Ergonomics as basis for a decision support system in the printing industry

Abstract

The newspapers must be printed each night in a very short time, in order to deliver them next morning. A printing plant must perfectly design the production, in which some manual operations as the supplement insertion are critical. The main concerns about this manufacturing step are to determine ergonomically the maximum capacity to setup and feed the line by the workers and improve the knowledge on the input conditions of each supplement. A decision support system to determine the number of hired workers needed for the manual insertion (setup and feeding) was developed for a printing plant. It takes into account the supplement characteristics, ergonomic issues and the production rates. A linear program has been defined and some variants have been studied. The new system led to a 13% increase in productivity, a reduction in cost overruns and an important reduction in labor costs. The system may be used for a short-term staff planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Andersson ER (1992) Economic evaluation of ergonomic solutions: part I: guidelines for the practitioner. Int J Ind Ergon 10:161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baraldi EC, Kaminski PC (2011) Ergonomic planned supply in an automotive assembly line. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 21:104–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beevis D, Slade I (2003) Ergonomics—costs and benefits. Appl Ergon 34:413–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Das B, Shikdar AA, Winters T (2007) Workstation redesign for a repetitive drill press operation: a combined work design and ergonomics approach. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 17:395–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. de Looze MP, Vink P, Koningsveld EAP, Kuijt-Evers L, Van Rhijn G (2010) Cost-effectiveness of ergonomic interventions in production. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 20:316–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dempsey PG, Mathiassen SE, Jackson JA, O’Brien NV (2010) Influence of three principles of pacing on the temporal organisation of work during cyclic assembly and disassembly tasks. Ergonomics 53:1347–1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deros BM, Daruis DDI, Basir IM (2015) A study on ergonomic awareness among workers performing manual material handling activities. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 195:1666–1673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dessouky MI, Moray N, Kijowski BA (1995) Taxonomy of scheduling systems as a basis for the study of strategic behavior. Hum Factors 37:443–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. EU OSHA, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2019) Cost to society of work-related injury and illness. https://visualisation.osha.europa.eu/osh-costs#!/. Visited 9/4/2019

  10. Finneran A, O’Sullivan L (2010) The effects of force and exertion duration on duty cycle time: implications for productivity. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 20:324–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hidalgo J, Genaidy A, Karwowski W, Christensen D, Huston R, Stambough J (1997) A comprehensive lifting model: beyond the NIOSH lifting equation. Ergonomics 40:916–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Koningsveld EAP, Dul J, Van Rhijn JW, Vink P (2005) Enhancing the impact of ergonomic interventions. Ergonomics 48:559–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Leyshon R, Chalova K, Gerson L, Savtchenko A, Zakrzewski R, Howie A, Shaw L (2010) Ergonomic interventions for office workers with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. Work J Prev Assess Rehabilit 35:335–348

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lodree EJ, Geiger CD, Jiang XC (2009) Taxonomy for integrating scheduling theory and human factors: review and research opportunities. Int J Ind Ergon 39:39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Niebel BW, Freivalds A (2002) Methods, standards and work design, 11th edn. McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  16. O’Sullivan L, Gallwey T (2006). Workplace injury risk prediction and risk reduction tools for electronics assembly work. In: Integrating human aspects in production management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 173–183

  17. Oxenburgh M, Marlow P, Oxenburgh A (2004) Increasing productivity and profit through health & safety. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  18. Polášek P, Bureš M, Šimon M (2015). Comparison of digital tools for ergonomics in practice. In: Procedia engineering, vol 100. Elsevier, pp 1277–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.01.494

  19. Riel PF, Imbeau D (1996) Justifying investments in industrial ergonomics. Int J Ind Ergon 18:349–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Santos J, Sarriegi JM, Serrano N, Torres JM (2007) Using ergonomic software in non-repetitive manufacturing processes: a case study. Int J Ind Ergon 37:267–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yeow PHP, Nath Sen R (2006) Productivity and quality improvements, revenue increment, and rejection cost reduction in the manual component insertion lines through the application of ergonomics. Int J Ind Ergon 36(4):367–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Mateo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mateo, M., Tarral, M., Rodríguez, P.M. et al. Ergonomics as basis for a decision support system in the printing industry. Cent Eur J Oper Res 28, 685–706 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00667-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ergonomics
  • Manufacturing
  • Decision support system
  • Staff planning