A hierarchical fuzzy axiomatic design methodology for ergonomic compatibility evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology

  • Aide Maldonado
  • Jorge Luis García
  • Alejandro Alvarado
  • Cesar Omar Balderrama


Advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) is a relevant resource that has been extensively used in modern industries around the world with the aim of being competitive and maintaining high levels of quality and performance. There is a wide variety of tools and models available in the literature to support AMT selection and evaluation processes. Usually, they consist of analyses of tangible aspects, such as cost, time, speed, precision, among others; however, some other important aspects are commonly neglected, that is, the case of human factors and ergonomic characteristics. This paper presents a new methodology for the evaluation of ergonomic compatibility of AMT. This methodology may be considered as a decision aid; thus, decision makers might perform their duties in a more complete manner taking into account ergonomic attributes. Fuzzy axiomatic design applications are state of the art methods for decision making, and this paper contributes with a unique application for ergonomic compatibility evaluation for AMT. The first part of the paper presents the findings of an extensive literature review about important ergonomic attributes of AMT. Then, those attributes were originally structured following a multi-attribute axiomatic design approach for AMT ergonomic evaluation under a fuzzy environment. Also, a unique ergonomic compatibility survey was proposed for data collection and an original procedure was developed for AMT evaluation, a numerical example is provided. The ergonomic compatibility concept was tested and validated using the Cronbach's alpha test (α ≥ 0.7), finding that the instrument is suitable for the measurement of the proposed construct.


Axiomatic design Fuzzy logic Ergonomic compatibility Advanced manufacturing technology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Saraph J, Sebastian R (1992) Human resource strategies for effective introduction of advanced manufacturing practices (AMT). Prod Invent Manag J 33(1):64–70Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Venkata R (2007) Decision making in the manufacturing environment. Using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. Springer, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kulak O et al (2005) Fuzzy multi-attribute equipment section based on information axiom. J Mater Process Technol 169(3):337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karwowski W (2005) Ergonomics and human factors: the paradigms for science, engineering, design, technology, and management of human-compatible systems. Ergon 48(5):436–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karwowski W (1997) Ancient wisdom and future technology: the old tradition and the new science of human factors/ergonomics. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 4th Annual Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 875–877Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karwowski W (2001) International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Helander M (1995) Conceptualizing the use of axiomatic design procedures in ergonomics. In Proceedings of the IEA World Conference. Associaçião Brasileira de Ergonomia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 38–41Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Helander M, Lin L (2002) Axiomatic design in ergonomics and extension of information axiom. J Eng Des 13(4):321–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karwowski W (2006) On measure of the Human System Compatibility. Theor Issues Ergon Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karwowski W (2006) Handbook of standards and guidelines in ergonomics and human factors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karwowski W (2000) Simvatology: the science of an artifact-human compatibility. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 1(1):76–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maldonado A, De la Riva J, Noriega S, Díaz JJ (2008) Aplicaciones del Axioma de Información en Procesos de Evaluación y Selección de Instalaciones y Equipamiento (in Spanish). Proceedings of the 1st. International Congress of Undergraduate Studies and Research, Ciudad Juárez Technology Institute, Ciudad Juárez, México, pp. 380–388Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kulak O, Cebi S, Kaharaman C (2010) Applications of axiomatic design principles: a literature review. Expert Syst Appl. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.03.061
  14. 14.
    Corlett E, Clark T (1995) The ergonomics of workspaces and machines: a design manual. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maldonado A, Sánchez J, Noriega S, Díaz JJ, García J, Vidal L (2009) A hierarchical fuzzy axiomatic design survey for ergonomic compatibility evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology. Proceedings of the XXI Annual International Occupational Ergonomics and Safety Conference, Dallas, TX. USA, pp. 270–277Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller GA (1956) The magic number seven, plus or minus two. Psychol Rev 63:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Expert Choice Software. Accessed 30 Sep 2009
  19. 19.
    Celik M, Kahraman C, Cebi S, Deha Er I (2007) Fuzzy axiomatic design-based performance evaluation model for docking facilities in shipbuilding industry: the case of Turkish shipyards. Expert Syst Appl 36(1):599–615. doi: 10.1016/j.ewa.2007.09.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen S, Hwang C (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kahraman C, Çebi S (2008) A new multi-attribute decision making method: hierarchical fuzzy axiomatic design. Expert Syst Appl 36(3):4848–4861. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.05.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ministry of Defence (1987) Human factors for designers of equipment. Accessed 27 Aug 2009
  23. 23.
    Mital A, Pennathur A, Huston R, Thompson D, Pittman M, Markle G, Kaber D, Crumptpn L, Bish R, Rajurkar K, Rajan V, Fernandez J, McMulkin M, Deivanayagam S, Ray P, Sule D (1999) The need for worker training in advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) environments: a white paper. Int J Ind Ergon 24:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mital A, Pennathur A (2004) Advanced technologies and humans in manufacturing workplaces: an interdependent relationship. Ind Ergon 33:295–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bayo-Moriones A, Merino J (2004) Employee involvement: its interaction with advanced manufacturing technologies, quality, management, and inter-firm collaboration. Hum Fact Ergon Manuf 14(2):117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johnson G, Wilson J (1988) Future directions and research issues for ergonomics and advanced manufacturing technology (AMT). Appl Ergon 19(1):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Endsley M (1993) The integration of human and advanced manufacturing systems. J Des Manuf 3:177–187Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sarter N, Woods D (1995) How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Hum Fact 37:5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee J, Salvendy G (2006) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Genaidy A, Karwowski W, Khalil A, Tuncel S, Cronin S, Salem S (2005) Work compatibility: an integrated diagnostic tool for evaluating musculoskeletal responses to work and stress outcomes. Int J Ind Ergon 35:1109–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Erensal Y, Albayrak E (2004) Successful adoption of macroergonomics in manufacturing: using a multicriteria decision-making methodology—analytic hierarchy process. Hum Fact Ergon Manuf 14(4):353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hunter S (2002) Ergonomic evaluation of manufacturing system designs. J Manuf Syst Ergo Eval Manuf Syst Des 20(6):429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Genaidy A, Karwowski W, Paez O, Tuncel S (2007) The work compability improvement framework: an integrated perspective of human at work system. Ergon 50(1):3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Genaidy A, Karwowski W (2003) Human performance in lean production environment: critical assessment and research framework. Hum Fact Ergon Manuf 13(4):317–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bruseberg A (2006) The design of complete systems: providing human factors guidance for COST acquisition. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:1554–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ruckart P, Burguess P (2007) Human error and time of occurrence in hazardous material event in mining and manufacturing. J Hazard Mater 142:747–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Siemieniuch C, Sinclair M (2006) Systems integration. Appl Ergo 37(1):91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stanton N (2006) Hierarchical task analysis: development, applications, and extensions. Appl Ergon 37(1):55–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kesseler E, Knapen E (2006) Towards human-centered design: two case studies. J Syst Softw 79:301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dul J, De Vries H, Verschoof S, Eveelens W, Feilzer A (2004) Combining economic and social goals in the design of production system by using ergonomics standards. Comput Ind Eng 47(2–3):207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Besnard D, Cacitti L (2005) Interface changes causing accidents. An empirical study of negative transfer. Int J Hum Comput Stud 62:105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vieira E, Kumar S (2007) Occupational risk factor identified and interventions suggested by welders and computer numeric control workers to control low back disorders in two steel companies. Int J Ind Ergon 37:553–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Balogh I, Ohlsson K, Hansson G, Engstrom T, Skerfving S (2006) Increasing the degree of automation in a production system: consequences for the physical workload. Int J Ind Ergon 36:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kaber D, Endsley M (2004) The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 5(2):113–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stanton N (2002) Error by design: methods for predicting device usability. Des Stud 23:363–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kumar S (2001) Theories of musculoskeletal injury causation. Ergon 44(1):17–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aide Maldonado
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jorge Luis García
    • 1
  • Alejandro Alvarado
    • 1
  • Cesar Omar Balderrama
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Manufacturing EngineeringAutonomous University of Ciudad JuárezCd. JuárezMexico
  2. 2.Graduate Studies and Research DivisionCiudad Juárez Institute of TechnologyCd. JuárezMexico
  3. 3.Department of Industrial DesignAutonomous University of Ciudad JuarezCd. JuárezMexico

Personalised recommendations