USING CONTROL CHARTS TO INCREASE AND MONITOR

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY

____________

A Thesis

Presented

to the Faculty of

California State University, Dominguez Hills

____________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

in

Quality Assurance

____________

by

Randy Zimmerman

Fall 2019
THESIS: USING CONTROL CHARTS TO INCREASE AND MONITOR EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY

AUTHOR: RANDY ZIMMERMAN

APPROVED:

______________________________
Gurpreet Singh
Thesis Committee Chair

______________________________
Steven Schuelka
Committee Member

______________________________
Pam Dunahay
Committee Member
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................III

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ IV

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ V

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. VI

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1

Background ............................................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................................4
Theoretical Basis and Organization .......................................................................................6
Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................................13
Definition of Terms ..............................................................................................................13

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................................................................15

3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................24

Define ...................................................................................................................................24
Measure ................................................................................................................................25

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................37

Analyze.................................................................................................................................37
Improve ................................................................................................................................47
Control ..................................................................................................................................50
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................52

Summary ..............................................................................................................................52
Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................53
Recommendations ................................................................................................................54

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................57

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

1. Excerpt from a Typical First Piece Inspection Report .............................................................26

2. Communication to Operator on Which Characteristics Need SPC .........................................27

3. Measurements for Bore Diameter Recorded in the SPC Database ..........................................33

4. Results of Compliance Rates for Operator Engagement .........................................................38

5. Standard Deviation and Confidence Interval for Each Stage of Test ......................................46

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

1. Chart of Complaints ...................................................................................................................2

2. Quantity of Red Tags .................................................................................................................5

3. Process Capability Histogram ....................................................................................................6

4. Normal Distribution Probability Plot .........................................................................................7

5. X-Bar & R Chart ........................................................................................................................8

6. X-Bar & R Chart with Integrated Histogram .............................................................................9

7. DMAIC Flow ...........................................................................................................................12

8. Boredom Influence Diagram....................................................................................................16

9. Hand Hygiene Rule Compliance .............................................................................................21

10. Production Check Compliance by Week .................................................................................25

11. Defining the Characteristic of Bore Diameter .........................................................................27

12. Size versus Form ......................................................................................................................28

13. Air Gauge Displaying the Discreet Measurement of the Bore Diameter ................................30

14. Visual Output of the Data Entry: X-Bar and R Charts ............................................................31

15. CNC Machine Piece Count ......................................................................................................31

16. I-MR Chart of Compliance Rates ............................................................................................44

17. Test of Equal Variances of the Baseline Stage to the Modified PCL Stage ............................45

18. Analysis of the Means of the Baseline Stage to the Modified PCL Stage ...............................46

19. Minitab Results of the Two-Sample T Test Between the Stages.............................................47

20. Bar Chart of Improved Employee Engagement .......................................................................48

21. Pareto of Scrap Failures During the Baseline Phase ................................................................49

22. Pareto of Scrap Failures After the Improvement Phase ...........................................................50

23. Control Chart for Continued Control of Employee Engagement ............................................51

v
 ABSTRACT

This study explores the problem of employee engagement as related to product quality in

a manufacturing firm. The product quality characteristic is defined as the ability of a product to

meet the specification limits of any design characteristic. To control product quality, operators

need to appropriately monitor the production processes. Since the goal of any quality driven firm

should be to minimize process variation in any process, the operator’s processes tend to consist

of repetitive tasks. This repetition can lead to fatigue, which, in turn, can cause an operator to

pay less attention to process monitoring. By following the define, measure, analyze, improve,

and control (DMAIC) flow, this study uses control charts to stimulate an operator by signaling,

therefore, keeping them engaged in a process such that the process is monitored as closely as it

should be. Modified control limits will provide fewer signals and less monitoring than more

tightly calculated limits.

 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background

In its simplest form, product quality can be defined as the ability of any product to

function as intended. A product that most people are familiar with is the automobile. These

complex machines provide everything from simple transportation to life saving transport when

converted to the form of emergency response vehicles. Societies have come to expect that when

the ignition is fired, the vehicle should be available for the task in which the occupant has set out

to accomplish. Automotive supply is very complex in that not one entity provides all the

components of its makeup. After all, it is merely an assembly of many different manufactured

components. Just like any chain, it is only as reliable as its weakest component: some

components may cause more of direct failure then others. For example, a problem with the radio,

although annoying, would not render a vehicle unusable. However, problems with safety systems

or the engine could be fatal to an occupant. Design issues aside, the way to make a big impact on

vehicle quality is to start at the heart of the supply chain: manufacturing.

It is hard to argue that quality of consumer goods has not improved over the years. In

fact, according to Information Handling Services (IHS), via Statista, the average life of light

vehicles in the United States has increased to 11.6 years in 2016 from 9.7 years in 2003 (Statista,

n.d.). However, when looking at vehicle complaints, as depicted in Figure 1 from the National

Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (n.d.), one can see that although the life of the

vehicle has increased, there is still room for improvement through improving customer

satisfaction by reducing complaints: improve quality through manufacturing.

 2

Figure 1. Graph of NHTSA showing number of complaints per year from 1995 through 2017.

Quality is not something that just happens. Businesses must develop a culture where

employee engagement is part of the culture (Berg, 1999) and quality becomes the way of

business. Unfortunately, a recent Gallup poll indicates that 68% of employees are not engaged in

their jobs. This lack of engagement is a problem for a manufacturing quality engineer as they are

tasked with setting up processes with checks of the product that must be conducted at certain

intervals. The frequency of these checks is usually indicative of the process capability, in which

a greater capability usually means less frequent monitoring. In most production atmospheres,

these process checks are monitored using control charts. As long as the employee engages in

keeping the process in control, there is very little concern over the quality that the process is

producing.
 3

Statement of the Problem

The company under review struggles with employee engagement in the form of operator

process monitoring. Measurement methods for process monitoring are developed, and the

process is set up to ensure that these measurements are conducted at specific times throughout an

employee’s shift. These process measurements are required to be recorded on control charts;

therefore, a record of the check is documented. The employee is required to monitor the control

chart and make the appropriate process adjustment when the control chart signals an out of

control measurement condition has occurred.

The aforementioned company uses different methods to calculate control limits such as

modified control limits, and a variation of sigma levels from the mean. Modified control limits

are preferred, as they allow the operator more autonomy to move about the mean; however, the

process may not provide enough out of control signals to ensure that the operator stays engaged

in the process and adjusts the process accordingly. A process with control limits calculated using

the modified method will yield less out of control signals to an operator than limits calculated

with ± 1σ. If an operator receives less out of control signals on control charts calculated with

modified control limits, are they less engaged in the process and do they skip more

measurements than in a process that has tighter control limits; therefore signaling more out of

control events to actively engage the operator?

 4

Purpose of the Study

This study aims to examine the employee engagement epidemic noticed nationally;

however, it focuses the attention within a specific manufacturing firm producing automotive

products. The study will use different variations of control limit calculations to examine if

processes with tighter control limits engage an employee more in the process because more

frequent process adjustments are required to maintain control. The ultimate goal of any

manufacturing firm must be 100% compliance with all production monitoring requirements.

Without 100% compliance, the ability of a process to produce expected results in the form of no

defects will be an absolute uncertainty. As previously mentioned, the company under review has

demonstrated that 19.7% of the time operators are not engaged with controlling the process.

There are consequences to these periods of employee disengagement: scrap and rework. To help

protect the customer, the company has implemented production audits on all shifts to contain any

production nonconformities. Any failures of these audits will result in a red tag: a tag used to

describe the problem and ultimately disposition the product as scrap or rework. Figure 2 shows

the quantity of these red tags written for each period or month of each year. Since these tags

provide unnecessary cost to the organization and ultimately, the customer, they are most

undesirable. The goal is to only have a little more than one per day written in any one month. As

can be seen with the graph in Figure 2, there are only four times in the past three years where the

goal has been achieved. It is theorized that if employee engagement can get to the levels that

sustain 100% compliance of the operators to conduct their process checks, the quantity of red

tags will diminish and the cost associated with such tags will follow suit.
 5

Figure 2. Graph showing number of red tags written for each period, or month of each year. Created by the author
of this thesis.
 6

Theoretical Basis and Organization

Statistical Process Control (SPC) is a very powerful quality tool used to predict and

control a process. There are three key components to this tool. Statistics, which the “S” stands

for in the acronym, is the collection and analysis of data. One of the other two components is the

second letter “P,” which stands for process. Dr. Juran provides a great definition of what a

process is: “any specific combination of machines, tools, methods, materials and or people

employed to attain specific qualities in a product of service” (Juran, 1988, p. 24.2). “C,” the last

letter of the acronym, stands for control. It is “a feedback loop through which we measure actual

performance, compare it with standard, and act on the difference” (Juran, 1988, p. 24.2).

Statistically process controlled characteristics of any process should always resemble that

of a normal distribution. One cannot expect to control something that cannot be modeled

predictably; therefore, there are some key items that can be assessed when looking at a normal

distribution. In the normal distribution of Figure 3, the 68%–95%–99.7% rule can be applied.

Sixty-eight percent of the product produced will fall within ±1σ, 95% will fall within ±2σ, and

99.7% will fall within ±3σ. This important rule is the essence of statistical process control.

Figure 3. Process capability histogram for bushing bore size. This figure depicts the 68%-95%-99% characteristic of
a normal distribution. Created by the author of this thesis.
 7

Since all probabilities under a normal distribution sum to 100%, it can be concluded from the

99.7% portion of this rule that there is about a 0.3% chance of a product being made outside the

±3σ limits. This fact is graphically depicted in Figure 4.

Figure 4. A distribution plot for bushing bore size with mean 5.00 inches and a standard deviation of 0.00499622
inches. This figure shows the probability of values at the ± 3σ range. Created by the author of this thesis.

A control chart, as depicted in Figure 5, is constructed using the same premise of the

probabilities towards the outer limits of the distribution. One now has a graphical tool in which

to monitor a process.
 8
Xbar-R Chart of Bushing Bore Size
UCL=5.00677
5.005
Sample Mean

__
5.000 X=4.99990

4.995
LCL=4.99303
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28
Sample

UCL=0.02519

0.02
Sample Range

_
R=0.01192
0.01

0.00 LCL=0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28
Sample

Worksheet:
Figure 5. AnWorksheet
Xbar-R 1chart of bushing bore size. This figure demonstrates the use of control limits instead of
specification limits. Created by the author of this thesis.

The process data is collected and evaluated over time to ensure that there are no abnormalities or

out of control concerns.

Unfortunately, statistical process control does not guarantee that a customer will not

experience reliability failures due to product differences. There are a couple reasons for this.

First, control charting is based on sampling. Typically, it is very cost prohibitive for a

manufacturer to fully inspect all product. If these inspection levels are requested by the customer,

or necessary for the critical nature of the product, such as aerospace, the product price is

increased to compensate for the added inspection. However, even with 100% inspection, it

typically cannot be guaranteed that the customer will not receive a defect, or part outside of the

control limits. Once the defect or out of control part is produced, it is available to the population

for contamination. It is no longer a method for control, but one for containment. Prevention such

as the use of control charts is the best way to ensure the customer does not receive a defective
 9

part because the defect will never be produced; therefore, it cannot be inadvertently mishandled

and shipped to the customer. Second, the signals provided from a control chart can be delayed.

Observe the far right region of Figure 6.

Figure 6. An Xbar chart of bushing bore size. This figure demonstrates how the normal distribution can be overlaid
sideways onto the Xbar chart. Created by the author of this thesis.

One can look at a control chart as a sideways histogram. This characteristic is very

important, as it allows the user to apply the same probability rules discussed above. The key to

point out is that the factors of sample size and frequency of sampling dictate the quantity of

product that can be produced outside the control limits before any signal from the control chart is

indicated. Because of sampling, it is not always immediately apparent that the distribution may

have shifted or increased its variation. Thankfully, there is an equation that can be used to predict

how long it will take for a control chart to provide a signal: Average Time to Signal (ATS) =

Average Run Length (ARL) x h. If the sampling frequency is a very long interval, the customer

may have already received product outside of their normal supply stream. This adds unforeseen

variability that can negatively affect the reliability of the product being placed onto the market.

Although these signals can be delayed, it is evident that without any signal being provided as

feedback, the variability of the population would be drastically increased as there would be no
 10

way to graphically monitor the critical to quality product characteristics. This, in turn, would

allow the process to float without any adjustment, or control.

The visual signals from the control chart help the operator assess when to engage with the

process and make the appropriate adjustment. The main purpose of this study is to assess why

operators fail to engage in the process by not performing the measurement tasks of the process as

required. It is theorized that this lack of monitoring is due to a process being so in control that an

operator has no need to be engaged in the process, thus skipping monitoring and measuring

tasks.

The aim of this study is to see whether operator engagement can be influenced by control

chart limit calculations. A process where the control charts are calculated with modified control

limits will tend to display virtually no out of control signals; there will be little need for operator

engagement. This type of process is termed disengaging. A control chart with tighter methods for

calculating control limits will provide sporadic out of control signals. The operator will be

required to engage in the process and bring it back into a state of control. This process is termed

engaging.

In both disengaging and engaging processes, the measurements for process monitoring

are taken when an operator sets the part on a gauge and starts the measurement. This

measurement process records the time of the measurement. Since the frequency of measurement

is set for the operators during a shift of production, each time the measurement is required will

be logged as a measurement opportunity. Since the measurement records the time the actual

measurement was taken, the counts of the actual measurements will be compared to the

measurement opportunities. For example, if a measurement were to be conducted every two

hours, an eight-hour shift would yield a measurement opportunity of four. If the operator only
 11

conducts two of the required measurements, the compliance for monitoring the process will be

50%. This production compliance monitoring method was demonstrated previously in the results

of Figure 2. Using a two sample t-test, the compliance rates of engaging processes will be

compared to the compliance rates of disengaging processes. Do operators skip fewer

measurements when running an engaging process versus that of a disengaging process? This

study will utilize the define, measure, analyze, improve, and control (DMAIC) framework to

ultimately improve the compliance rates of production process monitoring in the manufacturing

firm under review, driving down costs and improving customer satisfaction.

Typically, one must revert to a structured problem solving methodology to assist with

solving problems of this nature. In the case of the problem of operator process compliance, the

DMAIC methodology will be deployed. An overview of the DMAIC process map can be seen in

Figure 7. Although DMAIC starts by defining the problem, it should be noted that ultimately it is

a continuous loop. The first step is to define the problem, which in this case is the fact that

process operators are not monitoring the process as frequently as required. The second step of the

process, measure, is simply that. How did the project team measure the problem? In this case, the

measurement involved looking at raw data indicating how many machine cycles were processed

in an hour to determine how many times the operator should have performed a process

measurement to control the process. This data was used to calculate how many measurements

should have been performed. The third step is analyze. This step involved using statistical

methods to process the data and make conclusions from said data. The fourth step is that of

improvement. What steps or process changes need to be implemented to improve the process to

the desired state. In this case the desired state is related to quality characteristic that more is

better: higher levels of process monitoring compliance. It was theorized that as the control limits
 12

of a control chart are tightened, an operator will monitor the process more because they are

receiving more signals from the control chart such as trends and out of control points. The final

stage of the DMAIC flow is control. How was the process continuously monitored for

compliance, and if necessary what corrective actions took place in the event of non-compliance?

In the case of operator process monitoring, the tool used for control was the same as the one used

to help measure the problem in the second stage of the DMAIC flow.

1
DEFINE

5 2
CONTROL MEASURE

4 3
IMPROVE ANALYZE

Figure 7. The DMAIC process flow. Created by the author of this thesis.
 13

Limitations of the Study

This study will only examine the confines of one manufacturing firm producing

automotive products; therefore, it is an attempt to understand a specific problem that exists

within the manufacturing firm in question. This study by no means will ensure that the data,

discussions, or conclusions can automatically apply to all manufacturing jobs. It is also not

assumed that location and organizational culture may breed some of the disengagement of the

employees. In fact, in 2014 Mann and Cadman presented a study that even suggest employee

disengagement in the form of boredom can breed creativity. This study will not examine the

potentially positive effects of such disengagement.

Definition of Terms

Average time to signal: A calculation for determining how long it will take before a control chart

will provide a signal for a change in how the process is currently running.

Computer numerical control: A type of automation in which a user has the ability to control

machine tools via a programmable computer.

Counterproductive work behavior: “volitional acts that harm an organization or the

organization’s stake holders” (Bauer & Spector, 2015).

Define, measure, analyze, improve, and control (DMAIC): A systematic approach to solving a

problem.

Lights out manufacturing: A term used to signify a fully automated environment in which

machines completely run the process. Since people are not needed, the lights can effectively be

turned off without hindrance to production.

Machine tools: Any tool used to produce a product. A Computer Numerical Control (CNC)

machine is a type of machine tool

 14

Process control chart: A graphical chart used to monitor a statistically controlled process

Statistical process control: A data tool used to monitor and control a process.
 15

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Some people may think that brain surgery would be a highly interesting career. There is

much knowledge to be obtained, retained, and put into practice; however, as with all jobs, there

is typically a certain level of repetition. This repetition can be great for process control, as it

ensures that the task at hand is repeatable, and variation is reduced; however, because people are

an organization’s number one asset, the effects on a human’s psyche must not be ignored. One of

Dr. Deming’s main theories was that designers of a system, often management, must understand

psychology: “People are not cogs in a machine” (Deming, n.d.). Designers and managers must

understand how the system affects the people participating in it. Without this understanding, the

system cannot be optimized to provide the best possible outcome. People will not enjoy their

work, and continuous improvement and operator involvement will suffer.

In the dawn of the age of the industrial revolution, people manufacturing goods were

craftsmen; all aspects of making the product, from producing the physical object to measuring to

ensure quality, were in total compliance with the craftsman’s interpretation of perfection. As

time has passed, manufacturing has evolved into mass production systems in which machines

and processes need little intervention from the operator due to better processing methods, which

help ensure higher process capabilities. This evolution has been great for the consumer in the

form of cheaper and better goods; however, its effect on the process operators interacting with

the system has not been so positive.

Deming’s theory of psychology reveals the need for companies to focus on job design. This

focus helps them directly ensure that humans have a rewarding experience so that they will
 16

continue to make positive improvements to the processes they run and ensure that the continuous

improvement loop stays in constant motion.

The lack of focus on job design is not intentional, as cheaper, faster, and better production

methodologies typically come from engineering the person out of the process as much as

possible, therefore eliminating the one thing that humans are not great at: never making mistakes.

This evolution has caused people to experience a work culture hypothesized in 1878 by

Nietzsche: boredom (Cummings, Gao, & Thornburg, 2016). Boredom is the human emotion that

stems from said processes. To more easily understand boredom one can turn to the boredom

influence diagram (Figure 8).

Figure 8. The Boredom Influence Diagram as reproduced from “Boredom in the Workplace: A New Look at an Old
Problem” by M.L.Cummings, F.Gao, and K.M.Thornburg, 2016, Human Factors, 58(2), p. 281.
 17

Figure 8 shows that a repetitive task can lead to three interrelated emotions: boredom,

fatigue, and attention lapse. All of which have a performance impact on the task being

performed. As will be discussed further in the results section, when an in-control process has

control limits calculated very widely and very few control signals are produced, the compliance

rates for monitoring the process drops. Boredom in the traditional sense is a situation void of

activity; however, “boredom stems from a situation where none of the possible things that a

person can realistically do appeal to them” (Mann, 2007, p. 165). Lean organizing principles

have been employed by some manufacturing firms to help cope with operator disengagement.

The entire philosophy of lean has been to place more responsibility on the operators in hopes of

engaging them more in the processes in which they are key components. However, lean

methodologies have their own effects on employee psychology. Standardization is one of the

principles of lean manufacturing systems. Standardization is employed as a way to ensure the

repeatability of a process; unfortunately, methodologies such as standardization turn processes

into mundane tasks that can negatively affect people’s job satisfaction (Bouville & Alis, 2014),

which is evident in their reduced compliance rates with production monitoring.

Standardization is only one of the ways in which jobs tend toward boring mundane tasks;

automation is another. Although automation is thought to be a problem for engineering (Hawley,

1996), the development and deployment must also concern the operators of the system.

Designers must not forget “that monitoring is a role that humans do not perform well even under

the best of conditions” (para. 19). This can be demonstrated in the abysmal performance of

operator process monitoring when reviewing control charts. However, when the control limits

are tightened to provide increased signaling for the operator, their compliance rates increase.

There are current measures for assessing the nature of work. Most of them are self-reported by
 18

items such as the work design questionnaire (WDQ) (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Although

these self-reported statistics can provide validity to helping assess job design, an easier way may

be to simply look at how involved the people are in controlling their processes. Especially in the

manufacturing sector, people demonstrate their satisfaction and involvement by completing basic

yet integral tasks of the process; process monitoring compliance is one simple tool that can be

used. The research shows that when people are disengaged, they monitor the process less than

when they are actively engaged.

People tend to associate robotics with automated processes. From a macro perspective, computer

numerical control (CNC) is a more basic form of automation that has been around since the

1950s (Wallén, 2008). Machine tools are stuck in an ever-evolving loop of continuous

improvement because they are themselves a product of manufacturing; therefore, their

capabilities continue to increase, removing more and more variation from the processes in which

they are deployed. Due to the variation reduction, it is possible to conceive that fewer

measurements are needed to keep producing products with the print specifications allowed by

customer agreement: less employee interaction is needed for the process and automation takes

hold. Unfortunately, this perception is likely incorrect; if it were true, and operators need not be

present at all, then the machine would operate in what is considered lights out manufacturing. As

stated by Cummings et al. (2016), “A person’s perception of the task at hand may lead to

complacency and cognitive disengagement from the task if the task is perceived to be

unimportant or uninteresting” (para. 16). Disengagement is demonstrated by an operator’s

reduction in process monitoring tasks such as when the process is allowed to float between large

control limits.
 19

These cognitive disengagements can be detrimental to a process. In fact, there is even a special

term used to describe them: counter productive work behaviors (CWB). Kari, Kessler, and

Spector (2011) conducted a study to show that bored employees would be more prone to

counterproductive work behaviors, specifically production deviance. The study demonstrated

that, in fact, the hypothesis was true. In 2015, Bauer and Spector once again demonstrated how

emotions could contribute to such behaviors. Of the seven different emotions they studied, one

was boredom. They hypothesized that boredom in the workplace would lead to more active

forms of CWB such as sabotage and non-passive forms such as production deviance. However,

their study concluded that only the active CWB of horseplay related to boredom more strongly

than any of the passive forms; therefore, it cannot be concluded that production deviance would

not be triggered by the emotion of boredom. In fact,

feelings of anger have been traditionally considered the negative emotion that is most

closely related to displays of CWB, our results suggest that this is not true across all

dimensions of CWB and that one should not continue to neglect other important emotions

such as shame and boredom. (Bauer & Spector, 2015, p. 325)

This corroborates the initial study of Kari et al. in 2011. Therefore, it can be concluded that we

would expect bored employees to partake in the counterproductive work behavior of production

deviance. Although there may be confounding variables other than this one human state of

emotion, the current research demonstrates that production deviance is evident in the compliance

rates with production monitoring.

These conclusions of Bauer et al. (2015), can be further corroborated when looking at the health

care industry. Dai, Milkman, Hofmann, and Staats (2015) conducted a study in the healthcare

industry to see if fatigue could play a role in rule compliance. The study was conducted on
 20

hospital personnel with the premise that as people become more fatigued, they may “deplete

their self-regulatory resources” (Dai et al., 2015, p. 846). Previous research has also suggested

that depletion of this self-regulatory resource has more of an effect on tasks in which the

conductor of said tasks perceives the task to be a less important secondary task. These secondary

tasks can even succumb to decreased compliance as the increased pressure for higher production

intensifies. To prove this the researchers looked at the simple task of hand hygiene. The

researchers installed electronic monitoring devices on the sinks that hospital staff were required

to use to wash their hands upon entering patient rooms. The rule in the hospitals under study was

that every time a hospital employee entered or exited a patient’s room, they were to wash their

hands to prevent the possible spread of germs and infections. Therefore, every entry or exit into

or from a patient’s room was considered an opportunity for washing one’s hands. If the hospital

employee washed their hands prior to entry or exit, this event was recoded as a compliance to the

hand hygiene rule. Conversely if the employee did not wash their hands, this event was recorded

as a non-compliance to the hand hygiene rule. Because the hospital staff was equipped with

monitoring devices, it was also known who the employees were during the events of compliance

or non-compliance. This gave researchers insight into how long an employee had been on their

shift when the events occurred. The results of the study confirmed their hypothesis: as people

work longer and longer, their compliance rate with rules decreases. This can be seen in Figure 9

displaying data from their study regarding average hand hygiene compliance rate versus shift

duration.
 21

Figure 9. Hand hygiene rule compliance rate versus shift duration. Reproduced from “The Impact of Time at Work
and Time Off From Work on Rule Compliance: The Case of Hand Hygiene in Health Care” H. Dai, K. L.
Milkman, A. D. Hofmann, and R. B. Staats, 2015, Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), p. 853.

The healthcare industry is good example of what should be the best practice model of

production/process compliance. Failures or non-compliance in the healthcare industry typically

carry with them a direct effect on human health. Unless a manufacturing firm is producing a

safety device, production deviance typically only affects customer satisfaction and the firm’s

profits. Therefore, people in healthcare should have the added motivation of patient health to

drive compliance. If there are problems controlling such tasks as hand hygiene, then there must

be other contributing factors, such as fatigue. This fatigue or boredom is also noticeable in

manufacturing when looking at the compliance rates of production monitoring tasks.

Because boredom is essentially a state in which a person has a low stimulating

environment, Mann (2007) suggests that there are some tools or processes that can be put in

place to help mitigate the boredom experienced in modern day workplaces. One of the suggested
 22

techniques is to make the process more visible. This technique is precisely what Persson, Wanek,

and Johansson (2001) set out to explore in their study of work environments. Their research

looked at different tasks to define two different categories of jobs: active versus passive. Passive

work is characterized by low levels of stimulation. As Pearson et al. (2001) described them, they

consist mostly of monitoring tasks. Active work environments are environments in which an

operator needs to use predictive analysis to plan actions and control a process. Modern-day

manufacturing jobs could fit into either category depending on the way in which job design was

conducted by any one firm. Pearson et al.’s (2001) aim was to validate two critical problems with

operators as they are placed into highly automated systems. The main problem was that a stable

process generally leads to less active tasks, which increases the under-stimulation experienced by

the operator interacting with the process. To prove this, the study explored operators involved in

the production of electricity: a grid operator versus a dispatch operator. The grid operators were

thought to have more passive jobs due to their interaction with the process happening only about

once per day. Most of the other time was spent monitoring said process. Unfortunately, the

comparison of these two different jobs at the one power company studied showed no significant

difference in passive versus active work. The study discussed that, actually, due to a cultural

influence at the company under observation, the passive jobs also contained other duties to

ensure that people in such positions could combat the negative effects of monotony. When this

company was compared to another company in which the similar jobs did not add additional

tasks, there were statistical differences among the groups. One of the most notable differences

was that “job commitment is lower for the passive operators than for that of active operators”

(Persson et al., 2001, p. 446). In the case of production monitoring, when operators need not

adjust the process because they are operating within largely calculated control limits, their
 23

compliance rates suffer due to their jobs resembling the passive jobs described above. When they

needed to adjust their processes due to trends or out of control points, their jobs resembled active

jobs and compliance rates for production monitoring increased.

All these studies can be summarized when looking at a process with which most people are

familiar: driving. It almost seems antithetical that one could get fatigued just from driving due to

the fact that the physical requirements of the process are not very high. However, most people

can recollect a time when they themselves have been subject to such fatigue. If the physical

demands with a process such as driving are not that high, then what causes the fatigue? Thiffault

and Bergeron (2003) set out to prove that when people experience the same stimulus repeatedly,

the fatigue rates actually increase. Manufacturing processes use largely calculated control limits

where an operator sees the same data point time and time again; one that is always in control and

yields a similar process. As with the driving experiment, the research suggests that as the control

limits are tightened, therefore providing alternate signals (trends and out of control points more

often), the fatigue rates actually decrease, and operators comply more with production

monitoring as seen in the increase of compliance rates.

 24

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Define

Figure 10 shows the compliance rates for production monitoring in the first 12 weeks of

calendar year 2018. The average compliance rate is 80.3%, with the high being 97.1%, and the

low calculating out at 59.3%. In sticking with the DMAIC model, the problem was defined

(production monitoring compliance is causing unnecessary rework and scrap costs); however,

prior to the research for this thesis, there was not a good measure to track the compliance rates of

process monitoring. Since operators use digital control charts for most processes, it could be

determined that they had or had not monitored the process; however, there was not an easy way

to identify how many process monitoring opportunities there should have been (based on amount

of pieces produced) versus how many process monitoring opportunities were actually conducted.
 25

Production Check Compliance by Week

1 00.0%

80.0%
Average Compliance

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
201 8 Week Number

Figure 10. Graph showing average compliance rates for production checks in 2018 by week number.

Measure

The second step in the DMAIC process flow, measurement, is employed to perform

actual measurements against the defined problem. In the case under study, the measurements

performed on the process are compared to actual measurements, which should have been

performed. To assist in defect prevention, the company under review utilizes the SPC tool.

Operators run their processes by utilizing a first piece inspection report that includes the manner

in which a feature is supposed to be inspected, how often it is to be inspected, and whether it is a

requirement of the inspection. Table 1 shows an excerpt from said document. Note that the two

left columns display the print specification and description of the characteristic. The two right

columns display the method of measurement (CMM, Perthometer, etc.) and how often each print
 26

characteristic is supposed to be measured. The bottom of the same form contains a section that

lists which characteristics must be controlled using SPC. This can be seen in Table 2.

Table 1

Excerpt from a Typical First Piece Inspection Report

Note. Freq. = the frequency at which each of the line item checks is to be completed. Created by the author of this
thesis.
 27

Table 2

Excerpt from a Typical First Piece Inspection Report Demonstrating How an Operator is
Informed of Which Characteristics Need SPC

Note. Each cell defines the characteristics that must be charted on a control chart. Created by the author of this
thesis.

The focus of the study was on the characteristic of bore diameter. Since this bore has a fit

function in which a shaft is inserted into it in the final customer assembly, it is critical that SPC

is maintained to ensure that assembly can commence. A diagram of the bushing can be seen in

Figure 11.

Figure 11. Diagram showing the characteristic under study: bore. Created by the author of this thesis
 28

Although this bore is depicted as a perfect cylinder, the reality of manufacturing is that it can

never be perfect. There will always be some deviation from a perfect cylinder, which can

interfere with the parts ability to be assembled. Figure 12 shows the dilemma of measuring size

versus the form error and what pin will actually fit in the bore. Size measurement is always

influenced by form error; therefore, you can see there will always be some discrepancy in the pin

that will fit in the bore and the actual size reported by the measurement.

Figure 12. Showing form versus size versus pin fit. Created by the author of this thesis
 29

Because form measurement requires highly specialized equipment that is not easily deployed at

the point of manufacturing, the limits for bore size must be truncated to prevent the non-

assembly issues from happening. Ultimately, the fit of the pin is what matters to the functional

nature of the bore; therefore, a pin is provided to the operator to periodically check the fit of the

bore. Because it is hard for an operator to adjust a size based on feel, the bore size is a discrete

measurement provided to allow the operator to offset the CNC machine, which cuts this feature.

An air gauge (as depicted in Figure 14) is used to measure the numeric bore size.

Technology has helped make the data collection process more user-friendly by

eliminating the error prone waste of manual data entry. The air gauge depicted in Figure 13 is

connected to a PC via a USB connection. This allows the operator to input the data directly from

the gauge instead of key punching the data into the system via a keyboard. This data entry plots

the subgroup on a typical X-Bar and R chart such that the operator can analyze the chart and

make the appropriate process adjustments. The X-Bar and R charts (Figure 14) show the control

limits as well as a colored background: green, yellow, and red. The colors are defined by

percentages of the control limits. The green boundaries depicted 95% of the control limits, the

yellow boundaries depict 99%, and red depicts outside of the limits. The backbone of the SPC

program utilized is a Structured Query Language (SQL) database; therefore, the raw data is

retrievable and consists of the measurement value, the operator who performed the measurement,

the production location in which the measurement data was taken, and the date and time of the

measurement. An example of the X-Bar and R charts can be seen in Figure 15.
 30

Analog Readout

Discrete Digital
Readout

Part Being
Measured

Figure 13. Air gauge displaying the discreet measurement of the bore diameter. Created by the author of this thesis
 31

Figure 14. Visual output of the data entry: X-Bar and R Charts. Created by the author of this thesis

The production facility utilizes monitors next to each cell of CNC machines to display the

efficiency of each machine. Figure 15 shows a portion of the displayed data. The CNC machines

are able to monitor the start of each machine cycle.

Figure 15. CNC machine output tracking the number of pieces produced each hour. Created by the author of this
thesis

The machine then starts an internal clock to compute the time it took to complete each cycle. The

actual time is compared to a theoretical time determined from the program currently running in

the CNC machine. These times are then compared to show if the machine is meeting the cycle

time. There are some key points to note when looking at Figure 16. First, the upper portion of the
 32

figure shows a time scale. This scale is simply the time in which the machine was running. The

monitors themselves track a complete 24 hour rolling display. Below the time scale is a count.

This is a physical count of the machine cycle starts recorded during each hour of production.

Below the counts is a bar graph colored green or red. Green indicates periods of time where the

machine was actually running, and red demonstrates periods of downtime. To perform the

measurement of employee compliance, the data used in Figure 16 is added up for each eight-hour

shift: 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. is third shift, 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. is first shift, and 2:00 p.m. to

10:00 p.m. is second shift. If the machine was running at 100%, a count of 75 is displayed below

the corresponding hour in Figure 16. The total piece count per shift is then divided by 75 to

provide the total time that the cell was in production:

8

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = (∑ 𝑥𝑖 )⁄8

𝑖=1

The total hours of machine production are then multiplied by two factors to determine how many

checks of the bore size the operator should have conducted throughout the shift. The two factors

are expected checks per hour and number of pieces in each SPC subgroup:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘𝑠 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝑆ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡

8

= ((∑ 𝑥𝑖 )⁄8) ∗ 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘𝑠 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 ∗ 𝑃𝑖𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝.

𝑖=1

For the characteristic under study, the bore is to be checked as follows:

8

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘𝑠 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝑆ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡 = ((∑ 𝑥𝑖 )⁄8) ∗ 3 ∗ 3.

𝑖=1
 33

The final count that must be obtained comes from the raw SPC database input into the computer

by the operator via the automatic data recording of the air gage (Figure 14). An example output

for an eight-hour shift can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3

Measurements for Bore Diameter Recorded in The SPC Database

Date Time Operator Job Number SG # Piece # Bore Diameter
9/4/2018 6:03:31 AM 937 808476 18 1 0.006
9/4/2018 6:03:31 AM 937 808476 18 2 0.005
9/4/2018 6:03:31 AM 937 808476 18 3 0.003
9/4/2018 6:19:15 AM 937 808476 19 1 0.002
9/4/2018 6:19:15 AM 937 808476 19 2 0.005
9/4/2018 6:19:15 AM 937 808476 19 3 0.005
9/4/2018 6:32:42 AM 937 808476 20 1 0.004
9/4/2018 6:32:42 AM 937 808476 20 2 0.002
9/4/2018 6:32:42 AM 937 808476 20 3 0.005
9/4/2018 6:52:55 AM 937 808476 21 1 0.007
9/4/2018 6:52:55 AM 937 808476 21 2 0.005
9/4/2018 6:52:55 AM 937 808476 21 3 0.004
9/4/2018 7:00:02 AM 937 808476 22 1 0.003
9/4/2018 7:00:02 AM 937 808476 22 2 0.005
9/4/2018 7:00:02 AM 937 808476 22 3 0.004
9/4/2018 7:15:55 AM 937 808476 23 1 0.005
9/4/2018 7:15:55 AM 937 808476 23 2 0.004
9/4/2018 7:15:55 AM 937 808476 23 3 0.004
9/4/2018 7:30:21 AM 937 808476 24 1 0.005
9/4/2018 7:30:21 AM 937 808476 24 2 0.004
9/4/2018 7:30:21 AM 937 808476 24 3 0.007
9/4/2018 7:45:16 AM 937 808476 25 1 0.005
9/4/2018 7:45:16 AM 937 808476 25 2 0.006
9/4/2018 7:45:16 AM 937 808476 25 3 0.004
9/4/2018 8:04:31 AM 937 808476 26 1 0.007
9/4/2018 8:04:31 AM 937 808476 26 2 0.005
9/4/2018 8:04:31 AM 937 808476 26 3 0.004
9/4/2018 8:15:15 AM 937 808476 27 1 0.006
9/4/2018 8:15:15 AM 937 808476 27 2 0.003
9/4/2018 8:15:15 AM 937 808476 27 3 0.005
 34

Date Time Operator Job Number SG # Piece # Bore Diameter

9/4/2018 8:40:37 AM 937 808476 28 1 0.002
9/4/2018 8:40:37 AM 937 808476 28 2 0.006
9/4/2018 8:40:37 AM 937 808476 28 3 0.006
9/4/2018 8:45:55 AM 937 808476 29 1 0.004
9/4/2018 8:45:55 AM 937 808476 29 2 0.008
9/4/2018 8:45:55 AM 937 808476 29 3 0.005
9/4/2018 9:00:25 AM 937 808476 30 1 0.003
9/4/2018 9:00:25 AM 937 808476 30 2 0.003
9/4/2018 9:00:25 AM 937 808476 30 3 0.002
9/4/2018 9:16:53 AM 937 808476 31 1 0.006
9/4/2018 9:16:53 AM 937 808476 31 2 0.005
9/4/2018 9:16:53 AM 937 808476 31 3 0.006
9/4/2018 9:31:37 AM 937 808476 32 1 0.005
9/4/2018 9:31:37 AM 937 808476 32 2 0.002
9/4/2018 9:31:37 AM 937 808476 32 3 0.006
9/4/2018 9:46:04 AM 937 808476 33 1 0.003
9/4/2018 9:46:04 AM 937 808476 33 2 0.004
9/4/2018 9:46:04 AM 937 808476 33 3 0.002
9/4/2018 10:01:20 AM 937 808476 34 1 0.006
9/4/2018 10:01:20 AM 937 808476 34 2 0.008
9/4/2018 10:01:20 AM 937 808476 34 3 0.006
9/4/2018 10:14:47 AM 937 808476 35 1 0.006
9/4/2018 10:14:47 AM 937 808476 35 2 0.004
9/4/2018 10:14:47 AM 937 808476 35 3 0.004
9/4/2018 10:30:21 AM 937 808476 36 1 0.004
9/4/2018 10:30:21 AM 937 808476 36 2 0.003
9/4/2018 10:30:21 AM 937 808476 36 3 0.005
9/4/2018 10:46:27 AM 937 808476 37 1 0.006
9/4/2018 10:46:27 AM 937 808476 37 2 0.006
9/4/2018 10:46:27 AM 937 808476 37 3 0.006
9/4/2018 11:00:02 AM 937 808476 38 1 0.006
9/4/2018 11:00:02 AM 937 808476 38 2 0.004
9/4/2018 11:00:02 AM 937 808476 38 3 0.005
9/4/2018 11:15:08 AM 937 808476 39 1 0.003
9/4/2018 11:15:08 AM 937 808476 39 2 0.006
9/4/2018 11:15:08 AM 937 808476 39 3 0.005
9/4/2018 11:21:50 AM 937 808476 40 1 0.003
9/4/2018 11:21:50 AM 937 808476 40 2 0.003
9/4/2018 11:21:50 AM 937 808476 40 3 0.008
 35

Date Time Operator Job Number SG # Piece # Bore Diameter

9/4/2018 11:53:53 AM 937 808476 41 1 0.008
9/4/2018 11:53:53 AM 937 808476 41 2 0.005
9/4/2018 11:53:53 AM 937 808476 41 3 0.003
9/4/2018 12:00:32 PM 937 808476 42 1 0.003
9/4/2018 12:00:32 PM 937 808476 42 2 0.004
9/4/2018 12:00:32 PM 937 808476 42 3 0.003
9/4/2018 12:15:39 PM 937 808476 43 1 0.005
9/4/2018 12:15:39 PM 937 808476 43 2 0.006
9/4/2018 12:15:39 PM 937 808476 43 3 0.005
9/4/2018 12:30:55 PM 937 808476 44 1 0.006
9/4/2018 12:30:55 PM 937 808476 44 2 0.006
9/4/2018 12:30:55 PM 937 808476 44 3 0.003
9/4/2018 12:48:43 PM 937 808476 45 1 0.004
9/4/2018 12:48:43 PM 937 808476 45 2 0.004
9/4/2018 12:48:43 PM 937 808476 45 3 0.006
9/4/2018 1:00:20 PM 937 808476 46 1 0.006
9/4/2018 1:00:20 PM 937 808476 46 2 0.004
9/4/2018 1:00:20 PM 937 808476 46 3 0.005
9/4/2018 1:20:19 PM 937 808476 47 1 0.006
9/4/2018 1:20:19 PM 937 808476 47 2 0.004
9/4/2018 1:20:19 PM 937 808476 47 3 0.006
9/4/2018 1:36:08 PM 937 808476 48 1 0.002
9/4/2018 1:36:08 PM 937 808476 48 2 0.003
9/4/2018 1:36:08 PM 937 808476 48 3 0.004
Note. Operator number is coded to protect the identity of the person completing the check. Created by the author of
this thesis.

Each line in Table 3 is an entry for a measurement; therefore, the lines can simply be counted to

determine the number of measurements taken during the shift in question: actual bore checks per

shift. The compliance rate for checking the bore diameter is simply:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘𝑠 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝑆ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡

𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = ( ) ∗ 100
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘𝑠 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝑆ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡
 36

The baseline data for this study was taken while the process was utilizing modified control limits

for the SPC requirements. Modified control limits are used to provide more flexibility in the

process. They calculate wider limits using the following formulae.

𝑅
𝜎𝑖 =
𝑑2

𝐶𝑝𝑘 = 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒1
𝐶𝑝𝑘 =
3(𝜎𝑖 )

𝑍95% = 1.645

𝜎𝑖
𝜎𝑥 =
√𝑛

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒2 = 𝑍95% (𝜎𝑥 )

𝑈𝐶𝐿𝑀𝑜𝑑 = 𝑈𝑆𝐿 − 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒1 − 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒2

𝐿𝐶𝐿𝑀𝑜𝑑 = 𝐿𝑆𝐿 + 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒1 + 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒2

 37

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analyze

The third step in the DMAIC process is the analyze stage. This is the stage in which the

measurement data is processed to understand what the data is actually demonstrating. In the case

of employee engagement, the raw data is shown in Table 4. Table 4 shows the compliance rates

of employee engagement by stage. The “Stage” column describes the points at which the data for

the study was taken. The baseline stage consisted of the timeframe when the process control

limits were calculated to be wide using the modified control limit calculations. The term

“Modified Process Control Limits (PCLs)” was used to identify the point in time when the

control limits were tightened to provide more signal to the operator in the form of points nearing

the limits; therefore, signaling process adjustments needed to keep the bore running in a range in

which the functional pin gauge (Figure 13) will still fit. Because the time the machine was in

production was an estimate based on pieces produced each hour, there were times when the

calculations showed that an operator was in compliance more than 100% of the time; therefore,

the adjacent column was added as a calculation to indicate that anything over 100% would be

truncated to 100% compliance. To aid in testing the results, Minitab 17 was utilized.
 38

Table 4

Compliance Rates for Operators Engaging With the Process

Compliance
Week Checks Checks
Stage Date Shift Compliance (Max
Number Required Completed
100%)

Baseline 1 1/2/2018 1st 21 21 100.0% 100.0%

Baseline 1 1/2/2018 2nd 21 24 114.3% 100.0%
Baseline 1 1/3/2018 1st 21 14 66.7% 66.7%
Baseline 1 1/3/2018 2nd 21 6 28.6% 28.6%
Baseline 1 1/3/2018 3rd 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 1 1/4/2018 2nd 9 6 66.7% 66.7%
Baseline 1 1/5/2018 2nd 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 2 1/8/2018 1st 9 9 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 2 1/8/2018 2nd 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 2 1/8/2018 3rd 9 12 133.3% 100.0%
Baseline 3 1/15/2018 1st 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 3 1/15/2018 2nd 21 24 114.3% 100.0%
Baseline 3 1/15/2018 3rd 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 3 1/16/2018 1st 21 12 57.1% 57.1%
Baseline 3 1/16/2018 2nd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 3 1/16/2018 3rd 21 15 71.4% 71.4%
Baseline 3 1/17/2018 1st 21 15 71.4% 71.4%
Baseline 3 1/17/2018 2nd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 3 1/17/2018 3rd 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 3 1/18/2018 1st 21 15 71.4% 71.4%
Baseline 3 1/18/2018 2nd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 3 1/18/2018 3rd 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 3 1/19/2018 1st 21 27 128.6% 100.0%
Baseline 3 1/19/2018 2nd 21 27 128.6% 100.0%
Baseline 3 1/20/2018 1st 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 4 1/22/2018 1st 9 15 166.7% 100.0%
Baseline 4 1/22/2018 2nd 21 33 157.1% 100.0%
Baseline 4 1/22/2018 3rd 21 33 157.1% 100.0%
Baseline 4 1/23/2018 1st 21 30 142.9% 100.0%
Baseline 4 1/23/2018 2nd 9 6 66.7% 66.7%
Baseline 4 1/23/2018 3rd 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 4 1/24/2018 1st 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
 39

Compliance
Week Checks Checks
Stage Date Shift Compliance (Max
Number Required Completed
100%)

Baseline 4 1/24/2018 2nd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%

Baseline 4 1/24/2018 3rd 9 9 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 4 1/26/2018 1st 21 23 109.5% 100.0%
Baseline 4 1/28/2018 3rd 21 33 157.1% 100.0%
Baseline 5 1/29/2018 1st 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 5 1/29/2018 2nd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 5 1/29/2018 3rd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 5 1/30/2018 1st 9 12 133.3% 100.0%
Baseline 5 1/30/2018 2nd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 5 1/30/2018 3rd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 5 2/1/2018 2nd 21 3 14.3% 14.3%
Baseline 5 2/1/2018 3rd 21 15 71.4% 71.4%
Baseline 5 2/2/2018 2nd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 5 2/3/2018 2nd 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 5 2/4/2018 3rd 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 6 2/5/2018 2nd 9 6 66.7% 66.7%
Baseline 6 2/5/2018 3rd 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 6 2/6/2018 1st 21 15 71.4% 71.4%
Baseline 6 2/6/2018 2nd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 6 2/7/2018 2nd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 6 2/7/2018 3rd 21 12 57.1% 57.1%
Baseline 6 2/16/2018 1st 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 7 2/16/2018 3rd 9 6 66.7% 66.7%
Baseline 7 2/17/2018 1st 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 7 2/18/2018 3rd 9 9 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 8 2/19/2018 1st 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 8 2/19/2018 3rd 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 8 2/20/2018 1st 9 9 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 8 2/20/2018 3rd 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 8 2/21/2018 1st 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 8 2/21/2018 3rd 21 39 185.7% 100.0%
Baseline 8 2/22/2018 1st 21 27 128.6% 100.0%
Baseline 8 2/22/2018 3rd 21 33 157.1% 100.0%
Baseline 8 2/23/2018 1st 21 36 171.4% 100.0%
Baseline 8 2/25/2018 3rd 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 9 2/26/2018 2nd 21 24 114.3% 100.0%
Baseline 9 2/26/2018 3rd 21 15 71.4% 71.4%
 40

Compliance
Week Checks Checks
Stage Date Shift Compliance (Max
Number Required Completed
100%)

Baseline 9 2/27/2018 1st 9 6 66.7% 66.7%

Baseline 9 2/27/2018 2nd 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 9 2/27/2018 3rd 21 15 71.4% 71.4%
Baseline 9 2/28/2018 1st 21 15 71.4% 71.4%
Baseline 9 3/2/2018 1st 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 9 3/4/2018 3rd 21 15 71.4% 71.4%
Baseline 9 3/5/2018 1st 9 12 133.3% 100.0%
Baseline 10 3/5/2018 2nd 9 9 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 10 3/5/2018 3rd 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 10 3/6/2018 1st 9 12 133.3% 100.0%
Baseline 10 3/6/2018 2nd 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 10 3/8/2018 1st 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 10 3/8/2018 2nd 21 12 57.1% 57.1%
Baseline 10 3/8/2018 3rd 21 12 57.1% 57.1%
Baseline 10 3/9/2018 1st 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 10 3/11/2018 3rd 21 24 114.3% 100.0%
Baseline 10 3/12/2018 1st 9 12 133.3% 100.0%
Baseline 11 3/12/2018 2nd 9 9 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 11 3/13/2018 1st 21 12 57.1% 57.1%
Baseline 11 3/13/2018 3rd 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 11 3/14/2018 1st 9 9 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 11 3/14/2018 2nd 21 12 57.1% 57.1%
Baseline 11 3/21/2018 2nd 9 9 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 11 3/21/2018 3rd 21 18 85.7% 85.7%
Baseline 12 3/22/2018 2nd 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Baseline 12 3/22/2018 3rd 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 12 3/23/2018 2nd 21 15 71.4% 71.4%
Baseline 12 3/23/2018 3rd 21 21 100.0% 100.0%
Baseline 12 3/24/2018 1st 9 3 33.3% 33.3%
Modified
PCL's 12 8/2/2018 3rd 57.6 39 67.7% 67.7%
Modified
PCL's 12 8/2/2018 1st 72 60 83.3% 83.3%
Modified
PCL's 31 8/3/2018 1st 65.28 69 105.7% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 31 8/6/2018 3rd 62.4 60 96.2% 96.2%
Modified
PCL's 31 8/6/2018 1st 34.56 28.5 82.5% 82.5%
 41

Compliance
Week Checks Checks
Stage Date Shift Compliance (Max
Number Required Completed
100%)
Modified
PCL's 32 8/7/2018 1st 72 81 112.5% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 32 8/7/2018 2nd 31.68 33 104.2% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 32 8/8/2018 1st 66.24 75 113.2% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 32 8/9/2018 3rd 53.76 30 55.8% 55.8%
Modified
PCL's 32 8/9/2018 1st 48.96 42 85.8% 85.8%
Modified
PCL's 32 8/9/2018 2nd 34.56 0 0.0% 0.0%
Modified
PCL's 32 8/10/2018 1st 55.68 57 102.4% 100.0%
Modified
32
PCL's 8/10/2018 2nd 33.6 21 62.5% 62.5%
Modified
PCL's 32 8/13/2018 3rd 68.16 69 101.2% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 32 8/13/2018 1st 68.16 66 96.8% 96.8%
Modified
PCL's 32 8/13/2018 2nd 60.48 81 133.9% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/14/2018 3rd 64.32 69 107.3% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/14/2018 1st 66.24 66 99.6% 99.6%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/14/2018 2nd 56.64 87 153.6% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/15/2018 1st 64.32 81 125.9% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/15/2018 2nd 61.44 78 127.0% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/16/2018 3rd 62.4 51 81.7% 81.7%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/16/2018 1st 70.08 84 119.9% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/16/2018 2nd 53.76 69 128.3% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/17/2018 3rd 24.96 36 144.2% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/17/2018 1st 72.96 72 98.7% 98.7%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/17/2018 2nd 64.32 81 125.9% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/20/2018 3rd 55.68 72 129.3% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/20/2018 1st 44.16 42 95.1% 95.1%
Modified
PCL's 33 8/20/2018 2nd 68.16 80 117.4% 100.0%
 42

Compliance
Week Checks Checks
Stage Date Shift Compliance (Max
Number Required Completed
100%)
Modified
PCL's 34 8/21/2018 1st 65.28 87 133.3% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 34 8/21/2018 2nd 72 84 116.7% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 34 8/22/2018 3rd 70.08 46 65.6% 65.6%
Modified
PCL's 34 8/22/2018 1st 56.64 57 100.6% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 34 8/22/2018 2nd 71.04 78 109.8% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 34 8/23/2018 3rd 55.68 72 129.3% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 34 8/23/2018 2nd 56.64 39 68.9% 68.9%
Modified
PCL's 34 8/24/2018 3rd 57.6 72 125.0% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 34 8/24/2018 1st 72 61 84.7% 84.7%
Modified
PCL's 34 8/27/2018 3rd 73.92 84 113.6% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 34 8/27/2018 1st 72 99 137.5% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 34 8/27/2018 2nd 61.44 93 151.4% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 35 8/28/2018 3rd 51.84 72 138.9% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 35 8/28/2018 1st 60.48 61 100.9% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 35 8/28/2018 2nd 63.36 81 127.8% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 35 8/29/2018 3rd 61.44 90 146.5% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 35 8/29/2018 1st 61.44 57 92.8% 92.8%
Modified
PCL's 35 8/29/2018 2nd 32.64 30 91.9% 91.9%
Modified
PCL's 35 8/30/2018 3rd 55.68 87 156.3% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 35 8/30/2018 1st 67.2 84 125.0% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 35 8/30/2018 2nd 68.16 69 101.2% 100.0%
Modified
35
PCL's 8/31/2018 3rd 61.44 84 136.7% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 35 8/31/2018 1st 69.12 84 121.5% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 35 9/4/2018 3rd 44.16 51 115.5% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 35 9/4/2018 1st 70.08 94 134.1% 100.0%
 43

Compliance
Week Checks Checks
Stage Date Shift Compliance (Max
Number Required Completed
100%)
Modified
PCL's 35 9/4/2018 2nd 57.6 42 72.9% 72.9%
Modified
PCL's 35 9/5/2018 3rd 56.64 27 47.7% 47.7%
Modified
PCL's 36 9/5/2018 1st 50.4 72 142.9% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 36 9/5/2018 2nd 45.36 27 59.5% 59.5%
Modified
PCL's 36 9/6/2018 3rd 22.32 33 147.8% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 36 9/6/2018 1st 25.92 36 138.9% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 36 9/6/2018 2nd 42.48 43 101.2% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 36 9/7/2018 1st 51.84 66 127.3% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 36 9/10/2018 1st 19.44 24 123.5% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 37 9/11/2018 3rd 23.76 27 113.6% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 37 9/11/2018 1st 40.32 39 96.7% 96.7%
Modified
PCL's 37 9/12/2018 1st 43.2 45 104.2% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 37 9/13/2018 2nd 45.36 36 79.4% 79.4%
Modified
PCL's 37 9/14/2018 3rd 51.12 66 129.1% 100.0%
Modified
PCL's 37 9/14/2018 1st 51.84 72 138.9% 100.0%
Note. Week number is defined by the calendar week year. Created by the author of this thesis

To visualize the results of Table 4 and help in the analysis, the data was plotted on a control chart

broken into the two stages described above (Figure 17).

 44

Figure 16. I-MR Chart of Compliance Rates. Created by the author of this thesis.

Breaking the control chart (Figure 16) into stages allows for a first visual attempt at

analyzing the data. The baseline data appears to have more variation as represented by the wide

upper and lower control limits. In this case, the lower control limit (LCL) on the I-chart is

calculated at 14% with the average (represented by the green line) calculated at 78.7%. The stage

with the modified control limits has less variation with the lower control limit calculated at

58.9% and an average calculated at 92.4%. In both cases the upper limit is set as a boundary

limit of 100% because it is not possible to be in compliance more than 100%. These initial visual

cues are confirmed by running a test for equal variances (Figure 18).
 45

Figure 17. Test of Equal Variances of the Baseline Stage to the Modified PCL Stage. Created by the author of this
thesis.

These initial visual cues are confirmed by running a test for equal variances (Figure 18). The null

hypothesis in this case (Ho) is set to assume that there is no statistical differences in the variation

between the two populations. Because the P-Value is calculated below the statistical significance

value of 0.05, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in the variation noted in

each stage. The calculated results can be seen in Table 5.

 46

Table 5

Standard Deviation and Confidence Interval for Each Stage of Test

Stage N Standard Deviation Confidence Interval
Baseline 98 0.25531 (0.22197, 0.30053)
Modified PCL's 70 0.16829 (0.09707, 0.30141)
Note. N = number of data points. Created by the author of this thesis.

The next area of testing is to ensure that there is a statistical difference in the averages of

each stage of the test. This is graphically depicted in Figure 18. Since the means for each stage

falls out of the red decision lines, it can be concluded that the average compliance for the

Modified PCL stage is greater than the average for the Baseline stage.

Figure 18. Analysis of the Means of the Baseline Stage to the Modified PCL Stage. Created by the author of this
thesis.

The graphical analysis of Figure 18 can be further confirmed by running a two-sample T test

against each stage. The results of this test can be seen in Figure 19.
 47

Figure 19. Minitab Results of the Two-Sample T Test Between the Stages. Created by the author of this thesis

Since the calculated P-value shown in Figure 20 was 0.000, which is below the threshold value

of 0.05, it can be concluded that there is a statistical difference in the mean compliance rates

between the stages. Based on confidence interval, it could be expected that the difference would

be anywhere from as low as 7.2% to as high as 20.1%.

Improve

The Improvement stage of DMAIC comes after all the data has been analyzed. From the earlier

analysis it can be determined that the improvement was an increased level of employee

engagement. If the modified data is plotted to remake the bar graph in Figure 10, the production

check compliance has increased from 78.7% to 92.4% (Figure 20).

 48

Figure 20. Graph showing average compliance rates for production checks in 2018 by week number as affected by
the improvement: increase to 92.4%. Created by the author of this thesis.

When looking at how much this improvement can contribute to the organization under study, the

use of a Pareto chart can be utilized. Figure 21 shows the baseline data. The code affected by the

study is “ID dimensional.” Before the improvement, said scrap code accounted for 7.2% and

was the second highest reason for scrapping product.

 49

Figure 21. Pareto chart showing the baseline scrap data. ID dimensional is the code associated with the bore size.
Created by the author of this thesis.

After the improvement the scrap was reduced to 6.5% and fell to the fifth place for scrap reasons

(Figure 22).
 50

Figure 22. Pareto chart showing the improvement scrap data. ID dimensional is the code associated with the bore
size. Created by the author of this thesis.

Control

The control portion of the DMAIC model comes into effect by utilizing the newly defined

measurement concepts of employee engagement as previously discussed. These measurements

be can be continuously monitored on a control chart constructed from control limits calculated

after the improvement was determined. In this case, the lower control limit is 58.9%, which is

much greater than the initial lower control limit of 14.0%, as points falling outside the lower

control limit would be identified as a significant decline in employee engagement. This can be

seen by the large red squares in Figure 24. These points would warrant investigation into the

responsible employee to understand why they were not engaged with their production process.
 51

Figure 23. Graph showing the lower control limit increase after the improvement. Created by the author of this
thesis.

The increased employee engagement and the reduction of 0.7% scrap has large financial

implications for the organization under study. The product under study is a large volume product

with approximately one million units sold annually. To calculate the improvement, the following

equation will be employed:

𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑥 𝑆𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑝 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑃𝑖𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑝 𝐴𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑

1,000,000 𝑥 0.007 = 7,000 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠

With all manufacturing costs factored into the cost of each unit scrapped, the cost per unit

of scrap is approximately eleven dollars; therefore, the savings to the organization under study

can be accounted for by the equation

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑝 𝐴𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑥 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑆𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑝 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠

7,000 𝑥 $11.00 = $77,000.00

This improvement is equal to approximately $77,000.00 in savings, which when looked

at in the sense of direct labor can be equivalent to the reduction of one manufacturing personnel.
 52

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study provided evidence that can be helpful in today’s modern age of

manufacturing. As certain jobs tend more and more towards mundane tasks, employers should be

seeking ways to engage their workforce. It has been proven that the more workers are involved

in their jobs, the more performance will increase (Woods et al., 2012). Employee disengagement

can be gauged with many issues such as increased scrap costs, the potential for more workplace

injuries, higher employee turnover, and ultimately a reduction in customer satisfaction, the

backbone of quality. Using a legacy tool of quality such as SPC can help to provide interactive

feedback to operators monitoring a process. This feedback is such that operators need to engage

with the process to ensure that the quality characteristics of the process are maintained and

optimized. As shown in the data, if a process’ control limits are too wide, as in those calculated

using the modified method, the signaling to the operator is less, and the operator’s engagement

begins to wane as demonstrated by the reduced amount of checks they perform on the process.

As manufacturing tends more towards automated process, firms must not neglect the importance

of employee engagement. Employee engagement takes a very concerted effort on the part of

everyone involved in process design.

 53

Conclusions

Automation has its benefits to help ensure quality; however, until the human aspect can

be eliminated in totality, processes must be designed to ensure employee engagement. This

leaves the open-ended question of whether employees can ever be truly eliminated from an

automated process, for unless there is complete artificial intelligence that creates itself, a human

will always touch some part of the creation of every process. The data collected for this study is

consistent with the research provided that unengaged employees do tend towards

counterproductive work behavior. This counterproductive work behavior is not only costly in the

fact that employees do not complete the tasks they should be completing, but also in the fact the

counterproductive work behavior creates other costs of quality such as increased scrap and

rework. The one characteristic under study amounted to a total annual savings of $77,000 in

scrap costs. The bore diameter characteristic under study is only one of nine quality

characteristics defined on the part reviewed. It would be naive to think that all quality

characteristics are the same, or that each would amount to the savings noted; however, it would

be safe to assume that some amount of savings would materialize with every quality

characteristic if the employees stay engaged and monitor the processes and adjust for each as

needed. Roughly calculating the data, one can see how quickly the cost of employee

disengagement can add up.

The DMAIC model can be utilized to help solve complex problems of almost any nature.

DMAIC provides the structured approach such that the team can stay focused and systematically

whittle away at the problem. The biggest challenge of this study was the lack of a measurement

system to see if employees were conducting the process offsets needed to keep the process
 54

producing the best quality parts possible. Once the measurement is obtained, it can and should be

used to monitor future performance to ensure that the improvement is sustained and controlled.

Human beings are not robots and cannot be programmed to complete the same task time

and time again. Even with enlightenment around employee engagement, it will never be a topic

of which variation around different people in different situations will respond with more or less

compliance. The only hope for ultimate quality control is to minimize variation in all processes

utilized in product realization. Utilizing tools such as SPC can help keep employees engaged in

the process by ensuring that they receive the signals they need to interact with their processes to

keep them in control. It cannot be stressed enough that this is not the fix for all employee

engagement issues, nor was it sought out to be; however, it is the hope that the knowledge from

this study will further enlighten process designers in their quest for better product quality and for

keeping the human element engaged.

Recommendations

This study did not specifically explore the effects of increased signaling mixed with the

variable of time on task. Although all data collected for this study was obtained by operators

throughout their normal working shifts, the workday time of each of the subjects was not just a

typical 40-hour work week. To meet delivery schedules, overtime was worked at different levels

between different subjects; however, it was not specifically tracked for the purpose of this study.

As noted in the nursing study (Dai et al., 2015), time on task does tend toward fatigue and further

exacerbate employee disengagement. Because in other studies this time factor has been shown to

have an effect, it should be explored to see if the effects of the stressor of employee fatigue can

be lessened when the knowledge obtained from this study is applied. For example, the 92.4%

compliance rates from this study could be utilized as a baseline to see if there is a statistical
 55

difference in compliance rates when an operator is subject to a typical eight-hour shift versus a

10 or 12-hour shift. The shifts noted are worked in the manufacturing firm that was studied as

well as other manufacturing firms known to the author; therefore, these shifts are employed as a

means to ensure the machines stay running in the event of employee vacations, absences, and

situations in which human capital does not meet the capacity needs of the manufacturing firm.

An example of where a 12-hour shift is employed is in the following situation: A firm is working

three shifts of production in which the human capital is obtained to ensure an operation of three

shifts working eight-hour days. If the employee on the second shift is absent, the employees on

the first and third shifts will work 12-hour shifts to cover the eight-hour absence.
 57

REFERENCES

Bauer, A. J., & Spector, E. P. (2015). Discrete negative emotions and counterproductive work

behavior. Human Performance, 28, 307-331. doi:10.1080/08959285.2015.1021040

Berg, P. (1999). The effects of high performance work practices on job satisfaction in the United

States steel industry. Relations Industielles, 54(1), 111-134.

Bouville, G., & Alis, D. (2014). The effects of lean organizational practices on employees’

attitudes and worker’s health: evidence from France. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 25(21), 3016-3037. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.951950

Cummings, L. M., Gao, F., & Thornburg, M. K. (2016). Boredom in the workplace: a new look

at an old problem. Human Factors, 58(2), 219-300. doi:10.1177/0018720815609503

Dai, H., Milkman, L. K., Hofmann, A. D., & Staats, R. B. (2015). The impact of time at work

and time off from work on rule compliance: the case of hand hygiene in health care.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 846-862. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038067

Deming, E. (n.d.). The Deming system of profound knowledge. The Deming Institute. The W.

Edwards Deming Institute. Retrieved from https://deming.org/explore/so-p-k

Gallup (2016). Employee engagement in the U.S. stagnant in 2015. Retrieved from

http://news.gallup.com/poll/188144/employee-engagement-stagnant-2015.aspx

Hawley, K. J. (1996). Automation doesn’t automatically solve problems. Quality Progress.

Retrieved from http://asq.org/data/subscriptions/qp/1996/0596/qp0596hawley.pdf

Juran, J. M. (1988). Control Charts. In J. M. Juran & F. M. Gryna (Eds.), Juran’s quality control

handbook. (pp. 24.7-24.40). New York, NY: McGrawin-Hill Book Company

 58

Kari, B., Kessler, R. S., & Spector, E. P. (2011). Bored employees misbehaving: the relationship

between boredom and counterproductive work behaviour, Work & Stress, 25(2), 93-107.

doi:10.1080/02678373.2011.596670

Mann, S. (2007). The boredom boom. The Psychologist, 20(2), 90-93

Mann, S., & Cadman, R. (2014). Does being bored make us more creative? Creativity Research

Journal, 26(2), 165-173. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.901073

Morgeson, P. F., & Humphrey, E. S. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): developing

and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321-1339. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (n.d.). Office of defects investigation complaint

data. Retrieved from http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/downloads/index.cfm

Persson, A., Wanek, B., & Johansson, A. (2001). Passive versus active operator work in

automated process control: a job design case study in a control centre. Applied

Ergonomics, 32, 441-451.

Statista (n.d.). Average age of light vehicles in the U.S. from 2003 to 2016. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/261881/average-age-of-light-vehicles-in-the-united-

states/

Thiffault, P., & Bergeron, J. (2003). Monotony of road environment and driver fatigure: a

simulator study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 381-391.

Wallén, J. (2008). The history of the industrial robot. (Report No. LiTH-ISY-R-2853). Sweden:

Linköpings universitet
 59

Wood, S., Veldhoven, M., Croon, M., & Menezes, L. (2012). Enriched job design, high

involvement management and organizational performance: the mediating roles of job

satisfaction and well-being. Human Relations, 65(4), 419-446.

doi:10.1177/0018726711432476