Comparison of the total workload of local public transportation drivers with a new approach according to physical and mental workload criteria

Abstract

The drivers working in the local public transportation may face with musculoskeletal system problems as a result of their working style and they may feel mentally great pressure and fatigue and the workloads of drivers increase. It is extremely important to determine and reduce the total workload of drivers in order to ensure public transport in a safe manner. The total workload evaluation may be considered as a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem caused by conflicting mental and physical workload criteria. In this study, an integrated approach of AHP and COPRAS methods, which is one of MCDM methods, was used to compare the drivers in terms of total workload criteria. Firstly; while NASA-TLX method criteria were considered as mental workload criteria; physical workload criteria were determined by considering the body parts in REBA method especially depending on the continuous and repeated working positions of the drivers. Then, the weights of the criteria were determined by AHP method and sixty drivers were compared with COPRAS method in terms of total workload by using these weights. The most important criteria were identified as time pressure on the drivers working for a Metropolitan Municipality, while the neck part of body was found to have more strain than the other body parts. According to the results of the study, measures to be taken to reduce the workload of drivers are presented. As a conclusion, it is thought that this study will contribute to the literature since there is no study that analyzes the total workload for drivers mentally and physically by MCDM methods.

Keywords

• Physical workload,Mental workload,AHP,COPRAS,Decision making

Şehir içi toplu taşıma şoförlerinin toplam iş yüklerinin fiziksel ve zihinsel iş yükü ölçütlerine göre yeni bir yaklaşımla karşılaştırılması

Öz

Şehir içi toplu taşımada görev yapan şoförler, çalışma şekilleri sonucu hem kas iskelet sistemi sorunları ile karşılaşabilmekte hem de zihinsel olarak büyük baskı ve yorgunluk hissedebilmekte ve bu nedenle şoförlerin iş yükleri artmaktadır. Toplu taşımanın güvenlikli bir şekilde yapılması için şoförlerin toplam iş yüklerine dikkat edilmesi ve fazla olan iş yüklerinin azaltılması son derece önemlidir. Toplam iş yükü değerlendirmesi, birbiriyle çelişen zihinsel ve fiziksel iş yükü ölçütlerine bağlı olarak ortaya çıkan bir Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme (ÇÖKV) problemi olarak ele alınabilir. Bu çalışma kapsamında şoförlerin toplam iş yükü ölçütleri bakımından karşılaştırılması için ÇÖKV yöntemlerinden olan AHP ve COPRAS yöntemlerinin bütünleşik bir yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. İlk olarak; zihinsel iş yükü ölçütleri olarak NASA-TLX yöntem ölçütleri alınırken; fiziksel iş yükü ölçütleri özellikle şoförlerin sürekli ve tekrarlı çalışma duruşlarına bağlı olarak REBA yönteminde yer alan vücut bölümleri dikkate alınarak belirlenmiştir. Ardından, AHP yöntemi ile ölçütlerin önem ağırlıkları belirlenmiş ve bu ağırlıklar kullanılarak COPRAS yöntemi ile toplam iş yükü ölçütleri açısından altmış şoför karşılaştırılmıştır. Bir Büyükşehir Belediye’sine bağlı olarak çalışan şoförler üzerinde yapılan bu çalışmada en önemli ölçütler zaman baskısı olarak belirlenirken, boyun bölümünün diğer vücut bölümlerine göre daha çok zorlandığı tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucunda elde edilen bulgulara göre şoförlerin iş yüklerinin azaltılması için alınması gereken önlemler sunulmuştur. Sonuç olarak, şoförler için hem zihinsel iş yükü hem de fiziksel iş yükü ölçütlerini ÇÖKV yöntemleri ile analiz eden başka bir çalışma bulunmaması nedeniyle bu çalışmanın literatüre katkıda bulunacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fiziksel iş yükü,Zihinsel iş yükü,AHP,COPRAS,Karar verme

Kaynakça

1. Erkol B. Şehiriçi Yolcu Otobüsleri ve Şoför Mahali Tasarımı Konusunda Bir Araştırma: Mercedes-Benz Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2004.
2. Mesleki Yeterlilik Kurumu. “Şehir içi Toplu Taşıma Otobüs Şoförü (Seviye 3) Ulusal Meslek Standardı”. https://portal.myk.gov.tr›dl=Yeterlilik› option=com_yeterlilik (02.01.2019).
3. Kennedy J and Sharp C. “Getting Better by Design Evaluation of a programme to support the voluntary sector in Scotland”. Big Lottery Fund, Europe (Western) Scotland, JCCI Reports, Director, 54-85, 2000.
4. Dağdeviren M, Eraslan E, Kurt M. “Çalışanların toplam iş yükü seviyelerinin belirlenmesine yönelik bir model ve uygulaması”. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(4), 517-525, 2005.
5. Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York, USA, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
6. Kokangül A, Polat U, Dağsuyu, C. “A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and Fine Kinney methodologies”. Safety science, 91, 24-32, 2017.
7. Öztürk ZK. Toptancı Ş. “An integrated MCDM model for occupational safety specialist selection”. Journal of Business Research Turk, 9(4), 419-435, 2017.
8. Gnanavelbabu A, Arunagiri P. “Ranking of MUDA using AHP and fuzzy AHP algorithm”. Materialstoday Proceedings, 5(5), 13406-13412, 2018.

9. Ly PTM, Lai WH, Hsu CW, Shih FY. “Fuzzy AHP analysis of Internet of Things (IoT) in enterprises”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 1-13, 2018.
10. Durmusoglu ZDU. “Assessment of techno-entrepreneurship projects by using analytical hierarchy process (AHP)”. Technology in Society, 54, 41-46, 2018.
11. Di Angelo L, Di Stefano P, Fratocchi L, Marzola A. “An AHP-based method for choosing the best 3D scanner for cultural heritage applications”. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 34, 109-115, 2018.
12. Ghimire LP, Kim Y. “An analysis on barriers to renewable energy development in the context of Nepal using AHP”. Renewable Energy, 129, 446-456, 2018.
13. Suganthi L. “Multi expert and multi criteria evaluation of sectoral investments for sustainable development: An integrated fuzzy AHP, VIKOR/DEA methodology”. Sustainable Cities and Society, 43, 144-156, 2018.
14. Ozdemir S, Sahin G. “Multi-criteria decision-making in the location selection for a solar PV power plant using AHP”. Measurement, 129, 218-226, 2018.
15. Acar C, Beskese A, Temur GT. “Sustainability analysis of different hydrogen production options using hesitant fuzzy AHP”. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43(39), 18059-18076, 2018.
16. Gottfried O, De Clercq D, Blair E, Weng X, Wang C. “SWOT-AHP-TOWS analysis of private investment behavior in the Chinese biogas sector”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 632-647, 2018.
17. Kumar R, Padhi SS, Sarkar A. “Supplier selection of an ındian heavy locomotive manufacturer: an ıntegrated approach using taguchi loss function, TOPSIS and AHP”. IIMB Management Review, 31(1), 78-90, 2019.
18. Hsieh MC, Wang EMY, Lee WC, Li LW, Hsieh CY, Tsai W, Liu TC. “Application of HFACS, fuzzy TOPSIS, and AHP for identifying important human error factors in emergency departments in Taiwan”. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 67, 171-179, 2018.
19. Geng Z, Li H, Zhu Q, Han Y. “Production prediction and energy-saving model based on extreme learning machine integrated ISM-AHP: Application in complex chemical processes”. Energy, 160, 898-909, 2018.
20. Pamučar D, Stević Ž, Zavadskas EK. “Integration of interval rough AHP and interval rough MABAC methods for evaluating university web pages”. Applied Soft Computing, 67, 141-163, 2018.
21. Sirisawat P, Kiatcharoenpol T. “Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches to prioritizing solutions for reverse logistics barriers”. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 117, 303-318, 2018.
22. Sennaroglu B, Celebi GV. “A military airport location selection by AHP integrated PROMETHEE and VIKOR methods”. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 59, 160-173, 2018.
23. Delice EK, Ayık İ, Abidinoğlu ÖN, Çiftçi NN, Sezer Y. “Ergonomik risk değerlendirme yöntemleri ve ahp yöntemi ile çalışma duruşlarının analizi: ağır ve tehlikeli işler için bir uygulama”. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi, 6, 112-124, 2018.
24. Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, Sarka V. “The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects”. Technological and economic development of economy, 1(3), 131-139, 1994.
25. Pitchipoo P, Vincent DS, Rajini N, Rajakarunakaran S. “COPRAS decision model to optimize blind spot in heavy vehicles: A comparative perspective”. Procedia Engineering, 97, 1049-1059, 2014.
26. Rabbani A, Zamani M, Yazdani-Chamzini A, Zavadskas EK. “Proposing a new integrated model based on sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) and MCDM approaches by using linguistic variables for the performance evaluation of oil producing companies”. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(16), 7316-7327, 2014.
27. Vytautas B, Marija B, Vytautas P. “Assessment of neglected areas in Vilnius city using MCDM and COPRAS methods”. Procedia Engineering, 122, 29-38, 2015.
28. Mulliner E, Malys N, Maliene V. “Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability”. Omega, 59, 146-156, 2016.
29. Wang LE, Liu HC, Quan MY. “Evaluating the risk of failure modes with a hybrid MCDM model under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environments”. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 102, 175-185, 2016.
30. Varmazyar M, Dehghanbaghi M, Afkhami M. “A novel hybrid MCDM model for performance evaluation of research and technology organizations based on BSC approach”. Evaluation and Program Planning, 58, 125-140, 2016.
31. Serrai W, Abdelli A, Mokdad L, Hammal Y. “Towards an efficient and a more accurate web service selection using MCDM methods”. Journal of Computational Science, 22, 253-267, 2017.
32. Feizabadi A, Doolabi MS, Sadrnezhaad SK, Zafarani HR, Doolabi DS, AsadiZarch M. “MCDM selection of pulse parameters for best tribological performance of Cr-Al2O3 nano-composite co-deposited from trivalent chromium bath”. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 727, 286-296, 2017.
33. Yazdani M, Chatterjee P, Zavadskas EK, Zolfani SH. “Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 3728-3740, 2017.
34. Ghorabaee MK, Amiri M, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J. “A new hybrid simulation-based assignment approach for evaluating airlines with multiple service quality criteria”. Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 45-60, 2017.
35. Mousavi-Nasab SH, Sotoudeh-Anvari A. “A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection problems”. Materials & Design, 121, 237-253, 2017.
36. Zolfani SH, Pourhossein M, Yazdani M, Zavadskas EK. “Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework”. Alexandria engineering journal, 57(1), 357-365, 2018.
37. Mavi RK, Zarbakhshnia N, Khazraei A. “Bus rapid transit (BRT): A simulation and multi criteria decision making (MCDM) approach”. Transport Policy, 72, 187-197, 2018.
38. Zheng Y, Xu Z, He Y, Liao H. “Severity assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic COPRAS method”. Applied Soft Computing, 69, 60-71, 2018.
39. Büyüközkan G, Karabulut Y, Mukul E. “A novel renewable energy selection model for United Nations' sustainable development goals”. Energy, 165, 290-302, 2018.
40. Mousavi-Nasab SH, Sotoudeh-Anvari A. “A new multi-criteria decision making approach for sustainable material selection problem: A critical study on rank reversal problem”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 466-484, 2018.
41. Maliene V, Dixon-Gough R, Malys N. “Dispersion of relative importance values contributes to the ranking uncertainty: sensitivity analysis of multiple criteria decision-making methods”. Applied Soft Computing, 67, 286-298, 2018.
42. Asodariya H, Patel HV, Babariya D, Maniya KD. “Application of multi criteria decision making method to select and validate the material of a flywheel design”. Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(9), 17147-17155, 2018.
43. Gomathisankar M, Gangatharan M, Pitchipoo P. “A novel optimization of friction stir welding process parameters on aluminum alloy 6061-T6”. Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(6), 14397-14404, 2018.
44. Teraiya V, Jariwala D, Patel HV, Babariya D. “Material selection of connecting rod using primary multi attribute decision making methods: a comparative study”. Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(9), 17223-17230, 2018.
45. Huggins A, Claudio D. “A mental workload based patient scheduling model for a Cancer Clinic”. Operations Research for Health Care, 20, 56-65, 2019.
46. Tubbs-Cooley HL, Mara CA, Carle AC, Gurses AP. “The NASA Task Load Index as a measure of overall workload among neonatal, paediatric and adult intensive care nurses”. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 46, 64-69, 2018.
47. Winter SR, Milner MN, Rice S, Bush D, Marte DA, Adkins, E, ... Tamilselvan G. “Pilot performance comparison between electronic and paper instrument approach charts”. Safety Science, 103, 280-286, 2018.
48. Bakhsh A, Martin GF, Bicknell CD, Pettengell C, Riga C. “An evaluation of the ımpact of high-fidelity endovascular simulation on surgeon stress and technical performance”. Journal of surgical education, 76(3), 864-871, 2019.
49. Fabroyir H, Teng WC. “Navigation in virtual environments using head-mounted displays: Allocentric vs. egocentric behaviors”. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 331-343, 2018.
50. Shakouri M, Ikuma LH, Aghazadeh F, Nahmens I. “Analysis of the sensitivity of heart rate variability and subjective workload measures in a driving simulator: the case of highway work zones”. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 66, 136-145, 2018.
51. Foy HJ, Chapman P. “Mental workload is reflected in driver behaviour, physiology, eye movements and prefrontal cortex activation”. Applied ergonomics, 73, 90-99, 2018.
52. Shi J, Liu M. “Impacts of differentiated per-lane speed limit on lane changing behaviour: A driving simulator-based study”. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 60, 93-104, 2019.
53. Stapel J, Mullakkal-Babu FA, Happee R. “Automated driving reduces perceived workload, but monitoring causes higher cognitive load than manual driving”. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 60, 590-605, 2019.
54. Park S, Jeong S, Myung R. “Modeling of multiple sources of workload and time pressure effect with ACT-R”. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 63, 37-48, 2018.
55. Chen Y, Yan S, Tran CC. “Comprehensive evaluation method for user interface design in nuclear power plant based on mental workload”. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 51(2), 453-462, 2019.
56. Choi MK, Lee SM, Ha JS, Seong PH. “Development of an EEG-based workload measurement method in nuclear power plants”. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 111, 595-607, 2018.
57. Orlandi L, Brooks B. “Measuring mental workload and physiological reactions in marine pilots: Building bridges towards redlines of performance”. Applied ergonomics, 69, 74-92, 2018.
58. Mizota T, Anton NE, Stefanidis D. “Surgeons see anatomical structures faster and more accurately compared to novices: Development of a pattern recognition skill assessment platform”. The American Journal of Surgery, 217(2), 222-227, 2018.
59. Lowndes BR, Abdelrahman AM, Thiels CA, Mohamed AO, McConico AL, Bingener J, Hallbeck MS. “Surgical team workload comparison for 4-port and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures”. Applied Ergonomics, 78, 277-285, 2018.
60. Lee SC, Cha MC, Hwangbo H, Mo S, Ji YG. “Smartphone form factors: Effects of width and bottom bezel on touch performance, workload, and physical demand”. Applied Ergonomics, 67, 142-150, 2018.
61. Eraslan E, Can GF, Atalay KD. “Mental workload assessment using a fuzzy multi-criteria method”. Tehnički vjesnik, 23(3), 667-674, 2016.
62. Adar T, Delice EK. “Evaluating Mental Work Load Using Multi-Criteria Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set (HFLTS)”. Turkish Journal of Fuzzy Systems (TJFS), 8(2), 2017.
63. Bongo MF, Alimpangog KMS, Loar JF, Montefalcon JA, Ocampo LA. “An application of DEMATEL-ANP and PROMETHEE II approach for air traffic controllers’ workload stress problem: A case of Mactan Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines”. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 198-213, 2018.
64. Delice EK, Can GF. “An Integrated mental workload assessment approach based on Nasa-TLX and SMAA-2: A case study”. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik ve Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(2), 88-99, 2018.
65. Delice EK. “Acil Servis Hekimlerinin NASA-RTLX yöntemi ile zihinsel iş yüklerinin değerlendirilmesi: bir uygulama çalışması”. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 30(3), 645-662, 2016.
66. Can GF, Atalay KD, Eraslan E, “Çalışma Duruşlarının Bulanık Ortamda Analizi ve Ergonomik İş İstasyonu Tasarım Önerileri”. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 30(3), 451-460, 2015.
67. Hanson R, Medbo L, Berlin C, Hansson J. “Manual Picking From Flat and Tilted Pallet Containers”. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 64, 199-212, 2018.
68. Sain MK, Meena ML. “Exploring the musculoskeletal problems and associated risk-factors among brick kiln workers”. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 11(6), 395-410, 2018.
69. Houshyar E, Kim IJ. “Understanding musculoskeletal disorders among ıranian apple harvesting laborers: ergonomic and stop watch time studies”. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 67, 32-40, 2018.
70. Boulila A, Ayadi M, Mrabet K. “Ergonomics study and analysis of workstations in tunisian mechanical manufacturing”. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 28(4), 166-185, 2018.
71. Bae SH, Kim DH, Kim HS, Kim KC. “biomechanical study on the convenience of loading and unloading laundry in clothes dryer”. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 19(6), 907-915, 2018.
72. De Oliveira CC, De Paula Xavier AA, Ulbricht L, Moro ARP, Belinelli MM. “Health in the rural environment: a postural evaluation of milking workers in brazil”. Cahiers Agricultures, 27(3), 1-8, 2018.
73. Khan MR, Singh NK. “Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among ındian railway sahayaks”. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 24(1-2), 27-37, 2018.
74. Yahya NM, Zahid MNO. “Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (wmds) risk assessment at core assembly production of electronic components manufacturing company”. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Journal), 319(1), 1-7, 2018.
75. Chatterjee A, Sahu S. “A physiological exploration on operational stance and occupational musculoskeletal problem manifestations amongst construction labourers of West Bengal, India”. Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, 31(4), 775-783, 2018.
76. Gonen D, Karaoglan AD, Ocaktan MA, Oral A, Aticti H, Kaya B. “A new risk assessment approach for the analysis of musculoskeletal disorders”. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 33(2), 423-438, 2018.
77. Sudiarno A, Dewi DS, Putri MA. “Bio-mechanical Assessment toward throwing and lifting process of I-LOCA (Innovative Lobster Catcher)”. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Journal), 337(1), 1-6, 2018.
78. Kong YK, Lee SY, Lee KS, Kim DM. “Comparisons of ergonomic evaluation tools (ALLA, RULA, REBA and OWAS) for Farm Work”. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 24(2), 218-223, 2018.
79. Çakıt E. “Ergonomic assessment of airport shuttle driver tasks using an ergonomic analysis toolset”. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 24(2), 286-293, 2018.
80. Erginel N, Toptancı Ş, Acar I. “Bulanık REBA ile bir mobilya imalat firmasında ergonomik risk değerlendirme”. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi. 6, 92-101, 2018.
81. Li X, Han S, Gül M, Al-Hussein M. “Automated post-3D visualization ergonomic analysis system for rapid workplace design in modular construction”. Automation in Construction, 98, 160-174, 2019.
82. Özbek A. Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ve Excel ile Problem Çözümleri. Birinci baskı. Ankara, Türkiye, Seçkin, 2017.
83. Kuruüzüm A, Atsan N. “Analitik hiyerarşi yöntemi ve işletmecilik alanındaki uygulamaları”. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F Dergisi, 1, 83-105, 2001.
84. Polat DŞ. Askeri Helikopter Alımı Problemine Analitik Hiyerarşi Metodu ile Bir Yaklaşım. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye, 2000.
85. Özdağoğlu A. “İmalat işletmeleri için eksantrik pres alternatiflerinin COPRAS yöntemi ile karşılaştırılması”. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Elektronik Dergisi, 4(8), 1-22, 2013.
86. Özbek A. “Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı'nın SAW, COPRAS ve TOPSIS yöntemi ile performans değerlendirmesi”. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15(1), 66-84, 2017.
87. Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Emprical and Theoretical Research, Editors: Hancock PA, Meshkati N. Human Metal Workload, 139-183, Amsterdam: North-Holland, Elsevier, 1988.
88. Hignett S. McAtamney L. “Rapid entire body assessment (REBA)”. Applied Ergonomics, 31, 201-205, 2000.
89. Sena P, D'Amore M, Brandimonte MA, Squitieri R, Fiorentino A. “Experimental framework for simulators to study driver cognitive distraction: brake reaction time in different levels of arousal”. Transp. Res. Procedia, 14, 4410-4419, 2016.
90. Peruzzini M, Tonietti M, Iani C. “Transdisciplinary design approach based on driver's workload monitoring”.Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 15, 91-102, 2019.
91. Obelenis V, Gedgaudienė D, Vasilavičius P. “Working conditions and health of the employees of public bus and trolleybus transport in Lithuania”. Medicina, 39(11), 1103-1109, 2003.
92. Okunribido OO, Shimbles SJ, Magnusson M, Pope M. “City bus driving and low back pain: a study of the exposures to posture demands, manual materials handling and whole-body vibration”. Applied ergonomics, 38(1), 29-38, 2007.
93. Bulduk EÖ, Bulduk S, Süren T, Ovalı F. “Assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders using Quick Exposure Check (QEC) in taxi drivers”. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44(6), 817-820, 2014.