What are the obstacles and needs of proactive ergonomics measures at early product development stages? – An interview study in five Swedish companies

Falck, Ann-Christine; Rosenqvist, Mikael

doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2012.05.002

Cited by 74 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation corroborates the results of a 2012 survey of Swedish designers: half the engineers questioned observed that regulatory constraints alone were not enough to ensure deployment of ergonomic solutions, if they were expensive. [24] Lack of time is also a problem for designers, who sometimes have to leave workstation and work standard finalization in the hands of production sites. Hence, in the face of client diversity, designers have to work with multiple order givers embodying different practices and cultures: each implementing its own reference frame (design, quality, purchasing, logistics, etc.)…”

Section: State Of the Art 21 Design Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

FMEA and consideration of real work situations for safer design of production systems

Lux

Bikond

Etienne

et al. 2016

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Production equipment designers must ensure the health and safety of future users; in this regard, they augment requirements for standardizing and controlling operator work. This contrasts with the ergonomic view of the activity, which recommends leaving operators leeway (margins for manoeuvre) in performing their task, while safeguarding their health. Following a brief analysis of design practices in the car industry, we detail how the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) approach is implemented in this sector. We then suggest an adaptation that enables designers to consider real work situations. This new protocol, namely, work situation FMEA, allows experience feedback to be used to defend the health standpoint during designer project reviews, which usually only address quality and performance issues. We subsequently illustrate the advantage of this approach using two examples of work situations at car parts manufacturers: the first from the literature and the second from an in-company industrial project.

show abstract

Section: State Of the Art 21 Design Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

FMEA and consideration of real work situations for safer design of production systems

Lux

Bikond

Etienne

et al. 2016

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These tools can also be used as a means of communication between the different stakeholders in a project, including designers, engineers, health and safety prevention officers, users and decisionmakers. Thus, these tools can help to design more ergonomic workstations (Falck and Rosenqvist, 2012).…”

Section: Intrinsic Movement Variability and Design Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrinsic movement variability at work. How long is the path from motor control to design engineering?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For several years, increasing numbers of studies have highlighted the existence of movement variability. Before that, it was neglected in movement analysis and it is still almost completely ignored in workstation design. This article reviews motor control theories and factors influencing movement execution, and indicates how intrinsic movement variability is part of task completion. These background clarifications should help ergonomists and workstation designers to gain a better understanding of these concepts, which can then be used to improve design tools. We also question which techniques--kinematics, kinetics or muscular activity--and descriptors are most appropriate for describing intrinsic movement variability and for integration into design tools. By this way, simulations generated by designers for workstation design should be closer to the real movements performed by workers. This review emphasises the complexity of identifying, describing and processing intrinsic movement variability in occupational activities.

show abstract

“…This work is done virtually using different types of CATtools (Computer Aided Tolerancing) [6,7,8]. In previous research it has been shown, for manual assembly parts, that assembly complexity influences the product quality [9,10]. Previous studies [11] also show that assembly factors, such as complexity, are not included when the geometry systems are defined.…”

Section: Introduction To Subjectmentioning

confidence: 98%

Geometrical Robustness Analysis Considering Manual Assembly Complexity

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The manufacturing industry is focused on geometry assurance. Much of the virtual geometry assurance is done in Computer Aided Tolerancing (CAT) tools. Earlier research shows that assembly complexity influences the product quality but is not considered when geometry systems (locators and tolerances) are defined. Further previous research shows CAT simulations do not predict all the variation and therefore additional factors need to be included to improve accuracy. In this study, a robustness value for a geometry system solution based both on geometrical sensitivity and manual assembly complexity has been introduced. Calculation methods have been tested and implemented in a CAT tool using a real industrial case.

show abstract

What are the obstacles and needs of proactive ergonomics measures at early product development stages? – An interview study in five Swedish companies

Cited by 74 publications

References 18 publications

FMEA and consideration of real work situations for safer design of production systems

FMEA and consideration of real work situations for safer design of production systems

Intrinsic movement variability at work. How long is the path from motor control to design engineering?

Geometrical Robustness Analysis Considering Manual Assembly Complexity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About