Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 109, Issue 1, pp 85–101 | Cite as

Mapping the state of the art of ergonomics within logistics

  • Mauricio Johnny LoosEmail author
  • Eugenio Merino
  • Carlos Manuel Taboada Rodriguez
Article
  • 738 Downloads

Abstract

There is a growing need for businesses to pay attention to human well-being, providing people with the conditions necessary for meeting organizational goals, which depend on logistical, production, and supply chain processes functioning as a whole. In that light, the present work seeks to construct a mapping of existing academic publications regarding ergonomics within the field of logistics, and assemble a bibliographic portfolio of the most relevant and applicable works, in the opinion of the researchers. Towards this end, a bibliometric analysis was carried out with the goal of gaining insight as to the most-recurring topics: authors, articles, periodicals and keywords in this field. This work is characterized as exploratory-descriptive research; besides this, it employs mixed qualitative and quantitative data analysis by way of the Knowledge Development Process—Constructivist intervention instrument (ProKnow-C). Resulting from this, 15 relevant and 512 reference articles were selected, which went on to form the bibliographic portfolio. Upon completion of bibliometric analysis of the articles and references composing the bibliographic portfolio, the following evidences was concluded: the academic journals International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Ergonomics and Applied Ergonomics; the articles titled “Precision of measurements of physical workload during standardised manual handling. Part I: Surface electromyography of m. trapezius, m. infraspinatus and the forearm extensors” and “Ergonomic evaluation of complex work: A participative approach employing video–computer interaction, exemplified in a study of order picking”; the keywords “Human Factors”, “Supply Chain”, “Material Handling”, “Logistics” and “Ergonomics”; and the most-cited authors being the following: Neumann, W. P.; Marras, W. S.; Winkel, J.; Hansson, G. Å.; Skerfving S.; Mathiassen, S. E., and Medbo, L. T. Once the results are unique, they are appropriate only for the particular case, so it cannot be recommended for other contexts. The ProKnow-C process, however, is general and can be used in any context.

Keywords

Bibliometric analysis Ergonomics Human factors Logistics Supply chain 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the authors that contributed to Ensslin et al. (2010, 2012), who proposed the “Knowledge Development Process Constructivist—ProKnowC” research instrument, which has contributed to the systemization of bibliometric analysis as well as other types of academic investigation.

References

  1. Acosta, G. G., & Morales, K. L. (2008). Macroergonomic study of food sector company distribution centres. Applied Ergonomics, 39(4), 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afonso, M. H. F., Souza, J. V., Ensslin, S. R., & Ensslin, L. (2011). How to build knowledge about the topic search? Application of ProKnow-C process in search about literature evaluation of sustainable development. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 5(2), 47–62. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  3. Alavi, M., & Carlson, P. (1992). A review of MIS research and disciplinary development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 8(4), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araújo, C. A. (2006). Bibliometrics: Historical developments and current issues. Em Questão. Porto Alegre. [Em linha]. 12(1), pp. 11–32 (2006). http://revistas.univerciencia.org/index.php/revistaemquestao/article/viewFile/3707/3495. Cited 11 May 2014 (in Portuguese).
  5. Bao, S., Winkel, J., Mathiassen, S., & Shahnavaz, H. (1997). Interactive effect of ergonomics and production engineering on shoulder–neck exposure—a case study of assembly work in China and Sweden. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20(1), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bortoluzzi, S. C., et al. (2011). Assessing performance in networks of small and medium enterprises: State of the art for the delimitations placed by the researcher. Revista Eletrônica de Estratégia & Negócios, Florianópolis, 4(2), 202–222. (in Portuguese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ensslin, L., et al. (2010). Evaluation of the performance of outsourced companies using the multicriteria decision support methodology constructivist. Revista Pesquisa Operacional, 30(1), 125–152. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  8. Ensslin, L., et al. (2012). A study on safety at football matches based on the analysis of the international literature. Perspectivas em Ciências da Informação, 17(2), 71–91. (in Portuguese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gil, A. C. (1999). Methods and techniques of social research. São Paulo: Atlas. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  10. Grosse, E. H., et al. (2015). Incorporating human factors in order picking planning models: Framework and research opportunities. International Journal of Production Research, 53(3), 695–717.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. HSC. (2004). Regulation and recognition: Towards good performance in health and safety. London: HSC.Google Scholar
  12. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. Journal. http://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-industrial-ergonomics/. Cited 09 March 2016.
  13. Iudícibus, S. (2004). Accounting Theory. São Paulo: Atlas. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  14. Kadefors, R., & Forsman, M. (2000). Ergonomic evaluation of complex work: A participative approach employing video–computer interaction, exemplified in a study of order picking. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25(4), 435–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karsh, B.-T., Moro, F. B. P., & Smith, M. (2001). The efficacy of workplace ergonomic interventions to control musculoskeletal disorders: a critical analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2(1), 23–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuhlang, P., Edtmayr, T., & Sihn, W. (2011). Methodical approach to increase productivity and reduce lead time in assembly and production-logistic processes. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 4(1), 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lacerda, R. T. O., Ensslin, L., & Ensslin, S. R. (2012). A bibliometric analysis of the literature on strategy and performance evaluation. Gestão & Produção 19(1), 59–78. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  18. Lloyd, C., & James, S. (2008). Too much pressure? Retailer power and occupational health and safety in the food processing industry. Work, Employment & Society, 22(4), 713–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neumann, W. P., & Medbo, L. (2010). Ergonomic and technical aspects in the redesign of material supply systems: Big boxes vs. narrow bins. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40(5), 541–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neumann, W. P., Winkel, J., Medbo, L., Magneberg, R., & Mathiassen, S. E. (2006). Production system design elements influencing productivity and ergonomics—a case study of parallel and serial flow strategies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(8), 904–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nilsson, F. (2006). Logistics management in practice–towards theories of complex logistics. International Journal of Logistics Management, 17(1), 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nordander, C., et al. (2004). Precision of measurements of physical workload during standardised manual handling. Part I: surface electromyography of m. trapezius, m. infraspinatus and the forearm extensors. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 14(4), 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nunes, I. L., & Machado, V. C. (2007). Merging Ergonomic Principles into Lean Manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 2007 industrial engineering research conference (pp. 836–841).Google Scholar
  24. Okubo, Y. (1997). Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems: Methods and examples. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers. [Em linha]. Nº 1 (1997). doi: 10.1787/208277770603. May 11, 2014.
  25. Pezzullo, L., & de Filippo, R. (2009). Perceptions of industrial risk and emergency management procedures in Hazmat Logistics: A qualitative mental model approach. Safety Science, 47(4), 537–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reinhold, K., et al. (2008). Innovations at workplace: improvement of ergonomics. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 5, 85–94.Google Scholar
  27. Richardson, R. J. (1999). Social Research: Methods and Techniques. São Paulo: Atlas. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  28. Rosa, F. S., Ensslin, S. R., Ensslin, L., & Lunkes, R. J. (2011). Environamental disclosure management: A study on the potential and opportunities of the theme. Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, 16(2), 157–166. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  29. Rossi, D., et al. (2013). A multi-criteria ergonomic and performance methodology for evaluating alternatives in “manuable” material handling. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 43(4), 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sancho, R. (2002). Bibliometric indicators evaluación en la de la ciencia y la tech: Literature Revision. In Inteligencia competitiva: documentos de lecture. [Em linha]. Barcelona: Fundació per a la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, 2002, pp. 77–106. http://www.tramasoft.com/documentos/I+D+i/UND2/Lecturas%20complementarias/79059.Inteligencia%2520Competitiva.Lecturas.pdf#page=77. Cited 11 May 2014.
  31. Sá-Silva, J. R., Almeida, C. D., & GuindanI, J. F. (2009). Documentary research: theoretical and methodological clues. Brazilian Journal of History & Social Sciences, 1(1), 1–15. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  32. SCIMAGO. (2007). SJR: Scimago journal & country rank. 2007. http://www.scimagojr.com/. Cited 11 May 2014.
  33. Smith, R. T. (2003). Growing an ergonomics culture in manufacturing. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 217(7), 1027–1030.Google Scholar
  34. Sznelwar, L. I., Lancman, S. E. L. M. A., Wu, M. J., Alvarinho, E., & Santos, M. D. (2004). Analysis of work and hospital cleaning service: Contributions of ergonomics and work psychodynamics. Revista Produção, 14(3), 45–57. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  35. Tasca, J. E., Ensslin, L., Ensslin, S. R., & Alves, M. B. M. (2010). An approach for selecting a theoretical framework for the evaluation of training programs. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(7), 631–655.Google Scholar
  36. Taveira Filho, A. D. (1993). Participatory ergonomics: An effective approach macroergonomics. Produção, 3(2), 87–95. (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  37. Web of Knowledge. (2012). Journal citation reports: Information for new users. http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/help/h_info.htm#information. Cited 11 May 2014.
  38. Wilson, J., Ryan, B., Schock, A., Ferreira, P., Smith, S., & Pitsopoulos, J. (2009). Understanding safety and production risks in rail engineering planning and protection. Ergonomics, 52, 774–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mauricio Johnny Loos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eugenio Merino
    • 1
  • Carlos Manuel Taboada Rodriguez
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSCTrindade, FlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations