for another
- Modernization of old machinery and
manual procedures operator's work to be completed. This diverted
implementation new methods
- Orientation of parts within rack/boxes attention toward undocumented work that had
Parts
- Parts pre-assembly and/or re-design escaped the initial standard time analysis. It was
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 49th ANNUAL MEETING2005
clear that time studies, process engineering, and
ergonomics engineering needed to be integrated
and detailed work flow analyses implemented.
This method of evaluation and problem-
solving later confirmed that the quality of
ergonomics investigations was an important factor
in the line throughput.
Based on efficiency improvements alone
(Figure 2) this project could be deemed
successful. The department has been capable of
producing the rated volume daily, representing a
15 percent improvement. This accomplishment
was largely due to eliminating or reducing the
difficulty found in several small tasks. This series
of small, integrated solutions equated to
ergonomics benefits without costly interventions.
A key factor in discovering a wealth of
improvements within this ergonomics re-
engineering opportunity was the deferential
analysis approach that was used. It was not until
ergonomics team changed perspective from one of
a series of independent machines/operations to
that of a socio-technical system, complete with an
array of human and technical interactions, that
began to make progress.
We would suggest that the concepts presented
in this case study could be applied in proactive
fashion to ensure good ergonomics results. One
measure of success is the level of acceptance of
change. Often ergonomic solutions fail because
they are not accepted by those that they are
intended to help. The reason that such potential
solutions fail is that they are derived in isolation.
Integration of all sources of knowledge and
information, especially workers experiences and
managements support, during the problem-
solving process leads to the right way of
ergonomics implementations.
REFERENCES.
Christensen, Clayton M., 2003, The Innovator's
Dilemma, HarperBusiness Essentials
Duffy, V.G. and Salvendy, G., 1999. The
impact of organizational ergonomics on work
effectiveness: with special reference to concurrent
engineering in Manufacturing industries.
840
Ergonomics, 92(4):614-637. Hancock, P.A.,
(Ed.), 1999. Human Performance and
Ergonomics, Academic Press
Peacock Brian, 2002, Measurement in
Manufacturing Ergonomics. In Samuel G.
Charlton and Thomas G. OBrien (Ed.) Handbook
of Human Factors Testing and Evaluation,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers pp 157-
180.
Povlotsky Boris, at al, 2001, Deferential
Analysis and Integrated, Solutions: Ergonomic
Re-Engineering of a Sub-Assembly Line, In
Alexander, David C. (EDT) /Rabourn, Randy
(EDT), Applied Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis
Published, pp. 48-59
Povlotsky, Boris, 1984. VDT Workstation:
New Approach to Occupational Ergonomics.
Proceedings of the 1984 International Conference
on Occupational Ergonomics
Povlotsky Boris, with a Foreword by Alphonse
Chapanis, 1989, The Case of Tractor and
Agricultural Machine, In Human Factors
Engineering in The Soviet Union, Delphic
Associates, Publisher. pp. 222-316
Shingo Shigeo, 1989. A Study of the Toyota
Production System from an Industrial Engineering
Viewpoint (rev.), Cambridge: Productivity Press
Wormack, J.P., Jones, D.T, Roos D., 1990. The
Machine That Changed the World. New York:
Harper Perennial.