Within the framework of the COPE program, a tool is described for integrated documentation and prediction of ergonomic and technical performance in production systems. The tool is based on data on exposures and durations of tasks occurring in production. A case study is reviewed to illustrate initial efforts to implement the tool, as well as further lines of its development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmprazisJ (1999). Modified method time measurements for ergonomic planning of production systems in the manufacturing industry. In: HilleryMTProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Production Research. Department of Manufacturing and Operations Engineering, University of Limerick, Ireland, vol 2, 1017–1020.
2.
BaoS (1996). Ergonomic effects of a management-based rationalization in assembly work - a case study. Appl Ergon27, 89–99.
3.
DruryCG (1983). Task analysis methods in industry. Appl Ergon14, 19–28.
4.
EngströmT (1996). Alternatives to line assembly: Some Swedish examples. Int J Ind Erg17, 235–245.
5.
EngströmTMedboP (1997). Data collection and analysis of manual work using video recording and personal computer techniques. Int J Ind Erg19, 291–298.
6.
Fransson-HallC (1995). A portable ergonomic observation method (PEO) for computerized on-line recording of postures and manual handling. Appl Ergon26, 93–100.
7.
GoldbergM (1993). Job exposure matrices in industry. Int J Epidemiol22 (suppl 2), S10–S15.
8.
HanssonG-ÅMikkelsenS (1997). Kinematic evaluation of occupational work. Adv Occup Med Rehab3, 57–69.
9.
KadeforsRForsmanM (1997). Operator based ergonomic assessment of complex video sequences. In: SeppäläPProceedings of the 13th triennial congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Tampere. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, vol 7, 416–418.
10.
KihlbergS (2000). Representative video recordings for synchronized collection of ergonomic and production data in an assembly system. In: Proceedings of the present conference.
11.
LiGBuckleP (1999). Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods. Ergonomics42, 674–695.
12.
MathiassenSEWinkelJ (1996). Physiologic comparison of three interventions in light assembly work: Reduced work pace, increased break allowance and shortened working days. Int Arch Occup Environ Health68, 94–108.
13.
MathiassenSEWinkelJ (1997). Ergonomic exposure assessment adapted to production system design. In: SeppäläPProceedings of the 13th triennial congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Tampere. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, vol 4, 195–197.
14.
MöllerT (2000). Relationships between cycle time and mechanical exposure within and between individuals in repetitive assembly work. In: Proceedings of the present conference.
15.
PeterssonN (1996). MTM as a predictor of muscle load. In: KoubekRJHuman aspects of advanced manufacturing: agility & hybrid automation. IEA Press, Maui, Hawaii, USA, 457–460.
16.
Van der BeekAJ (1999). Assessment of exposure to pushing and pulling in epidemiological field studies: An overview of methods, exposure measures, and measurement strategies. Int J Ind Ergon24, 417–429.
17.
WestgaardRHWinkelJ (1997). Ergonomic intervention research for improved musculoskeletal health: A critical review. Int J Ind Ergon20, 463–500.
18.
WinkelJ (1999). A Swedish industrial research program *Co-operative for Optimization of industrial production systems regarding Productivity and Ergonomics' (COPE). Am J Ind Med Suppl1, 82–85.
19.
WinkelJMathiassenSE (1994). Assessment of physical work load in epidemiologic studies: Concepts, issues and operational considerations. Ergonomics37, 979–988.
20.
WinkelJWestgaardRH (1996). A model for solving work related musculoskeletal problems in a profitable way. Appl Ergon27, 71–77.
