Computers ind. Engng Vol. 33, Nos 1-2, pp. 185-188.

1997
Pergamon O 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0360-8352/97 $17.00 + 0.00
PII: S0360-8352(97)00070-3

USING ERGONOMICS TO TARGET PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS

M.L. Resnick and A. Zanotti

Industrial and Systems Engineering Department

Florida International University
Miami, FL 33199

ABSTRACT

Ergonomics has traditionally been used to decrease the number of occupational injuries by discovering those
postures and tasks that create significant musculoskeletal stresses. However, the principles which underlie
ergonomics can potentially be used to improve productivity as well. Ergonomic guidelines may allow prediction
of those postures and workplace layouts that maximize the speed at which employees can work. In this study,
fifteen subjects performed a typical industrial task in a variety of layouts designed within an ergonomically
acceptable work envelope. The effects of tool mass, work height, and movement distance on performance time
were measured. All three variables had significant effects on performance time, even within the ergonomic work
envelope, however the magnitudes of the effects varied considerably. The results indicate that workstations can
be designed to maximize performance and reduce costs by considering both ergonomics and productivity
together. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

KEYWORDS

Productivity; workstation layout; ergonomics; job design; economic justification.

INTRODUCTION

Industrial ergonomics has traditionally been used to eliminate injuries stemming from repetitive motion, acute
trauma, and other physical ailments. Epidemiological evidence linking workplace design parameters to the
incidence of low back, upper extremity, neck, and other musculoskeletai disorders dominates the ergonomics
literature (Hildebrandt, 1995; Ranney et al., 1995; Snook et al., 1995; Granata et al., 1996). However, the utility
of ergonomics research is not limited to predicting and eliminating workplace injuries. Good ergonomic design
can also be used to enhance productivity. For example, not only are workers more likely to be injured when they
are fatigued, but they also tend to slow down. These two objectives may also conflict, such as when line speeds
are reduced to accommodate a job with a high number of repetitions. When they conflict, the job must be
designed to maximize the total net benefits by considering the tradeoffbetween them. Research in this area has
been extremely limited.

There has been some work focused on the interaction of task exertion requirements and productivity. Konz and
Rode (1972) predicted that the change in movement time due to the mass of a transported object follows a simple
linear relationship, increasing thirteen percent for each kg added. This finding was based on a study of visually
controlled movements which had an index of difficulty (ID) of 5 (see FiRs, 1954 for an explanation of ID) and
masses ranging from 0.05 to 1.48 kg. Hoffman and Gan (1988) reported that movement time could be explained
as a function of the difficulty of the movement and the mass. Langolf et al. (1976), also studied visually-
controlled movements and found a similar relationship, an interaction between the difficulty of the movement and
the transported mass. Hoffman (1995) compared these predictive models of movement time in a task with IDs of
4, 5, 6 and 7, and masses of 0, 1.5 and 3 kg. Each of the models predicted the movement time equally well,
explaining between 91 and 94% of the variance.
~I[ 33:1/2-H

185
186 21st International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering

This research is limited in that it does not provide specific support in the design of workstations to maximize
safety or productivity. There is a need for guidelines that relate job design parameters to ergonomic
consequences and productivity.

Workplace design specifications that maximize ergonomic safety but hurt productivity would not be well received
in industry. On the other hand, specifications that maximize short term productivity but increase the rate of work
related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMDs) will have a long term negative impact on profitability due to
increases in workers compensation and other related medical and legal costs. If workstations are designed with
both of these objectives in mind, the potential savings in labor and health and safety costs can be significant.

Obiective

The objective of this study is to establish a research paradigm whereby ergonomics and productivity objectives
can be integrated into one set of guidelines. This paradigm should provide the framework for proximate
application of the results in industry.

METHOD

Fifteen subjects were recruited from the Ergonomics and Work Design course at Florida International University.
These subjects had some experience in industrial workplaces, but were not experts at any manual labor activity.
The experimental task required each participant to manipulate a screwdriver similar in size and mass to the power
tools commonly used in industry. The screwdriver was transferred between two bolts ten times consecutively in
each condition. The subject was required to insert the head of the screwdriver into the bolt. An electrical contact
indicated whether the movement was completed successful. The time required to complete ten repetitions of each
task was measured. The workplace parameters that were evaluated included tool mass, movement height and
movement distance. Three levels of each variable were used to simulate a variety of workplace conditions as well
as to resolve the details of the effects these parameters had on performance time. Subjects were required to
maintain at least 95% accuracy or the trial was repeated. Subjects performed the task under all conditions in a
randomized order with two repetitions of each combination.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Each of the workplace design parameters had a significant effect on the productivity of the participants, however
the magnitude of the effects varied. As expected, movement distance had the greatest effect on movement time.
Contrary to expectations, the trend appears to be linear over the range studied. As shown in Fig 1, the time
increased by 70% as the movement distance was extended from 20 to 120 cm (p < 0.01). This contrasts with
FiRs' Law (Fitts, 1954), which predicts a logarithmic relationship between movement time and distance.
Regardless of the exact shape of this relationship, however, it is apparent that reducing movement distances can

18

"~ 16

N 14

>
O
12
E
10

I I
20 70 120

movement distance (cm)

Fig. 1. The effect of movement distance on movement time

 21st International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering 187

have a significant improvement on movement time. Reducing the horizontal movement space can also improve
ergonomics by eliminating extreme postures from shoulder abduction or edduction or from torso twisting. This is
one parameter for which ergonomics and productivity share the same design objective and can be reconciled
easily.

The second parameter studied was movement height. Subjects had the lowest performance times at the highest
location within the ergonomic envelope. Movement time increased linearly by 7% as the movement height went
from 10 cm above elbow height to 10 cm below elbow height (p < 0.01) (see Fig 2). This range was used to
maintain optimal postures from an ergonomic perspective (Ostrom 1994). Though the magnitude of the effect is
comparably small, a 7% increase in productivity is still a significant improvement and can lead to decreased labor
costs.

It was expected that movement at elbow height would show the fastest movement for an easy task such as this
one. In contrast, the elbow height movement was at the midpoint between the high and low conditions. Subjects
reported that the better view at the higher movement height allowed them to perform the accuracy part of the task
faster• Clearly, there are more factors affecting movement time than the strength at the joints. Each of these must
be considered to maximize both productivity and safety.

14

13

12 I I
elbow - 10cm elbow elbow+ 10cm

movementheight

Fig. 2. The effect of movement height on movement distance

The third parameter studied was the mass of the tool. Mass had almost a negligible effect on movement time.
The heaviest load was moved only slightly slower than the lightest load. Subjects reported that they felt more in
control of the heavier mass, suggesting that accuracy may have been greater in the heavier condition. This result
suggests that simply following ergonomic guidelines, which may suggest minimizing the mass, without
considering productivity and possibly even quality issues, may not maximize performance. Applying this result
to the movement of parts, more work can be done per movement without much of a decrease in speed. However,
the range of masses investigated in this study included only light work. This result can not be generalized to the
lifting of heavier loads that may result in fatigue. Further study of this relationship is necessary for complete
guidelines to be generated.

CONCLUSION

Ergonomics and productivity can sometimes present conflicting recommendations for workstation design. Other
times, they may indicate analogous design guidelines. The optimal workplace design must consider both of these
objectives. In this way, a workplace can be designed to improve long term performance and maximize the
contribution of the job to the profitability of the organization. This research presents a paradigm for developing
guidelines that integrate ergonomics and productivity principles. Additional research must be conducted to
consider additional variables and tasks.
188 21st International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering

14.0

13.5
E
O
E

13.0 I I I
250 500 1000
mass (g)

Fig. 3. The effect of tool mass on movement time

REFERENCES

Fitts P.M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of
movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 281-291.
Hildebrandt V.H. (1995) Back pain in the working population: prevalence rates in Dutch trades and professions.
Ergonomics, 36(6), 1283-1298.
Hoffman E.R. (1995). Effect of transported mass and constant force on time for ballistic and visually-controlled
movements. Ergonomics, 38(5), 951-970.
Hoffman E.R. and K. Gan (1988). Directed ballistic movement with transported mass. Ergonomics, 31 (5), 841-
856.
Konz S. and V. Rode (1972). The control effect of small weights on hand-arm movements in the horizontal plane
AIIE Transactions, 4, 228-233.
Langolf G.D., D.B. Chaffin and J.A. Foulke (1976). An investigation of Fitts Law using a wide range of
movement amplitudes. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 113-128.
Granata K.P., W.M. Marras and S.A. Ferguson (1996). Relation between biomechanical spine load factors and
risk of occupational low-back disorders. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th
Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA 656-660.
Ostrom L, (1994). Creating the Ergonomically Sound Workplace. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Ranney D., R. Wells and A. Moore (1995). Upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in highly repetitive industries:
precise anatomical findings. Ergonomics, 38(7), 1408-1423.
Snook S.H., D.R. Vaillancourt, V.M. Ciriello and B,S. Webster (1995) Psychophysical studies of repetitive wrist
flexion and extension. Ergonomics, 38(7), 1488-1507.