Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new approach for ergonomic risk assessment integrating KEMIRA, best–worst and MCDM methods

  • Methodologies and Application
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 05 August 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

In this study, a new three-phase ergonomic risk assessment approach was proposed for manual lifting tasks to determine which worker has the highest ergonomic risk level considering two criteria sets as lifting-related criteria and human-related criteria. In the first phase, Modified Kemeny Median Indicator Ranks Accordance (KEMIRA-M) and a novel two-dimensional best–worst method (BWM) integration were proposed for weighting ergonomic risk criteria in two sets. In this way, weighting procedure of KEMIRA-M was advanced by the proposed two-dimensional BWM in a consistent manner and subjectivity in determining the best and the worst criteria in traditional BMW was prevented by using KEMIRA-M. Thus, the weaknesses of both methods have been developed. In the second phase, the rankings of workers were determined via utilizing multi-objective optimization on the basis of simple ratio analysis, multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis (MOORA) ratio, MOORA reference point and complex proportional assessment to see how worker rankings differ despite using the same advanced weighting approach based on KEMIRA-M and two-dimensional BWM integration. Finally, to aggregate these different ranking results, technique of precise order preference was applied. In this way, different viewpoints of each ranking approach can be reflected on a single worker’s priority. The applicability of the proposed ergonomic risk assessment approach was demonstrated with a real application in tube manufacturing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 05 August 2020

    Table 14. Weights of MOORA Ratio, MOORA reference point, MOOSRA and COPRAS methods.

References

  • Abadi F, Sahebi I, Arab A, Alavi A, Karachi H (2018) Application of best-worst method in evaluation of medical tourism development strategy. Decis Sci Lett 7(1):77–86

    Google Scholar 

  • ACGIH (2001) Hand activity level. In: 2001 TLVs and BEIs. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio

  • Ahmadi HB, Kusi-Sarpong S, Rezaei J (2017) Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resour Conserv Recycl 126:99–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Arslan N, Delice EK (2018) KEMIRA-M yöntemi ile kişisel kullanicilar için dron seçimi: bir uygulama. Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, Ankara in press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bairagi B, Dey B, Sarkar B, Sanyal SK (2015) A De Novo multi-approaches multi-criteria decision making technique with an application in performance evaluation of material handling device. Comput Ind Eng 87:267–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Bera AK, Janab DK, Banerjeec D, Nandyd T (2020) A group evaluation method for supplier selection based on Interval Type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS method. Int J Bus Perform Supply Chain Model (in press)

  • Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2006) The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control Cybern 35(2):443–468

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Corlett EN (1981) Pain, posture and performance. Stress Work Des Prod 3:27–42

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Das MC, Sarkar B, Ray S (2012) Decision making under conflicting environment: a new MCDM method. Int J Appl Decis Sci 5:142–162

    Google Scholar 

  • David G, Woods V, Li G, Buckle P (2008) The development of the Quick Exposure Check (QEC) for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Appl Ergon 39(1):57–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta H (2018) Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR. J Air Transp Manag 68:35–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Heart SG, Staveland LE (1986) NASA task load index (TLX). Human Performance Res. Grp. NASA Ames Res. Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA, Computerized Version v1. 0

  • Hignett S, McAtamney L (2000) Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Appl Ergon 31(2):201–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Javad MOM, Darvishi M, Javad AOM (2020) Green supplier selection for the steel industry using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS: a case study of Khouzestan steel company. Sustain Futures 2

  • Kaklauskas A, Zavadskas EK, Raslanas S, Ginevicius R, Komka A, Malinauskas P (2006) Selection of low-e windows in retrofit of public buildings by applying multiple criteria method COPRAS: a Lithuanian case. Energy Build 38:454–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny JG (1959) Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus 88(4):577–591

    Google Scholar 

  • Kheybari S, Kazemi M, Rezaei J (2019) Bioethanol facility location selection using best-worst method. Appl Energy 242:612–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosareva N, Zavadskas EK, Krylovas A, Dadelo S (2016) Personnel ranking and selection problem solution by application of KEMIRA method. Int J Comput Commun Control 11(1):51–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Krylovas A, Zavadskas EK, Kosareva N (2016) Multiple criteria decision-making KEMIRA-M method for solution of location alternatives. Econ Res Ekon istraživanja 29(1):50–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Krylovas A, Zavadskas EK, Kosareva N, Dadelo S (2014) New KEMIRA method for determining criteria priority and weights in solving MCDM problem. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 13(06):1119–1133

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao H, Mi X, Yu Q, Luo L (2019) Hospital performance evaluation by a hesitant fuzzy linguistic best worst method with inconsistency repairing. J Clean Prod 23:657–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu ML, Waters TR, Krieg E, Werren D (2014) Efficacy of the revised NIOSH lifting equation to predict risk of low-back pain associated with manual lifting: a one-year prospective study. Hum Factors 56(1):73–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattila M, Karwowski W, Wilkki M (1993) Analysis of working psotures in hammering tasks on building construction sites using the computerized OWAS method. Appl Ergon 24(6):405–412

    Google Scholar 

  • McAtamney L, Corlett EN (1993) RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon 24(2):91–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Mi X, Tang M, Liao H, Shen W, Lev B (2019) The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: why, what, what for and what’s next? Omega 87:205–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore S, Garg A (1995) The strain index: a proposed method to analyze jobs for risk of distal upper extremity disorders. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 56:443–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Occhipintini E (1998) OCRA: a concise index for the assessment of exposure to repetitive movements of the Upper Limb. Ergonomics 41:1290–1311

    Google Scholar 

  • Pamučar D, Petrović I, Ćirović G (2018) Modification of the best-worst and MABAC methods: a novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers. Exp Syst Appl 91:89–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren J, Liang H, Chan FT (2017) Urban sewage sludge sustainability and transition for eco-city: multi-criteria sustainability assessment of technologies based on best-worst method. Technol Forecast Soc Change 116:29–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei J (2015) Best- worst multi criteria decision making methods. OMEGA 53:49–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei J (2016) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a linear model. Omega 64:126–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarıçalı G (2018) Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden KEMIRA-M ve COPRAS yöntemlerinin mermer işletmesinde makine seçim sürecine uygulanması. Master’s thesis, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Turkey

  • Sarıçalı G, Kundakcı N (2017) Forklift Alternatiflerinin KEMIRA-M Yöntemi ile Değerlendirilmesi. Optim J Econ Manag Sci 4(1):35–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Shojaei P, Haeri SAS, Mohammadi S (2018) Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function. Best-worst method and VIKOR technique. J Air Transp Manag 68:4–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Snook SH, Ciriello VM (1991) The design of manual handling tasks: revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces. Ergonomics 34(9):1197–1213

    Google Scholar 

  • Toktaş P, Can GF (2018) Şantiyelerin İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Açısından Risk Düzeylerine Göre KEMIRA-M Yöntemi ile Sıralanması. Ergonomics 1(3):123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Toktaş P, Can GF (2019) Stochastic Kemira-M approach with consistent weightings. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 18(03):793–831

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Nieuwenhuyse A, Fatkhutdinova L, Verbeke G, Pirenne D, Johannik K, Somville Mairiaux P, Moens GF, Masschelein R (2004) Risk factors for first-ever low back pain among workers in their first employment. Occup Med 54:513–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington State Department of Labour Industries. Hazard zone jobs checklist. Retrieved January 24, 2008. http://www.lni.wa.gov/wisha/ergo/evaltools/HazardZoneChecklist.PDF

  • Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ (1993) Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 36(7):749–776

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams JC (1988). A data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance. In: Conference record for 1988 IEEE fourth conference on human factors and power plants. IEEE, pp 436–450

  • Yazdi AK, Komijan AR, Wanke PF, Sardar S (2020) Oil project selection in Iran: a hybrid MADM approach in an uncertain environment. Appl Soft Comput 88:106066

    Google Scholar 

  • You X, Chen T, Yang Q (2016) Approach to multi-criteria group decision-making problems based on the best-worst-method and ELECTRE method. Symmetry 8(9):95

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Kildienė S (2014) State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20(1):165–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Yin C, Qi X, Zhang R, Kang X (2017) Cognitive best worst method for multiattribute decision-making. Mathemat Probl Eng 2017:11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1092925

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Industrial Department, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey

    Elif Kılıç Delice

  2. Industrial Department, Başkent University, Erzurum, Turkey

    Gülin Feryal Can

Authors
  1. Elif Kılıç Delice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gülin Feryal Can
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elif Kılıç Delice.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Additional information

Communicated by V. Loia.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original article has been updated: Due to Table 14 and Equation 11 update.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delice, E.K., Can, G.F. A new approach for ergonomic risk assessment integrating KEMIRA, best–worst and MCDM methods. Soft Comput 24, 15093–15110 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05143-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05143-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation