Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does cognitive aspects of information and material presentation matter in worker allocation in an assembly line? A case study of a recycling unit in India

  • Published:
Sādhanā Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In most manufacturing units, the contribution of human labor remains a vital element that affects overall performance and output. The research explicated in this paper is conducted in a pen recycling unit in the southern part of India which is an initiative by a non-profit organization to reduce plastic waste and highlight the need for recycling. The objectives of the study are two-fold. Firstly, to investigate the influence of cognitive aspects namely information and material presentation on worker performance in an assembly line and secondly to propose an economical worker allocation approach based on the findings of the first study considering the pen recycling unit. An experimental study was conducted with fifteen workers and was given eight different scenarios with the combinations of presenting material and information with six pen varieties for assembly. The performance of workers is identified and appropriate allocations are made to suitable workstations. Further, a subjective measurement using NASA-TLX is also done to determine the mental workload of workers. The results indicate that individual worker performance varies significantly, much more than is assumed. This variation is due to the difference in cognitive capabilities among workers when they are introduced to different product variants and work environments. It is expected that the proposed economical allocation method will be beneficial for similar micro, small and medium enterprises that contribute in achieving sustainability goals.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hu S J, Ko J, Weyand L, ElMaraghy H A, Lien T K, Koren Y and Shpitalni M 2011 Assembly system design and operations for product variety. CIRP Annals. 60(2): 715–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Grosse E H, Glock C H, Jaber M Y and Neumann W P 2015 Incorporating human factors in order picking planning models: framework and research opportunities. Int. J. Production Research. 53(3): 695–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Burnston D C 2017 Is aesthetic experience evidence for cognitive penetration? New Ideas in Psychology. 47: 145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Stokes D 2012 Perceiving and desiring: A new look at the cognitive penetrability of experience. Philosophical studies. 158(3): 477–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Galy E, Cariou M and Mélan C 2012 What is the relationship between mental workload factors and cognitive load types? Int. J. Psychophysiology. 83(3): 269–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brolin A 2016 An investigation of cognitive aspects affecting human performance in manual assembly. Dissertation, Loughborough University

  7. Belletier C, Charkhabi M, de Andrade Silva G P, Ametepe K, Lutz M and Izaute M 2021 Wearable cognitive assistants in a factory setting: a critical review of a promising way of enhancing cognitive performance and well-being. Cognition, Technology & Work. 23(1): 103–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kunamaneni S, Jassi S and Hoang D 2019 Promoting reuse behaviour: Challenges and strategies for repeat purchase, low-involvement products. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 20: 253–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. White K, Habib R and Hardisty D J 2019 How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing. 83(3): 22–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Creswell J W and Clark V L P 2017 Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd edn. Sage publications

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hanson R and Brolin A 2013 A comparison of kitting and continuous supply in in-plant materials supply. Int. J. Production Research. 51(4): 979–992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brolin A, Bäckstrand G, Högberg D and Case K 2011 Use of kitting to ease assemblers' cognitive workload. In: 43rd Annual NES Conference Oulu, Finland. 77–82

  13. Brolin A, Bäckstrand G, Thorvald P, Högberg D and Case K 2012 Kitting as an information source in manual assembly. Advances in Ergonomics in Manufacturing. 10: 346–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gualtieri L, Palomba I, Merati F A, Rauch E and Vidoni R 2020 Design of human-centered collaborative assembly workstations for the improvement of operators’ physical ergonomics and production efficiency: A case study. Sustainability. 12(9): 3606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lim J T and Hoffmann E R 2015 Strategies in performing a manual assembly task. Int. J. Industrial Ergonomics. 50: 121–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Säfsten K, Winroth M and Löfving M 2014 Usability of a manufacturing strategy framework developed for SMEs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Swedish Production Symposium, Göteborg, Sweden

  17. Peter T 2011 Presenting information in manual assembly. Dissertation, Loughborough University, Loughborough

  18. Bäckstrand G, Thorvald P, De Vin L J, Högberg D and Case K 2008 The impact of information presentation on work environment and product quality: a case study. In: 40th Annual Conference of the Nordic Ergonomics Society Reykjavík, Iceland

  19. Brolin A, Thorvald P and Case K 2017 Experimental study of cognitive aspects affecting human performance in manual assembly. Production & Manufacturing Research. 5(1): 141–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mattsson S, Gullander P, Harlin U, Bäckstrand G, Fasth Å and Davidsson A 2012 Testing complexity index–a method for measuring perceived production complexity. Procedia CIRP 3: 394–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mattsson S, Fasth Å, Stahre J, Karlsson M, Dencker K, Gullander P and Davidsson A 2013 Validation of the complexity index method at three manufacturing companies. IEEE ISAM. 55–57

  22. Lindblom J and Thorvald P 2014 Towards a framework for reducing cognitive load in manufacturing personnel. Advances in Cognitive Engineering and Neuroergonomics. 11: 233–244

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thorvald P, Lindblom J and Andreasson R 2019 On the development of a method for cognitive load assessment in manufacturing. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 59: 252–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bligård L O and Osvalder A L 2017 Evaluating usability problems and use errors in ergonomic products: comparing analytical methods and usability test. International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics. 5(1): 1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ghalenoei M, Mortazavi S B, Mazloumi A and Pakpour A H 2021 Impact of workload on cognitive performance of control room operators. Cognition, Technology & Work. 1–13

  26. Battaïa O, Delorme X, Dolgui A, Hagemann J, Horlemann A, Kovalev S and Malyutin S 2015 Workforce minimization for a mixed-model assembly line in the automotive industry. Int. J. Production Economics. 170: 489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hansen K R and Grunow M 2015 Modelling ramp-up curves to reflect learning: improving capacity planning in secondary pharmaceutical production. Int. J. Production Research. 53(18): 5399–5417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang Q, Sowden M and Mileham A R 2013 Modelling human performance within an automotive engine assembly line. Int. J. Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 68(1–4): 141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Maurizio F, Ferrari E, Mauro G and Pilati F 2019 Human Factor Analyser for work measurement of manual manufacturing and assembly processes. Int. J. Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 103(1–4): 861–877

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sweller J 1988 Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science. 12(2): 257–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Antonenko P, Paas F, Grabner R and Van Gog T 2010 Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review. 22(4): 425–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kumar N and Kumar J 2019 Selection of Control Panel Design Using Cognitive Load Parameters Based on Physiological Data: An Experimental Study. The Design Journal. 22(5): 607–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cain B 2007 A review of the mental workload literature. Defence Research and Development, NATO RTO Report Toronto, Canada

  34. Haga S, Shinoda H and Kokubun M 2002 Effects of task difficulty and time-on-task on mental workload. Japanese Psychological Research. 44(3): 134–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kalakoski V, Selinheimo S, Valtonen T, Turunen J, Käpykangas S, Ylisassi H, Toivio P, Järnefelt H, Hannonen H and Paajanen T 2020 Effects of a cognitive ergonomics workplace intervention (CogErg) on cognitive strain and well-being: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. A study protocol. BMC Psychology 8(1): 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dalle Mura M and Dini G 2019 Optimizing ergonomics in assembly lines: A multi objective genetic algorithm. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 27: 31–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Karas A and Ozcelik F 2021 Assembly line worker assignment and rebalancing problem: A mathematical model and an artificial bee colony algorithm. Computers & Industrial Engineering 156: 107195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Eysenck M W, Derakshan N, Santos R and Calvo M G 2007 Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory. Emotion 7(2): 336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Vanneste P, Raes A, Morton J, Bombeke K, Van Acker B B, Larmuseau C, Depaepe F and Van den Noortgate W 2021 Towards measuring cognitive load through multimodal physiological data. Cognition, Technology & Work 23(3): 567–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hashemi-Petroodi S E, Dolgui A, Kovalev S, Kovalyov M Y and Thevenin S 2020 Workforce reconfiguration strategies in manufacturing systems: a state of the art. Int. J. Production Research. 1–24

  41. Giridhar M P and Panicker V V 2020 Experimental analysis of cognitive issues impacting manual assembly task. In 2020 ICSCAN, IEEE. 1–6

  42. Leppink J, Paas F, Van der Vleuten C P, Van Gog T and Van Merriënboer J J 2013 Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods. 45(4): 1058–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Giridhar M P and Panicker V V 2021 Assessing Cognitive Behavior of Subjects Using Learning Effect and NASA-TLX in a Manual Pen Assembly. In: Advances in Materials and Mechanical Engineering, Springer Singapore. 401–410

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Industrial Engineering Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Calicut, Kozhikode, 673601, India

    M P GIRIDHAR & VINAY V PANICKER

Authors
  1. M P GIRIDHAR
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. VINAY V PANICKER
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to VINAY V PANICKER.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

GIRIDHAR, M.P., PANICKER, V.V. Does cognitive aspects of information and material presentation matter in worker allocation in an assembly line? A case study of a recycling unit in India. Sādhanā 48, 23 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-023-02078-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-023-02078-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation