Abstract
Companies have implemented Lean to increase efficiency and competitiveness. However, the importance of Ergonomics is often neglected, resulting in ergonomic problems and lower profitability and acceptance of Lean. This study presents a comprehensive approach to Operations and Production Management (OPM) considering sociotechnical synergies. For Lean and Ergonomics, literature-based main methodologies and categories are defined. These main methodologies/categories are used as search-term combinations in a further literature search. This literature is divided into “Production worker” (PW), “Physical environment” (PE), “Industry 4.0 technology” (i4.0), “Company culture” (CC), and “Manufacturing methods” (MM) based on a metric, the sociotechnical system (STS) concept. This makes it possible to determine the percentage of participation in Lean and Ergonomics articles by STS category. The main differences can be seen in PE (Lean: 10%; Ergonomics: 24%) and i4.0 (Lean: 29%; Ergonomics: 15%). However, for PW (Lean: 18%; Ergonomics: 21%), CC (Lean: 19%; Ergonomics: 20%), and MM (Lean: 26%; Ergonomics: 20%), there are similarities between Lean and Ergonomics. The OPM user should manage the PW, CC, and MM factors equally with Lean and Ergonomics, as the objective is the same. For PW, CC, and MM measures, a professional separation into Lean/OPM and Ergonomics/Occupational Medicine does not make sense. Concerning i4.0, there is a danger that the human factor in (especially innovation-oriented) OPM will be unjustly neglected and that too much emphasis will be placed on supposedly human-free technology.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Operations management and production management (OPM) have evolved from Industry 1.0 to the current phase of Industry 4.0, focusing on the driving forces of change and the market, as well as existing or newly developed methods and technologies (Choi et al. 2022). The risk is that an OPM focused on innovation will neglect existing and equally essential players in a manufacturing enterprise. Disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, mobile robotics, 3D printing, digital twins, virtual reality, and others are emerging individually and collectively, providing data for OPM and exploiting other capabilities (Vinitha et al. 2020). A neglected aspect behind the system- and techno-centric methods and technologies of OPM is the user of these tools, the employee, who is directly exposed to the framework of OPM and must be taken into account for strategic decisions of top management (Brunner et al. 2022; Chen et al. 2023). Industry 4.0 methods and technologies act as facilitators of the effects of lean production processes on improving operational performance (Blanco et al. 2023; Ding et al. 2023). The necessary framework for this cause-and-effect relationship is created through holistic OPM (Tortorella et al. 2019). This seems only logical since Lean, in the form of lean production/management, is the gold standard of manufacturing companies in the 21st century, and the specifications and principles of a lean production concept should not only be prepared but also enabled by OPM (Hardcopf et al. 2021).
Ergonomics is the scientific discipline focused on understanding and optimizing human interactions with a (technical) system to provide wellbeing for the human and performance for the system (Dul et al. 2012). Similar to OPM, the discipline developed in response to megatrends and the great industrial revolutions but has always been human-centered. As a result, extreme working hours of up to 16 hours, high accident rates, and complete absence of social security are things of the past (Luczak et al. 2018). However, just as the OPM lacks a connection to the human factor, the significant developments in Ergonomics lack the reference to business science and OPM that would make Ergonomics indispensable for a rational company (Dul and Neumann 2009; Sobhani et al. 2016).
According to Chen et al. (2023), holistic OPM must consider the user of all operational methods and technologies, primarily the OPM manager/engineer. However, according to Brunner et al. (2022), more is needed because the end effector in this decision cascade is the production worker, who usually does not participate in OPM decisions but is directly affected by them. This means that there are two sociotechnical levels on which OPM operates (Dworschak and Zaiser 2014); usually, only the level of the production worker is associated with direct productivity and value creation on the one hand, and with classical production ergonomics on the other (Battini et al. 2011; Neumann and Dul 2010).
Production ergonomics is often seen as a cost rather than a success factor (Zare et al. 2016). A generalized management approach such as “management by measurement,” on which OPM and the Lean philosophy are based, is not widely used in Ergonomics (Greig et al. 2023), although there are measures and parameters to link production ergonomics to Lean and OPM (Kolus et al. 2018; Yung et al. 2020).
As OPM plays a vital role in operational and strategic decisions or prepares them for top management, a comprehensive understanding of lean production and lean management on the one hand and production ergonomics on the other hand is crucial. Therefore, OPM managers and practitioners must understand how Lean as a production and management concept and Ergonomics as a human-centered counterpart work together, alongside each other or against each other. The research question is: In which categories of the sociotechnical system “factory” do Lean and Ergonomics differ?
This paper examines the similarities and differences between Lean and Ergonomics using an evaluation system that provides evidence. The paper defines the same standardized evaluation categories for methods and concepts of both Lean and Ergonomics. A literature review then examines which categories of Lean and Ergonomics measures and domains are synergistic or antagonistic. This is important for OPM users because the application of OPM/Lean affects not only productivity and profitability but also an entire sociotechnical system. By „Lean,” we mean the philosophy and discipline derived from lean management, lean production, lean manufacturing, and the Toyota Production System. When it is specified, we write „lean [...].” By „Ergonomics,” we mean the discipline. When it is specified, we write „[...] ergonomics.”
2 Theoretical background
First, as depicted in Fig. 1, categories of Lean (1) and Ergonomics (2) are selected, filtered, and compiled from research papers and textbooks for later analysis. A metric system including Lean and Ergonomics is selected from the literature (3). Next, the elements of the metric system are further evaluated, and a matrix is created to form a final metric system (4). A scale system is then developed to measure the interdependence between Lean and Ergonomics categories with the metric system (5). After that, the analysis of Lean (7) and Ergonomics (8) with the metric system is carried out using relevant literature (6) and (9). Then, the total and average scores of Lean (10), Ergonomics (11), and the combined characteristics are calculated (12). Lean and Ergonomics are combined in a matrix to compare results and calculate total scores (13). Graphs and charts are drawn for better visualization and analysis (14). Finally, the similarities and differences between Lean and Ergonomics are discussed.
Flowchart of the methodology
2.1 Categories of lean
First, a literature review in Google Scholar and Scopus is conducted with the following search terms: (lean production OR lean manufacturing OR lean implementation OR Toyota Production System) AND (tools OR principles OR methods) to obtain categories of Lean. This literature search was not limited by time frame but by relevance, citations, and timeliness. Timeliness is essential for this literature as a basis for forming the Lean categories in this article because only the current literature covers the latest developments in Lean. Only English-language peer-reviewed sources were included. Articles from Google Scholar were included only if the search terms appeared in the title. Articles from Scopus were included if the search terms appeared in the title or keywords section of the article. Next, all Lean methodologies are compiled and filtered from research reports to create a list of the seven most commonly used tools in the industry based on the articles in this paper, listed below (Top 7 in bold). Table 1 shows the compilation of different Lean tools with relevant research papers and textbooks. The top Lean tools used in the industry are Kanban, Kaizen, Poka-yoke, 5S (sort, set in order, shine, standardize, sustain), TPM (Total Productive Maintenance), VSM (Value Stream Mapping), and SMED (Single-minute exchange of die) (Dombrowski 2015; Koether and Meier 2017), which are also used in this article.
2.2 Categories of ergonomics
In defining the categories of Ergonomics, we have been guided by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA). The IEA divides Ergonomics into “physical,” “cognitive,” and “organizational” Ergonomics. Physical ergonomics includes anatomical, physiological, and biomechanical aspects. It prioritizes the worker's wellbeing, considering environmental factors such as lighting and temperature that affect productivity (Gitahi et al. 2015; McGuire and McLaren 2009). Herzberg’s theory emphasizes the role of the environment in worker performance (Herzberg 2008). Cognitive ergonomics includes mental aspects such as perception and reasoning that affect human-system interactions (Carayon et al. 2013; IEA 2023). It includes logical reasoning, perception, motor responses, and workplace interactions (IEA 2023). Training is positively correlated with performance (Karimi and Nejad 2018). Organizational ergonomics analyzes and optimizes the macroscopic production system by aligning structures, policies, and processes (IEA 2023). It increases efficiency by considering workers’ activities, abilities, and constraints (Latip et al. 2022). Organizational ergonomics affects employee motivation and performance, critical to business success (Paais and Pattiruhu 2020).
2.3 Literature search based on defined categories
The literature reviewed for the article was limited to the period from 1990 to January 2023. We chose this period because Lean only became widely known in the West with the publication of Womack et al. (1990). Then, it took several years to establish Lean in manufacturing and OPM (Dombrowski 2015). We also wanted to consider the transition from Industry 3.0 to Industry 4.0 (Sakhapov and Absalyamova 2018). In addition, musculoskeletal work-related disorders manifest themselves with a long time lag, which can result in complaints only appearing 20 to 30 years after the introduction of a production or work-changing measure. Production processes that make people sick have not affected the company's profitability, which means that Ergonomics has not been a must-have from a purely economic point of view. With demographic changes and the increasing number of people with reduced performance, this is changing (Anderson-Connolly et al. 2002; Baur 2013).
We searched for all possible combinations of [Top 7 items of Lean category] AND [three items of Ergonomics category] in Google Scholar and Scopus (title, abstract, keywords). Only articles and textbooks pertinent to the study’s context and aim are incorporated. The literature review is not meant to be a thorough and systematic exploration of the literature on OPM, Lean, and Ergonomics. Instead, it aims to summarize their connections, arranged and categorized in new ways to assist OPM users/managers in their decision-making and actions.
2.4 The socio-technical-system theory
The concept of the socio-technical-system (STS) was first introduced by Leavitt (1965), who categorized organizations into people, task structure, and technologies. In 2011, Clegg & Challenger expanded this using six categories: goals, people, infrastructure, technology, culture, and processes, emphasizing their interconnectedness (Clegg and Challenger 2011). This study's metric framework is derived from Clegg and Challenger (2011) and uses five elements adapted to analyze lean production/manufacturing and Ergonomics synergies and contrasts. Table 2 shows the adapted elements. The sociotechnical factor “goals” is not included due to industry-specific variations. The remaining five factors are introduced in the following sections.
2.4.1 The production worker
For a more detailed analysis, we subdivide the production worker factor according to Sakthi et al. (2019) into four categories: physical, psychosocial, work design, and managerial factors, as shown in Table 3.
2.4.2 Company culture
The company culture factor used in this paper is taken from the concept from Cameron and Quinn (2011), which is further divided into four categories: hierarchical, market, clan, and adhocracy cultures, as shown in Table 4 (Cameron and Quinn 2011).
2.4.3 Physical environment
An ideal physical environment of the workplace is where workers’ physical and cognitive abilities can perform at their best and thus achieve the objectives and goals of both workers and the company (Chua et al. 2016). The physical environment factor is further divided into three categories in Table 5 (Schlick et al. 2010; Schmauder and Spanner-Ulmer 2022).
2.4.4 Manufacturing process
The manufacturing process factor for this paper is divided into labor-intensive and capital-intensive methods. Their descriptions are shown in Table 6.
2.4.5 Technology (i4.0)
In the technology category from Leavitt (1965), i4.0 technology and tools are adopted as our category in the sociotechnical system. Table 7 shows the top i4.0 tools in the industry taken from five research papers. These five articles were used to form the categories, firstly because they are current, which is relevant to technological developments, and secondly because they consider and analyze technology in general in the context of Industry 4.0.
2.5 Hypotheses
Now that STS, as the relevant metric, and the categories of Lean and Ergonomics that are grouped in STS via literature are known, the following hypotheses (H) are proposed (see Tab. 8):
H1: Industry 4.0 technology is a Lean/OPM category
H2: Manufacturing process is a Lean/OPM category
H3: Production worker is an Ergonomics category
H4: Physical environment is an Ergonomics category
H5: Company culture is a Lean/OPM category
2.6 Evaluation matrix
Table 9 below shows the matrix used to analyze Lean and Ergonomics. The different scales were sorted in ascending and descending order using Microsoft Excel. This way, it is possible to visualize the categories with the highest and lowest degrees.
This analysis employs a binary scale, wherein “X” denotes a positive interdependence, while “blank” indicates a negative or no interdependence. “Negative or no interdependence” was defined as: negative interdependence, no interdependence, and no information. Category headings for Lean or Ergonomics in Table 9 are denoted by letters “a,” “b,” and so on and are marked in blue. For Lean, these categories may include Poka-Yoke, Kaizen, and so on, while for Ergonomics, they include physical, cognitive, and organizational Ergonomics. Table 10 shows the formulas to compute the values required for further evaluation. The association between Lean and Ergonomics with the sociotechnical factor is evaluated using the binary scale in the blue-shaded cells. Then, the cumulative score of each subcategory of the Lean and Ergonomics evaluations is ascertained in the red-shaded cells. The analysis of (i) is done by calculating (ii), (iii), and (iv) (Table 10).
(ii) The average Lean or Ergonomics score of a subcategory of sociotechnical factors shows the correlation of each subcategory of sociotechnical factors with Lean or Ergonomics. The scores in the green cells are calculated using (i) the sum of all Lean or Ergonomics categories scores in each sociotechnical subcategory divided by the percentage of the number of Lean or Ergonomics categories. (iii) The weighted average Lean or Ergonomics score of each sociotechnical factor subcategory is the same as (ii) with additional weighting. (iii) The scores in the purple cells are calculated by taking the average Lean or Ergonomics scores in (ii) and dividing by the number of subcategories of a sociotechnical factor. The Lean or Ergonomics scores of the sociotechnical factors (iv) determine the correlation between Lean or Ergonomics and the sociotechnical metrics and are calculated using the sum of (iv).
3 Results
Table 11 shows the results of Lean and Ergonomics scores on the sociotechnical metrics. Average and weighted Lean and Ergonomics scores are computed using the formula in Table 10 (see appendix for single evaluation matrix).
Technology (i4.0) and manufacturing process, with 71% and 64%, respectively, are the highest-scoring sociotechnical factors for Lean categories (blue bars) (Fig. 2). The third highest Lean score is the company culture factor, which has an average Lean score of 46%. Figure 3 also shows the evaluation of Ergonomics with the sociotechnical metrics (orange bars); the physical environment category has the highest Ergonomics score, which is 100%. All three categories of Ergonomics are positively correlated with the physical environment factors such as temperature, sound, and noise. The second-highest Ergonomics score is in the category of production workers, with a score of 86%. At first glance, cognitive Ergonomics is not correlated with the physical characteristics of production workers: posture, weight or force, and porosity. Two categories that score 83% are company culture and manufacturing process factors, considered both Lean and Ergonomics. Hierarchy and clan cultures are strongly associated with Ergonomics, while adhocracy and market cultures are less correlated. Despite being more specific than categories of Ergonomics, Lean tools still encompass the same principles. Therefore, it is considered plausible and accurate to utilize the ratio of the weighted average of Lean and Ergonomics scores, as presented in Fig. 3's stacked chart. This approach allows for effective comparison and analysis of similarities and differences.
Bar chart of the comparison of Lean and Ergonomics using the sociotechnical metrics
Stacked chart of the comparison of Lean and Ergonomics with the sociotechnical metrics
From the stacked chart in Fig. 3, the significant contradictions between Lean and Ergonomics are the physical environment and technology (i4.0). The factors that exhibit more remarkable similarities than contradictions between Lean and Ergonomics comprise company culture, production worker, and manufacturing process. These factors are expected to hold features of both Lean and Ergonomics, which explains the resulting higher number of similarities compared to contradictions.
4 Discussion, recommendations for the OPM user, and limitations
4.1 Discussion
The highest-scoring sociotechnical factors for Lean categories (blue bars) are technology (i4.0) and manufacturing process, with 71% and 64%, respectively (Fig. 3). Schumacher et al. explain that technology i4.0 tools play an essential role in today's manufacturing sector where manufacturers compete to produce high-quality products, increase productivity, and reduce costs (Schumacher et al. 2016). The development of i4.0 technology allows production to be flexible and modular, supporting companies in the mass production of customized products, thus supporting the Lean principles of reducing waste and increasing efficiency (Fettermann et al. 2018; Huang et al. 2021). In the manufacturing process factor, the higher Lean score in manufacturing processes explains that lean manufacturing supports labor-intensive manufacturing by identifying bottlenecks and increasing quality proofing and throughput (Comm and Mathaisel 2005). The third highest Lean score is the company culture factor, with an average Lean score of 46%. Most of the Lean tools in our study support the hierarchical culture, and none support the adhocracy culture. This is because hierarchical culture focuses on control, standardization, and predictable performance outcomes, which promotes effective Lean processes compared to other organizational cultures (Pakdil and Leonard 2015). Finally, the production workers and physical environment factors are the lowest among the five factors, with 44% and 24%, respectively.
The reason for the low Lean score in the production workers factor is that worker ergonomics and safety should be addressed in lean manufacturing because the focus is on increasing productivity and reducing waste (Cirjaliu and Draghici 2016). Finally, more research needs to be done on the relationship between the physical environment and concrete Lean tools. From the literature review, only a few studies mentioned the importance of good lighting and temperature on worker performance, and none mentioned noise.
Company culture and manufacturing process factors, classified as Lean and Ergonomics, score 83%. Hierarchy and clan cultures are strongly associated with Ergonomics, while adhocracy and market cultures show modest correlations. This may be because clan and hierarchical cultures support workers’ quality of life and wellbeing, leading to job satisfaction and cognitive Ergonomics (Paz et al. 2020). In capital-intensive manufacturing, many machines are ergonomically designed to support workers with mental and physical workloads (Karwowski and Marras 1999). Similarly, Ergonomics is positively correlated with labor-intensive manufacturing, but only if workers’ wellbeing is well taken care of – for example, if workers’ workloads match their capacities. Finally, technology i4.0 has the lowest Ergonomics score of all the sociotechnical factors, at 67%. This supports the assumption made at the beginning that there is a danger that the human factor in innovation-oriented OPM will be unjustly neglected and that too much emphasis will be placed on pure, supposedly human-free technology in the development of Industry 4.0 (Chen et al. 2023; Tripathi et al. 2023).
Figure 2 shows that the Ergonomics ratings are generally higher at the initial inspection than the Lean ratings. The difference may be due to the different categories chosen for Lean and Ergonomics. The Lean categories are taken from Lean tools, while the Ergonomics categories are taken from the three pillars of Ergonomics. Ergonomics tools were first used to analyze the sociotechnical factors before the three pillars of Ergonomics. However, most results showed no correlation between Ergonomics and sociotechnical factors, which did not yield an acceptable result. This is because Ergonomics tools are rigid and inflexible and exist primarily in assessment forms, measurement methods, or measuring tools (Brunner et al. 2023). Lean tools such as Kaizen or Poka-Yoke are based on principles and are more flexible and comprehensive, making them more suitable for analysis. As Brunner et al. (2022) described, Lean Ergonomics can help production ergonomics achieve “lean-like” principles. Ergonomics needs more content that has been prepared in a dogma-like manner like that of the Lean philosophy and thus can find many more supporters in companies than, for example, the complex operation of a motion-capturing system. This was also indirectly confirmed by the attempt to create similar categories based on shared principles.
In the stacked chart, the biggest contradiction between Lean and Ergonomics is the physical environment factor (Fig. 3). Lean has a physical environment score of 10%, while Ergonomics has a score of 24%. Numerous studies have shown that an optimal physical environment improves Ergonomics and enables workers to achieve higher overall productivity and efficiency (Kamarulzaman et al. 2011; Zare et al. 2016). However, some studies suggest that lean manufacturing has a negative impact on the physical work environment and the wellbeing of workers, especially in manual work (Anderson-Connolly et al. 2002; Hasle et al. 2012). It was also noted that Lean views employees more quantitatively, not qualitatively, in its holistic application in OPM. We suspect this is due to a ‘deterrent function’ of complex, expensive ergonomic studies. In the literature review, we identified mainly Ergonomics measurement methods and expert tools rather than practitioner-oriented guidelines or concepts as they exist in Lean – and are known down to the shop floor level. This also needs to be further discussed by Ergonomics as to how the meso level between the system-centered macro level of OPM and the human-centered micro level of Ergonomics can be served. The second largest contradiction between Lean and Ergonomics is the technology (i4.0) factor, which scores 29% and 16% for Lean and Ergonomics, respectively. Some studies mentioned in the above section, such as Neumann et al. (2021), concluded that there needs to be more focus on the Ergonomics aspect in the study and development of i4.0. Both lean manufacturing and i4.0 focus on increasing quality, productivity, and efficiency of production, waste reduction, and customer-centric systems (Buer et al. 2018). Both Lean and Ergonomics place a high value on employees in labor-intensive manufacturing settings that require significant investment. Labor-intensive manufacturing increases overall process efficiency and reduces labor waste (King et al. 2008; Tanner and Roncarti 1994). In capital-intensive manufacturing, new machine technology assists workers with mental and physical workloads (Karwowski and Marras 1999). From the corporate culture factor results, hierarchical and clan cultures support both Lean and Ergonomics.
In contrast, market culture is considered to have more Lean aspects, and adhocracy culture has more ergonomic aspects than Lean aspects. The surprising result is the production worker factor. While it was expected to tend toward Ergonomics, the results show that production workers support both Lean and Ergonomics. The analysis shows that Lean and Ergonomics share the same goals of increasing employee job satisfaction, reducing waste, and achieving efficiency, which supports Brunner et al.'s (2022) concept of Lean Ergonomics and thus calls for the consideration of the human factor in OPM systems.
Based on the results and the literature discussion, the hypotheses are processed in the following way.
H1: Industry 4.0 technology is a Lean/OPM category➔ accepted
H2: Manufacturing methods is a Lean/OPM category➔ rejected
H3: Production worker is an Ergonomics category➔ rejected
H4: Physical environment is an Ergonomics category➔ accepted
H5: Company culture is a Lean/OPM category➔ rejected
Hypotheses H2, H3, and H5 are rejected based on our results. The STS elements are therefore arranged as follows (Fig. 4 and Table 12). Because of the significant overlap between Lean and Ergonomics in the areas of “Company culture,” “Production worker,” and “Manufacturing process,” an additional category – Lean Ergonomics – is suggested (according to Brunner et al. 2022).
Results of the categories of sociotechnical factors
4.2 Recommendations for the OPM user
Based on the literature reviewed for this article and the findings based on the methodology presented, implications for OPM users are summarized.
-
Company Culture: Among company culture factors, hierarchical and clan cultures support Lean and Ergonomics. Therefore, companies should pay special attention to Ergonomics and OPM in hierarchical/clan organizational structures.
-
Employee Productivity and Satisfaction: Lean and Ergonomics have similar goals, such as increasing employee satisfaction and efficiency, and reducing waste.
-
Integrating Ergonomics into OPM/Lean: Integrating Ergonomics into Lean benefits workplace efficiency and cost reduction. Ergonomic studies do not have to be expensive and time-consuming. There are Lean-like approaches that combine Ergonomics and OPM using a modular methodology system.
-
Importance of Ergonomics: Ergonomics is an essential element of operational performance management efforts, especially in labor-intensive environments with manual tasks.
-
Technology (i4.0): Introducing technology (i4.0) risks unjustifiably neglecting ergonomic aspects. This leads to ergonomic challenges, which in turn conflict with the profitability of the technological measure.
-
Organizational Structure and Responsibilities: Neither Lean/OPM departments nor occupational Health/Ergonomics departments should be solely responsible for actions affecting production workers, company culture, and manufacturing methods.
4.3 Limitations and future research
As a limitation, this study does not claim comprehensiveness of the literature review due to several factors, which can lead to biases. The seven most important Lean methods were selected from the literature and compared to Ergonomics. The categorical classification of Lean tools and methods is based on 11 selected articles, each dealing with several Lean methods per se. At the same time, these methods were qualitatively compared with those from standard works on Lean (Bertagnolli 2022; Bhasin 2015; Davim 2018; Monden 1983; Shingō and Dillon 2006; Womack et al. 1990), and congruence was identified. Other Lean methods may address Ergonomics differently. Other classifications for Ergonomics were examined, but none was found to be more appropriate than the IEA's. “Goals” from the STS theory were not considered because Lean and Ergonomics have different goals depending on the company's size and the industry. Further research should consider “goals” and how company size and industry influence them. The authors have classified technologies, methods, and principles to the best of their knowledge, but these may need to be clarified for reasons of binarity or classification. This study provides a starting point for evaluating and understanding the synergies and differences between Lean and Ergonomics. However, it is limited to sociotechnical factors and does not address all aspects, such as cost.
The binary system used here does not distinguish between negative interdependence, no interdependence, and no information available. All these three aspects are understood as the binary counterpart of “positive interdependence.” Further research could start here and expand the binary system into a fourfold division. Web of Science could be included as a search engine in further research. The abandonment of Google Scholar due to reduced search options must be considered.
Overall, this paper has methodically deduced that three factors – company culture, manufacturing process, and production worker – have more commonalities than differences in Lean and Ergonomics and can indeed be categorized as “Lean Ergonomics” in the category shown in Fig. 4. For those factors that have more similarities than contradictions, such as company culture, manufacturing processes, and production workers, it is recommended that they be studied in more detail so that the information can be used to improve both worker wellbeing and workplace performance.
5 Conclusion
This paper proposes a sociotechnical metric system based on Clegg and Challenger (2011) that includes both human and technological factors to analyze the similarities and contradictions of Lean and Ergonomics. Company culture, production worker, physical environment, manufacturing process, and technology (i4.0) are included as factors in the metric system, and a binary scale is used for the analysis. The analysis shows that measures and decisions focusing on Ergonomics should be combined with those on Lean because there are more similarities than contradictions between Lean and Ergonomics. Lean and Ergonomics have remarkable synergies in manufacturing processes, company culture, and production worker factors but less so in the physical environment and technology, which is essential for OPM to know. This study also helps to answer the general question: Are Lean and Ergonomics compatible? Although the total score for Ergonomics in each sociotechnical factor is higher than that for Lean, the results are considered valid when converted to the ratio of the scores. It is also interesting to note that the production worker factor, previously thought to be Ergonomics rather than Lean, contains both Lean and Ergonomics aspects. Introducing and exploring new technologies is usually separated from the human factor, even though the human is involved as both the designer and the user. Neglecting Ergonomics in this process jeopardizes profitability and can cause unexpected stress to employees. In conclusion, the advantages of combining Lean and Ergonomics in an OPM system outweigh the disadvantages.
Data Availability
Statement for material and data availability does not apply as all data is freely available.
References
Adesta T, Yulian E, Prabowo HA (2018) The Evaluation of Lean Manufacturing Implementation and Their Impact to Manufacturing Performance. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng 453:12031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/453/1/012031
Aguilar-Escobar VG, Bourque S, Godino-Gallego N (2015) Hospital kanban system implementation: Evaluating satisfaction of nursing personnel. Invest Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 21(3):101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedee.2014.12.001
Ahmad MO, Markkula J, Oivo M (2013) Kanban in software development: A systematic literature review. In: In 2013 39th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. IEEE Computer Society, Santander, Spain, 04.09-06.09.2013 (S. 9–16). https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2013.28
Ahmed S (2019) A Review on Using Opportunities of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Construction Project Management. Org Technol Manag Construct: an Int J 11(1):1839–1852. https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2018-0012
Akca M, Küçükoğlu MT (2020) Relationships Between Mental Workload, Burnout, and Job Performance. In: Realyvasquez A, Arredondo-Soto KC, Hernández-Escobedo G, González-Reséndiz J (eds) Advances in Psychology, Mental Health, and Behavioral Studies (APMHBS) Book Series. Evaluating mental workload for improved workplace performance (S. 49–68). IGI Global/Medical Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1052-0.ch003
Anderson DJ (2010) Kanban: Successful evolutionary change in your technology business. Blue Hole Press
Anderson-Connolly R, Grunberg L, Greenberg ES, Moore S (2002) Is Lean Mean? Work Employ Soc 16(3):389–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/095001702762217407
Andrés-López E, González-Requena I, Sanz-Lobera A (2015) Lean Service: Reassessment of Lean Manufacturing for Service Activities. Procedia Eng 132:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.463
Barni A, Pietraroia D, Züst S, West S, Stoll O (2020) Digital Twin Based Optimization of a Manufacturing Execution System to Handle High Degrees of Customer Specifications. J Manuf Mater Process 4(4):109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp4040109
Battini D, Faccio M, Persona A, Sgarbossa F (2011) New methodological framework to improve productivity and ergonomics in assembly system design. Int J Ind Ergon 41(1):30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2010.12.001
Baur X (2013) Arbeitsmedizin. Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer Berlin Heidelberg http://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:31-epflicht-1520723
Bednárová-Gibová K (2021) Organizational ergonomics of translation as a powerful predictor of translators’ happiness at work? Perspectives 29(3):391–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2020.1753788
Benbelkacem S, Zenati-Henda N, Zerarga F, Bellarbi A, Belhocine M, Malek S, Tadjine M (2011) Augmented Reality Platform for Collaborative E-Maintenance Systems. In: In Augmented Reality. https://doi.org/10.5772/25868 (Erstveröffentlichung 2011)
Berlin C, Adams C (2017) Production ergonomics: Designing work systems to support optimalhuman performance. Ubiquity Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/bbe
Bertagnolli F (2022) Lean Management. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36087-0
Bhasin S (2015) Lean management beyond manufacturing: A holistic approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17410-5
Blanco DB, Varela L, Vicente J, Machado J (2023) A Systematic Literature Review of Management and Technological Approaches Integration with Industry 4.0. In: Burduk A (ed) Advances in Production : Intelligent Systems in Production Engineering and Maintenance (S. 515–532). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45021-1_39
Bortolotti T, Boscari S, Danese P, Medina Suni HA, Rich N, Romano P (2018) The social benefits of kaizen initiatives in healthcare: an empirical study. Int J Oper Prod Manag 38(2):554–578. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2017-0085 (Erstveröffentlichung 2011)
Bouville G, Alis D (2014) The effects of lean organizational practices on employees' attitudes and workers' health: evidence from France. Int J Hum Resour Manag 25(21):3016–3037. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.951950
Boyle E (1998) Kaizen Event brings about change. Paper, Film and Foil Converter 72(9):1 https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/kaizen-event-brings-about-change/docview/211367668/se-2?accountid=14439
Bragança S, Sousa R, Alves A, Costa E (2013) An industrial application of the SMED methodology and other Lean Production tools. In: 4th International Conference on Integrity, Reliability and Failure (IRF 2013) https://www.academia.edu/30194829/An_industrial_application_of_the_SMED_methodology_and_other_Lean_Production_tools
Brah SA, Chong W-K (2004) Relationship between total productive maintenance and performance. Int J Prod Res 42(12):2383–2401. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540410001661418
Brkic SV, Tomic B (2016) Employees factors importance in Lean Six Sigma concept. The TQM Journal 28(5):774–785. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-10-2015-0131
Brown CB, Collins TR, McCombs EL (2006) Transformation From Batch to Lean Manufacturing: The Performance Issues. Eng Manag J 18(2):3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2006.11431689
Brunner FJ (2011) Japanische Erfolgskonzepte: KAIZEN, KVP, Lean Production Management, Total Productive Maintenance Shopfloor Management, Toyota Production Management, GD3 - Lean Development (2., überarb. Aufl.). Praxisreihe Qualitätswissen, Hanser, Carl. https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446427396
Brunner S, Knott V, Bengler K (2022) Lean Ergonomics—are relevant synergies of digital human models and digital twins defining a new emerging subdiscipline? Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft 76(4):401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41449-022-00344-4
Brunner S, Kühnel K, Bengler K (2023) Lean Ergonomics—an empirical combination of Management Science and Ergonomics. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41449-023-00394-2
Bryson A, Forth J, Stokes L (2017) Does employees’ subjective well-being affect workplace performance? Hum Relat 70(8):1017–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717693073
Buer S-V, Strandhagen JO, Chan FTS (2018) The link between Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing: mapping current research and establishing a research agenda. Int J Prod Res 56(8):2924–2940. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1442945
Cameron KS, Quinn RE (2011) Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework : 3rd ed, 3rd edn. The Jossey-Bass business & management series. Jossey-Bass http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10452142
Carannte T (1995) TPM implementation: The Foundryman Supplement [UK foundry industry]. 88(11):1–34
Carayon P, Karsh B-T, Gurses AP, Holden R, Hoonakker P, Hundt AS, Montague E, Rodriguez J, Wetterneck TB (2013) Macroergonomics in Healthcare Quality and Patient Safety. Rev Human Factors Ergonom 8(1):4–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557234X13492976
Carvalho A, Ferreira AC, Costa Maia L, Leão PC, Carneiro P (2019) A symbiotic relationship between Lean Production and Ergonomics: insights from Industrial Engineering final year projects. International. J Industr Eng Manag 10(4):243–256. https://doi.org/10.24867/IJIEM-2019-4-244
Cavadini FA, Pedrazzoli P (2018) Modular Human–Robot Applications in the Digital Shopfloor Based on IEC-61499. In: Soldatos J, Lazaro O, Cavadini F (eds) The Digital Shopfloor- Industrial Automation in the Industry 4.0 Era: Performance Analysis and Applications. Taylor & Francis, pp 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003339717-9
Chae B, Olson D (2022) Technologies and applications of Industry 4.0: insights from network analytics. Int J Prod Res 60(12):3682–3704. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1931524
Chen X, Deng T, Shen Z-JM, Yu Y (2023) Mind the gap between research and practice in operations management. IISE Trans 55(1):32–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/24725854.2022.2046893
Chiabert P, Aliev K (2020) Analyses and Study of Human Operator Monotonous Tasks in Small Enterprises in the Era of Industry 4.0. In: Product Lifecycle Management Enabling Smart X: 17th IFIP WG 5.1 International Conference, PLM 2020, Rapperswil, Switzerland, July 5–8, 2020, Revised Selected Papers, vol 17. Springer International Publishing, pp 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62807-9_8
Chiarini A (2014) Sustainable manufacturing-greening processes using specific Lean Production tools: an empirical observation from European motorcycle component manufacturers. J Clean Prod 85:226–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.080
Choi T-M, Kumar S, Yue X, Chan H-L (2022) Disruptive Technologies and Operations Management in the Industry 4.0 Era and Beyond. Prod Oper Manag 31(1):9–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13622
Chua SJL, Ali AS, Lim MEL (2016) Physical Environment Comfort Impacts on Office Employee’s Performance. MATEC Web of Conf 66:124. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166600124
Chung-Yan GA (2010) The nonlinear effects of job complexity and autonomy on job satisfaction, turnover, and psychological well-being. J Occup Health Psychol 15(3):237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019823
Ciano MP, Dallasega P, Orzes G, Rossi T (2021) One-to-one relationships between Industry 4.0 technologies and Lean Production techniques: a multiple case study. Int J Prod Res 59(5):1386–1410. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1821119
Ciccarelli M, Papetti A, Cappelletti F, Brunzini A, Germani M (2022) Combining World Class Manufacturing system and Industry 4.0 technologies to design ergonomic manufacturing equipment. Int J Interact Des Manuf (IJIDeM) 16(1):263–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-021-00832-7
Cirjaliu B, Draghici A (2016) Ergonomic Issues in Lean Manufacturing. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 221:105–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.095
Clegg CW, Challenger R (2011) Crowd disasters: a socio-technical systems perspective. Contemp Soc Sci 6(3):343–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2011.619862
Comm CL, Mathaisel DF (2005) An exploratory analysis in applying lean manufacturing to a labor-intensive industry in China. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 17(4):63–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850510672430
Couffe C, Michael GA (2017) Failures Due to Interruptions or Distractions: A Review and a New Framework. Am J Psychol 130(2):163–181. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.2.0163
Cudney E, Corns S, Farris J, Gent S, Grasman S, Guardiola I (2011) Enhancing Undergraduate Engineering Education of Lean Methods using Simulation Learning Modules within a Virtual Environment. In: 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings (22.628.1-22.628.12). ASEE Conferences. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--17909
D’Orazio L, Messina R, Schiraldi MM (2020) Industry 4.0 and World Class Manufacturing Integration: 100 Technologies for a WCM-I4.0 Matrix. Appl Sci 10(14):4942. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10144942
da Costa BR, Vieira ER (2010) Risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review of recent longitudinal studies. Am J Ind Med 53(3):285–323. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20750
Da Silva ER, Shinohara AC, Nielsen CP, de Lima EP, Angelis J (2020) Operating Digital Manufacturing in Industry 4.0: the role of advanced manufacturing technologies. Procedia CIRP 93:174–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.04.063
Davim JP (2018) Progress in lean manufacturing. In: Management and industrial engineering. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73648-8
Deng D, Ding X, Lin W (2022) A New 5S Radar Structure Design Model Driven by Digital Twin. In: Proceedings of the eighth Asia (S. 1015–1023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1309-9_99 (Erstveröffentlichung 2022)
Ding B, Ferràs Hernández X, Agell Jané N (2023) Combining lean and agile manufacturing competitive advantages through Industry 4.0 technologies: an integrative approach. Prod Plan Control 34(5):442–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1934587
Dombrowski U (2015) Lean Development: Aktueller Stand und zukünftige Entwicklungen: Aktueller Stand und Zukünftige Entwicklungen. Vieweg Verlag, VDI-Buch Ser https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=4178893
Drotz E, Poksinska B (2014) Lean in healthcare from employees' perspectives. J Health Organ Manag 28(2):177–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-03-2013-0066
Du J, Zhu Q, Shi Y, Wang Q, Lin Y, Zhao D (2020) Cognition Digital Twins for Personalized Information Systems of Smart Cities: Proof of Concept. J Manag Eng 36(2):Artikel 04019052
Lotārs Dubkēvičs & Arturs Barbars (2010). The role of organizational culture in human resource management. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THE-ROLE-OF-ORGANIZATIONAL-CULTURE-IN-HUMAN-Dubk%C4%93vi%C4%8Ds-Barbars/dbfe75e5b7cf0189c6b4f78448cd096293a0cdc7
Dul J, Bruder R, Buckle P, Carayon P, Falzon P, Marras WS, Wilson JR, van der Doelen B (2012) A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics 55(4):377–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.661087
Dul J, Neumann WP (2009) Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Appl Ergon 40(4):745–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.07.001
Dworschak B, Zaiser H (2014) Competences for Cyber-physical Systems in Manufacturing – First Findings and Scenarios. Procedia CIRP 25:345–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.10.048
Edwards K (2014) Ergonomic Value Stream Mapping – Can lean and ergonomics go hand in hand? Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management - XI. https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/ergonomic-value-stream-mapping-can-lean-and-ergonomics-go-hand-in
Ehrensberger-Dow M, O'Brien S (2015) Translation as a cognitive activity. Transl Spaces 4(1):98–118. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.1.05ehr
El Abbadi, L., El Manti, S. & Houti, M. (2011). Kanban System for Industry 4.0 Environment: Augmented Reality - Some Emerging Application Areas. https://www.sciencepubco.com/index.php/ijet/article/view/21780
Erlandson RF, Noblett MJ, Phelps JA (1998) Impact of a poka-yoke device on job performance of individuals with cognitive impairments. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng: a Publ IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 6(3):269–276. https://doi.org/10.1109/86.712222
Falck A-C, Örtengren R, Rosenqvist M (2014) Assembly failures and action cost in relation to complexity level and assembly ergonomics in manual assembly (part 2). Int J Ind Ergon 44(3):455–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2014.02.001
Fatorachian H, Kazemi H (2018) A critical investigation of Industry 4.0 in manufacturing: theoretical operationalisation framework. Prod Plan Control 29(8):633–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1424960
Faulkner W, Badurdeen F (2014) Sustainable Value Stream Mapping (Sus-VSM): methodology to visualize and assess manufacturing sustainability performance. J Clean Prod 85:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.042
Feldmann C, Gorj A (2017) 3D-Druck und Lean Production: Schlanke Produktionssysteme mit additiver Fertigung. SpringerLink Bücher. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-18408-7
Fettermann DC, Cavalcante CGS, de Almeida TD, Tortorella GL (2018) How does Industry 4.0 contribute to operations management? Journal of Industrial and Production. Engineering 35(4):255–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2018.1462863
Frankenfield J (2003) Capital Intensive. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalintensive.asp
Fu Z, Ren K, Shu J, Sun X, Huang F (2016) Enabling Personalized Search over Encrypted Outsourced Data with Efficiency Improvement. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 27(9):2546–2559. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2015.2506573
Gambi LDN, Gerolamo MC, Carpinetti LCR (2013) A Theoretical Model of the Relationship between Organizational Culture and Quality Management Techniques. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 81:334–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.438
Ghany WA (2010) 5S and its Effect on HSE Performance. https://doi.org/10.2118/136528-MS (Erstveröffentlichung 2010)
Gilson LL, Maynard MT, Jones Young NC, Vartiainen M, Hakonen M (2015) Virtual Teams Research. J Manag 41(5):1313–1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314559946
Gitahi NS, Waiganjo M, Koima J (2015) Effect of Workplace Environment on the Performance ofCommercial Banks Employees in Nakuru Town. Int J Manag Stud Res 3(12):76–89. https://www.arcjournals.org/international-journal-of-managerial-studies-and-research/volume-3-issue-12/9
González A, Salgado D, García Moruno L, Sánchez Ríos A (2018) An Ergonomic Customized-Tool Handle Design for Precision Tools using Additive Manufacturing: A Case Study. Appl Sci 8(7):1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8071200
Goodman EA, Zammuto RF, Gifford BD (2001) The Competing Values Framework: Understanding the Impact of Organizational Culture on the Quality of Work Life. Organ Dev J 19(3):58–68
Greig MA, Village J, Salustri FA, Neumann WP (2023) Examining human factors and ergonomics aspects in a manufacturing organisation's metrics system: measuring up to stakeholder needs. Ergonomics 66(12):1868–1883. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2023.2168065
Groneberg H, Koller J, Mahr A, Döpper F (2021) Development of a systematic approach to identify non-value-adding operations in the LBM process chain. Procedia CIRP 104:1613–1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.11.272
Guo H, Chen M, Mohamed K, Qu T, Wang S, Li J (2021) A digital twin-based flexible cellular manufacturing for optimization of air conditioner line. J Manuf Syst 58(A):65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.07.012
Gupta S, Jain SK (2014) The 5S and kaizen concept for overall improvement of the organisation: a case study. Int J Lean Enterprise Res 1(1):Artikel 62280, 22. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLER.2014.062280
Hagos, A M (2016). Factors and Challenges Affecting Implementation of Continuous Improvement (Kaizen) Tools in Garment Factories.
Hardcopf R, Liu G, Shah R (2021) Lean production and operational performance: The influence of organizational culture. Int J Prod Econ 235:108060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108060
Hartini S, Ciptomulyono U, Anityasari M (2019) Life cycle – Value stream mapping: Evaluating sustainability using lean manufacturing tools in the life cycle perspective. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, EXPLORING RESOURCES, PROCESS AND DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Engineering, Technology, and Industrial Application (ICETIA) 2018 (S. 30024). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5112428
Hasle P, Bojesen A, Langaa Jensen P, Bramming P (2012) Lean and the working environment: a review of the literature. Int J Oper Prod Manag 32(7):829–849. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571211250103
Hedge A (1986) Open versus enclosed workspaces: The impact of design on employee reactions to their offices. Behavioral Issues In Office Design, pp 139–176
Hendrick HW, Kleiner B (2005) Macroergonomics: Theory, methods, and applications. In: Human factors and ergonomics. CRC Press
Herzberg F (2008) One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review Press https://hbr.org/2003/01/one-more-time-how-do-you-motivate-employees
Horváth G, Erdős G (2017) Gesture Control of Cyber Physical Systems. Procedia CIRP 63:184–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.312
Hou L, Wu S, Zhang G, Tan Y, Wang X (2021) Literature Review of Digital Twins Applications in Construction Workforce Safety. Appl Sci 11(1):339. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010339
Huang G, Chen J, Khojasteh Y (2021) A cyber-physical system deployment based on pull strategies for one-of-a-kind production with limited resources. J Intell Manuf 32(2):579–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-020-01589-8
Hummel V, Hyra K, Ranz F, Schuhmacher J (2015) Competence Development for the Holistic Design of Collaborative Work Systems in the Logistics Learning Factory. Procedia CIRP 32:76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.111
IEA (2023) The International Ergonomics Association is a global federation of human factors/ergonomics societies, registered as a nonprofit organization in Geneva, Switzerland. International Ergonomics Association https://iea.cc/
Ireland F, Dale BG (2001) A study of total productive maintenance implementation. J Qual Maint Eng 7(3):183–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510110404495
Jafari MJ, Khosrowabadi R, Khodakarim S, Mohammadian F (2019) The Effect of Noise Exposure on Cognitive Performance and Brain Activity Patterns. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 7(17):2924–2931. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.742
Jaffar N, Abdul-Tharim AH, Mohd-Kamar IF, Lop NS (2011) A Literature Review of Ergonomics Risk Factors in Construction Industry. Procedia Eng 20:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.142
Jahncke H, Hygge S, Halin N, Green AM, Dimberg K (2011) Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration. J Environ Psychol 31(4):373–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.07.002
Jardine AK, Lin D, Banjevic D (2006) A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mech Syst Signal Process 20(7):1483–1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.09.012
Jarebrant C, Winkel J, Johansson Hanse J, Mathiassen SE, Öjmertz B (2015) ErgoVSM: A Tool for Integrating Value Stream Mapping and Ergonomics in Manufacturing. Human Factors Ergonom Manuf Serv Industr 26(2):191–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20622
Jeong K-Y, Phillips DT (2001) Operational efficiency and effectiveness measurement. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21(11):1404–1416. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006223
Jiang W, Liu J, Dong Y, Wang L (2021) Assignment of duplicate storage locations in distribution centres to minimise walking distance in order picking. Int J Prod Res 59(15):4457–4471. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1766714
Jin M (2014) Labor-Intensive Industry Company Transition and Export Marketing. Kymenlaakson Ammattikorkeakoulu
Jonker D, Rolander B, Balogh I, Sandsjö L, Ekberg K, Winkel J (2011) Mechanical exposure among general practice dentists in Sweden and possible implications of rationalisation. Ergonomics 54(10):953–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2011.606919
Juslén H, Wouters M, Tenner A (2007) The influence of controllable task-lighting on productivity: a field study in a factory. Appl Ergon 38(1):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.01.005
Kadir BA, Broberg O, Da Conceição CS (2019) Current research and future perspectives on human factors and ergonomics in Industry 4.0. Comput Ind Eng 137:106004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106004
Kamarulzaman N, Saleh AA, Hashim SZ, Hashim H, Abdul-Ghani AA (2011) An Overview of the Influence of Physical Office Environments Towards Employee. Procedia Eng 20:262–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.164
Kanta Patra N, Tripathy JK, Choudhary BK (2005) Implementing the office total productive maintenance (“office TPM”) program: a library case study. Libr Rev 54(7):415–424. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530510611910
Karimi, S. & Nejad, A. H. (2018). The effect of organizational training on job satisfaction and individual performance of Ahwaz Oil Company employees. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-effect-of-organizational-training-on-job-and-of-Karimi-Nejad/88e0d6bcce9c2c6dcc4a9d229ae5a8f4da717107
Karwowski W, Marras WS (1998) The occupational ergonomics handbook. CRC Press
Karwowski W (1999) Ergonomics engineering, industrial engineering. In: Marras WS (ed) The occupational ergonomics handbook. CRC Press
Kenton W (2003) Labor Intensive: Definition and Examples. Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laborintensive.asp
Kieviet A (2016) Digitalisierung der Wertschöpfung: Auswirkung auf das Lean Management. In: Erfolgsfaktor Lean Management 2.0. Springer Gabler, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49752-4_3
King PL, Kroeger DR, Foster JB, Williams N, Proctor W (2008) Making Cereal Not Cars. Industr Eng 40(12):34–37
Koether R, Meier, K-J (2017) Lean Production für die variantenreiche Einzelfertigung: Flexibilität wird zum neuen Standard. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gbv/detail.action?docID=4856424
Kolberg D, Zühlke D (2015) Lean Automation enabled by Industry 4.0 Technologies. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(3):1870–1875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.359
Kolus A, Wells R, Neumann P (2018) Production quality and human factors engineering: A systematic review and theoretical framework. Appl Ergon 73:55–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.05.010
Koukoulaki T (2014) The impact of lean production on musculoskeletal and psychosocial risks: an examination of sociotechnical trends over 20 years. Appl Ergon 45(2):198–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.07.018
Kumar J, Kumar Soni V, Agnihotri G (2014) Impact of TPM implementation on Indian manufacturing industry. Int J Product Perform Manag 63(1):44–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2012-0051
Laanti M (2013) Agile and Wellbeing -- Stress, Empowerment, and Performance in Scrum and Kanban Teams. In: 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences: (HICSS 2013) Wailea, Hawaii, 7-10 January 2013 (S. 4761–4770). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.74
Lagomarsino, M., Lorenzini, M., Balatti, P., Momi, E. de & Ajoudani, A. (2022). Pick the Right Co-Worker: Online Assessment of Cognitive Ergonomics in Human-Robot Collaborative Assembly. IEEE Trans Cognitive Dev Syst, 1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2022.3182811
Larson N, Wick H, Hallbeck S, Vink P (2015) Corporate Ergonomics Programs: Identifying Value through a Company Award Process. IIE Trans Occup Ergonom Human Factors 3(1):9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21577323.2014.1001042
Latip SNNA, Latip MSA, Tamrin M, Nawi MZM (2022) The Perspective of Work Ergonomics on Employee Task Performance in Hotel and Tourism Industry, Malaysia. In: International Academic Symposium of Social Science. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2022082007
Lawrence JJ (1999) Use mathematical modeling to give your TPM implementation effort an extra boost. J Qual Maint Eng https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Use-mathematical-modeling-to-give-your-TPM-effort-Lawrence/b991c8bcc703192e0d1204cebe2c555415acea3d
Lazarova-Molnar S, Mohamed N, Shaker HR (2017) Reliability modeling of cyber-physical systems: A holistic overview and challenges. In: 2017 Workshop on Modeling and Simulation of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (MSCPES) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320367097_Reliability_modeling_of_cyber-physical_systems_A_holistic_overview_and_challenges
Leavitt HJ (1965) Applied Organizational Change in Industry: Handbook of organizations. Rand McNally
Lee, S., Liu, L., Radwin, R. & Li, J [Jingshan] (2021). Machine Learning in Manufacturing Ergonomics: Recent Advances, Challenges, and Opportunities. IEEE Robot Autom Lett, 6(3), 5745–5752. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2021.3084881
Leksic I, Stefanic N, Veza I (2020) The impact of using different lean manufacturing tools on waste reduction. Adv Prod Eng Manag 15(1):81–92. https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2020.1.351
Lindskog P, Hemphälä J, Eklund J, Eriksson A (2016) Lean in healthcare: Engagement in development, job satisfaction or exhaustion? J Hosp Admin 5(5):91. https://doi.org/10.5430/jha.v5n5p91
Longo F, Nicoletti L, Padovano A (2017) Smart operators in industry 4.0: A human-centered approach to enhance operators’ capabilities and competencies within the new smart factory context. Comput Ind Eng 113:144–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.09.016
Lu Y, Liu Z, Min Q (2021) A digital twin-enabled value stream mapping approach for production process reengineering in SMEs. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 34(7-8):764–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2021.1872099
Dominik Lucke, Marcus Defranceski & Thomas Adolf (2017). Cyberphysische Systeme für die prädiktive Instandhaltung. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Cyberphysische-Systeme-f%C3%BCr-die-pr%C3%A4diktive-Lucke-Defranceski/702ba4611e0da87703d163e10b04a4f00ffaf4cb
Luczak H, Bruder R, Schlick C (2018) Arbeitswissenschaft. Springer Vieweg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56037-2
Mayr A, Meyer A, Seefried J, Weigelt M, Lutz B, Sultani D, Hampl M, Franke J (2017) Potentials of machine learning in electric drives production using the example of contacting processes and selective magnet assembly. In: In 2017 7th International Electric Drives Production Conference: 5-6 December 2017, Würzburg, Germany. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDPC.2017.8328166
Mayr A, Weigelt M, Kühl A, Grimm S, Erll A, Potzel M, Franke J (2018) Lean 4.0 - A conceptual conjunction of lean management and Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP 72:622–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.292
McGuire D, McLaren L (2009) The impact of physical environment on employee commitment in call centres. Team Perform Mana: An Int J 15(1/2):35–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590910937702
Moe, N. B., Dahl, B., Stray, V., Karlsen, L. S. & Schjødt-Osmo, S. (2019). Team Autonomy in Large-Scale Agile. In T. Bui , Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.839
Monden Y (1983) Toyota production system: Practical approach to production management. Industrial Engineering and Management Pr
Montini E, Bettoni A, Ciavotta M, Carpanzano E, Pedrazzoli P (2021) A meta-model for modular composition of tailored human digital twins in production. Procedia CIRP 104:689–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.11.116
Moon L, Park J, Kiritsis D, von Cieminski G (2014) Advances in Production Management Systems. Smart Manuf Industr 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99707-0
Morsy MA, Ahmed GS, Ali NA (2016) Impact of effective training on employee performance in hotel establishments. Int J Heritage, Tourism Hospitality 10(1/2):92–109
Moxham C, Greatbanks R (2001) Prerequisites for the implementation of the SMED methodology. Int J Qual Reliabil Manag 18(4):404–414. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710110386798
Mukhopadhyay SK, Shanker S (2005) Kanban implementation at a tyre manufacturing plant: a case study. Prod Plan Control 16(5):488–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537280500121778
Müller W, Leyer M (2022) Lean and job satisfaction: the mediating role of how employees perceive implemented lean methods. Prod Plan Control 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2022.2080126
Murrells T, Clinton M, Robinson S (2005) Job satisfaction in nursing: validation of a new instrument for the UK. J Nurs Manag 13(4):296–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2005.00531.x
My CA (2021) The Role of Big Data Analytics and AI in Smart Manufacturing: An Overview. In: Kumar R, Quang NH, Solanki VK, Cardona M, Pattnaik PK (eds) Advances in intelligent systems and computing: Bd. 1254. Research in intelligent and computing in engineering: Select proceedings of RICE 2020 (Bd. 1254, S. 911–921). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7527-3_87
Neges M, Koch C, König M, Abramovici M (2017) Combining visual natural markers and IMU for improved AR based indoor navigation. Adv Eng Inform 31:18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.10.005
Neumann P, Dul J (2010) Human factors: spanning the gap between OM and HRM. Int J Oper Prod Manag 30(9):923–950. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571011075056
Neumann P, Winkelhaus S, Grosse EH, Glock CH (2021) Industry 4.0 and the human factor – A systems framework and analysis methodology for successful development. Int J Prod Econ 233:107992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107992
Nunes IL (2015) Integration of Ergonomics and Lean Six Sigma. A Model Proposal Procedia Manuf 3:890–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.124
Nunes IL (2018) Advances in intelligent systems and computing: volume 592. Advances in human factors and systems interaction. In: Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Human Factors and Systems Interation, July 17-21, 2017, the Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles, California, USA. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60366-7
Oldham GR (1988) Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment. J Appl Psychol 73(2):253–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.253
Olla JO (2012) Ergonomics: An Important Tool for Organisational Success. SSRN Electronic Journal. Vorab-Onlinepublikation. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2140808
Olynick J, Li HZ (2020) Organizational Culture and Its Relationship with Employee Stress, Enjoyment of Work and Productivity. Int J Psychol Stud 12(2):14. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v12n2p14
Ostergaard K (2016) Applying Kanban principles to electronic resource acquisitions with Trello. J Electron Resour Librariansh 28(1):48–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2016.1130464
Otto A, Battaïa O (2017) Reducing physical ergonomic risks at assembly lines by line balancing and job rotation: A survey. Comput Ind Eng 111:467–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.04.011
Paais M, Pattiruhu JR (2020) Effect of Motivation, Leadership, and Organizational Culture on Satisfaction and Employee Performance. The J Asian Finance Econ Bus 7(8):577–588. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.577
Pacaux-Lemoine M-P, Trentesaux D, Zambrano Rey G, Millot P (2017) Designing intelligent manufacturing systems through Human-Machine Cooperation principles: A human-centered approach. Comput Ind Eng 111:581–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.05.014
Pakdil F, Leonard KM (2014) Criteria for a lean organisation: development of a lean assessment tool. Int J Prod Res 52(15):4587–4607. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.879614
Pakdil F, Leonard KM (2015) The effect of organizational culture on implementing and sustaining lean processes. J Manuf Technol Manag 26(5):725–743. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2013-0112
Palanisamy S, Siddiqui S (2013) Changeover Time Reduction and ProductivityImprovement by Integrating Conventional SMEDMethod with Implementation of MES for BetterProduction Planning and Control. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol 2013:7961–7974
Palmarini R, Erkoyuncu JA, Roy R, Torabmostaedi H (2018) A systematic review of augmented reality applications in maintenance. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 49:215–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2017.06.002
Panagou S, Fruggiero F, Lambiase A (2021) The Sustainable Role of Human Factor in I4.0 scenarios. Procedia Comput Sci 180:1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.354
Pancha UB (2022) Analysis of the viability of additive manufacturing for rapid tooling: A case study for the plastic industry. https://doi.org/10.51415/10321/4115
Parker S, Wall T (2006) Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well-being and effectiveness [Nachdr.]. In: Advanced topics in organizational behavior. Sage Publ
Paro PEP, Gerolamo MC (2015) Diagnosing and understanding the ideal Lean Culture -based on the 14 principles of the Toyota Way. In: 3rd World Congress of Administrative and Political Sciences, (APDOL-2014) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342446974_Diagnosing_and_understanding_the_ideal_Lean_Culture_-based_on_the_14_principles_of_the_Toyota_Way
Paz MGT, Fernandes SRP, Carneiro LL, Melo EAA (2020) Personal organizational well-being and quality of organizational life: The mediating role of organizational culture. RAM 21(1) Artikel eRAMD200122. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eramd200122
Peng C, Wei D (2010) Application of Visualized Managements at Labor-Intensive Enterprises in China. In: 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icmss.2010.5578461
Peruzzini M, Pellicciari M (2017) A framework to design a human-centred adaptive manufacturing system for aging workers. Adv Eng Inform 33:330–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2017.02.003
Pinitchan D, Pinitchan B (2008) 5S Best Workplace Award at the Manorom Hospital in Chainat Province. https://darch.isl.or.jp/il/cont/01/G0000002rouken/000/019/000019891.pdf?log=true&mid=060020&d=1578268800239
Pötters P, Klöckner I, Leyendecker B (2017) Gamification in der Montage. Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb 112(3):163–167. https://doi.org/10.3139/104.111679
Prošić S (ed) (2011) Kaizen management philosophy : Bd, p 25
Rammelmeier T, Galka S, Günthner WA (2012) Fehlervermeidung in der Kommissionierung. In: Hoppe A, Monecke J, Schulz R (eds) 8. Fachkolloquium der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Technische Logistik (Neue Ausg). Universität Magdeburg https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/1188426
Reis G, Trullen J, Story J (2016) Perceived organizational culture and engagement: the mediating role of authenticity. J Manag Psychol 31(6):1091–1105. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2015-0178
Rewers PT, Chabowski P (2016) Tools and methods of Lean Manufacturing-a literature review. In: Proceedings of 7th international technical conference technological forum 28-30. Proceedings of 7th international technical conference technological forum 28-30 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/justyna-trojanowska-2/publication/308171328_tools_and_methods_of_lean_manufacturing_-_a_literature_review/links/57dc122608ae5292a379a870/tools-and-methods-of-lean-manufacturing-a-literature-review.pdf
Reyes J, Mula J, Díaz-Madroñero M (2023) Development of a conceptual model for lean supply chain planning in industry 4.0: multidimensional analysis for operations management. Prod Plan Control 34(12):1209–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1993373
Richert AS, Schröder S, Müller-Abdelrazeq SL, Chehadé M, Jeschke S (2016) Robotic Workmates : Hybrid Human-Robot-Teams in the Industry 4.0 (IfU - Institut für Unternehmenskybernetik e.V RWTH-2016-04885). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited. https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/6596988882
Riezebos J, Huisman B (2021) Value stream mapping in education: addressing work stress. Int J Qual Reliabil Manag 38(4):1044–1061. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-05-2019-0145
Rinehart J, Huxley C, Robertson D (1994) Worker Commitment and Labour Management Relations under Lean Production at CAMI. Relat Ind/ Ind Relat 49(4):750–775. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23074478
Rodríguez D, Buyens D, van Landeghem H, Lasio V (2016) Impact of Lean Production on Perceived Job Autonomy and Job Satisfaction: An Experimental Study. Human Factors Ergonom Manuf Serv Ind 26(2):159–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20620
Sakhapov R, Absalyamova S (2018) Fourth industrial revolution and the paradigm change in engineering education. MATEC Web of Conf 245:12003. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201824512003
Sakthi N, Jeyapaul R, Vimal K, Mathiyazhagan K (2019) Integration of human factors and ergonomics into lean implementation: ergonomic-value stream map approach in the textile industry. Prod Plan Control 30(15):1265–1282. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1612109
Saltz J, Suthrland A (2019) SKI: An Agile Framework for Data Science. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, pp 3468–3476. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData47090.2019.9005591
Scheuermann C, Strobel M, Bruegge B, Verclas S (2016) Increasing the Support to Humans in Factory Environments Using a Smart Glove. In: An Evaluation. In 2016 International IEEE Conferences on Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing, Advanced and Trusted Computing, Scalable Computing and Communications, Cloud and Big Data Computing, Internet of People, and Smart World Congress. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309212861_Increasing_the_Support_to_Humans_in_Factory_Environments_Using_a_Smart_Glove_An_Evaluation
Schlick CM, Bruder R, Luczak H (2010) Arbeitswissenschaft. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78333-6
Schmauder M, Spanner-Ulmer B (2022) Ergonomie: Grundlagen zur Interaktion von Mensch, Technik und Organisation (2., überarbeitete Auflage). Hanser eLibrary. Hanser. https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446473584?locatt=mode:legacy
Schumacher A, Erol S, Sihn W (2016) A Maturity Model for Assessing Industry 4.0 Readiness and Maturity of Manufacturing Enterprises. Procedia CIRP 52:161–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.040
Schutz AL, Counte MA, Meurer S (2007) Assessment of patient safety research from an organizational ergonomics and structural perspective. Ergonomics 50(9):1451–1484. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701346765
Segura Á, Diez HV, Barandiaran I, Arbelaiz A, Álvarez H, Simões B, Posada J, García-Alonso A, Ugarte R (2020) Visual computing technologies to support the Operator 4.0. Comput Ind Eng 139:105550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.11.060
Shahin A, Ghasemaghaei M (2010) Service Poka Yoke. Int J Market Stud 2(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v2n2p190
Shingo S, Dillon AP (2006) A study of the Toyota production system from an industrial engineering viewpoint (Rev. ed. 1989, [Reprint]). Productivity Press
Shobe K (2018) Productivity Driven by Job Satisfaction, Physical Work Environment, Management Support and Job Autonomy. Bus Econ J 09(02). https://doi.org/10.4172/2151-6219.1000351
Simons D, Mason R (2003) Lean and green: 'doing more with less'. Int Commerce Rev: ECR J 3:1. https://www.proquest.com/openview/189be117aa477b5c851a7855c6b6156d/1?pq-
Sivaraman P, Nithyanandhan T, Lakshminarasimhan S, Manikandan S, Saifudheen M (2020) Productivity enhancement in engine assembly using lean tools and techniques. Mater Today: Proceedings 33:201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.010
Sobhani A, Wahab MIM, Neumann PW (2016) Integrating Ergonomics Aspects Into Operations Management Performance Optimization Models: A Modeling Framework. IIE Trans Occup Ergonom Human Factors 4(1):19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/21577323.2016.1178190
Sprigg CA, Jackson PR (2006) Call centers as lean service environments: job-related strain and the mediating role of work design. J Occup Health Psychol 11(2):197–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.2.197
Stapelbroek M, Kilic OA, Yang Y, van Donk DP (2022) Eliminating production losses in changeover operations: a case study on a major European food manufacturer. Prod Plan Control 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2022.2136041
Stern H, Becker T (2017) Development of a Model for the Integration of Human Factors in Cyber-physical Production Systems. Procedia Manuf 9:151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.030
Stock GN, McFadden KL, Gowen CR (2007) Organizational culture, critical success factors, and the reduction of hospital errors. Int J Prod Econ 106(2):368–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.07.005
Stoklasek P, Mizera A, Manas M, Manas D (2016) Improvement of handle grip using reverse engineering, CAE and Rapid Prototyping. MATEC Web of Conf 76:2029. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20167602029
Stokols D, Scharf T (1990) Developing Standardized Tools for Assessing Employees' Ratings of Facility Performance. ASTM special technical publications. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Developing-Standardized-Tools-for-Assessing-Ratings-Stokols-Scharf/4b139b6b734eb2bb4a2e6fa0814a5e88c033858d
Sundstrom E, Town JP, Rice RW, Osborn DP, Brill M (1994) Office Noise, Satisfaction, and Performance. Environ Behav 26(2):195–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659402600204
Suzuki T (2017) TPM in process industries, 1st edn. Routledge. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gbv/detail.action?docID=5092139
Taghipour M (2015) Analysing the Effects of Physical Conditions of the Workplace on Employee’s Productivity (Including Case Study). Int J Environ Protect Policy 3(4):111. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijepp.20150304.15
Tanner C, Roncarti R (1994) Kaizen leads to breakthroughs in responsiveness—And the Shingo Prize—At Critikon. Natl Prod Rev 13(4):517–531
Tatić D, Tešić B (2017) The application of augmented reality technologies for the improvement of occupational safety in an industrial environment. Comput Ind 85:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.11.004
Thakur A, Beck R, Mostaghim S, Großmann D (2020) Machine Learning for evaluating Kaizens in Volkswagen Production System - An Industrial Case study. In: 2020 IEEE 7th International Conference (S. 781–782). https://doi.org/10.1109/DSAA49011.2020.00114 (Erstveröffentlichung 2020)
Thakur R, Panghal D (2021) Total productive maintenance. In: Tiwari M, Jana P (eds) Lean Tools in Apparel Manufacturing. Woodhead Publishing, pp 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819426-3.00005-9
Thaneswer P (2013) Indoor physical work environment: An ergonomics perspective. Int J Sci 2(3):507–513. https://www.academia.edu/3176810/Indoor_physical_work_environment_An_ergonomics_perspective
Thiele Schwarz U v, Nielsen KM, Stenfors-Hayes T, Hasson H (2017) Using kaizen to improve employee well-being: Results from two organizational intervention studies. Hum Relat 70(8):966–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716677071
Tomic B, Spasojević Brkić V, Karapetrovic S, Pokrajac S, Milanović DD, Babić B, Djurdjevic T (2017) Organizational culture, quality improvement tools and methodologies, and business performance of a supply chain. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 231(13):2430–2442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405416629100
Tortorella GL, Fogliatto FS, Cauchick-Miguel PA, Kurnia S, Jurburg D (2021) Integration of Industry 4.0 technologies into Total Productive Maintenance practices. Int J Prod Econ 240:108224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108224
Tortorella GL, Giglio R, van Dun DH (2019) Industry 4.0 adoption as a moderator of the impact of lean production practices on operational performance improvement. Int J Oper Prod Manag 39(6/7/8):860–886. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2019-0005
Tothong T, Vongbunyong S, Chinthammit W, Piyasinchart A (2020) Augmented Reality for Dies Alignment in Machine Setup. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng 886(1):12051. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/886/1/012051
Trebuna P, Pekarcikova M, Edl M (2019) Digital Value Stream Mapping Using the Tecnomatix Plant Simulation Software. DAAAM
Trebuna P, Petriková A, Pekarcikova M (2017) Influence of physical factors of working environment on worker's performance from ergonomic point of view. Acta Simulatio 3(3):1–9
Treville SD, Antonakis J (2006) Could lean production job design be intrinsically motivating? Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues. J Oper Manag 24(2):99–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.04.001
Tripathi V, Chattopadhyaya S, Mukhopadhyay AK, Sharma S, Kumar V, Li C, Singh S (2023) Lean, green, and smart manufacturing: An ingenious framework for enhancing the sustainability of operations management on the shop floor in industry 4.0. Proceed Instit Mechan Eng Part E: J Process Mechan Eng 095440892311598. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544089231159834
Umeda Y, Ota J, Shirafuji S, Kojima F, Saito M, Matsuzawa H, Sukekawa T (2020) Exercise of digital kaizen activities based on ‘digital triplet’ concept. Procedia Manuf 45:325–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.025
van Rijn RM, Huisstede BM, Koes BW, Burdorf A (2010) Associations between work-related factors and specific disorders of the shoulder--a systematic review of the literature. Scand J Work Environ Health 36(3):189–201. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.2895
Varian HR (2014) Beyond Big Data. Bus Econ 49(1):27–31 https://econpapers.repec.org/article/palbuseco/v_3a49_3ay_3a2014_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a27-31.htm
Vimalanathan K, Babu TR (2017) A Study on the Effect of Ergonomics on Computer Operating Office Workers in India. J Ergonomics 07(05). https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7556.1000211
Vincent H, Wells L, Tarazaga P, Camelio J (2015) Trojan Detection and Side-channel Analyses for Cyber-security in Cyber-physical Manufacturing Systems. Procedia Manuf 1:77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.09.065
Vinitha K, Ambrose Prabhu R, Bhaskar R, Hariharan R (2020) Review on industrial mathematics and materials at Industry 1.0 to Industry 4.0. Mater Today: Proceedings 33:3956–3960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.06.331
Vinod M, Devadasan SR, Sunil DT, Thilak VMM (2015) Six Sigma through Poka-Yoke: a navigation through literature arena. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 81(1-4):315–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7217-9
Vinodh S, Wankhede VA (2021) Application of fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy CODAS for analysis of workforce attributes pertaining to Industry 4.0: a case study. Int J Qual Reliabil Manag 38(8):1695–1721. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-09-2020-0322
Vischer JC (2007) The effects of the physical environment on job performance: towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress Health 23(3):175–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1134
Wadhwa RS (2012) Flexibility in manufacturing automation: A living lab case study of Norwegian metalcasting SMEs. J Manuf Syst 31(4):444–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2012.07.008
Wickens PD (1990) Production management: Japanese and British approaches. IEE Proc A (Phys Sci Measure Instrument Manag Educ) 137(1):52–54. https://doi.org/10.1049/ip-a-2.1990.0007
Wijaya S, Hariyadi S, Debora F, Supriadi G (2020) Design and Implementation of Poka-Yoke System in Stationary Spot-Welding Production Line Utilizing Internet-of-Things Platform. J ICT Res Appl 14(1):34. https://doi.org/10.5614/itbj.ict.res.appl.2020.14.1.3
Witt CE (2006) TPM: the foundation of lean. Mater Handl Manag 61(8):42–45
Womack J, Jones DT, Roos D (1990) The machine that changed the world. Rawson Associates, New York
Yung M, Kolus A, Wells R, Neumann WP (2020) Examining the fatigue-quality relationship in manufacturing. Appl Ergon 82:102919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102919
Zahari IB, Shurbagi AMA (2012) The Effect of Organizational Culture and the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Job Satisfaction in Petroleum Sector of Libya. Int Bus Res 5(9). https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n9p89
Zare M, Croq M, Hossein-Arabi F, Brunet R, Roquelaure Y (2016) Does Ergonomics Improve Product Quality and Reduce Costs? A Review Article. Human Factors and Ergonom Manuf Serv Ind 26(2):205–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20623
Zayat W, Senvar O (2020) Framework Study for Agile Software Development Via Scrum and Kanban. Int J Innov Technol Manag 17(04) Artikel 2030002. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877020300025
Zhihan L, Guo J, Haibin L (2023) Safety Poka Yoke in Zero-Defect Manufacturing Based on Digital Twins. IEEE Trans Industr Inform 19(2):1176–1184. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2021.3139897
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No funding was received for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
An ethics vote was not required for this work.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and no competing interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Lean evaluation
See Tables 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
Appendix 2: Ergonomics evaluation
See Tables 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Brunner, S., Yuching, C.K. & Bengler, K. Streamlining operations management by classifying methods and concepts of Lean and Ergonomics within a sociotechnical framework. Oper Manag Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-024-00488-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-024-00488-y