296 Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 16, No.

3, 2014

An experimental investigation on ergonomically

designed assembly workstation

Ibrahim H. Garbie
Mechanical Engineering Department,
College of Engineering at Helwan,
Helwan University,
Helwan, Cairo, Egypt
E-mail: [email protected]
and
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department,
College of Engineering,
Sultan Qaboos University,
P.O. Box 33, Al-Khoud 123,
Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: The main objective of this study was to investigate the effects of
designing ergonomically assembly workstation on operator performance. This
paper describes these results using factorial design of experimental which were
conducted on assembly of a product. A fully adjustable ergonomically designed
assembly workstation was used for the experiment. Ten college students were
randomly assigned into three experimental factors or parameters (table
adjustable, chair adjustable, and gender) to perform the assembly task.
Performances of the participants assembling a product are: operator
productivity (units/hour); operator satisfaction (degree of comfortable), and
operator health (headache). The regression models to measure the operator
performance were built based on the experimental investigation to suggest a
practical performance measurement of operator. The results show that female
subjects are more productive and healthy than male but with lesser satisfaction.
Keywords: assembly lines; ergonomic design; design of experiments.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Garbie, I.H. (2014) ‘An
experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly workstation’,
Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.296–321.
Biographical notes: Ibrahim H. Garbie is currently an Assistant Professor in
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department at Sultan Qaboos
University (SQU), Sultanate of Oman. He received his PhD in Industrial
Engineering Department from University of Houston, Texas, USA in 2003,
MSc in Manufacturing Processes (1996) and BSc in Mechanical Engineering
(Production) (1991) from Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt. Prior to joining
SQU, he has worked as a faculty member at Helwan University in Egypt. He
has taught a variety of courses in the areas of manufacturing systems design,
material handling systems, work study and productivity, operations research,
maintenance and reliability engineering, engineering economy, applied
statistics. His current research area focuses on manufacturing systems design,
complexity analysis and measurements in industrial enterprises, lean
production and manufacturing leanness, agile systems and agility measures,
reconfiguration and sustainability of manufacturing enterprises. He is a senior
member of IIE.

Copyright © 2014 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 297

1 Introduction

The high complexity of the industrial plants in terms of interactions between humans and
their industrial working environment provide challenging problems for researchers
working in ergonomic filed (Cimino et al., 2009). Operator productivity improvement is a
major concern in industries, especially with repetitive industrial tasks such as
short-cycled assembly tasks. These tasks are considered boring, monotonous, fatiguing
and de-motivating. This in turn results in reduced operator productivity, poor work
quality and higher absenteeism causes detrimental effects on worker physical and mental
well being. Improving operator productivity in such tasks, therefore, is a challenge for
industrial managers. Studying the difference in operator performance was conducted to
measure the productivity (Shikdar, 2012; and Shikdar and Al-Hadhrami, 2011).
Ergonomics is concerned with making the workplace as efficient, safe and
comfortable as possible. Effective application of ergonomics in work system design can
achieve a balance between worker characteristics and task demands. This can enhance
operator productivity, provide worker safety and physical and mental well-being and job
satisfaction. Many research studies have shown positive effects of applying ergonomic
principles in workplace design, machine and tool design, environment and facilities
design (Hasselquist, 1981; Schnauber, 1986; Ryan, 1989; Das, 1997; Resnik and Zanotti,
1997; Burri and Helander, 1991; Shikdar and Das, 1995; Das and Sengupta, 1996; Das
and Shikdar, 1999) and material supply system (Neumann and Medbo, 2010). Ergonomic
design principles are considered as the high value to the successful implementation of
healthcare information technology due to higher risk of suffering of workers as a result of
occupational musculoskeletal disorder (Hedge et al., 2011).
Research studies in ergonomics have also produced data and guidelines for industrial
applications. The features of ergonomic design of machines, workstations, and facilities
are well known (Grandjean, 1988; Konz, 1995; Das and Grady, 1983; Salvendy, 1987;
Melamed et al., 1989; Sanders and McCormick, 1992; Wilson and Corlett, 1992;
McLeod, 1995). However, there is still a low level of acceptance and limited application
in industries, especially in developing countries regarding to operator productivity,
health, and satisfaction. Measuring the discomfort level of operator as a job satisfaction
based on ergonomic factors was performed in automotive companies (Ismail et al., 2010).
Health effects due to using computer workstations are used through identifying the
physical strain and poor working positions (Korpinen et al., 2009; Haynes 2009). This
will lead to unemployment and various types of flexible employment which are usually
associated with bad health outcomes (Jusot et al., 2008).
The main concern of work system design is usually the improvement of machines and
tools. Inadequate or no consideration is given to the work system design as a whole.
Therefore, poorly designed work systems are a common place in industry (Das, 1987;
Konz, 1995). Neglecting the ergonomic principles brings inefficiency and pain to the
workforce. An ergonomically deficient workplace can cause physical and emotional
stress, low productivity and poor quality of work (Ayoub, 1990a, 1990b). Effective
design of an assembly manufacturing line based heavy on specific ergonomic risks with
work methods related to manual operations such as National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Healthy (NIOSH) representing in lifting tasks (Longo and Mirabelli, 2009).
Workstation should be laid out such that it minimises the working area so that while
carrying out the operations the worker could use shorter motions and expend less energy
298 I.H. Garbie

and thus reduce fatigue. Das and Grady (1983) reviewed the concept of workspace design
and the application of anthropometric data. They indicated that an adjustable chair and a
workbench of standard size were highly desirable at the workplace. However, the
standard height of the workbench could not be defined without the anthropometric data of
the user population. Many of the user population do not have anthropometric data. It is
therefore, desirable also to have the worktable adjustable (Shikdar and Al-Hadhrami,
2007).
The objectives of this research were to analyse the design parameters of the assembly
workstations and to measure operator performance regarding productivity, health, and
satisfaction in manufacturing systems. This paper is organised into several sections.
Section 1 presents the importance of ergonomic aspects in assembly manufacturing
systems workstations. Section 2 reviews previous research work about the specific
ergonomic issues in manual assembly manufacturing/production lines. Experimental
analysis of proposed ergonomic assembly workstation will be provided and explained in
Section 3. Section 4 shows results and discussion of experimental work in details. A
conclusion and recommendations for future work will be introduced in Section 5.

2 Literature review

The conducted study by Yeow (2003) concentrated on improving productivity as well as

health and safety of workers in a printed circuit assembly (PCA) factory. The
improvement involved the use of an ergonomically designed workstation with other
ergonomic intervention such as clear segregation of tested and untested boards to prevent
mix-up and retraining of operators by more qualified trainers. This had resulted in an
improvement in quality and productivity of the workers, reduction in rejection rate as
well as increase in the revenue. The use of an ergonomically designed workstation and
better structured processes along with other features, such as improved lighting, shelves
and containers for parts and display boards, had helped and solved the problems of
assembly processes at a German company (Anon, 2005). Individual operator could tailor
the workstation according to his/her own needs and it could be used as sit, stand and
sit-stand workstations (Shikdar and Al-Hadhrami, 2007). Shikdar (2012) conducted the
experimental work to study the effects of batch assembly (two units as a batch size) on
operator performance.
It is believed that application of ergonomics in the design of repetitive assembly
tasks, including redesigning workstations would not only improve operator safety and
work quality, but would also reduce the cycle time and thus improve operator
productivity significantly. An earlier study undertaken in the laboratory with a simulated
repetitive manufacturing task showed significant improvement in operators’ performance
(Shikdar et al., 1997). In another study with a repetitive drill press operation, operator
productivity was found to improve significantly on ergonomically designed workstation
compared to non-ergonomically designed existing workstation (Das et al., 2007). Longo
and Mirabelli (2009) proposed a two-step approach on the integration of simulation, work
measurement methodologies and ergonomic standards for supporting the effective design
of an assembly line. The first step was the design of the geometric model of the heater
and the assembly line (by using the CAD software pro-engineer). The second step was
the effective design of the assembly line by proposing system modification for
 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 299

reducing/deleting ergonomic risks. These studies did not consider a fully adjustable
workstation and a real life task situation.
In many cases, anthropometric data for a local population is not available. In such a
situation a flexible and fully adjustable workstation is highly desirable. Even with
anthropometric data, fixed workstations would pose limitations to some users (Shikdar
and Al-Hadhrami, 2007). Fixed workstations using anthropometric dimensions, in
percentiles, would be comfortable for many assembly operators. It could force operator to
adapt unnatural posture at work and impose stress on musculo-skeletal system of the
operator. Moreover, flexibility to adjust his/her workstation is highly desirable. Existing
anthropometric data are unsuitable for individual workstation design as most of the data
were developed from military population in terms of percentiles. Adjustments were made
to suit civilian population in the US in percentiles (Das and Grady, 1983). May
developing country populations including Omani anthropometric data are not yet
available (Shikdar et al., 2011, Shikdar and Al-Hadhrami, 2011).
Neumann et al. (2006) identified specific production system design elements and their
consequences for both productivity and ergonomics in a case of production strategy
change. They also investigated the strategic change from parallel cell-based assembly
(old) to serial-line assembly (new) with special reference to how production system
design elements affect both productivity and ergonomics. Cimino et al. (2009) proposed a
design effective ergonomic workstation based on multiple design parameters representing
in experimental work and performance measures. The workstations actual configurations
are compared with several alternative scenarios by using a well-planned experimental
work. Manual material handling supply system issues at final assembly operations in two
Swedish auto-sector manufacturing plants were addressed taking into considerations a
comparison between two material supply strategies: big box (BB) versus Narrow box
(NB) in terms of productivity and ergonomics aspects (Neumann and Medbo, 2010).
They considered size, shape, weight, number of parts and packaging, utilisation of space
in vehicles, transport vehicles as the factors to be considered to minimise the operator
risks and improve performance in final assembly.
Hedge et al. (2011) summarised some of the main ergonomic design principles for
computer work enshrined in standards that mitigate occupational musculoskeletal
disorders regarding healthcare workers (nursing). Jusot et al. (2008) examined the roles
of health and health related behaviours as precursors of unemployment in order to
disentangle direct from indirect selection processes as a consequence of operator health.
Assessing the operating hazards and risks was used to implement a job safety analysis
process (Raveggi and Mazzetti, 2010). The cross-sectional study to identify the
prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms and ergonomic risks in female sewing machine
operators at a textile company was investigated through collecting and analysing data.
Ismail et al. (2010) investigated the relationship between environmental factors (e.g.,
heat, noise, and lighting) and job satisfaction that influence the workers’ discomfort in
four automotive companies in Malaysia based on questionnaire responses from
participating factories and analysing through the SPSS software.
In this paper, a study was undertaken to develop a smart assembly workstation that is
fully adjustable and ergonomically designed. Operator productivity on this workstation
was significantly higher compared to the existing non-ergonomically designed and fixed
workstation.
300 I.H. Garbie

The objective of this research was to investigate if productivity, satisfaction and

health of operator would further improve by assembly of a product on the smart
workstation for a repetitive industrial assembly task taken into consideration table, chair
adjustable and type of gender.

3 Experimental analysis of ergonomic assembly workstations

We conducted the experimental evaluation in the Ergonomics Lab of the Department of

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at Sultan Qaboos University following a sound
methodology. Details of the evaluation study are described in the following sections.

3.1 The task

The selected task was an assembly task from a local electrical company. The users
(subjects) are asked to assemble fused electrical switch that consisted of eight parts.
Usually, simulated tasks are chosen for research purposes that do not represent real life
industrial tasks. Manual assembly of switches is a common task in electrical industry.
The selected task was a highly repetitive task and it was performed on workstations that
were not designed ergonomically. Also, the task method was not designed following
ergonomic principles.
The assembly task involved picking up the switch base and cover from the bins,
assembling all the inside parts in the base, putting the cover, tightening the assembly
using a screwdriver and placing it in the outgoing bin. The steps of the assembly task
were modified in the new design considering motion study and ergonomic principles. A
jig was designed and used in the performance of the task on the smart workstation. A
power screwdriver was used for tightening the cover in the modified task method.

3.2 Participants
Ten college students (five male students and five female students) participated in the
experimental study on a voluntary basis. The average age of the participants was 21.5
years with a standard deviation of 1.11 years. Mean stature was 1,850 mm with a
standard deviation of 101 mm. This indicated a significant size difference among the
participants. The participants had no prior experience on the assembly task. They were
given instructions on the assembly workstations and task and trained for 15 minutes on
the task, as required based on their experimental conditions. Fifteen minutes training was
considered adequate as the assembly task was not a complex task according to the
learning rate. Environmental condition (light, temperature, humidity and noise) were
comfortable and kept constant. The participants wore light and comfortable clothes.

3.3 The experimental work

Experiments were conducted using an ergonomically designed smart assembly
workstation. Details of the ergonomically designed smart assembly workstation were
reported in Shikdar et al. (2011).
 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 301

3.3.1 The ergonomically designed assembly workstation

The smart assembly workstation was designed and developed considering ergonomics in
all aspects of design and layout with full adjustability. The size of the tabletop (work
surface) was calculated based on the mean reach of the user population with an
allowance. A special table frame was designed for the vertical and angular movements of
the tabletop using small motors. The frame mechanism was designed for precise
movements of the tabletop. Push-button switches were provided for the control of these
movements. Operators could adjust the tabletop to their most preferred work heights. The
table could be used for sit, stand, and sit-stand assembly workstations. Attachments were
provided to the frame for bins and tools holders for adjustments. A fully adjustable
ergonomic chair was provided to the operators. Major features of the ergonomic
adjustable chair were: adjustable seat height by gas suction, adjustable and titled back
support, tilted seat pan covered with porous and breath-able material, removable and
adjustable arm rests, footrest and a foot ring.
An adjustable hydraulic footrest was provided for the operators. The existing hand
tools were replaced with a power screwdriver that was supported by a balancer in front of
the operator. The workplace layout was made according to the calculated normal and
maximum work areas. The bins were laid out based on this calculation and in a logical
work sequence and a systematic method. Figures 1–2 show the isometric view and the
schematic layout of the ergonomically designed smart assembly workstation,
respectively. An improved work method following the assembly of parts sequence was
developed for the task performance on this workstation. A jig was designed for ease of
holding the base of the switch.

Figure 1 Isometric view of the assembly workstation (see online version for colours)

Table adjustable

Chair adjustable

Source: Shikdar et al. (2011)

302 I.H. Garbie

Figure 2 Schematic layout of the assembly workstation

Source: Shikdar et al. (2011)

3.3.2 Experimental setup

The ergonomically designed smart assembly workstation (Figures 1 and 2) was installed
and set up in the Ergonomics Lab. Table 1 shows the experimental conditions.
Experiments were conducted at random times but not in the same week on both groups.
Male students group was implementing their tasks in different time than the female
students group. Three factors are considered in the experimental work: table height
adjustability; chair adjustability (height and back) and gender. With respect to table
adjustability, there are five levels of experimentation to adjust the table height taking into
consideration the ground floor as a reference point: 23.5, 27.5, 31.5, 35.5, and 39.5 cm.
Also with respect to chair adjustable, there are five levels: 18.5, 19.75, 21, 22.25 and
23.50 cm. Regarding the gender, the conducted experimental includes two levels (male
and female). Each experimental setting was conducted twice (replicates = 2) and the
performance measurements are recorded based on three different measures: operator
output (e.g., production rate), operator satisfaction and operator healthiness. The designed
factors and/or parameters for conducting the experiment are listed and arranged in
Table 1. Table 1 explains the three factors which were conducted in the experimental
work with the associated levels for each parameter or factor.
Table 1 Experimental conditions with different factors and levels

Factors Levels
Table adjustable (cm), (T) 23.5, 27.5, 31.5, 35.5, 39.5
Chair adjustable (cm), (C) 18.5, 19.75, 21, 22.25, 23.50
Gender (type), (G) M: male, F: female
 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 303

3.4 Collected data

Participants were given a demonstration and then trained for 15 minutes the workstations
and methods before starting the experimental sessions. Each participant had assembled
electrical switches for one hour duration under his experimental condition randomly. The
operator productivity was recorded in terms of number of switches assembled (units/hr)
as shown in Table 2. The values in Table 2 represent the measured production rate at
various settings of the table and chair adjustments with both genders. The operator
satisfaction is used to measure the degree of the operator’ comfort as shown in Table 3.
In this paper, the comfort level of operator in the ergonomically workstation often were
associated with workstation design. These values of comfortable are ranged from 1 to 5
such as 1: strong dissatisfaction, 2: dissatisfaction, 3: neutral, 4: satisfaction, 5: strong
satisfaction.
The operator health is used the headache as the measure of operator health as a
normal behaviour not chronic injuries or illnesses (see Table 4). This scale is also
ranged from 1 to 5 such as 1: no headache, 2: less headache, 3: neutral, 4: headache, 5:
strong headache. A complete factorial design for different levels of independent
variables is planned in 100 experimental (50 setups) with two replicates for each
response. Tables 2–4 display the collected and observed data from these evaluation
experiments.

Table 2 Results of operator output (in units/hour with all adjustment settings)

Gender (G)
Male (M) Female (F)
Table adjustable (cm), (T) Table adjustable (cm), (T)
23.50 27.50 31.50 35.50 39.50 23.50 27.50 31.50 35.50 39.50
Chair 18.50 116 80 90 72 72 146 148 182 211 173
adjustable
(cm), (C) 119 83 83 87 76 157 163 178 226 224
19.75 105 108 108 76 65 131 146 189 169 137
109 105 117 87 94 132 119 208 137 154
21.00 98 94 98 98 76 134 152 135 170 187
72 87 98 87 54 138 184 112 103 193
22.25 83 76 108 105 87 115 179 127 160 154
65 105 108 80 101 109 124 143 154 175
23.50 69 69 83 83 98 165 158 223 165 156
58 80 83 137 98 143 198 297 158 171
304 I.H. Garbie

Table 3 Results of operator satisfaction under various chair and table adjustments

Gender (G)
Male (M) Female (F)
Table adjustable (cm), (T) Table adjustable (cm), (T)
23.50 27.50 31.50 35.50 39.50 23.50 27.50 31.50 35.50 39.50
Chair 18.50 4 4 4 2 2 5 4 3 2 1
adjustable
3 4 5 3 1 5 4 4 3 2
(cm), (C)
19.75 4 4 5 2 3 3 3 4 2 1
5 4 5 3 2 4 3 4 1 1
21.00 3 3 5 3 2 3 3 2 2 2
3 3 5 4 1 5 3 3 2 1
22.25 2 4 5 3 3 5 5 4 3 2
4 4 4 4 3 5 4 3 2 2
23.50 1 3 5 3 3 5 4 4 3 2
1 3 5 5 4 5 5 4 2 1

Table 4 Results of operator health under various settings of table and chair adjustments for
both genders

Gender (G)
Male (M) Female (F)
Table adjustable (cm), (T) Table adjustable (cm), (T)
23.50 27.50 31.50 35.50 39.50 23.50 27.50 31.50 35.50 39.50
Chair 18.50 3 4 5 2 1 4 3 3 2 1
adjustable
3 4 4 3 1 5 4 3 2 1
(cm), (C)
19.75 3 4 5 3 3 5 5 5 4 3
5 5 5 3 1 5 4 5 3 3
21.00 4 3 5 2 2 5 5 5 3 3
4 4 5 5 1 5 4 4 4 3
22.25 2 3 4 3 2 5 4 4 4 3
5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 3
23.50 2 5 5 4 3 4 3 3 3 2
1 3 5 5 4 5 5 3 2 2

4 Results and discussion

The operator performance data were summarised in Tables 2 to 4 and analysed using
Minitab Statistical Software Package for analysis of variance (ANOVA) and using
regression models for each performance measure individually and sequentially.
 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 305

4.1 Operator output (production rate)

Firstly, the ANOVA techniques is applied on the production rate data (Table 2) and the
results are presented in Table 5. It seems from Table 5 that the main affects of the three
factors (T, C and G) and the interactions effects (TC, TG, CG and TCG) are significant on
production rate based on p-values which are less than 0.05. For this reason, these factors
have been included in a regression model to build a mathematical formulation between
these factors and production rate. Checking the adequacy of the ANOVA analysis is
presented as shown in Figure 3 based on normality assumption, constant variance and
independence. The ANOVA analysis considers the three main effects and their four
interactions effects (see Figures 4–7). Its purpose is to determine which factors and
factors interactions with their levels and are statistically significant on affecting the
production rate.
Table 5 ANOVA for production rate

Source DF SS MS F P-value
Table adjustable 4 6,628.7 1,657.2 5.91 0.001
Chair adjustable 4 5,810.2 1,452.5 5.18 0.001
Gender 1 12,9024.6 129,024.6 460.08 0.000
Table adj*Chair adj 16 13,595.3 849.7 3.03 0.001
Table adj*Gender 4 5,199.7 1,299.9 4.64 0.003
Chair adj*Gender 4 9,461.4 2,365.3 8.43 0.000
Table adj*Chair adj*Gender 16 22,572.3 1,410.8 5.03 0.000
Error 50 14,022.0 280.4
Total 99 206,314.2

It can be observed from Figure 4 that table adjustable with third level (31.50 cm) is the
highest on production rate among all levels and there is no difference between fourth and
fifth levels and level one is the lowest on production rate. This means that it is not needed
to raise a table up to 39.50 cm (fifth level). With respect to chair adjustable, the first level
(18.50 cm) and the fifth level (23.50 cm) are representing the highest values on
production rate and there is no difference between third and fourth levels in the chair
adjustable. This means it does not matter to raise a chair up to 21.00 cm (third level) or
22.25 cm (fourth level). Regarding gender, female are more productive than male in the
assembly stations. With respect to interaction effect between table adjustable and chair
adjustable, it can be noticed from Figure 5 that third level of table adjustable (31.50 cm)
with fifth level of chair adjustable (23.50 cm) is representing the highest value of
production rate followed by third level of table adjustment with second level of chair
adjustment. Regarding interaction effect of table with gender, it can be observed from
Figure 6 that table adjustable with third level (31.50 cm) with female represents the
highest values in production rate among all levels. Also, the interaction effect between
chair adjustable and gender is producing the highest value in production rate with first
level or fifth level of chair adjustable with female. It is recommended hiring female in
assembly workstation especially which has adjustable chair and table. From these results
it can be concluded from this analysis that third level of table adjustable; fifth level of
chair adjustable with female will give high productivity of operator performance.
306 I.H. Garbie

Figure 3 Residual Plots for production rate (see online version for colours)

Residual Plots for Production Rate

Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits
99.9 40
99

90 20

Residual
Percent

50 0

10
-20
1
0.1 -40
-40 -20 0 20 40 50 100 150 200 250
Residual Fitted Value

Histogram Versus Order

24 40

18 20
Frequency

Residual

12 0

6 -20

0 -40
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Residual Observation Order

Figure 4 Main effects of table adjustable, chair adjustable and gender on production rate

Main Effects Plot for Production Rate

Data Means
Table Chair
160

140

120

100
Mean

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Gender
160

140

120

100

1 2
 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 307

Figure 5 Interaction effect of table and chair adjustments on production rate (see online version
for colours)

Interaction Plot for Production Rate

Data Means
180 Table
1
170 2
3
160 4
5
150

140
Mean

130

120

110

100

90
1 2 3 4 5
Chair

Figure 6 Interaction effect of table and gender on production rate (see online version for colours)

Interaction Plot for Production Rate

Data Means

180 Table
1
2
3
160 4
5

140
Mean

120

100

80
1 2
Gender
308 I.H. Garbie

Figure 7 Interaction effect of chair and gender on production rate (see online version for colours)

Interaction Plot for Production Rate

Data Means
C hair
180 1
2
3
4
160
5

140
Mean

120

100

80
1 2
Gender

The response function representing the production rate (P) is expressed in equation (1) as
follows:
P = f (T , C , G ) (1)

where
P the production rate (response) or yield (units/hour)
T table adjustable
C chair adjustable
G gender.
A regression model is used to present the results of a designed experiment in a
quantitative form. The second-order polynomial is capable of assuming a wide variety of
shapes and it is a very flexible regression model (Montgomery, 2009; Montgomery and
Runger, 2011). The second order polynomial (regression) equation is used to represent
the response (production rate) for K factors by using equation (2) in the following:
K =3 K =3 K =3
P = Bo + ∑B X + ∑B X X +∑B X
i =1
i I
i , j =1
ij i j
i =1
ii i
2
(2)

where
Bo is the free term of the regression model

Bi (B1 , B2 ,....., B K ) are the linear terms

 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 309

Bij (B12 , B13 ,....., B K −1 ) are the interaction terms

Bii (B11 , B22 ,....., B KK ) are the quadratic terms.

The initial full regression model will be formulated as the following equation (3) based
on significant effects of main factors [table adjustable (T), chair adjustable (C) and
gender (G)] and interaction factors (TC, TG and CG) and quadratic terms (T2, C2 and G2).

P = Bo + B1T + B2 C + B3G + B12TC + B13TG + B23CG + B11T 2 + B22 C 2 + B33G 2 (3)

The values of the coefficients of the polynomial of equation (3) are calculated by the
regression model. The Minitab Statistical Software Package has also been used to
calculate the values of these coefficients. The mathematical model as determined by
above analysis is given as equation (4) and it is considered a full initial regression model
representing the production rate (units/hour) of assembly smart workstation.
PInital = 72.3 + 5.7 T − 31.7 C + 43.4 G + 1.31TC
(4)
+ 8.81TG + 0.66 CG − 3.27 T 2 + 4.36 C 2

The G2 term (gender) has been removed from the equation through the Minitab Statistical
Software Package because it is highly correlated with other variables. Summary of initial
full regression model for production rate estimation is shown in Table 6. It can be noticed
from Table 6 that C, G, T2, C2and TG interaction were found to have the most
significance on production rate although C and T2 have negative effects but T, TC and CG
have no significance effect based on p-values (p < 0.05). Testing of significance of
regression model is evaluated through p-value equals 0.00 less than 0.05 (95.00%
confidence level) although the determination of coefficient of initial regression model
(R2) was 69.8% and the associated adjusted determination of coefficient (R2-adj) was
67.2%.
Table 6 Summary of initial full regression model of production rate

Predictor Coefficient SE coef T-test P-values

Constant 72.35 32.59 2.22 0.029
Table 5.66 11.73 0.48 0.631
Chair –31.74 11.73 –2.71 0.008
Gender 43.43 16.54 2.63 0.010
Table*Chair 1.310 1.308 1.00 0.319
Table*Gender 8.810 3.699 2.38 0.019
Chair*Gender 0.660 3.699 0.18 0.859
Table^2 –3.268 1.563 –2.09 0.039
Chair^2 4.364 1.563 2.79 0.006
S = 35.1560 R-sq = 92.41% R-sq(adj) = 90.2%
ANOVA for testing significance of initial regression model
Source DF SS MS F P-value
Regression 8 190,655 23,852 138.55 0.000
Residual error 91 15,659 172
Total 99 206,314
310 I.H. Garbie

When R2 and R2-adj are not different dramatically, there is a good chance that significant
terms have been included in the regression model (Montgomery, 2009; Montgomery and
Runger, 2011) although R2 and R2-adj are not large enough. However, as it has noted in
Table 6 that a large value of R2 and R2-adj does not necessarily imply the regression
model is a good one and provide accurate predictions of future observations. R2 is a
measure of the amount of reduction in the variability of production rate by using the
regressor variables.
It is recommended to drop the insignificant terms (T, TC and CG) in the initial full
regression model to let it more accurate, easy manipulate and consistency (Navidi, 2008).
These data are presented in Table 7 and are considered a modified regression model. The
new modified mathematical model of production rate determined by the modified
regression model is given as the following equation (5).

PModified = 73.7 − 26.8 C + 40.6 G + 10.4 TG − 2.12 T 2 + 4.36 C 2 (5)

Table 7 Summary of modified regression model of production rate

Predictor Coefficient SE coef T P-values

Constant 73.69 17.26 4.27 0.000
Chair –26.816 9.497 –2.82 0.006
Gender 40.58 10.86 3.74 0.000
Table*Gender 10.421 3.178 3.28 0.001
Table^2 –2.1174 0.8218 –2.58 0.012
Chair^2 4.364 1.553 2.81 0.006
S = 36.9867 R-sq = 93.10% R-sq(adj) = 92.21%
ANOVA for testing significance of modified regression model
Source DF SS MS F P-value
Regression 5 192,092 38418 254 0.000
Residual error 94 14,222 151
Total 99 206,314

It can be observed from Table 7 that all independent variables (C, G, T2, C2 and TG
interaction) were found to have significance on the production rate with little bit changes
in R2 and R2-adj although C and T2 still have negative effects on production rate. A
modified regression model can be statistically accepted or not by using the following
hypothesis test (f) comparing with F0.5,P–K,n–P–1 as the following formula (Navidi, 2008).

f =
(SSE mod ified )
− SSE Initial /( P − K )
SSE Initial /( n − P − 1)

where
P the number of independent variables in the initial model
K the number of independent variables in modified model
n the total number of observations (100 observations).
Then,
(14222 − 15659 /(8 − 5)
f = = −0.003
15659 /(100 − 8 − 1)
 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 311

Because f = –0.003 is less than F0.05,3,91 = 2.72, the modified regression model is
acceptable regarding subject and plausible although there is no differences between R2
and R2-adj in modified model comparing with R2 and R2-adj in initial full model. It can be
said that the statistic R2 does not measure the appropriateness of the model and it should
be used with caution because it is always possible to make R2 large by adding higher
order polynomial terms in independent variables to the model ((Montgomery, 2009;
Montgomery and Runger 2011). Generally and based on the modified regression model,
G (female), TG interaction, and C2 have positive effects on production rate. For example,
applying in modified regression model (equation 5) with the recommended levels: third
level of table adjustable (T = 3), fifth level of chair (C = 5) and the female as the second
level of gender (G = 2). Then, the production rate is estimated as applying equation (5).
As follows:
PModified = 73.7 − 26.8 (5) + 40.6 (2) + 10.4 (3)(2)
− 2.12(3) 2 + 4.36 (5) 2 = 173.22 ≈ 174

This value (174 units per hour) as the operator output of modified regression model based
on the determined values of table adjustable, chair adjustable and gender from ANOVA
analysis demonstrates that the regression model is good fit to actual data 180 (182 +
178/2) units per hour (see Table 2) comparing with the predicted value (174 units per
hour). This can be considered as another evidence to demonstrate strong of the modified
regression model.

4.2 Operator satisfaction

The data presented in Table 8 show the effect of main factors and interaction. It seems
that T, G, TC, TG, CG and TCG were found significant effects on operator satisfaction,
but C was found insignificant effect. With respect to table adjustable, the third level is
still representing the best level of operator satisfaction but male as a gender level is more
satisfaction than female (see Figure 8). Regarding the interaction effects, the third level
of table adjustable with second or fifth levels of chair 2 represents the highest operator
satisfaction as shown in Figure 9. Also, the third level of table adjustable with male
gender represents the highest operator satisfaction (see Figure 10) and the interaction
effect between male gender and second level of chair is also the highest value of operator
satisfaction (see Figure 11). This means that third level of table adjustable with second
level of chair and male gender are the most important levels in operator satisfaction.
Table 8 ANOVA for operator satisfaction

Source of variation DF SS MS F P-values

Table adj 4 65.1000 16.2750 39.70 0.000
Chair adj 4 3.3000 0.8250 2.01 0.107
Gender 1 3.6100 3.6100 8.80 0.005
Table adj*Chair adj 16 13.1000 0.8188 2.00 0.032
Table adj*Gender 4 25.3400 6.3350 15.45 0.000
Chair adj*Gender 4 5.7400 1.4350 3.50 0.014
Table adj*Chair adj*Gender 16 16.0600 1.0037 2.45 0.008
Error 50 20.5000 0.4100
Total 99 152.7500
312 I.H. Garbie

Figure 8 Main effects of table adjustable, chair adjustable and gender on operator satisfaction

Main Effects Plot for Operator Satisfaction

Data Means

Table Gender

4.0

3.5
Mean

3.0

2.5

2.0

1 2 3 4 5 1 2

Figure 9 Interaction effect of table and chair on operator satisfaction (see online version
for colours)

Interaction Plot for Operator Satisfaction

Data Means
Table
4.5
1
2
4.0 3
4
5
3.5
Mean

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1 2 3 4 5
Chair
 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 313

Figure 10 Interaction effect of table and gender on operator satisfaction (see online version
for colours)

Interaction Plot for Operator Satisfaction

Data Means
5.0 Table
1
4.5 2
3
4
4.0 5

3.5
Mean

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1 2
Gender

Figure 11 Interaction effect of chair and gender on operator satisfaction (see online version
for colours)

Interaction Plot for Operator Satisfaction

Data Means
3.75 C hair
1
2
3
3.50
4
5

3.25
Mean

3.00

2.75

2.50
1 2
Gender
314 I.H. Garbie

Based on the ANOVA analysis, using these factors and their interactions in a regression
model is necessary to represent them in a quantitative form. After proposing second order
polynomial to build a mathematical model between operator satisfaction as a dependent
variable and factors with their interactions (as done in section 3.1), the new regression
model representing operator satisfaction measure (S) is presented as the following
equation (6):

S = 1.03 + 1.68 T + 1.30 G + 0.0386 TC − 0.56 TG − 0.236 T 2 (6)

Summary of operator satisfaction of regression model is shown in Table 9. It can be

noticed from equation (6) and Table 9 that T, G and TC have positive effects but TG and
T2 have negative effect. With the recommended values from ANOVA analysis (T = 3,
G = 1 and C = 2), the value of operator satisfaction equals to 3.80. This value means that
with the recommended levels of table adjustable, chair adjustable and gender, the
operator satisfaction will be ranged from medium to high.

Table 9 Summary of modified regression model of operator satisfaction

Predictor Coefficient SE coef T P-values

Constant 1.0300 0.7467 1.38 0.171
Table 1.6784 0.3748 4.48 0.000
Gender 1.3000 0.4114 3.16 0.002
Table*Chair 0.03864 0.01870 2.07 0.042
Table*Gender –0.5600 0.1240 –4.52 0.000
Table^2 –0.23571 0.05241 –4.50 0.000
S = 1.51 R-sq = 91.13% R-sq(adj) = 90.2%
ANOVA for testing significance of modified regression model
Source DF SS MS F P-value
Regression 5 139.20 27.84 193.33 0.000
Residual error 94 13.55 0.144
Total 99 152.750

4.3 Operator health

The data presented from experimental work regarding operator health show that table
adjustable and chair adjustable are significant as the main effects (shown in Table 10).
Interaction effect between table adjustable and gender is also significant. Gender as a
main effect, chair adjustable with gender interaction and interaction between table, chair
and gender are not significant.
 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 315

Regarding analysis of main effects, it seems that third level of table adjustable,
second level of chair adjustable and female is the most important levels (see Figure 12). It
can be noticed that these levels are the same of operator satisfaction. With respect to
interaction effects, it can be observed from Figures 13 through 15 that third level of table
adjustment with second level of chair adjustment, first level of table adjustment with
female and second level of chair adjustment with female are the highest values of
operator health.

Table 10 ANOVA for operator health

Source of variation DF SS MS F P-values

Table 4 54.7400 13.6850 23.19 0.000
Chair 4 14.7400 3.6850 6.25 0.000
Gender 1 1.2100 1.2100 2.05 0.158
Table*Chair 16 12.4600 0.7787 1.32 0.223
Table*Gender 4 15.1400 3.7850 6.42 0.000
Chair*Gender 4 5.7400 1.4350 2.43 0.060
Table*Chair*Gender 16 12.6600 0.7913 1.34 0.211
Error 50 29.5000 0.5900
Total 99 146.1900

Figure 12 Main effect of table adjustable, chair adjustable and gender operator health

Main Effects P lot for O perator Health

Data M eans
T ab le Ch air

4 .0

3 .5
3 .0
2 .5
2 .0
Mean

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Ge n d e r

4 .0
3 .5
3 .0
2 .5
2 .0
1 2
316 I.H. Garbie

Figure 13 Interaction effect of table and chair on operator health (see online version for colours)

Interaction Plot for Operator Health

Data Means
Table
5
1
2
3
4
4 5
Mean

1 2 3 4 5
Chair

Figure 14 Interaction effect of table and gender on operator health (see online version for colours)

Interaction Plot for Operator Health

Data Means
5.0 Table
1
2
4.5 3
4
5
4.0
Mean

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0
1 2
Gender
 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 317

Figure 15 Interaction effect of chair and gender on operator health (see online version for colours)

Interaction Plot for Operator Health

Data Means
Chair
4.2
1
2
3
3.9 4
5

3.6
Mean

3.3

3.0

1 2
Gender

Table 11 Summary of modified regression model of operator health

Predictor Coefficient SE coef T P-values

Constant 0.9450 0.9113 1.04 0.302
Table 1.1121 0.3815 2.92 0.004
Chair 0.8221 0.3361 2.45 0.016
Gender 1.2400 0.3990 3.11 0.003
Table*Chair 0.14500 0.04254 3.41 0.001
Table*Gender –0.3400 0.1203 –2.83 0.006
Table^2 –0.24286 0.05084 –4.78 0.000
Chair^2 –0.19286 0.05084 –3.79 0.000
S = 1.85 R-Sq = 93.25% R-sq(adj) = 92.00%
ANOVA for testing significance of regression model
Source DF SS MS F P-value
Regression 7 136.33 19.475 181.84 0.000
Residual error 92 9.86 0.1071
Total 99 146.190
318 I.H. Garbie

The regression model of operator health is built based on the significant terms analysis
(p-value < 0.05) as shown in Table 11. It can be noticed from Table 10 that T2, C2 and TG
have negative effects on the regression model but T, C, G and TC have positive effects.
The regression model of operator health measure based on table adjustable, chair
adjustable and gender is illustrated as the following equation (7):

H = 0.945 + 1.11T + 0.822 C + 1.24 G + 0.145 TC − 0.34 TG − 0.243 T 2 − 0.193 C 2 (7)

After applying the recommended values from ANOVA analysis into a regression model
of operator health, the value of operator health equals to 4.32 which is ranged from 1 to 5.
This value is approximately closed to actual data. This means that the regression model is
good fit to actual data although R2 and R2-adj are considered as medium values. The final
summary of the experimental work is presented in Table 12.
Table 12 Summary of experimental work

Table adjustable Chair adjustable Gender (G)

Performance measure
(T) (C) Male Female
Productivity Factors 3rd level 5th level Significant
(P) Model P = 73.7 − 26.8 C + 40.6 G + 10.4 TG − 2.12 T 2 + 4.36 C 2
Satisfaction Factors 3rd level 2nd level Significant
(S) Model S = 1.03 + 1.68T + 1.30 G + 0.0386 TC − 0.56 TG − 0.236 T 2
Health Factors 3rd level 2nd level Significant
(H) Model H = 0.945 + 1.11T + 0.822 C + 1.24 G + 0.145 TC
− 0.34 TG − 0.243T 2 − 0.193 C 2

It can be noticed from Table 12 that there are three performance measures of operator:
operator productivity (P); operator satisfaction (S); and operator health (H). With respect
to operator productivity, the third level of table adjustable and the fifth level of chair
adjustable with female are attaining the highest level of productivity. Also, the third level
of table adjustable and the second level of chair adjustable with male are achieving the
highest level of operator satisfaction. Regarding operator health, the same level of table
adjustable (third level) and the second level of chair adjustable (third level) with female
represent the highest level of operator health.
It can be also noted from Table 12 that there are three mathematical equations
representing the performance measure after conducting the experimental investigation
and regression analyses. These mathematical expressions convert the practical collected
data which were conducted by using the design of experiments and statistical software
package to formula and/or concept. This formula can be easily recognised through three
main factors or design parameters (table, chair, and gender) and it can be used to estimate
the level of operator productivity or operator satisfaction or operator health directly from
equations (5), (6), and (7), respectively.
These performance measures are considered the outcomes of the performance
models. These outcomes are consistent with real world situation where female are more
widely used in assembly manufacturing lines than male especially in food and textile
industries. Moreover, these new performance models can be widely applied in different
sectors of industries.
 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 319

5 Conclusions, contribution and recommendation for future work

The paper presents an experimental investigation for the ergonomically designed

assembly workstations within assembly or mass production systems. The investigation is
proposed to the reader contextually to its application to a real life manufacturing system
that produces fuse electrical switch. The investigation estimates the actual operator
performance through running the experiments that create the practical outcomes. The
investigation requires defining the design of experiments parameters (assembly
workstation factors).
The investigation allows evaluating the impact of each design parameter (table
adjustable, chair adjustable, and gender) on multiple performance measures (productivity,
satisfaction, and health) individually. The final result is the ergonomic design of the
assembly workstation. In effect, the investigation based on a number of design factors
(parameters) and performance measure by using the design of experiments and regression
analysis, the following comments were drawn from this experimental investigation:
• Operators’ performance with regard to productivity, health and satisfaction with the
ergonomically assembly workstation condition is investigated.
• The fully adjustable ergonomically designed assembly workstation was preferred by
the operators and they adjusted and organised the workstation to their comfort and
health.
• Workstations for assembly tasks should be designed so that any operator can adjust
to his/her comfort to relieve stress and improve performance. The ergonomically
designed assembly workstation is a solution to ergonomic and productivity problems
in the workplace.
• Female operators are more productive and with better health conditions in assembly
task than male operators, but with less satisfaction.
• The regression models representing operator performance (productivity, satisfaction
and health) was built based on the experimental investigation.
The main contribution of this paper is to present and viability a new performance
measure of the operator in manual assembly production systems individually for
productivity, satisfaction, and health based on the practical experimental investigation
through ergonomically designed assembly workstation. The author plans to conduct the
future research in more real life case studies through validation in different sectors of
industries (manufacturing parts, food industry and so on). Incorporating these
performance measures (operator productivity, operator satisfaction and operator health)
in one aggregated performance index or indicator is highly recommended in the future
work.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable and useful
feedback comments that contributed to an improvement of the paper.
320 I.H. Garbie

References
Anon, A. (2005) ‘Workstations, track system smooth assembly’, Assembly, Vol. 48, No. 4,
pp.32–35.
Ayoub, M.A. (1990a) ‘Ergonomic deficiencies: I. Pain at work’, J. of Occupational Medicine,
Vol. 32, No.1, pp.52–57.
Ayoub, M.A. (1990b) ‘Ergonomic deficiencies: II. Probable causes’, J. of Occupational Medicine,
Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.131–136.
Burri, G.J. and Helander, M.G. (1991) ‘A field study of productivity improvements in the
manufacturing of circuit boards’, Int. J. of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 7, pp.207–215.
Cimino, A., Longo, F. and Mirabelli, G. (2009) ‘A multi-measure based methodology for the
ergonomic effective design of manufacturing system workstations’, Int. J. of Industrial
Ergonomics, Vol. 39, pp.447–455.
Das, B. (1987) ‘An ergonomic approach to designing a manufacturing work system’, Int. J. of
Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.231–240.
Das, B. and Grady, R.M. (1983) ‘Industrial workplace layout design: an application of engineering
anthropometry’, Ergonomics, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp.433–443.
Das, B. and Sengupta, A. (1996) ‘Industrial workstation design: a systematic ergonomic approach’,
Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.157–163.
Das, B. and Shikdar, A. (1999) ‘Participative versus assigned production standard setting in a
repetitive industrial task: a strategy for improving worker productivity’, Int. J. of Occupational
Safety and Ergonomics, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.417–430.
Das, B., Shikdar, A. and Winters, T. (2007) ‘Workstation redesign for a repetitive drill press
operation: a combined work design and ergonomics approach’, Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.395–410.
Grandjean, E. (1988) Fitting the Task to the Man: An Ergonomic Approach, Taylor and Francis,
London.
Hasselquist, R.J. (1981) ‘Increasing manufacturing productivity using human factors principles’,
Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting, pp.204–206.
Haynes, S. (2009) ‘Effects of positioning optimization in an alternative computer workstation for
people with and without low back pain’, Int. J. of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 39, pp.719–727.
Hedge, A., James, T. and Veselinvoic, S. P. (2011) ‘Ergonomics concerns and the impact of
Healthcare Information Technology’, Int. J. of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 41, pp.345–351.
Ismail, A.R., Haniff, M.H.M., Kim, C.B., Deros, B.M. and Makhtar, N.K. (2010) ‘A survey on
environmental factors and job satisfaction among operators in automotive industry’, American
J. of Applied Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.556–561.
Jusot, F., Khlat, M., Rochereau, T. and Sermet, C. (2008) ‘Job loss from poor health, smoking and
obesity: a national prospective survey in France’, J. of Epidemiol Community Health, Vol. 62,
pp.332–337.
Konz, S. (1995) Work Design: Industrial Ergonomics, 2nd ed., Grid Columbus, Ohio.
Korpinen, L., Suuronen, N., Teikari, J. and Paakkonen, R. (2009) ‘A questionnaire on the health
effects of new technical equipment’, Int. J. of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 39, pp.105–114.
Longo, F. and Mirabelli, G. (2009) ‘Effective design of an assembly line using modeling and
simulation’, J. of Simulation, Vol. 3, pp.50–60.
McLeod, D. (1995) The Ergonomics Edge: Improving Safety, Quality and Productivity, John
Wiley, New York.
Melamed, S., Luz, J., Najenson, T., Jucha, E. and Green, M. (1989) ‘Ergonomic stress levels,
personal characteristics, accident occurrence and sickness absence among factory workers’,
Ergonomics, Vol. 9, pp.1101–1110.
Montgomery, D.C. (2009) Design and Analysis of Experiments, 7th Edition, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., Hobaken, NJ, USA.
 An experimental investigation on ergonomically designed assembly 321

Montgomery, D.C. and Runger, G.C. (2011) Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers,
5th ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hobaken, NJ, USA.
Navidi, W. (2008) Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, 2nd ed., Mc Graw Hill, New York, NY,
USA.
Neumann, W.P. and Medbo, L. (2010) ‘Ergonomic and technical aspects in the redesign of material
supply systems: big boxes vs. narrow bins’, Int. J. of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 40,
pp.541–548.
Neumann, W.P., Winkel, J., Medbo, L., Magneberg, R. and Mathiassen, S.E. (2006) ‘Production
system design elements influencing productivity and ergonomics: a case study of parallel and
serial flow strategies’, Int. J. of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 26, No. 8,
pp.904–923.
Raveggi, F. and Mazzetti, S. (2010) ‘Job safety analysis as a mean to increase safety awareness and
achieve sustainable improvements in safety performance’, Chemical Engineering
Transactions, Vol. 19, pp.421–425.
Resnik, M.L. and Zanotti, A. (1997) ‘Using ergonomics to target productivity improvements’,
Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 33, Nos. 1/2, pp.185–188.
Ryan, J.P. (1989) ‘A study of selected ergonomic factors in occupational safety’, in Anil Mital
(Ed.): Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety I, pp.359–364, Taylor and Francis.
Salvendy, G. (1987) Handbook of Human Factors, John Wiley, New York.
Sanders, M.S. and McCormic, E.J. (1992) Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 6th ed.,
McGraw Hill, New York.
Schnauber, H. (1986) Ergonomics and Productivity as Reflected in a New Factory. Trends in
Ergonomics/Human Factors III, pp.459–465, Karwowski Ed., Elsevier Science Publishers.
Shikdar, A. (2012) ‘Effects of batch assembly of a product ergonomically designed workstation’,
Int. J. of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.415–428.
Shikdar, A. and Al-Hadhrami, M. (2007) ‘Smart workstation design: an ergonomics and methods
engineering approach’, Int. J. of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 4,
pp.363–374.
Shikdar, A. and Al-Hadhrami, M. (2011) ‘Evaluation of a low-cost ergonomically designed
adjustable assembly workstation’, Int. J. of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 10,
No. 2, pp.153–166.
Shikdar, A. and Das, B. (1995) ‘A field study of worker productivity improvements’, Applied
Ergonomics, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.21–27.
Shikdar, A., Das, B. and Hall, R. (1997) ‘Ergonomics and worker productivity: A study with a
repetitive manufacturing task’, Proceedings of the International Workplace Health and Safety
Congress and Ergonomics Society of Australia Conference, CD ROM 1–5.
Shikdar, A., Garbie, I. and Khadem, M. (2011) ‘Development of a smart workstation for an
assembly task’, Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Industrial Engineering
and Operations Management (IEOM), Kula Lumpur, Malaysia, 22–24 January, 2011.
Wilson, J.R. and Corlett, E.N. (1992) Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics
Methodology, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia.
Yeow, P.H.P. (2003) ‘Quality, productivity, occupational health and safety and cost effectiveness
of ergonomic improvements in the test workstations of an electronic factory’, Int. J. of
Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.147–163.