Sei sulla pagina 1di 9

IPASJ International Journal of Information Tecnology (IIJIT)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJIT/IIJIT.htm


A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijit@ipasj.org
Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 ISSN 2321-5976

Ergonomic analysis of factors that influence


productivity through the use of algorithmic
linear programming models
Dr. Samuel Lara Escamilla1, MII. Jorge Aguirre Gutierrez2
1
Professor of the division of postgraduate studies and research at TECNM, Technological Institute of Tlalnepantla.
2
Professor of the industrial engineering department at TECNM, Technological Institute of Tlalnepantla.

Abstract
This research offers the reader an overview of the use and application of linear programming models through the
development of mathematical algorithms, which integrate some of the main ergonomic evaluation models, in order
to offer the industry improvement options for both productivity , as well as a better comfort in the worker as a
preventive measure for risks, injuries and ergonomic diseases, caused by excess of movements, inadequate postures,
repetitions in movements, over loads, environmental temperatures or thermal stress, and cognitive stress due to
mental load.
Keywords: Linear Programming, Operations Research, Hungarian Method, Productivity, Ergonomic Evaluation and
Level Comfort

1. Introduction
Linear programming is one of the main tools for administrators and engineers. Linear programming models have
diverse applications both in industry and in everyday life. The object of study of this research focuses on some problems
that the industry has mainly in relation to the performance of workers both in productivity and ergonomics.

2. Method Description
Linear Programming (PL) is a procedure based on mathematical models to determine various analyzes, among them,
the optimal allocation of resources and transportation. PL is a procedure that has practical application in almost every
facet of the industry, from small businesses to production planning. Transforming the environment of the product,
process or services. The most useful mathematical models of LP are the solution to network and transport problems.
Global production planning and distribution problems are common resources of linear scheduling analysis. Linear
programming problems consist of: (objective function, variables, and a set of constraints, which when modeling using
mathematical algorithms offer a solution).

3. Problem Statement
First, the components to which the worker was exposed at the workplace were captured.
Second, the ergonomic components were analyzed in each worker with each machine.
Third, the ergonomic evaluation models applicable to the workplace and the worker were selected.
Fourth, all possible combinations were made between all the workers and all the machines.
Fifth, measurements were taken through the ergonomic evaluation methods, which in this case were used: (OCRA
method, RULA method, NIOSH method, FANGER method, Maslach Burnout Inventary method) of each of the activities
of each worker in combination with each one of the machines. Table 1 and Table 2 describes the main characteristics of
the ergonomic evaluation models applied in this research.

Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 Page 7


IPASJ International Journal of Information Tecnology (IIJIT)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJIT/IIJIT.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijit@ipasj.org
Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 ISSN 2321-5976

Table 1. Ergonomic evaluation models.

REPETITIVENESS POSTURAL LOAD LOAD HANDLING

OCRA RULA NIOSH


fast evaluation of the risk associated evaluate the exposure of workers to The NIOSH equation allows to
with movements repetitive members maintenance risks of inappropriate identify risks homework related in
superior. postures that they can cause disorders which they are performed manual
in the upper body members surveys of load intimately related to
injuries lumbar.

Table 2. Ergonomic evaluation models

WORK STRESS CHRONIC THERMAL ENVIRONMENT

MASLACH-BURNOUT INVENTARY FANGER


Maslach-Burnout syndrome is a response to The Fanger method allows estimate thermal
chronic work stress. Mainly evaluate situation sensation global of those present in a thermal
potentially stressful among which are environment determined by the middle Vote
emotional exhaustion and professional calculation dear (PMV) and the percentage of
efficacy. people unsatisfied (PPD).

Sixth, all the readings of the data taken were analyzed for the development of a mathematical model and the use of
linear programming, which in this case was: (Network method, Allocation method, Hungarian method).

Seventh, the mathematical model was developed identifying the assignment variables (number of worker, number of
machine, and ergonomic evaluation model)

In tables 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e, the level of work comfort for each worker can be seen, all tables 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e being
the combinations of worker one with all machines, for determine the level of stress for each possible combination, and
resulting in a level of work comfort by each table analysis.

Eighth, the results of the level of work comfort by performing all the combinations made and that can be seen in each
worker as: table1-worker1, table2-worker2, table3-worker3, table4-worker4 and table5-worker5. They are used to
incorporate them into the linear programming algorithm.

Ninth, with all the results of the level of working comfort of all the tables, a table is developed to solve the problem,
using the Hungarian method (see table 6a and 6b)

Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 Page 8


IPASJ International Journal of Information Tecnology (IIJIT)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJIT/IIJIT.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijit@ipasj.org
Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 ISSN 2321-5976

Table 1a Employee 1 vs Machine 1


Employee 1 Machine 1 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 69 48 1.4375
Method RULA 53 49 10.81632653
Method NIOSH 80 75 10.66666667
Method FANGER 63 50 12.6
Method Masl ach Burnout
Inventory 81 86 9.418604651
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 44.93909785

Table 1b Employee 1 vs Machine 2


Employee 1 Machine 2 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 51 29 1.75862069
Method RULA 60 68 8.823529412
Method NIOSH 77 24 32.08333333
Method FANGER 75 60 12.5
Method Masl ach Burnout
Inventory 80 97 8.24742268
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 63.41290612

Table 1c Employee 1 vs Machine 3


Employee 1 Machine 3 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 88 29 3.034482759
Method RULA 85 96 8.854166667
Method NIOSH 55 38 14.47368421
Method FANGER 54 66 8.181818182
Method Masl ach Burnout
Inventory 66 78 8.461538462
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 43.00569028

Table 1d Employee 1 vs Machine 4


Employee 1 Machine 4 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 76 96 0.791666667
Method RULA 99 31 31.93548387
Method NIOSH 50 87 5.747126437
Method FANGER 54 52 10.38461538
Method Masl ach Burnout
Inventory 89 76 11.71052632
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 60.56941867

Table 1e Employee 1 vs Machine 5


Employee 1 Machine 5 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 57 83 0.686746988
Method RULA 97 54 17.96296296
Method NIOSH 54 67 8.059701493
Method FANGER 57 43 13.25581395
Method Masl ach Burnout
Inventory 82 81 10.12345679
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 50.08868219

Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 Page 9


IPASJ International Journal of Information Tecnology (IIJIT)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJIT/IIJIT.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijit@ipasj.org
Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 ISSN 2321-5976

Table 2a Employee 2 vs Machine 1


Employee 2 Machine 1 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 91 21 4.333333333
Method RULA 92 74 12.43243243
Method NIOSH 100 73 13.69863014
Method FANGER 97 62 15.64516129
Method Masl ach Burnout
Inventory 70 90 7.777777778
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 53.88733497

Table 2b Employee 2 vs Machine 2


Employee 2 Machine 2 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 100 44 2.272727273
Method RULA 91 60 15.16666667
Method NIOSH 76 50 15.2
Method FANGER 60 61 9.836065574
Method Masl ach Burnout
Inventory 52 83 6.265060241
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 48.74051975

Table 2c Employee 2 vs Machine 3


Employee 2 Machine 3 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 55 97 0.567010309
Method RULA 68 75 9.066666667
Method NIOSH 98 75 13.06666667
Method FANGER 74 90 8.222222222
Method Masl ach Burnout
Inventory 63 92 6.847826087
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 37.77039195

Table 2d Employee 2 vs Machine 4


Employee 2 Machine 4 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 100 43 2.325581395
Method RULA 89 98 9.081632653
Method NIOSH 83 57 14.56140351
Method FANGER 79 65 12.15384615
Method Masl ach Burnout
Inventory 78 52 15
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 53.12246371

Table 2e Employee 2 vs Machine 5


Employee 2 Machine 5 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 99 38 2.605263158
Method RULA 57 35 16.28571429
Method NIOSH 77 90 8.555555556
Method FANGER 56 26 21.53846154
Method Masl ach Burnout
Inventory 69 73 9.452054795
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 58.43704933

Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 Page 10


IPASJ International Journal of Information Tecnology (IIJIT)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJIT/IIJIT.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijit@ipasj.org
Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 ISSN 2321-5976

Table 3a Employee 3 vs Machine 1


Employee 3 Machine 1 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 96 41 2.341463415
Method RULA 82 46 17.82608696
Method NIOSH 61 27 22.59259259
Method FANGER 72 41 17.56097561
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 72 74 9.72972973
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 70.0508483

Table 3b Employee 3 vs Machine 2


Employee 3 Machine 2 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 69 86 0.802325581
Method RULA 52 83 6.265060241
Method NIOSH 62 25 24.8
Method FANGER 50 71 7.042253521
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 87 81 10.74074074
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 49.65038008

Table 3c Employee 3 vs Machine 3


Employee 3 Machine 3 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 67 42 1.595238095
Method RULA 53 33 16.06060606
Method NIOSH 78 93 8.387096774
Method FANGER 70 92 7.608695652
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 83 96 8.645833333
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 42.29746992

Table 3d Employee 3 vs Machine 4


Employee 3 Machine 4 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 87 71 1.225352113
Method RULA 59 34 17.35294118
Method NIOSH 64 23 27.82608696
Method FANGER 71 35 20.28571429
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 50 92 5.434782609
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 72.12487714

Table 3e Employee 3 vs Machine 5


Employee 3 Machine 5 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Método OCRA 85 88 0.965909091
Método RULA 90 98 9.183673469
Método NIOSH 76 100 7.6
Método FANGER 63 35 18
Método Maslach Burnout
Inventory 88 67 13.13432836
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 48.88391092

Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 Page 11


IPASJ International Journal of Information Tecnology (IIJIT)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJIT/IIJIT.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijit@ipasj.org
Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 ISSN 2321-5976

Table 4a Employee 4 vs Machine 1


Employee 4 Machine 1 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 82 89 0.921348315
Method RULA 84 88 9.545454545
Method NIOSH 79 88 8.977272727
Method FANGER 76 100 7.6
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 74 69 10.72463768
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 37.76871327

Table 4b Employee 4 vs Machine 2


Employee 4 Machine 2 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 74 90 0.822222222
Method RULA 97 21 46.19047619
Method NIOSH 83 25 33.2
Method FANGER 86 67 12.8358209
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 99 75 13.2
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 106.2485193

Table 4c Employee 4 vs Machine 3


Employee 4 Machine 3 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 96 58 1.655172414
Method RULA 68 21 32.38095238
Method NIOSH 60 38 15.78947368
Method FANGER 84 54 15.55555556
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 52 77 6.753246753
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 72.13440079

Table 4d Employee 4 vs Machine 4


Employee 4 Machine 4 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 100 76 1.315789474
Method RULA 57 66 8.636363636
Method NIOSH 82 33 24.84848485
Method FANGER 87 85 10.23529412
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 94 71 13.23943662
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 58.2753687

Table 4e Employee 4 vs Machine 5


Employee 4 Machine 5 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 63 86 0.73255814
Method RULA 54 68 7.941176471
Method NIOSH 51 26 19.61538462
Method FANGER 65 42 15.47619048
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 96 74 12.97297297
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 56.73828267

Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 Page 12


IPASJ International Journal of Information Tecnology (IIJIT)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJIT/IIJIT.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijit@ipasj.org
Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 ISSN 2321-5976

Table 5a Employee 5 vs Machine 1


Employee 5 Machine 1 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 53 82 0.646341463
Method RULA 69 46 15
Method NIOSH 58 43 13.48837209
Method FANGER 53 62 8.548387097
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 80 68 11.76470588
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 49.44780654

Table 5b Employee 5 vs Machine 2


Employee 5 Machine 2 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 86 82 1.048780488
Method RULA 58 85 6.823529412
Method NIOSH 79 70 11.28571429
Method FANGER 50 80 6.25
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 86 92 9.347826087
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 34.75585027

Table 5c Employee 5 vs Machine 3


Employee 5 Machine 3 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 96 23 4.173913043
Method RULA 94 73 12.87671233
Method NIOSH 78 38 20.52631579
Method FANGER 55 39 14.1025641
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 81 100 8.1
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 59.77950526

Table 5d Employee 5 vs Machine 4


Employee 5 Machine 4 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 58 56 1.035714286
Method RULA 100 34 29.41176471
Method NIOSH 97 31 31.29032258
Method FANGER 56 34 16.47058824
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 69 56 12.32142857
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 90.52981838

Table 5a Employee 5 vs Machine 1


Employee 5 Machine 5 % Puductivity % Ergonomic Comfort level
Evaluation
Method OCRA 61 76 0.802631579
Method RULA 63 81 7.777777778
Method NIOSH 77 58 13.27586207
Method FANGER 86 87 9.885057471
Method Maslach Burnout
Inventory 83 56 14.82142857
Maximum Level of Work Comfort 46.56275747

Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 Page 13


IPASJ International Journal of Information Tecnology (IIJIT)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJIT/IIJIT.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijit@ipasj.org
Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 ISSN 2321-5976
Table 6a Modeling with the Hungarian Method
Employee
Machi ne 1 Machi ne 2 Machi ne 3 Machine 4 Machine 5
Machine
Employee 1 44.93909785 53.88733497 70.0508483 37.76871327 49.44780654
Employee 2 63.41290612 48.74051975 49.65038008 106.2485193 34.75585027
Employee 3 43.00569028 37.77039195 42.29746992 72.13440079 59.77950526
Employee 4 60.56941867 53.12246371 72.12487714 58.2753687 90.52981838
Employee 5 50.08868219 58.43704933 48.88391092 56.73828267 46.56275747

Table 6b Modeling Solution with the Hungarian Method


Employee
Machi ne 1 Machi ne 2 Machi ne 3 Machine 4 Machine 5
Machine
Employee 1 0 0 1 0 0
Employee 2 0 1 0 0 0
Employee 3 0 0 0 1 0
Employee 4 1 0 0 0 0
Employee 5 0 0 0 0 1

Table 6c Comfort levels


Employee 1 Machine 3 70.0508483
Employee 2 Machine 2 48.74051975
Employee 3 Machine 4 72.13440079
Employee 4 Machine 1 60.56941867
Employee 5 Machine 5 46.56275747
Maximum Comfort 298.057945
Average 59.611589

Tenth, finally, the process model diagram is presented, to solve the problem presented in the industry, using linear
programming algorithms, with this it can be seen that industry managers can have tools to offer solutions to problems
productivity and ergonomics. See figure 1.

Figure 1. Process model diagram

Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 Page 14


IPASJ International Journal of Information Tecnology (IIJIT)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJIT/IIJIT.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijit@ipasj.org
Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 ISSN 2321-5976

4. Contributions of our project.


This paper proposes a linear programming formulation under the principles of the Hungarian method, it is possible
mention that there is no ergonomic evaluation that supports a calculation of comfort in the workers, so the present
investigation intends to contribute under the research principles of operations the relevance of formulating algorithms
for productivity.
5. General Conclusions
As a general conclusion, the model presented generates a solution closer to the comfort that a worker in the industry,
since many times the productivity defined in parts, numbers, percentages and money, without taking into account the
health of the worker, is why it is intended to develop an algorithm that allows offer an approach to work development
without affecting the worker at present and prevent in the future injuries and / or ergonomic diseases, such as those
presented in this work, including stress, repetitions, effort, bad postures and others.
References
[1] MUNCH GALINDO, LOURDES. Fundamentos de administración. 5ª ed. 4ª reimp., México, MX: Editorial: Trillas,
2015
[3] Porter, M. (1 de Ene de 2008). Harvard Business Review. H. B. Publishing. [En línea]. Disponible
en: http://hbr.org/product/the-five-competitive-forces-that-shape-strategy/an/R0801E-PDFENG. [Fecha de acceso: 20
de octubre de 2011].
[4] Duncan, A. J. (2010). Quality Control and Industrial Statistics. 4th Ed., Irwin, Homewoods, III.
[5] LIND, MARCHAL, WATHEN, Estadística Aplicadas a los Negocios y la Economía, Mc Graw Hill, México 2012.
[8] TAHA, HAMDY A. Investigación de operaciones, 7ª edición Pearson, Educación, México, 2004.
[9] EPPEN, G.D. Investigación de operaciones en la ciencia Administrativa PRENTICE-HALL, México, 2000.
[10] JAMES, H. GREENE Control de la Producción Sistemas y Decisiones, DIANA, México 1986.
[11] GRANT L. EUGENE, RICHARD S. LEAVENWORTH Control Estadístico de Calidad, CECSA , México 2004.
[12] MARQUEZ PEREZ MARIA, Control de Calidad Tecnicas y Herramientas, Ed. Alfa Omega, México 2014.
[13] BACA URBINA GABRIEL, Evaluación de Proyectos , Ed. MacGraw Hill, México 2013.
[14] WAYNE L. WINSTON, Investigación de Operaciones, Aplicaciones y Algoritmos, Grupo Editorial
Iberoamericano 1994.
[15] MARQUEZ ELIAS, MIGUEL A. Probabilidad y Estadística, Ed. Prentice Hall, México 2007.
[16] BRENSON MARK L, LEVINE DAVID M. Estadística Básica en Administración, Ed. Prentice Hall, México
1996.
[17] ANGULO AGUIRRE LUIS, Proyectos Formulación y Evaluación, Ed. Alfa Omega, Mexico 2016
[18] RENDER et al. Metodos Cuantitativos para los Negocios, Ed. Pearson, México 2016.
[19] Martínez, f. Access, the economic link in transport-land use interaction. Transportation Research b. 1995, vol. 29,
núm. 6, pp. 457-47.
[20] Loomba, n.p. Linear programming: an introductory analysis. Mcgraw-hill, new york, 1964 Universidad peruana
unión - biblioteca central - libro número 0.001245/f12 programación lineal
[21] Díaz parra, o. Y cruz chávez, m.a. El problema del transporte. Cuernavaca, morelos: Centro de investigación en
ingeniería y ciencias aplicadas, 2006.
Authors
Dr. Samuel Lara Escamilla. He is a full-time professor at the National Technological Institute of
Mexico, TECNM, at the Technological Institute of Tlalnepantla, ITTLA, he is a professor and tutor in
master's programs, and he is a postgraduate research coordinator, in the master's degree in
administration. Contributes to Research on Scientific and Technological Progress and Technological
Development in Various Disciplines, as Author and Co-Author of Books, also in the fields of Electric
Power, Robotics, Control and Automation, Artificial Neural Networks, Productivity, Ergonomics, Safety
and Hygiene, Innovation Technological, and Education.

M.I.I. Jorge Aguirre Gutiérrez. He is a full-time professor at the National Technological Institute of
Mexico, TECNM, at the Technological Institute of Tlalnepantla, ITTLA, he is a professor Industrial
Engineer from CeNETI, and Master in Industrial Engineering, has been head of the Industrial
Engineering Department of Tlalnepantla Technology, I collaborate as Superintendent Administrative.

Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 Page 15

Potrebbero piacerti anche