The Role of Human Motivation in Quality Inspection of

Production Processes

Agnieszka Kujawińska1, Katarzyna Vogt1 and Adam Hamrol1

1
Poznan University of Technology, Institution of Production Engineering and Management,
Poznan, PL 60-965, Poland

Abstract. Despite fast technological progress, machine-oriented production so-

lutions and more demanding customer needs still human presence in production
is evident, important and needed. In quality inspection human uses own senses
when deciding about products quality. Decisive step is then the most complex
part of inspection with regard to big number of product attributes, variable at-
tributes and often limited possibility to measure product characteristics. Attrib-
ute inspection is much more difficult than control based on measurements and
figures. Effectiveness of attribute inspection is always lower than based on
measurements due to risk of human mistake during inspection. It can appear
two types of failures during inspection: defects overlooking, improper classifi-
cation. Human is unreliable part of inspection. One of key factors influencing
on inspection performance is motivation. Motivation types differs people. With
regard to that fact it is stated that human motives investigation needs to be car-
ried out already on personnel selection phase.

Keywords: Motivation · Quality Control · Effectiveness · Production Process

1 Introduction
The main goal of any production process is to deliver products that fulfill customer
demands and expectations. Nevertheless, production processes are not 100% reliable
and some nonconformities (defects) may occur. The consequences of nonconformities
include, among others, disruptions in the process rhythm, additional costs, and re-
duced product value. It is therefore necessary to introduce sufficient and effective
quality control tools and systems. Quality control should as quickly as possible detect
any defects in processes. The best methods include the use of automatic quality con-
trol systems. However, automatic control systems are frequently too expensive or not
reliable enough, and therefore quality control must be conducted manually. This is
especially necessary when quality control concerns the so-called attribute features,
like damages, scratches, lack of solder, paint, etc. The most popular method of exam-
ining these features and detecting possible nonconformities is the so called visual
control [1], [2], [3], [4].
One of the major advantages of visual inspection consists in its relatively low
costs, because in general, no specialized technical equipment is required. Human
senses, usually sight, are the measurement tool. Unfortunately, such inspection does
not guarantee a correct assessment. This is due to the fact that human senses cannot be
considered completely reliable. There are numerous factors which may affect a man’s
ability to assess the process quality properly. An important group includes individual
and social factors referring to physical, mental, and personal characteristics such as
age, intelligence, extraversion and type of motivation etc. [3], [4].
During the visual control two types of errors may occur: on the one hand, good
products may be classified as defective, and on the other, faulty items may be incor-
rectly classified as good. The probability of these two types of errors was selected as
an indicator of control process effectiveness. The paper describes the results of a
broad research, conducted in an automotive company in electronics manufacturing
process. Individual factors, such as motivation of inspectors, have been extensively
investigated in an attempt to identify the traits of the “perfect” inspector and to devel-
op personnel selection.

2 Quality Control - Term and Classification

Quality control is very important in businesses. The established experts of manage-
ment [5], [6], [7] recognize its role and refer to controlling as the fourth function of
management, next to planning, organizing and leading. The aim of controlling is to
compare the achieved process results with the intended target. There are different
manners in which control may be manifested and exercised. For example, it may be
institutionalized and formalized. Due to a predetermined phase or phases which com-
prise the job process, controlling may be exercised as preliminary control, ongoing
control, ad hoc control, or final control [5].
Among the different types of controlling in production companies, quality control
is of particular importance, as it aims at checking process or product compliance with
the requirements of an internal or external customer [5]. Most often, it consists in the
evaluation of one or more features of the product, and comparing the result with the
expectations.
Quality control may be divided into different types, one of them being the division
into the control of measurable (quantitative) and unmeasurable (qualitative) features
[5], [8]. Alternative product assessment is used when a direct or indirect measurement
of a given product feature, expressed with a numerical value, is either impossible,
difficult, or cost ineffective. The outcome of an alternative assessment does not pro-
vide information on the extent to which the examined feature complies with require-
ments; it is only the basis for a decision whether a given product may be considered
“good” or if it should be rejected and regarded as poorly made, “bad” (defective).
Therefore, the decision whether a product meets or fails to meet the specific require-
ments most often leads to the product being classified to one of the two (rarely more)
conditions.
Alternative control may be performed using specialized equipment, which classi-
fies products automatically (e.g. pattern-recognizing machines which verify PCBs and
the quality of soldered joints, devices evaluating the location and orientation of com-
ponents etc.), or it may be performed with the use of human senses only. The other
method is usually called organoleptic control. Visual inspection is a particular exam-
ple of such control.
 It is believed that visual inspection is economically viable, for it does not require
the use of any expensive equipment. Also, it is a non-destructive method, which
means that it does not cause any damage to the inspected product. However, while
using visual inspection and keeping in mind its strengths, one may not disregard the
weakness of the method: it is unreliable, and does not guarantee 100% correct as-
sessment [1].
There is a number of factors which affect both the efficiency and effectiveness of
visual inspection. They include technical and organizational factors, aspects related to
the work environment, and issues concerning the man [1], [2], [4], [6], [9], [10].
The technical factors are related to the physical performance of the inspection.
They include, for example, product features subject to inspection (e.g. their accessibil-
ity for visual inspection), the standards, according to which the product is controlled,
or the availability of tools used during the inspection. The organizational factors in-
clude, among others, the type and number of inspections to be performed, support in
the decision-making during the inspection, or the availability of information about the
efficiency and effectiveness of inspections. Workplace environment conditions are
associated with the workplace, where the inspection takes place. These include physi-
cal factors, such as lighting, noise, temperature, as well as the organization of the
workstation itself. The last group comprises factors related to the man. They are often
referred to as the psychophysical factors, which are associated with mental and physi-
cal features of inspectors [2], [3], [6], [8], [9], [10]. The factors include age, sex, intel-
ligence, temperament, health condition, and the type of motivation influencing the
employee.

3 Motivation as Determinant of Quality Control Efficiency

Motivation for work is a process taking place between superiors and subordinates,
where the behaviour of the latter is influenced for their actions to allow for the
achievement of previously established goals. Motivation is a complex issue, and it is
one of the most difficult functions of management. Although there are many theories
of motivation, in practice it is difficult to develop a universal motivating system
which could be successfully applied in any conditions [11], [12].
What is more, there is a plethora of definitions of motivation, which does not fa-
cilitate the understanding of the process [9]. According to literature motivation may
be understood, among others, as a set of factors that direct human energy and
behaviour (or preparedness) toward particular action [11], [12], [13].
Haber [12] defines motivation as manager's personal approach to an employee, in-
vestigating the employee’s hierarchy of needs and expectations, which leads to
providing proper conditions of work and the achievement of goals.
Armstrong, in turn, sees motivation as goal-oriented behaviour. People feel moti-
vated when they expect that their actions will lead them to achieve their goals and
bring the reward, which will satisfy their needs. He believes that highly motivated
people will always strive for clearly defined goals. They can motivate themselves, but
most need, to a greater or lesser extent, the motivation that comes from the outside
[12].
 The analysis of literature shows that motivation is the inner strength of man that
drives and shapes his behaviour aimed at achieving his objectives. Such a condition
may be caused by urges, instincts, needs and states of tension. Many researchers be-
lieve that the underlying causes of motivation include needs, which condition human
behavior aiming at satisfying the needs, as well as tasks, which the individual assigns
himself or which are imposed from the outside [7], [12], [14].
There are different types of motivation for work. Researchers divide motivation in-
to external, internal, and hubristic [13]. The criterion for this classification is the kind
of values that a man follows. In the case of external motivation, activity results most
often from external motivators, both positive and negative, e.g. from a system of re-
wards and punishments (such as bonuses, job loss etc.). For internal motivation, the
factors which make a man behave in a given way include: opportunity for personal
development, responsibility, challenges at work, life values, etc. Hubristic motivation
is often described as the motivation for the pursuit of “perfection”, i.e. employees
seek to confirm and increase their value (importance). According to Kozielecki, the
desire results from the need to “boost one’s self-esteem”, be satisfied with one’s per-
formance and recognize one’s own merits displayed in action. The hubristic aspira-
tions are never satisfied. People who want to satisfy them frequently get involved
innovative actions, which not only improve their self-esteem, or give meaning to their
lives, but also serve the society well [14].
Given the diverse approaches to life and methods of solving problems in both pri-
vate and professional life, subjecting employees to identical stimuli may result in
different reactions. The diversity among people may be caused not only by the differ-
ences in temperament, personality traits, skills, abilities and physical or psychological
limitations; it may also be related to different perceptions of the surrounding world or
current events, and to people’s different desires, aspirations and needs. Hence, ex-
perts claim that motivation, together with interpersonal communication, is one of the
most difficult challenges faced by managers. There is no ready formula, or procedure
describing how to recognize attributes of motivation in people recruited for a given
job, and there are no guidelines on how to effectively trigger motivation and maintain
it [8], [13], [14].
Managers and quality engineers, who often have to select quality controllers from
their operational staff, have to deal with similar problems. An applicant for the posi-
tion of a quality controller must meet a number of requirements. The first is having
relevant abilities and specialized knowledge. A quality controller must demonstrate
specific psychophysical predispositions, particularly when the inspections are con-
ducted with the use of senses (e.g. visual inspection). The candidate must therefore
have good sight and memory, must be able to multitask, and be systematic and pa-
tient.
The authors of this paper believe that the selection of a quality controller may be
facilitated by the identification of the candidate’s motivation. In the case of a quality
controller it is important that the person be motivated to perform their work right, and
to self-improve.
The aim of this study was to analyze and evaluate the impact of various types of
motivation driving quality controllers and operational staff who perform the so-called
self-control on the effectiveness of their work.
4 Research Methodology
In order to verify the relationship between the type of motivation and effectiveness of
quality control operations, research was carried out in an automotive industry compa-
ny, in the area of electronics production. The study was divided into three stages (Fig-
ure 1). The first stage involved the identification of the type of motivation among 26
employees working as quality controllers and visual inspection staff. In the second
stage, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of visual inspection performed by 19
operators selected from 26 employees representing different process jobs (component
assembly, soldering, application of protective coating, functional test of the product)
and control positions (Fig. 3). The selection was determined by an experiment per-
formed for a specific sequence of operations – a part of the technological process.
Three technological operations and four quality control operations were chosen for
the experiment. During the third stage we analyzed how the given type of motivation
affects the effectiveness of control and self-control processes performed by the select-
ed 19 employees.

STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3

S2 Goal: Assessment of inspection
S1 Goal: Identyfication of motivation
effectiveness Analysis of Stage 1 and 2 results:
type
S2 Method: Experiment Assessment of the impact of
S1 Method: Survey
S2 Tool: Sheet of detected defects motivation type on visual inspection
S1 Tool: Questionnaire
S2 Sample: 19 employees from S1 effectiveness
S1 Sample: 27 employees
sample

Fig. 1. Stages of the study [own work]

During stage 1 a questionnaire was used as a research tool. The questionnaire con-
sisted of 32 questions, which were divided into three groups. The first group of ques-
tions (1-10) referred to the external motivation, the second one (questions 11-21) – to
internal motivation, and the third (questions 22-32) to hubristic motivation. For each
statement the tested employee used a five-point Likert scale to indicate the extent to
which he/she agreed with the statement. The grading scale began with a strong af-
firmative “definitely yes” , through “yes”, “neither agree nor disagree”, “no”, to a
final negation “definitely no”. At this stage of coding, the statements and responses
were assigned to an ordinal scale {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. An average grade was calculated for
each respondent in each of the three groups of questions. The motivation type most
relevant for the respondent was the one with the highest average grade.

5 Research Results
The first stage of the study was participated in by 27 persons. The subjects worked in
a three-shift operation system. Figure 2 shows the sample structure according to age,
professional experience, education and number of positions on which the employee
may potentially work (according to his/her skills). The majority of respondents were
35 years old or younger with secondary education.
 Professional experience Age
9

7
6 6
6
5 5 5 5

less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years over 15 years 25 yrs or less 25 to 35 yrs 36 to 45 yrs 46 to 55 yrs over 55 yrs

Education Number of workplaces

19
8 8
7

3 3
2

Primary Vocational Secondary Higher 1 2 3 more than 3

Fig. 2. Sample structure [own work]

In the second stage of the study 18 operators were selected from the 26 operators
analyzed in stage 1. Four of them were quality controllers in the analyzed operation
sequence, others were operators and controllers (Figure 3). Next, the researchers eval-
uated the effectiveness of visual inspection performed at various stages of the process
shown in Figure 4.
Three operations took place in the examined production process (Figure 3):
 operation 1: assembly and soldering of through-hole components,
 operation 2: application of protective coating on the PCB,
 operation 3: functional test.
INSPECTION
2

INSPECTION
OPERATION 1 OPERATION 2 OPERATION 3
5

INSPECTION INSPECTION INSPECTION

1 3 4

on-line inspection off-line inspection

Fig. 3. Location of visual control in the production process [own work]

For a given process, five control operations have been distinguished (Figure 3):
 inspection 1 (self-control): performed by the operator during the assembly and
soldering of components – on-line;
 inspection 2: performed in an separate location by the inspector – inter-
operational off-line;
 inspection 3 (self-control): performed by the operator during the application of
the protective coating – on-line;
 inspection 4 (self-control): performed during the functional test operation – on-
line;
 inspection 5: final control, performed in a separate location by the inspector –
off-line.
The sources of possible defects in the process include operation 1, and operation 2.
The defects which occur in the process of assembly and soldering of components
(operation 1) included, among others: lack of component, incorrect assembly of a
component, component not lead through outside the assembly hole, excess of solder,
lack of solder. It was assumed that the defects should be first detected at inspection 1
and inspection 2. They are also detected by inspection 4 and 5.
Defects which occur in the application of protective coating may include: coating
in prohibited area of the circuit, and lack of coating. It was assumed that the defects
should be detected during inspection 3, i.e. by the operator applying the coating. De-
fects originating in this operation are also detected in inspection 4 and 5 (final inspec-
tion).
Defects related to impurities of protective coating originate during the application
of the coating. It was assumed that the defects should be detected at inspection 3, 4
and 5. In the experiment we identified 6324 defects, including 328 defects associated
with assembly errors, 3586 defects related to soldering, 1175 defects resulting from
the application of coating, and 1235 defects associated with impurities.
One hundred percent of PCBs were inspected. The operator verified objects at 4x
magnification, and in uncertain cases, at 10x magnification. An identified defect was
qualified and sent for destruction (irreparable defective products) or to repair (repair-
able defects). The operators working at the position of assembly, soldering, functional
test and final inspection performed self-control.
For all control operations and predetermined defect categories we also calculated
the percentage of detected defects (the so-called control efficiency, CE) in relation to
all defects which occurred at the entry to the inspection process performed by the
given operator. It should be noted that for inspection 1 and 2, the basis for determin-
ing the fraction of defects detected was the number of defects related to two catego-
ries, while for inspection 3, 4 and 5 it was the total of defects that were not detected in
previous inspections and defects concerning the coating which appeared in operation
3. The operators participating in the experiment were assigned to the operations ac-
cording to the diagram in Figure 4 (their affiliation to the given process stages is
marked with grey).

Fig. 4. Operators who participated in the evaluation of inspection effectiveness and their loca-
tion in the process [own work]
 Figure 5 shows the results of the motivation assessment of the operator. The major-
ity was driven by internal motivation, three of them – by hubristic motivation, and six
needed external motivation.

Fig. 5. Type of motivation driving the operators [own work]; Symbols: Z - external motivation,
W- internal motivation, H- hubristic motivation [own work]

The control operation no.5 was participated in by four operators: no. 12, 14, 17,
and 23. The results of the questionnaire showed they had a high level of internal mo-
tivation. For each of them the average effectiveness of inspection was 100%. This was
mainly due to the fact that their job consisted only in the inspection activities, and
they were aware that they conducted the final inspection. Therefore the authors of this
paper excluded the result of this group of controllers from further analysis, as it was a
special case.
The results of employees participating in operation 2 – applying protective coating
on the PCB (operator 16, 20, and 21) turned out to be interesting. It was recognized
that in this case the effectiveness of control operations was on average equal to 1%.
An in-depth analysis of such low result revealed that the operators were not able to
perform and supervise the process of applying the protective coating in the time allo-
cated for the operation. Too short cycle of the operation forced the employees to focus
on grave defects of coating operations (e.g. complete lack of protective coating), over-
looking the inspection actions based strictly on the criteria described in the manual of
applying protective coating. Reduction of time necessary to inspect the circuit after
the application of the coating could have had the biggest impact on the effectiveness
of the inspection. The time parameter was recognized as a distorting factor. Therefore,
the results of these operators were also rejected as distorted and resulting from the
conditions of the experiment.
For these reasons, further analysis of the impact of motivation type on the effec-
tiveness of inspection involved a group of 12 operators. Normalized values of indices
for all the types of motivation for each operator and the achieved level of inspection
effectiveness is shown in Figure 6.
a) b) c)
OP5 OP5 OP5
1 1 1
OP9 OP18 OP9 OP18 OP9 OP18
0,8 0,8 0,8

0,6 0,6 0,6

OP4 OP24 OP4 OP24 OP4 OP24
0,4 0,4 0,4

0,2 0,2 0,2

OP6 0 OP2 OP6 0 OP2 OP6 0 OP2

OP3 OP15 OP3 OP15 OP3 OP15

OP1 OP27 OP1 OP27 OP1 OP27

OP25 OP25 OP25

..... external motivation index ---- internal motivation index - . - . hubristic motivation index
─ the average level of inspection effectiveness

Fig. 6. Graphical interpretation of motivation indices and effectiveness of inspection for each
operator [own work]

The analyzed experiment shows that high effectiveness of inspection, and self-
control in particular, was reached by employees who displayed a high level of hubris-
tic and internal motivation. The above is confirmed by the results achieved by opera-
tors 5, 6, 24, 2, and 15, for whom the percentage of detected defects was 100%,
100%, 92%, 84% and 82%, respectively. The group of operators was related to the
operation of assembly and soldering of through-hole components and inter-
operational inspection (2). The analysis of results achieved by them in the group of
statements related to a given type of motivation shows that they are mainly driven by
hubristic motivation (Figure 6c).
Low effectiveness of inspection and self-control was found in employees 9, 4, and
6, associated with the operation of assembly and functional test. Their average score,
for both internal and hubristic motivation, was rather low (Figure 6b. 6c). Their re-
sponses given in all three groups of statements classify them as persons who are driv-
en to action by external factors.

6 Conclusions
It is often emphasized that due to the individual nature of visual inspection, which is
often carried out as self-control, it is difficult to assess its impact on the effectiveness
of the inspection, or to evaluate the correlation (or its lack) with other factors affect-
ing the efficiency and effectiveness of the operator.
Definitely, the factor which greatly affects the effectiveness of self-control is the
operator’s understanding of the purpose of the control actions, clear definition of con-
trol methods and criteria, as well as appropriate time-planning and organization of the
workplace. The research suggests that it is important to know the type of motivation
which drives persons employed as controllers, as the motivation has a direct impact
on the effectiveness of their work.
The results of this research show that employees who are motivated only by exter-
nal needs have a lesser tendency to self-control their actions (as proven by the low
rate of defects detected in the experiment). In turn, employees who seek self-
realization and development tend to continuously control the results of their work.
The types of motivation may be identified e.g. using the surveys which served as
the basis for this study. Moreover, motivation should be assessed periodically, to al-
low for appropriate reaction and the use relevant motivation tools. It is not easy to
determine the type of motivation which drives a person, and maintaining the level of
motivation is a very challenging task.
It should be noted, however, that the crucial point of motivation efforts lies in ap-
propriate organization of control. When organizing the control process, one should
take into account many issues, including the structure of the workplace according to
the guidelines of ergonomics, through the access to appropriate tools, documents,
measurement and control devices, relevant employee training, to control methods and
well organized work time. Whatever the type of motivation that drives an employee
is, if any workflow parameter is not fulfilled, the efficiency of control will still be
low.

References
1. Drury C.G., Karwan M.H., Vanderwarker D. R., The two-inspector problem, IIE Transac-
tions, 18, pp. 174-181, (1986)
2. Drury C.G., Sinclair M.A., Human and machine performance in an inspection task. Human
Factors, 25, pp. 391-399 (1983)
3. Kujawińska A., Vogt K., Human factors in visual quality control, Management and Pro-
duction Engineering Review, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 25–31, DOI:10.1515/mper-2015-
0013 (2015)
4. Kujawińska A., Vogt K., Wachowiak F., Ergonomics as Significant Factor of Sustainable
Production, Chapter in Technology Management for Sustainable Production and Logistics,
Part of the series EcoProduction, Springer, pp 193-203, (2015)
5. Hamrol A., Quality Management with examples, PWN (2005)
6. Hamrol A., Kowalik D., Kujawińska A., Impact of selected work condition factors on
quality of manual assembly process (2013)
7. Khan F., Human factors special issue. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,
21, p.225-226 (2008)
8. Więcek-Janka E., Decisions and games, Publishing House of Poznan University of Tech-
nology (2011)
9. Mrugalska B., Akielaszek-Witczak A., Stetter R., Robust quality control of products with
experimental design. Popescu, D. (ed.), pp. 343-348, International Conference on Produc-
tion Research – Regional Conference Africa, Europe and the Middle East and 3rd Interna-
tional Conference on Quality and Innovation in Engineering and Management, Cluj-
Napoca, Romania, July 1-5 2014; Technical University of Cluj-Napoca; Cluj-Napoca,
Romania., (2014)
10. Mrugalska B., Akielaszek-Witczak A., Aubrun C., Towards product robust quality control
with sequential D-optimum inputs design, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 43, 2137-
2142 DOI: 10.3303/CET1543357, (2015)
11. Csikszentmihalyi M. The evolving self: A psychology for the third millennium. Harper-
Collins, New York (1993)
12. Elliot, A. J. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psy-
chologist, 3, 169-189, (1999).
13. Nosal, C. S. The structure and regulative function of the cognitive styles: a new theory.
Polish Psychological Bulletin, 41(3), 122-126 (2009)
14. Kozielecki J., The role of hubristics motivation in transgessive behavior, New ideas in
psychology, No 5(3), pp. 361-383 (1987)