International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1 (1987) 231-240

Elsevier SciencePublishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

231

AN ERGONOMIC APPROACH TO DESIGNING A

MANUFACTURING WORK SYSTEM
Biman Das
Department of Industrial Engineering, Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2X4
(Canada)

(ReceivedJuly 28, 1986; acceptedNovember10, 1986)

ABSTRACT

This paper highlights the methodology that

was applied systematically to incorporate ergonomics principles and data to design a manufacturing work system. The manufacturing task
comprised of drilling four holes on a prepared
steel plate. The components of the manufacturing work system included: manufacturing task,
power-feed drill press, jig, fixture and other

equipment, workplace layout, operator training

and (hard) production standard and feedback.
The ergonomically designed manufacturing
work system proved to be effective and efficient
in terms of manufacturing processing time,
safety, training time, and worker productivity,
satisfaction, and job attitudes.

INTRODUCTION

safety. Human performance can be improved

considerably from such an application. In the
context of task execution, human performance is usually evaluated in terms of how
efficiently a designer deals with manual
processing time, errors, training time, safety
and user satisfaction.
In designing a manufacturing work system,
the designer should not only attempt to maximize worker productivity, but also try to improve worker satisfaction and job attitudes
and minimize safety hazards. It is possible to
achieve such a desirable goal through proper
application of ergonomics principles and data.
Despite their importance, poorly designed
manufacturing work systems are commonplace in industry (Konz, 1983).

Ergonomics deals with the engineering of

machines for human use and with the engineering of human tasks for operating machines. It is concerned with the ways of designing equipment or machines, facilities and
work environments, so that they match human capabilities and limitations. The objectives of ergonomics are to increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which work is
performed and to maintain and promote
worker health, safety and satisfaction (McCormick and Sanders, 1982). Ergonomics
principles and data should be applied advantageously for optimum design of product,
job, workplace, training method and system
0169-8141/87/$03.50

1987 ElsevierSciencePublishers B.V.

232
T h e main objectives of this investigation
are to apply systematically appropriate ergonomics principles and data to design a
manufacturing work system (drill press operation) and to evaluate the system in terms of
manufacturing processing time, safety, training time, and worker productivity, satisfaction and job attitudes. This paper will emphasize the methodology that was especially
used to achieve the objective of this research.

DEVELOPMENT OF A MANUFACTURING
WORK SYSTEM
The manufacturing task involved drilling
four holes on a prepared steel plate. In the
past, the drill press operation was performed
in a standing position. The jig plate was
located parallel to the table edge causing unnecessary hand motion in loading the steel
plate to the drill press. The fixture employed
a sliding clamp with special nut which had to
be screwed in and out to secure and remove
the plate. The outgoing material bin was
placed on the right side of the drill press table
which caused unnecessary long reach motion
to pick up the next plate.
To alleviate the problems stated above, a
new manufacturing work system was developed by applying ergonomics principles and
data in a systematic way. The components of
the manufacturing work system included:
manufacturing task, power-feed drill press,
jig, fixture, incoming and outgoing material
bins, compressed air hose, workplace layout,
operator training and (hard) production
standard and feedback. To develop the optim u m method of operation, short (15 min)
and long (one hour) trial runs were performed. An M T M ( M e t h o d - T i m e Measurement) analysis was conducted to eliminate the
unnecessary motions and improve the necessary motions.

Manufacturing task, machine, cutting tool

and lubrication
The manufacturing task involved drilling
1,,
four z diameter holes into steel connector
plate, ,~3,,
,. 4 long 1" wide 3]" thick (conversion factor to S.I. unit: 1 " = 2.54 cm). To
perform the task a power-feed drill press was
used. For 0.2 carbon mild steel material and
z1 " diameter high-speed steel drill bit, the recommended machine or drilling speed is about
80 fpm or 1 222 rpm. In the present situation,
the machine speed was set at 600 rpm in
consideration of the excessive scale present
on the steel plate, manual intermittent as
opposed to automatic continuous lubrication
of drill bit, and the cutting tool life. For the
drill size and the material drilled, the suggested feed is about 0.004" per revolution;
however, in the present situation the feed was
set at 0.0048" per revolution. By decreasing
the speed and increasing the feed, a compromise was achieved between the actual and
the recommended machine set-up. The selection of the speed and feed was made to
minimize excessive heat generation in the steel
plate during continuous production work and
chip removal problem. Duct tapes were used
around finger tips to protect the operator's
fingers from the heat generated. A sulphurbase lubricant was used during the drilling
operation.
To regrind the drill bit, a precision tool
grinder was used. A special cylindrical jig was
constructed to set up the drill-bit beyond the
drill press chuck, so that the drill-bit point
would go 1 / 8 " or half the hole diameter past
the connector plate to ensure that the hole
was clear through.

Jig
An interchangeable 1 3 / 1 6 " internal diameter bushing with necessary locking arrangement guided the drill-bit point to the steel or
connector plate. The jig was designed in such

233

a way that the drill-bit point would never be

exposed to the operator or always stayed inside the sleeve to ensure operator safety.
The jig plate was offset by 20 to the left
or away from the horizontal centre line of the
press (Fig. 1) to avoid unnecessary hand motion in loading the steel plate to the drill
press. Thus, due consideration was given to
the human forearm-hand configuration in
locating the jig. Also, the offsetting of the jig
facilitated the operation of the fixture clamp
by offsetting the hand motion from the
power-feed attachment.

Fixture
From the ergonomic consideration the
original handle of the De-Sta-Co fixture clamp
was considered inadequate (rectangular shape,
2 !4" long x 5 / 8 " wide x 3 / 8 " thick). Consequently, for the fixture clamp a (white) plastic
handle 4" long ~1 " diameter was especially
designed and built by giving consideration to
anthropometric specifications and intended
use (standard for hand breadth at metacarpal
for the 99th percentiles men -- 3.9" (Van Cott
and Kinkade, 1972), Figs. 1 and 2). A Ushaped clamp or lock was provided to restrict
the fixture clamp opening to a maximum of
]P!
about ~ to avoid unnecessary motion and
standardize the method of operation.

Fig. 1. Ergonomicallydesignedjig and fixture for drill

press operation.

Incoming and outgoing material bins

In designing the incoming material bin, the
following ergonomic factors were given consideration to: (1) ease the sliding of the plates
toward the operator by providing the necessary 35 slope to the bin base, (2) facilitate
the pick up or grasp of the plates by allowing
a 4" d e e p x . 4"7_3" wide bin base with an inclination of 15 from the horizontal surface,
and a front opening height of 4", and (3) ease
the loading of the plates to the jig by furnishing the height of the bin base similar to the jig
base height or approximately 5" from the
table surface (Fig. 2).
For the design of the outgoing material
bin, consideration was given to the following
,ergonomic factors to: (1) ease the dropping of

Fig. 2. Drill press operation (ergonomically

designed)-~--,Frontview.

234

the finished connector plate into the bin by

providing adequate horizontal bin area, (2)
furnish baffles to facilitate the sliding of the
plates into the bin, and (3) ease the interchange of the full outgoing material bin by
providing the guide rails and the necessary
stop at the end of the rails for operator safety.

Compressed air hose

For disposing chips especially from the jig
area around the drill bit, compressed air with
a pressure of about 19 psi was used by means

of a Lincoln,50-204.8 air hose nozzle with

coupling. Necessary chip guarding was provided around the drill press bed (Figs. 1 and
2). The operator always wore a face shield or
safety goggles and the air-hose nozzle was
directed away from the operator at all times.
Due consideration was given to the OSHA
(Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standard 1910.242 for the use of hand
and portable power tools and equipment with
particular reference to the compressed air used
for cleaning (under (b)). The standard states
that compressed air shall not be used for

-x

2s"

Le_~nd: I. Incoming bin; 2. Fixture clamp handle; 3. D r i l l feed

handle; 4. Power feed handle; 5. Outgoing bin; 6. Electric
t o t a l i z i n g counter; 7. Production standard stand; 8. Quality
feedback stand; 9, Chair; and lO. Foot rest.
Note:

Normal and maximum working areas in the vertical plane,

based on women.
Conversion factor to S.I. unit:
I " = 2,54 cm.

Fig. 3. Workplace layout of drill press operation--side view.

235
cleaning purposes except where reduced to
less than 30 psi and then only with effective
chip guarding and personal protective
equipment.

Workplace layout
Due consideration to ergonomic principles
and data was given in the development and
design of the workplace configuration. In particular, the following operator-related dimensional factors that influence workplace design
were considered: (1) postural control and distribution of body weight, (2) reach envelope
of hands, and (3) eye position with regard to
display area. To determine workplace dimensions, advantage of the available anthropometric data was taken (Farley, 1955; Murrell,
1965; Van Cott and Kinkade, 1972; McCormick and Sanders, 1982). It was desired to
design a well-organized, efficient and safe
workplace. The components of the workplace

included: (1) operator seat and footrest, (2)

incoming and outgoing material bins, (3) jig
and fixture, (4) hydraulic pump oiler, chip
brush, steel plate surface, compressed air hose,
chip remover gadget and hand rug, (5) electric
totalizing counter and production standard
and quality feedback stands, and (6) wall
clock and operator instruction sheet stand.
The important and critical anthropometric dimensions that were used in developing the
workplace are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
In consideration to the nature of the production task, it was decided to perform the
task in a seated position to: (1) provide high
level of body stability, (2) give comfort to the
operator, and (3) minimize operator energy
expenditure and fatigue. The critical dimension of the seat height was dependent on the
work table height.
The workplace was designed to accommodate both the male and female operators.
Consequently, the limits of reach and

Legend
l. Incoming bin (Production standard stand)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7;
8.
9.
I0.
]1.
]2.
13.

Connector plate
Jig

Fixture
Hydraulic pump o i l e r
Chip brush
Steel surface
Air hose
Outgoing bin
Chip remover gadget
Hand rug
Instruction stand
Electric t o t a l i z i n g
counter
14. Quality feedback
stand
]5. Chip guard
16. Magnet

and maximum workinN

z o n t a l p l a n e b a s e d on
rsion factor to S.l.
54 cm.

Fig. 4. Workplacelayout of drill press operation--plan.

236
clearance requirements were based on the dimensions of the smaller (female) and larger
(male) operators, respectively. The concept
developed by Farley (1955) for the women
was used to develop the normal and maxim u m working areas in the horizontal and
vertical planes. He determined the normal
working area as being equal to the volume
circumscribed by the horizontal arm pivoting
about a relaxed vertical arm. The maximum
working area was represented by the volume
circumscribed during the movement of the
fully extended arm pivoting about the
shoulder pivot point. An endeavour was made
wherever possible to place or locate the various equipment within the normal working
area. The outgoing material bin was placed
near the incoming material bin to economize
operator motion and to locate within the normal horizontal working area.
The installation of the electric totalizing
counter was constrained by the existing drill
press spindle housing design, nevertheless, the
counter was placed 13 " away from the middle of the operator's eyes. The recommended
minimum display distance is 13", although
the preferred distance is 20" (Van Cott and
Kinkade, 1972). The distance of the production quality feedback stand was 26" from the
operator and the centre line of the card was
placed at the optimum operator eye level.

Operator training
For the drill press operation, a comprehensive operator training method was developed
through the use of M T M analysis, operator
instruction sheet, demonstration, practice session, feedback and guidance (Das, 1986). The
operator instruction sheet contained information with regard to: (1) part, operation and
machine names, (2) machine speed and feed
and cutting tool and other equipment used,
(3) connector plate critical dimensions and
tolerances, (4) hole sequence, (5) workplace
layout, and (6) operating procedure in terms

of left- and right-hand motions. It was emphasized during the training session that the
heat transfer to the fingers would be less, if
the consecutive holes were drilled in a sequence, diagonally opposite to each other.
Also, it was pointed out that the product
quality or dimensional tolerances depended
especially on placing the plate correctly
against the jig pins and engaging the fixture
clamp handle properly. To facilitate the viewing of the instruction sheet, a special stand
was built which had a 30 inclination from
the vertical plane.

Production standard
After standardizing the method of operation in terms of the machine tools,
equipment, workplace layout, working conditions and training, the p r o d u c t i o n / t i m e
standard was determined through MTM and
subsequently checked by means of an overall
stop-watch time study. The production standard for the operation was 60 holes/15 min
or 240 h o l e s / h (100% normal). The percentage of cycle time that was machine controlled was 52%. The hard production standard was established on the basis that the
external work elements would be performed
at a pace of 130% of normal standard to
achieve an overall hard performance standard
of 112% normal or 268 holes/h.
The production standard was presented on
a white -4
v!" long x 5" high card, written by
black quill pen with approximate letter size,
all capitals, 7 / 3 2 " wide x ~" high x 1 / 3 2 "
thick.

Production feedback
An electric totalizing counter with knob
reset arrangement was selected to provide
quantity feedback. For better legibility, the
counter selection was made with white figures
or numerals on black background as opposed
to the reverse combination to take advantage

237

The ergonomically developed manufacturing work system was evaluated in terms of

manufacturing processing time, safety, training time, and worker productivity, satisfaction and job attitudes.

the pick up or grasp of the steel plate and the

dropping of the finish connector plate. Thus,
as a result of the newly developed manufacturing method, it was possible to drill 240
holes/h (100% normal) on the steel or connector plate. In the past or with the old
method, only 208 holes/h (estimated 100%
normal) could be drilled. Stated otherwise, an
improvement of about 15% in manufacturing
processing time was realized as a consequence
of the successful incorporation of ergonomics
principles and data in the design of jig, fixture, and incoming and outgoing material bins
and workstation.
It should be pointed out that when the
operators in the new manufacturing work system were provided with an assigned hard
production standard (268 holes/h) and production feedback, they were able to reach a
production (quantity) output level of 264
holes/h. In other words, a total improvement
of about 27% in manufacturing processing
time was realized due to the application of
ergonomics principles or concepts and data in
the design of the drill press operation. This
matter is more fully discussed subsequently
under worker productivity, satisfaction and
job attitudes.

Manufacturing processing time

Safety

A preliminary MTM analysis helped in

identifying manufacturing method problems.
Through subsequent use of ergonomic principles and data, the unnecessary motions were
eliminated and the required motions were improved. Specifically, motion economy was
achieved by (1) offsetting the jig plate straight
edge by 20 to the left or away from the
horizontal centre line of the press (Fig. 4), (2)
redesigning the fixture clamp handle and providing restriction to the fixture clamp opening, (3) locating the outgoing material bin to
the left side of the operator, adjacent to the
incoming material bin, and (4) designing
incoming and outgoing bins so as to facilitate

In performing the manufacturing task,

safety features were incorporated especially in
the (1) selection of machining parameters, (2)
design of the jig, (3) operation of the compressed air hose, (4) provision of protective
equipment, and (5) sequence of drilling holes.
No safety problems were encountered during
the performance of the drilling task.

of the irradiation phenomenon (McCormick

and Sanders, 1982). The phenomenon postulates that white lines on black tend to appear wider than they are and black lines on
white tend to appear narrower. The size of
the numerals were 0.18" high and 0.156"
wide, i.e. the width-height ratio was 83%.
This was more than the satisfactory level,
which calls for a width-height ratio of above
70% (MacCormick and Sanders, 1982).
The production quality feedback was provided in terms of the percentage of good
holes produced in a unit time. The production
quality output was determined by a go/no-go
gauge. The production quality feedback was
provided in the same manner as the production standard.

EVALUATION OF THE ERGONOMICALLY

DEVELOPED MANUFACTURING WORK
SYSTEM

Operator training time

In this study, the subjects were 56 male
and female college students who were paid
$3.50 per hour. The task was performed in
the Machine Tools Laboratory, Park Shops,

238
TABLE 1

TABLE 3

Average production quantity and quality o u t p u t data

Percentage increase or decrease in production quantity

a n d quality output a m o n g groups

Production
output

Training q u a r t e r # (time in min)

1(0-15)2(15-30)3(30-45)4(45-60)

Quantity
(no. of holes)
44.89
Quality
(no. of good holes)38.89

51.68
46.80

53.88
50.61

C o m p a r i s o n between groups
(experimental conditions)

56.32
53.43

North Carolina State University. Each subject was trained individually for one hour and
twelve minutes (demonstration twelve minutes
followed by one hour practice) in the performance of the task by means of the especially
developed comprehensive operator training
method (Das, 1986).
Table 1 shows the average values of the
production quantity and quality output data
for the four production quarters. The average
quantity and quality output increased from
the first to the fourth quarter by 26% and
37%, respectively. Thus the improvement in
quantity and quality output was considerable.
In terms of quantity and quality output, the
subjects at the end of the fourth quarter reached the measured standard by 94% and
89%, respectively. All the subjects were able

2(PS: 100% normal) vs. 1

(Control, no P S / P F )
3(PS: 112% normal) vs. 1
4(PF: Quantity&quality) vs. 1
5(PS: 112% normal + PF:
Quantity&quality) vs. 1

% Increase or decrease in
production output
Quantity

Quality

4.17
2.39
- < 1

3.71
<1
1.96

12.84

14.46

to perform the assigned task by employing

the prescribed motions and came close to
reaching the measured production standard
(normal, 60 holes/15 min) after one hour and
twelve minutes training and practice session.

Worker productivity, satisfaction and job

attitudes
Worker productivity was determined in
terms of production quantity and quality output. Worker satisfaction and job attitudes
were measured through questionnaires or subjective scales, at the end of task performance.

TABLE 2
C o m p a r a t i v e analysis of worker productivity, satisfaction a n d j o b attitudes a m o n g groups: Student's t test
C o m p a r i s o n between groups
(experimental conditions)

2(PS: 100% normal) vs.

1 (Control, no P S / P F )
3(PS: 112% normal) vs. 1
4(PF: Quantity&quality)
vs. 1
5(PS: 112% normal + PF:
Quantity&quality) vs. 1

Calculated Student's t Value

Worker
job
attitudes

Worker productivity

Worker satisfaction

Quantity

Quality

Modified
JDS

Truncated
JDI

1.49
0.82
-0.07

1.08
0.04
0.60

2.39 *
3.27 * *
3.44 * *

3.71 * *
- 1.37
5.76 * *

1.97 *
- 0.22
4.52 * *

3.97 * *

6.09 * *

8.63 * *

8.04 * *

4.42 * *

Note: The tabulated Student's t values for 5% = 1.68 (significant *) a n d 1% = 2.42 (highly significant * * ) ; Negative
sign = decrease in group means.

239
Worker satisfaction scores were determined
by employing two measures: (1) modified JDS
(Job Diagnostic Survey) scales (Hackman and
Lawler, 1971; Hackman and Oldham, 1975),
and (2) truncated JDI (Job Descriptive Index)
scales (Smith et al., 1969). The second measure was used to compare or confirm the
results obtained by the first measure. The
original JDS scales were modified to suit the
requirements of the present study. The modified JDS scales included the following job or
work dimensions: (1) skill variety, (2) task
identity, (3) task significance, (4) autonomy,
(5) production feedback, (6) production
standard, (7) working condition, and (8) pay.
Each subject was asked to answer the
questionnaire, which consisted of 18 questions
on seven-point Likert-type scales regarding
his or her perception of the various job attributes that were actually present. The JDI
scales measure worker satisfaction in terms of
five aspects of the job: (1) work, (2) pay, (3)
supervision, (4) promotions, and (5) coworkers. The truncated JDI scales employed
only the first two scales (work and pay) since
they were relevant to the present study. The
work and pay scales consisted of 18 and 9
adjectives or phrases, respectively, with regard to each particular facet of the job.
Worker job attitudes were measured by using
JDS scales (Hackman and Lawler, 1971;
Hackman and Oldham, 1975). The JDS scales
measure worker job attitudes in terms of four
job attitude factors: (1) experienced work
motivation, ( 2 ) j o b involvement, (3) general
job satisfaction, and (4) specific job satisfaction. Each subject was asked 17 questions on
seven-point Likert-type response scales for
determination of worker job attitudes.
Experiments were conducted especially to
determine whether production standard (PS)
and production feedback (PF) could be provided to operators singly as well as jointly to
improve worker productivity, satisfaction and
job attitudes in the repetitive manufacturing
(drilling) task performed under a specially

designed manufacturing work system (Das,

1982a, b). Each experimental group consisting
of eight subjects performed the task for one
hour under a randomly decided specific experimental condition. The results showed that
only the combination of an assigned hard
production standard (112% normal) in the
presence of quantity and quality feedback
had a significant positive effect on worker
productivity, satisfaction and job attitudes,
all at the same time (Table 2). The increase in
quantity and quality output were 13% and
15%, respectively, compared to the control
group, with no provision of production standard and feedback (Table 3). The improvement in worker satisfaction and job attitudes
was maximum for this experimental condition
(Table 2). Consequently, to design an effective manufacturing work system the operator
should be provided an assigned hard production standard in conjunction with quantity
and quality feedback.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This case study has demonstrated the need

for applying ergonomics principles and data
systematically to facilitate the design of a
manufacturing work system. The system
proved effective and efficient in terms of
manufacturing processing time, safety, training time, production quantity and quality
output, and worker satisfaction and job attitudes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author expresses his appreciation to

Drs. M.A. Ayoub, W.A. Smith, Jr., L.H.
Royster, and R.J. Hader. This research was
partially funded by the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.

240

REFERENCES
Das, B., 1982a. Effects of production feedback and
standards on worker productivity in a repetitive production task. Inst. Ind. Eng. Trans., 14 (1): 27-37.
Das, B., 1982b. Effects of production feedback and
standards on worker satisfaction and job attitudes in
a repetitive production task. Inst. Ind. Eng. Trans.,
14 (3): 193-203.
Das, B., 1986. Operator training in a repetitive production task: A comprehensive approach. Int. J. Prod.
Res., 24 (6): 1427-1437.
Farley, R.R., 1955. Some principles of methods and
motion study as used in development work. Gen.
Mot. Eng. J., 2 (6): 20-25.
Hackman, J.R. and Lawler, E.E., 1971. Employee reactions to job characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol., 53 (3):
259-286.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., 1975. Development

of the job diagnostic survey. J. Appl. Psychol., 60
(2): 159-170.
Konz, S., 1983. Work Design: Industrial Ergonomics,
2nd Edn., Columbus, Ohio, Grid.
McCormick, E.J. and Sanders, M.S., 1982. Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 5th Edn. New York,
McGraw-Hill.
Murrell, K.F.H., 1965. Ergonomics: Man and His Environment, London, England, Chapman and Hall.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L., 1969. The
Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement: A Survey for the Study of Attitudes, Chicago,
Rand McNally.
Van Cott, H.P. and Kinkade, R.G., 1972. Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design, Revised Edn.,
New York, McGraw-Hill.