This article was downloaded by: [Imperial College London Library]

On: 10 October 2014, At: 05:16

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Production Planning & Control: The Management of

Operations
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

A participatory and integrative approach to improve

productivity and ergonomics in assembly
a b c c a
M. P. De Looze , J. W. Van Rhijn , J. Van Deursen , G. H. Tuinzaad & C. N. Reijneveld
a
Team Innovation and Ergonomics , TNO Work and Employment , PO Box 718, Hoofddorp,
2130 AS, The Netherlands
b
Team Innovation and Ergonomics , TNO Work and Employment , PO Box 718, Hoofddorp,
2130 AS, The Netherlands E-mail:
c
Dept of Assembly Engineering , TNO Industrial Technology , PO Box 6235, Eindhoven, 5600
HE, The Netherlands
Published online: 15 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: M. P. De Looze , J. W. Van Rhijn , J. Van Deursen , G. H. Tuinzaad & C. N. Reijneveld (2003) A
participatory and integrative approach to improve productivity and ergonomics in assembly, Production Planning & Control:
The Management of Operations, 14:2, 174-181, DOI: 10.1080/0953728031000107635

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0953728031000107635

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL, 2003, VOL. 14, NO. 2, 174–181

A participatory and integrative approach to

improve productivity and ergonomics in assembly
M. P. DE LOOZE, J. W. VAN RHIJN, J. VAN DEURSEN, G. H. TUINZAAD and
C. N. REIJNEVELD
Downloaded by [Imperial College London Library] at 05:16 10 October 2014

Keywords ergonomics, process flow, assembly
Abstract. A participatory and integrative approach was
applied to improve the productivity and ergonomics of the
assembly lines in two factories, producing magnetic stop valves
and office furniture, respectively. Main elements of the
approach are the active participation of the company and the
integration of two disciplines: assembly engineering and ergo-
nomics. The aims were the analysis of bottlenecks and the defi-
nition of solutions. To analyse the main bottlenecks, the
assembly process scheme was analysed in close cooperation
with company representatives, specific observations were per-
formed on the work floor, and the body postures and the forces
on the body measured. To evaluate promising solutions a
gaming technique (Ergomix) was applied mixing CAD-draw-

Authors: M. P. Looze, J. W. van Rhijn and C. N. Reijneveld, TNO Work and Employment, Team
Innovation and Ergonomics, PO Box 718, 2130 AS Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, E-mail:
G.vRhijn@arbeid.tno.nl, and J. van Deursen and G. H. Tuinzaad, TNO Industrial
Technology, Dept of Assembly Engineering, PO Box 6235, 5600 HE Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Michiel (M. P.) de Looze PhD graduated as a human movement scientist in 1988 and got his
PhD in 1992. As a researcher he worked at the Free University of Amsterdam until 1998. Since
1998, he is working at TNO Work and Employment. The subject of his research has shifted from
the effects of stressfull activities like manual lifting towards the specific health problems of low-
intensity work, for instance upper limb disorders in assembly and computer work.

Gu ( J. W.) van Rhijn MSc is project leader at TNO Work and Employment with a background
as an industrial design engineer, specialized in ergonomic product and production design and
performing national and international projects in assembly industry aimed at reducing lead time
and improving ergonomics.

Bert (G. H.) Tuinzaad MSc studied Mechanical Engineering and Manufacturing Technology
at Delft University of Technology. He works at TNO Industrial Technology. During the last ten
years he developed and applied practical participative working methods to increase both the
product as well as the manufacturing performance in about seventy companies in the areas of
machinery, vending equipment, transportation, automotive and electromechanical devices.

Production Planning & Control ISSN 0953–7287 print/ISSN 1366–5871 online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0953728031000107635
 Improved productivity and ergonomics in assembly
Karen (C. N.) Reijneveld MSc graduated at the faculty of Industrial Design Engineering of
Delft University of Technology in 1997 and is currently working at TNO Work and Employment.
ings of work places with real workers. The approach proved to
be successful in the determination of bottlenecks in productivity
Downloaded by [Imperial College London Library] at 05:16 10 October 2014
and ergonomics (regarding the supply of components, the
accumulation of materials, body postures, pushing and lifting
forces), and the definition of promising solutions (e.g. new
assembly concepts, height adjustable working tables, new orga-
nization of tasks, and new product design). The potential effects
were estimated to be significant: e.g. gains in productivity of
15–20% and substantial reductions of time spent in risky body
postures.
1. Introduction
In various parts of the world the small- to medium-
sized assembly enterprises are under a lot of pressure. The
increased demands force manufacturers to improve the
flow of assembly orders together with a more efficient
employment. The pressure on the organization is likely
to increase the mental and physical stresses on the
individual workers. To help companies in reaching
their goals, an approach has been developed aiming at
lead time reduction and the improvement of the worker’s
job from an ergonomic point of view (Van Rhijn and
Tuinzaad 1999). Participation of company representa-
tives in this approach is crucial, for reasons that have
been extensively discussed in previous papers on partici-
patory ergonomics (Noro and Imada, 1992, Vink et al.
1995). Another basic feature of the approach, beside
being participatory, is that, two disciplines are brought
together: assembly engineering and industrial ergo-
nomics.
This paper describes the application of this approach
in two companies. The products assembled in these fac-
tories, namely magnetic stop valves (for the control of gas
and fluid flows in various applications) and office furni-
ture were highly different with respect to the size of the
products and the work content. The questions were
which major bottlenecks could be defined with respect
to the productivity and ergonomics and, secondly, what
solutions could be generated by use of this approach. The
potential effectiveness of the solutions on productivity
and ergonomics is discussed in this paper.
175
2. Methods
2.1. Companies and the production lines
Company A (Ahrend) develops and produces office
furniture. The project was focused on three assembly
lines, producing 70 000 cupboards each year with large
varieties in size, colour and design. In these three lines
large, middle and small cupboards are produced respec-
tively. The workers in these lines are involved in assembly
steps of approximately 3–6 minutes. At the end of each
step the product is handed over from one person to the
other. The large cupboards are transported on wheeled
carriers. The lines consists of 3–5 persons. The workers do
not rotate over different workstations.
Company B (Asco Joucomatic) produces magnetic
stop valves (maximum size: 10 cm3). The workers are
involved in assembling, testing and packing the whole
product. The variety of products is very large. This pro-
ject was aimed at the assembly process of three different
product families. These groups of products are assembled
at ordinary working tables and in specific working cells.
The work at the tables starts by fetching the required
components from different locations: pellets and trolleys
and (further away) the storehouse. Furthermore the work
includes the assembling, the testing and the packing of
the entire product,. The work in the working cell starts
by entering the order into the computer. Then, the
worker walks to a first computerized storage unit,
where he presses a button. Then, the shelf with the
required components moves automatically to the opening
of the unit. Components are picked and assembled
directly on an assembly platform in front of the storage
unit. At a second storage unit similar actions are per-
formed. Testing and packing completes the working
cycle. Figure 1 shows a worker in company A and B.
2.2. Approach
The participatory and integrative approach is stepwise
in nature. Four steps are included from the start to the
generation of solutions.
 176 de Looze et al.
Downloaded by [Imperial College London Library] at 05:16 10 October 2014
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. (a) One of the workers in company A and (b) one in
the working cell in Company B.
The first step comprises the initialization of a multi-
disciplinary working group within the company. This
small working group involves a mix of participants,
including assembly staff, middle management, process
engineers, planning and logistics and product design.
Specialists on ergonomics and assembly engineering
from outside the company are involved to give direction
to the process. The working group takes part in all steps
described below.
The second step involves the analysis of the assembly
process by setting up an assembly process scheme. Figure
2 illustrates the assembly process scheme for one of the
products in company A as an example. This scheme is the
result of a process of interaction among product
designers, manufacturing engineers and assembly opera-
tors. In the assembly process scheme the order of the
different assembly steps including time requirements
are defined. In addition to the scheme, the lay-out of
the production lines and the involvement of people is
determined, which is helpful in discussing bottlenecks
and finding solutions in the following steps.
In the third step the working group is working closely
together to make an inventory of the bottlenecks with
regard to the material flow and ergonomics. This inven-
tory partly results from the measurements (see below)
and the application of health guidelines.
In the fourth step, the improved assembly process is
developed in the working group. From demands with
regard to the production volume, the kind and number
of work places and the sequential order of the work places
in the lay-out are determined. In addition, the organiza-
tional concept with regard to the involvement to people is
filled in: alternative concepts are sketched on paper and
pro and contra’s are discussed: do people make the entire
products or only parts of the product and what are, for
instance, the consequences for the learning periods of new
personnel. Finally, the focus is on the individual work
places: the available space, the location of tools, equip-
ment and components and the actual design of the work-
place. Here, the Ergomix gaming technique (see below)
is applied to evaluate new ideas.
2.3. Measurements
The various measurements that were performed are
described below.
First, video recordings of each work station are made.
From these, the body postures are categorized and riskful
static postures and repetitive movements are determined
on the basis of current guidelines (Hildebrandt and Vink,
1994). The same video recordings are also shown to the
assembly workers (the actors) to discuss the bottlenecks in
the third step. Secondly, the pushing and pulling forces
required and the masses of the materials to be lifted are
determined. The riskful lifting, pushing, pulling and
carrying actions are determined on the basis of the avail-
able guidelines (Mital et al. 1993, Waters et al. 1993).
Thirdly, further insight into the physical and mental
work load, the worker’s satisfaction and the health risks
is obtained by use of standardized questionnaires.
2.4. Ergomix
In the fourth step, the Ergomix was used as a gaming
tool which links CAD design drawings with real assembly
workers. Hereto, the assembly workers, middle manage-
ment and production engineers are invited to the labora-
 Improved productivity and ergonomics in assembly 177
Downloaded by [Imperial College London Library] at 05:16 10 October 2014

Figure 2. An example of an assembly process scheme. It concerns the assembly of a cupboard or cabinet.

tories. They watch themselves in a CAD drawing of a
new working place on a video screen (figure 3). They
can test their daily activities in this ’future’ environment
and indicate any adaptations in the drawing, which can
pursued, evaluated and discussed immediately. By zoom-
ing in and out, the CAD drawings can be tested for
subjects of different lengths (by use of just one worker).
By this technique, the design of new production lines
and the ideas of improvement (in the form of drawings)
come to life for the workers and staff of companies at an

Figure 3. Overview of the occurrence (in percentage of the total working time) of a stressful arm posture for ten workers (A1 to A10)
in company A and six workers in company B (B1 to B4 work in the working cells and B5 and B6 at the working table).
 178 de Looze et al.
early stage in the design process. Experience shows that
this tool improves the communication between ergono-
mists, engineers, workers and (middle) management and
accelerates the design process.
3. Results
The list of bottlenecks that was formulated at the end
of the third step is presented for both factories in table 1.
The list includes bottlenecks in process flow and ergo-
nomics. Bottlenecks in ergonomics comprise the repetitive
Downloaded by [Imperial College London Library] at 05:16 10 October 2014
or long lasting occurrence of awkward body postures,
stressful activities like lifting and pushing and continuous
standing.
For the body postures the percentages of the total
working time of occurrence are presented in figures 4–
7. These figures were evaluated on the basis of health
guidelines. With respect to shoulder complaints, these
guidelines state that people are already at a moderately
increased risk when working for more than 1 hour
(12.5% of the total working time) with the arms elevated
between 208 and 608 (with respect to the vertical). The
risk is further increased when this posture occurs for more
than four hours or the arms are elevated above 608. As
can be seen in figure 4 most workers are at increased risk
in both companies. Working above shoulder level in the
assembly of large cupboards (company A) and reaching
Table 1. The main bottlenecks regarding process flow and ergonomics in the two companies.
Company A
 The accumulation of materials and carriers, hampering
the flow.
 Large differences in daily orders: types (large, middle, small)
and amounts of cup boards, causing disbalance and
accumulation in the flow.
 Components and parts are not logic, implying much
walking and searching and carrying heavy loads.
 Parts are delivered in boxes low to the ground, which results
in frequent lifting and frequent bending of the trunk.
 End products have to be positioned on pellets resulting in
the activities of heavy pushing (pushing force up to 285 N)
and heavy lifting the cupboards (40 kg).
 Frequent bending postures as well as arm elevation below
knee and above shoulder level.
 The act of lifting parts above shoulder level particularly
during the assembly of large cupboards.
for components in the storage units (company B) partly
explains these results.
Figure 5 shows the riskful trunk postures. Again all
postures presented can be regarded as a health risk
when occurring for more than 12.5% of the total working
time. Particularly in company A riskful trunk postures
occur: both flexion of the trunk and asymmetric trunk
postures (rotation and lateroflexion).
With regard to the neck, increased risks do occur
mainly in company B. For substantial periods of time
the neck is flexed, which is due to the non-optimal work-
ing heights of the working table and assembly platforms
in the working cells
The inventory of bottlenecks and the analysis of work-
ing postures formed the input to discuss the ideas for
improvement. Many ideas to improve the process flow
and ergonomics were evaluated by the working group.
The ideas that were judged to be feasible are listed in
table 2. As can be seen, the ideas for improvement
focus on various levels: namely, the general concept of
assembly, the organization of tasks, the aids for assembly
and transport, the work place as well as the product to be
assembled.
Various ideas were evaluated and further developed by
use of the Ergomix. Specifically, the following were deter-
mined:
. the optimal height range of the height adjustable
assembly carriers (company A)
Company B
Working cell
 Delivery of components to the cell and transport of final
product through a too narrow space.
 Many crates and boxes on the floor hampering the
delivery and transport of goods.
 Components are supplied in boxes on pellets on the floor,
which implies: frequent far reaching, frequent deep
bending and many lifts.
 Continuous standing in the working cell.
 The assembly platform in front of the storage unit yields
much bending and reaching to get the components.
 The assembly platform is not height adjustable.
 Worker in the working cells feels isolated from an other
colleagues.
 In the case of small orders, relatively long periods of
waiting for the appearance of the right shelf in the
storage unit.
Working table
 Much searching for components as they are not logically
supplied on the trolleys.
 Much unnecessary handling for the above reason.
 Much lifting in awkward postures.
 The tables are not height adjustable.
 Improved productivity and ergonomics in assembly 179
Downloaded by [Imperial College London Library] at 05:16 10 October 2014

Figure 4. Overview of the occurrence (in percentage of the total working time) of a stressful trunk posture for ten workers (A1 to A10)
in company A and six workers in company B (B1 to B4 work in the working cell; B5 and B6 at the working table).

Figure 5. Overview of the occurrence (in percentage of the total working time) of a stressful neck posture for ten workers (A1 to A10)
in company A and six workers in company B (B1 to B4 work in the working cell; B5 and B6 at the working tables).
 180
Downloaded by [Imperial College London Library] at 05:16 10 October 2014
Figure 6. Example of finding solutions by use of the Ergomix.
Components are supplied in boxes on ground level in company
A (upper figure). In the ergomix session with workers, engineers
and staff, the flexed body posture required in the current
situation was visualized (middle figure) and the feasible solution
(supply of components by use of a crate which is increased in
height and tilted) was found by interactive discussions.
de Looze et al.
. the optimal supply of components with regard to
the required body posture (company A, see figure 6)
. the optimal height range of the height adjustable
assembly platforms and working tables for people
of varying anthropometrics (company B)
. the optimal width of the assembly platform (com-
pany B)
. the optimal location of components in the storage
units (company B)
. the optimal location of components and equipment
within the working cells (company B)
4. Discussion
The approach proved to be successful in determining
bottlenecks and finding solutions that were judged to be
feasible by workers, engineers and staff of both compa-
nies. All solutions that were suggested (table 2) are now
in the process of being implemented. Various measures
are already there, for instance the wheeled sitting device
in company B. Implementation of the whole set of
suggested solutions is quite a job for the companies, as
it includes a change of the general concept. In both
companies, not only are the production lines under inves-
tigation in the current project affected, other lines are
affected as the new concepts force the companies to
change their factory lay-out. The large extent of the
proposed measures is one of the reasons that the imple-
mentations are not effectuated yet. Therefore the effects
of the measures on product flow and ergonomics are not
available. As the brainstorm sessions on solutions were
directly based on the inventory of the bottlenecks, it
can be hypothesized that most bottlenecks will be elimi-
nated or at least greatly reduced. Increased productivity
per worker, decreased space requirements, reduced phy-
sical loads, increased motivation of the work force, and
reduced health complaints and absenteeism from work
are the main effects to be expected. The companies
expect the productivity to increase for 15–25%. Real
quantification of the effects is out of the scope of this
paper but is a future challenge.
On the basis of this project and past experiences in
various sectors of industry (de Looze et al. 2001), several
key factors for success could be indicated. The most
important ones are:
. Integration of assembly engineering and ergo-
nomics. The approach of really bringing together
these disciplines in various meetings accelerates the
processes of determining bottlenecks and finding
improvements. It certainly reduces the risk of
detecting ergonomic shortcomings after the process
of implementation, which is likely to occur when
 Improved productivity and ergonomics in assembly
Table 2. List of improving measures concerning the process flow and ergonomics in both companies.
Company A
 New concept: one line of assembly (instead of three) with
an ordered supply of components.
 Enrichment of the assembling task of each worker; one
worker makes the whole product, moving the product on an
assembly carrier along the parts locations.
 The carriers are adjustable in height.
 Automatic supply of cupboard structures will reduce
capacity of fork lift trucks required.
 Parts (roller blinds) will be placed vertically, reducing the
physical load when picking them up.
 Other parts will be placed on an optimal height height level.
 Automatic transport of pallets on working height.
Downloaded by [Imperial College London Library] at 05:16 10 October 2014
 Improvements in product design in order to reduce the
required forces in assembly (e.g. screwing).
production lines are designed without involvement
of ergonomic expertise.
. As direct worker participation as possible, and a
strong commitment of the management of the enter-
prise, these are main issues in participatory ergo-
nomics (PE) (Noro and Imada 1992). Mainly, in
making the assembly process scheme, making an
inventory of bottlenecks, finding and prioritizing
the solutions and estimating their feasibility in
both practical and financial terms, the worker and
management participation is crucial.
. A sufficiently wide analysis of the occupational
tasks, the process flow and the potential health pro-
blems is important. This reduces the risk of neglect-
ing important aspects. This is realized by the
assembly process scheme made and discussed in
the beginning of the project.
. A stepwise and systematic approach is required,
even though the main risks as well as the solutions
might be quite obvious at first glance. Such
approach would guarantee that attention is paid
to all major steps, e.g. preparation, work and health
analysis, selection of solutions, instead of dispropor-
tionally drawing the attention towards separate ele-
ments due to the (coincidental) preoccupation of
designers, occupational health experts, engineers
or company managers.
. Evaluation of the new ideas prior to the implemen-
tation. In the current project, the Ergomix helped
in evaluating some of the new ideas, change them or
fine-tune them. Obviously, this is efficient. The
Ergomix also demonstrated its strength in involving
181
Company B
 New concept: all work will take place in (improved)
working cells; no work will take place at the tables,
which reduces the percentage of (indirect) time spent
to search for components; this was reached by storing
the general (not valve-specific) components in a
separate system and use a conveyor belt for transportation.
 An open view from the working cells on colleagues in the
factory is created.
 All working heights are adjustable.
 A wheeled sitting device (and the height adjustable
working heights) makes alternate sitting and standing
possible; the geometry of the workplaces are redesigned to
be comfortable both for sitting and standing work.
 The width of the assembly platform is reduced which
eliminates far reaching to pick components out of the
storage unit.
 The lifting of heavy boxes with components form the
ground when loading the storage unit was eliminated by
using a height adjustable device.
assembly staff and increasing interaction between
different disciplines. It enabled the finding of
solutions which were accepted by all participants
and increased the awareness of workers and staff
of ergonomic issues.
References
Hildebrandt, V. H., and Vink, P. 1994, Available guidelines:
risk assessment concerning musculoskeletal loading asks much
attention (in Dutch). Arbeidsomstandigheden, 70, 405–455.
Looze, M. P. de, Urlings, I. J. M., Vink, P., Rhijn, G. van,
Miedema, M., Bronkhorst, R. E., and Grinten, M. P.
van der., 2001, Towards succesful physical stress reducing
products. An evaluation of seven cases. Applied Ergonomics,
32, 525–534.
Mital, A., Nicholson, A. S., and Ayoub, M. M., 1993, A
Guide to Manual Materials Handling (London: Taylor and
Francis).
Noro, K., and Imada, A., 1992, Participatory Ergonomics
(London: Taylor and Francis).
Rhijn, J. W. van and Tuinzaad, G. H., 1999, Design of effi-
cient assembly flow and human centred workplaces in Dutch
assembly companies. June 15–17, 1999, Linköping, Sweden.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on TQM and
Human Factors. Sweden. Eds Axellson J., Beijman, B.,
Eklund, J. pp. 464–467.
Vink, P., Peeters, M., Gru«ndemann, R. W. M., Smulders,
P. G. W., Kompier, M. A. J., and Dul, J., 1995, A partici-
patory ergonomics approach to reduce mental and physical
workload. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 389–
396.
Waters, T. R., Putz-Anderson, V., Garg, A., and Fine, L.
J., 1993, Revised NIOSH-equation for the design and
evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics, 36, 749–776.