The Effect of Production Ergonomy on Product Quality in the Context of Built-in Oven Production Line

Abstract

There are many studies discussing the issue of ergonomics in the context of sick leave and social expenditures. However, there are fewer studies linking production ergonomics with other factors such as quality and efficiency. It would be useful to discuss production ergonomics in a wider context. The study was carried out as a pilot study in a factory where a built-in oven was produced. The aim of the study is to show that there is a relationship between production ergonomics and the product quality produced in the factory. In the study, retrospective 20-week production line data were analyzed. As a result of the analysis, a series of quality errors were selected and the assembly tasks associated with these errors were determined. Aassembly tasks are classified by the company's Occupational Safety and Health Specialist as ergonomically appropriate or not ergonomically suitable for operators. When the difference between the number of errors related to the ergonomic categories is examined, it is found that there are three times more errors in ergonomically inappropriate tasks compared to ergonomically appropriate tasks. The work to be done to make the ergonomically inappropriate tasks suitable, the time plan and the responsible people were determined. The results of the study showed that there is a relationship between product quality and production ergonomics. The calculations in the study showed that the error rate would decrease by 90% in ergonomically optimized tasks; thus, business management has made a positive decision to invest in equipment to the relevant workstations. In return for the investment cost in the study, resources are used for value generating works and an increase in the number of correctly produced products is guaranteed.

Keywords

• Quality
• Ergonomics
• Manuel assembly

References

1. Almgren, J., Schaurig, C. (2012). The influence of production ergonomics on product quality (Unpublished master’s thesis). Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
2. Al Madani, D., Dababneh, A. (2016). Rapid entire body assessment: a literature review. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 9(1), 107-118.
3. Bohgard, M., Karlsson, S., Lovén, E., Mikaelsson, L. Å., Mårtensson, L., Osvalder, A. L., ... & Ulfvengren, P. (2015). Work and technology on human terms. Prevent.
4. David, G. C. (2005). Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational medicine, 55(3), 190-199.
5. Akay, D., Dağdeviren, M. Kurt, M. (2003). Çalişma duruşlarinin ergonomik analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3).
6. Dul, J., Neumann, W. P. (2009). Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Applied ergonomics, 40(4), 745-752.
7. Eldem, C., Şahin, İ., Demir, M. T., Top N., Şahin, T. (2019). Araç Bakim Kanallarinin Dijital İnsan Modelleri ile Ergonomik Analizi ve Yeniden Tasarimi. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi, 7(2), 386-392.
8. Eldem, C , Top, N , Şahin, H. (2019). A Study on Ergonomic Assessment of Automobile Driver Posture Positions Using Digital Human Models, Gazi Journal of Engineering Sciences, 5 (1) , 22-31.

9. Falck, A. C. (2009). Ergonomics methods and work procedures in car manufacturing for improvement of quality, productivity and health at work. Chalmers University of Technology.
10. Falck, A. C., Örtengren, R., Högberg, D. (2010). The impact of poor assembly ergonomics on product quality: A cost–benefit analysis in car manufacturing. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 20(1), 24-41.
11. Falck, A. C., Rosenqvist, M. (2014). A model for calculation of the costs of poor assembly ergonomics (part 1). International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44(1), 140-147.
12. Fritzsche, L., Wegge, J., Schmauder, M., Kliegel, M., & Schmidt, K. H. (2014). Good ergonomics and team diversity reduce absenteeism and errors in car manufacturing. Ergonomics, 57(2), 148-161.
13. Haslegrave, C. M., Pheasant, S. (2005). Bodyspace: anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work.
14. Hedge, A. (2000). REBA Employee Assessment Worksheet. Retrieved October 25, 2018, from https://ergo-plus.com/wp-content/uploads/REBA.pdf.
15. Hendrick, H. W. (2003). Determining the cost–benefits of ergonomics projects and factors that lead to their success. Applied ergonomics, 34(5), 419-427.
16. Hignett, S., McAtamney, L. (2000). Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Applied ergonomics, 31(2), 201-205.
17. Şahin, İ., Eldem, C., Kalyon, S. A., Gökçe, H. (2017). Digital Human Modelling and Ergonomic Analysis: Automatic Arm Barrier as an Example. In International Congress on New Trends in Sicence, Engineering and Technology, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 176-187).
18. Törnström, L., Amprazis, J., Christmansson, M., Eklund, J. (2008). A corporate workplace model for ergonomic assessments and improvements. Applied ergonomics, 39(2), 219-228.
19. Vieira, L., Balbinotti, G., Varasquin, A., Gontijo, L. (2012). Ergonomics and Kaizen as strategies for competitiveness: a theoretical and practical in an automotive industry. Work, 41(Supplement 1), 1756-1762.
20. Yeow, P. H., Sen, R. N. (2006). Productivity and quality improvements, revenue increment, and rejection cost reduction in the manual component insertion lines through the application of ergonomics. International journal of industrial ergonomics, 36(4), 367-377.