Write your message
Volume 8, Issue 3 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2020)                   Iran J Ergon 2020, 8(3): 85-93 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Sadeghi Naeini H, Zolfaghari M. Ergonomic Evaluation of Workstations in Industry with Emphasis on Economic Considerations (Case Study: Automotive Industry). Iran J Ergon 2020; 8 (3) :85-93
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-736-en.html
1- Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Design, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
2- MSc Student, Department of Industrial Design, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran , Zolfaghari_m@cmps2.iust.ac.ir
Full-Text [PDF 509 kb]   (12261 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (12005 Views)
Extended Abstract:   (835 Views)
Introduction

A ccording to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, musculoskeletal disorders consist of a group of structures including nerves, tendons, muscles, and supporting structures such as the intervertebral discs. The range of these disorders is wide. It ranges from mild symptoms to severe and chronic pain and even debilitating conditions; for example, carpal tunnel syndrome and neck and back pain syndrome [1]. Annually, a percentage of the profits from the sale of goods and services by producers are spent on costs of musculoskeletal disorders due to non-compliance with ergonomic conditions. These costs are not favorable for organizations and employees and in most cases’ ergonomic risk factors affect the quality of life of employees.

 

Materials and Methods

The present field study was conducted as a census on 193 workers with medical records in one of the domestic automotive industries on December 2018. The highest prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders belonged to 16 workers, so their workstations were analyzed. Nordic questionnaire and interviews with workers were the tools of data collection. Each of the selected workstations were analyzed with OWAS method after taking photos and videos from different jobs.


 

Results

The results showed that three work stations from the viewpoint of Action Categories are at the level of three, three work stations at the level of two and one station at the level of one; then the costs of incidence and treatment and related actions due to establishing ergonomic conditions were calculated.
 

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of selected workers (number = 16 people)

SD Maximum Minimum M Variable
5.84 42 24 33 Age
2.59 32.1 22 26.55 MBI (kg/m2)
45.25 216 60 116.5 Work history (month)


Table 2. Cumulative frequency of discomfort of each organ and level of corrective action according to OWAS method
Corrective action Cumulative frequency percentage Status Limb
1 14.2% Spine elongated and straight Body (waist)
3 57.1% Curved spine
The waist is rotating
3 14.2% The back is bent and rotating
1 71.4% Both open and below shoulder height Arms
One of the arms at shoulder height or higher
3 14.2% Both arms at shoulder height or higher
2 28.5% Sitting Feet
2 14.2% Standing with legs on feet and straight
Standing with one foot flat
Standing on two bent knees
Kneeling on a bent knee
3 14.2% Kneel on one or both knees
To walk or move
 
 
Table 3. Frequency and percentage of combined postures and their corrective measures
Level of corrective action % N Posture code
1 14.2% 1 1122
2 42.8% 3 2121
2161
4121
3 42.8% 3 2123
2311
Table 4. Recommendations of company experts on the design of workstations studied
Work station Duty Corrective action Equipment Method Cost Estimation (Rials)
Install spare tire Moving a 15 kg tire from the pallet to the trunk of the car 1   workflow 0
Install clutch and brake pedals Connect the pedal nuts on the metal dashboard 2   workflow 0
Install the dashboard Attach the dashboard screws to the body 2 Manipulator dashboard   Inside 1،050،000،000
Outside 4،550،000،000
Install the rear bumper Move the shield by tapping and closing the nuts 2 Plastic hammer   0
 
Install the tire Moving a tire weighing 23 kg from inside the pallet on the car and connecting its screws 3 Tire balancer   150،200،000
Under car control Control of important connections and safety under the vehicle, including fuel pipes and brake fluid 3 Ergonomic chair   20،000،000
Torque wrench for  tire bolts Torque control of all tire bolts with tools with a torque of 140 Nm 3 Dig a hole to leave suffering on the left and right of the car Divide the work into left and right operators 250،000،000
Total (if the dashboard manipulator is built inside) 1،470،200،000
Total (if the dashboard manipulator is supplied from outside) 4،970،200،000
 

Table 5. Direct and indirect costs of musculoskeletal disorders (Rials)
Limb Missed number of working days Number of disorders Direct cost Indirect cost
Hospital and Rehabilitation Missed work day Retraining of alternative workers The presence of workers
Neck 84 6 272،184،000 31،115،280 11،112،600 5،185،880
Wrist 28 2 47،836،000 10،371،760 11،112،600 5،185،880
Waist 310 9 819،653،330 114،830،200 11،112،600 5،185،880
Ankle 28 2 47،836،000 10،371،760 11،112،600 2،592،940
Shoulder 7 1 23،918،000 2،592،940 11،112،600 2،592،940
Knee 7 1 23،918،000 2،592،940 11،112،600 2،592،940
Total 464 21 1،235،345،330 171،874،880 66،675،600 23،336،460
Direct and indirect costs 1،407،220،210 90،012،060
1،497،232،270  



 
Discussion

In this study, due to the limitations of not having access to cost-related information, limited variables could be extracted, which resulted in a very small sum of the calculated costs compared to the high costs of these disorders for workers and their families. Unfortunately, no internal research has been done on the costs of musculoskeletal disorders, and foreign research is not comparable or arguable compared to Iran due to differences in financial and insurance systems in those countries.
The results of the research showed that the cost of 1,470,200,000 Rials (in case of making a dashboard manipulator inside the company) in order to create ergonomic conditions in the 7 workstations examined instead of the cost of musculoskeletal disorders at a cost of 1,497,232,270 Rials is associated with economic efficiency.
A total of 464 working days lost due to the absence of experienced workers in 7 important workstations most likely had a negative impact on the quality of product assembly and productivity, the cost of which could not be calculated due to the lack of relevant information. It is worth mentioning that 4 out of 7 workstations surveyed were very safe in terms of quality. Failure to install the bolts on the tires, brake pedal connections, and fuel system will not only cause significant costs to the automaker, but will also result in fatalities for users. In this case, the company will incur exorbitant costs of grievances and ransom, and ultimately, its credibility will decline. Due to the impossibility of calculating the costs related to the mentioned cases, 90,012,060 Rials of indirect costs are very small compared with the direct costs.


 

Conclusion

Workstations analysis, preventive actions and also designing a process to reduce the musculoskeletal abnormalities of the staff, which results in ergonomic conditions, compared with the cost of incidence and treatment of musculoskeletal complications is cost-effective for this automotive industry.
 

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all those who helped them write this article.

 

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

 

Body area
 
Campus Mean SD Confidence interval t- test Sig
High limit Low limit
Neck
 
Humanities and Social Sciences 0.581- 2.054 0.308- 0.854- 4.193 *0.000
Engineering 0.447- 1.215 0.287- 0.609- 5.458 *0.000
Science 0.537- 1.350 0.359- 0.717- 5.910 *0.000
the shoulder
 
Humanities and Social Sciences 0.256- 1.040 0.118- 0.394- 3.652 *0.000
Engineering 0.263- 2.342 0.048 0.574- 1.665 0.097
Science 0.565- 2.213 0.271- 0.859- 3.787 *0.000
Forearm
 
Humanities and Social Sciences 0.259- 1.035 0.122- 0.397- 3.716 *0.000
Engineering 0.344- 3.120 0.070 0.759- 1.637 0.103
Science 0.140- 2.611 0.207 0.487- 0.794 0.428
Hands and wrists
 
Humanities and Social Sciences 0.667- 4.221 0.106- 1.228- 2.343 *0.020
Engineering 0.372- 2.614 0.025- 0.719- 2.110 *0.036
Science 0.262- 3.124 0.153 0.678- 1.246 0.214
Waist
 
Humanities and Social Sciences 0.266- 1.820 0.025- 0.508- 2.171 *0.031
Engineering 0.255- 1.673 0.032- 0.477- 2.257 *0.025
Science 0.186- 1.610 0.028 0.400- 1.714 0.088
Pelvis
 
Humanities and Social Sciences 0.308- 0.912 0.187- 0.429- 5.009 *0.000
Engineering 0.376- 1.241 0.211- 0.541- 4.495 *0.000
Science 0.344- 1.130 0.194- 0.495- 4.522 *0.000
thigh
 
Humanities and Social Sciences 0.326- 3.156 0.093 0.745- 1.532 0.127
Engineering 0.069- 2.120 0.213 0.351- 0.484 0.629
Science 0.105- 1.623 0.111 0.320- 0.956 0.340
Knee
 
Humanities and Social Sciences 0.726- 5.213 0.033- 1.419- 2.066 *0.040
Engineering 0.625- 2.138 0.341- 0.909- 4.338 *0.000
Science 0.501- 2.034 0.231- 0.771- 3.652 *0.000
Legs and ankles Humanities and Social Sciences 0.368- 1.521 0.166- 0.570- 3.591 *0.000
Engineering 0.341 2.298 0.646 0.035 2.198 *0.029
Science 0.252 1.854 0.498 0.006 2.016 *0.045
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Other Cases
Received: 2020/06/26 | Accepted: 2020/08/7 | ePublished: 2020/09/21

References
1. Piedrahita H. Costs of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in developing countries: Colombia case. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2006; 12(4): 379-86. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.2006.11076696] [PMID]
2. KARPIESIUK Ł. Automotive Industry Report. Warsaw: Polski Związek Przemysłu Motoryzacyjnego, Poland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
3. Błaszczyk A, Zygmańska-Jabłońska M, Wegner-Czerniak K, Ogurkowska MB. Evaluating Progressive Overload Changes of the Musculoskeletal System in Automobile Industry Workers. Pol J Environ Stud. 2020; 29(4): 2579-586. [DOI:10.15244/pjoes/111883]
4. Mattila MA, Vilkki M. OWAS methods. In: Karwowski W, Marras WS (Eds). The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook. USA: CRC Press LLC; 1999: 447-59. [Google Scholar]
5. Grandjean E, Kroemer KH. Fitting the task to the human: a textbook of occupational ergonomics. USA: CRC Press LLC; 1997. [DOI:10.1201/b16825] [PMCID]
6. Choobineh A. Methods of posture assessment in occupational ergonomics. Hamadan: Fanavaran; 2003:79-96. [Google Scholar]
7. Mattila M, Karwowski W, Vilkki M. Analysis of working postures in hammering tasks on building construction sites using the computerized OWAS method. Appl Ergon. 1993; 24(6):405-12. [DOI:10.1016/0003-6870(93)90172-6]
8. Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008; 8(1):8-20. [DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.005] [PMID]
9. Atrkar Roshan S, Alizadeh SS. Estimate of economic costs of accidents at work in Iran: A case study of occupational accidents in 2012. Iran Occup Health. 2015; 12(1): 12-19. [Article] [Google Scholar]
10. Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Panel on Musculoskeletal Disorders And the Workplace. Musculoskeletal disorders and the workplace: Low back and upper extremities. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
11. Javan Noughabi J, Rezapour A, Setoodezadeh F, Moradpour AA. An Estimation of Direct and Indirect Costs for Elderly Patients in Tehran, 2015. Sadra Med Sci J. 2018; 6(1): 77-85.
12. Mohamadinejad A, Mortazavi SB, Jonidi Jafari A, Mofidi A. Estimation of direct and indirect costs of occupational injuries: A case study in one of the refining industries in Iran in 2015. Tibbi-i-kar J. 2020; 11(4): 57-71. [DOI:10.18502/tkj.v11i4.3651]
13. Vatani J, Razaei F. The relationship between the cost due to accidents in the drug industry and the investment in the Safety Management System. Arch Pharm Pract. 2017; 8(4): 104-08. [Article]
14. Garrouste-Orgeas M, Troché G, Azoulay E, Caubel A, de Lassence A, Cheval C, et al. Body mass index. An additional prognostic factor in ICU patients. Intensive Care Med. 2004; 30(3): 437-43. [DOI:10.1007/s00134-003-2095-2] [PMID]
15. Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg H, Biering-Sørensen F, Andersson G, et al. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon. 1987; 18(3):233-37. [DOI:10.1016/0003-6870(87)90010-X]
16. Kivi P, Mattila M. Analysis and improvement of work postures in the building industry: application of the computerised OWAS method. Appl Ergon. 1991; 22(1): 43-48. [DOI:10.1016/0003-6870(91)90009-7]
17. Atrkar Roshan S, Alizadeh SS. Estimation of economic costs of accidents at work in Iran: A case study of occupational accidents in 2012. Iran Occup Health. 2015; 12(1): 12-19. [Article] [Google Scholar]
18. Berry L, Mirabito AM, Berwick DM. A health care agenda for business. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2004; 45(4): 56-64. [Article] [Google Scholar]
19. Tamin.ir. Iran: Salary tariff. 2018 April 29. https://tamin.ir/News/Item/58805/2/58805.html
20. Dorman P. Estimating the economic costs of occupational injuries and illnesses in developing countries: essential information for decision-makers. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization; 2012. [Google Scholar]
21. Anderson N, Adams D, Bonauto D, Howard N, Silverstein B. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the back, upper extremity, and knee in Washington State, 2002-2010. Olympia, WA: Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) Program, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries; 2015: 345. [Article] [DOI]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Iranian Journal of Ergonomics

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb |