International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Development of metric method and framework

model of integrated complexity evaluations of
production process for ergonomics workstations

Fansen Kong

To cite this article: Fansen Kong (2018): Development of metric method and framework model of
integrated complexity evaluations of production process for ergonomics workstations, International
Journal of Production Research, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1519266

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1519266

Published online: 20 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
International Journal of Production Research, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1519266

Development of metric method and framework model of integrated complexity evaluations of

production process for ergonomics workstations
Fansen Kong ∗

Department of Industrial Engineering, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province, People’s Republic of China
(Received 21 February 2018; accepted 23 August 2018)

Staff in manufacturing sites not only need certain physical requirements for their allotted tasks but also utilise a large amount
of information processing in the looming industrial age 4.0. This work established the Principles of Information Processing
Economy in the production process and proposed a framework model of integrated complexity evaluation method for the
production process, which combines both physical and cognitive loads while accounting for the effect of time stress. The
method proposed in this study can be used for ergonomics evaluation of workstations. Compared with traditional evaluation
methods, this method has good flexibility to account for the changes in labour loads in the industrial 4.0 eras and the role
of various intelligent auxiliary systems. The proposed operational framework model can provide useful information for task
assignment, operator selection and training, work organisation, and performance prediction.
Keywords: information processing economy; production process; integrated complexity; complexity evaluation;
ergonomics evaluations

1. Introduction
Tasks are activities carried out by people in their personal and professional lives. As Hackman (1969) argued, ‘Tasks play
an important role in much research on human behavior, and differences in tasks and task characteristics have been shown to
mediate differences in individual and social behavior.’ Tasks can be classified into two broad categories: physical and mental
(or cognitive). The most famous method for the decomposition and description of physical tasks is motion study, which was
conceived in the early part of the twentieth century by Gilbreth and his wife (Niebel and Freivalds 1999). Another method
is cognitive task analysis (CTA) (Chipman 2013), which is the extension of traditional task analysis techniques to yield
information about the knowledge, thought processes, and goal structures that underlie observable task performance. Unlike
other task analysis methods which focus on observable behaviour, CTA methods focus on the cognitive process behind the
observable behaviour. As Cooke (1994) pointed out, there exist more than 100 CTA methods, and these can be classified
into three categories: (a) observations and interviews, (b) process tracing, and (c) conceptual techniques. Wei and Salvendy
(2004) added a fourth one: (d) formal models. Currently, there are various task analysis methods used in the field of human
factors for the description (and evaluation) of the human machine or human–human interaction, some of which focus on
task characteristics and performance. Task complexity, which is one of the task characteristics, has featured in numerous
studies. Some of the earlier studies have focused on identifying task complexity factors that are particularly meaningful to
certain task situations. For example, Park, Jeong, and Jung (2005) identified five complexity factors that are significant in
emergency situations in nuclear power plants (NPPs). The five factors are: step information complexity, step size complexity,
step logic complexity, abstraction hierarchy complexity, and engineering decision complexity. Based on these five factors,
TACOM (Task Complexity), a measure for evaluating the complexity of tasks prescribed for emergency situations in NPPs,
was developed by Park and Jung. The earlier studies (Vicente and Burns 1995; O’Hara et al. 2002; Gertman et al. 2005)
assuredly contributed towards understanding the factors that contribute to task complexity and enhancement of the level of
task complexity. However, it is not easy to understand the process of identification of the task complexity factors and their
interrelations from these studies. This is because most of the earlier studies identified task complexity factors mainly on
an empirical basis, without a sound theoretical model or framework. Very few studies have attempted at developing such a
model or framework so far. Therefore, as Campbell (1988) pointed out, analytical identification of task complexity based on
a sound model or framework is absolutely necessary to evaluate and manage task complexity factors more systematically.
A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several variations and contexts to be used for conceptual distinctions and

*E-mail: kongfs@jlu.edu.cn

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 F. Kong

organise ideas. Strong conceptual frameworks capture something real and do this in a way that is easy to remember and
apply according to Campbell. Liu and Li (2014) reviewed the relationship between task complexity and task performance
and tentatively explored the influencing mechanism of task complexity. Ham, Park, and Jung (2012) proposed a model
for identifying and organising task complexity factors analytically and also explained 21 complexity factors that could
be derived from the model. They also suggested a process for using the model, which lays emphasis on systematic task
analysis. Falck et al. (2017) pointed out that a major challenge for manufacturing companies today is to manage a huge
amount of product variants and build options at the same time in manufacturing engineering and production. The overall
complexity and risk of quality errors in manual assembly will increase, placing high demands on the operators who must
manage many different tasks in current production. Hence, they presented a method for predictive assessment of basic
manual assembly complexity and explained how the included complexity criteria were arrived at. Busogi et al. (2017)
explained the impact of choice complexity on total system performance for a mixed-model assembly line. At the same time,
Falck et al. (2017) compared two assessment methods to obtain improved feedback by using operators’ practical experience
in order to develop better predictive complexity assessment criteria in manual assembly. One method, CompleXity Index
(CXI), aims at assessing operators’ perception of manual assembly complexity in running production. The other method,
Basic Assembly Complexity (CXB), is intended for predictive assessment of basic manual assembly complexity in early
product and production development. Sun et al. (2018) developed a human factor and ergonomics integration framework
in the early product design phase in which related information is embodied in a user manual, which could be continuously
improved upon with refinement of design.
The tasks of a manufacturing production site usually require physical as well as psychological load. The manual pro-
duction tasks in the traditional manufacturing field are often based on physical load. Production site improvement points are
often investigated in a systematic way, often based on areas Manpower, Machinery, Material, Method, Measurement, Safety
and Environment (5M1S1E). The improvement of the production site is usually based on the principle of motion economy
which is mainly based on the three elements of production process viz. Manpower, Machinery, Material, which in turn form
the principle of improvement of human physical load.
It is undeniable that with the progress of technology, the nature of the tasks facing the field engineering technicians in the
manufacturing industry are undergoing significant changes. It can be expected that the rapid development of network and
information technology enables workers to increase the cognitive load to complete the field operation in the future industrial
4.0 eras. Therefore, the proportion of the two types of load (physical and cognitive) included in the production operation
has significantly altered.
This study aims to develop a framework model to cope with this change by putting forward the economic principle of
information processing in the production site. The improvement of visualisation of production site management stems from
the economic principle of information processing that is mainly based on method-environment/safety-measurement, which
in turn forms the principle underlying the improvement of the human cognitive load. On this basis, the author established
the framework of the integrated complexity evaluation method of the production process by considering mental workload
and physical load based on 5M1S1E in ergonomics workstations evaluation.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, Principles of information processing economy in the production process
is established, and a framework for the complexity of production process and evaluation framework for operation difficulty
is suggested. A metric model of integrated complexity of the production process applied in the present paper is described
in Section 3. Section 4 presents the empirical basis of an evaluation of a case study of structural components production.
Finally, Section 5 includes concluding remarks along with summarising the limitations of the study and the results of the
evaluation.

2. A framework for the complexity of production process and evaluation framework for operation difficulty
2.1. Principles of information processing economy in the production process
The definition and explanation of the principles of information processing economy are as follows:
(1) The principles of information processing economy are mainly applied to the improvement of method (work
instructions, WI)\ environment and safety\measurement (through gauges) used in the production management
process;
(2) The idea of the principle of information processing economy: In order to get the highest information processing
efficiency and ensure the safety and quality of the production process with minimum information processing load,
the most reasonable principles for visualisation of production process operation information should be considered.
According to these principles, I wish that anyone can check whether the visualisation of production, safety and
environmental information is reasonable.
 International Journal of Production Research 3

2.1.1. Four basic assessment principles of the economy of information processing

(1) To reduce the amount of information, e.g. in work instruction, the maximum amount of disposable information
should be in accordance with the 7 ± 2 principle suggested by Miller in 1956. He claimed that the information-
processing capacity of young adults is around seven elements, which he called ‘chunks’, regardless of whether the
elements are digits, letters, words, or other units.
(2) Reducing the depth of information processing, e.g. the information processing depth of a digital dial indicator
readings is smaller than that of a dial indicator because we can see the measurement result directly on the digital
one without calculation.
(3) Audio-visual information presented at the same time, i.e. it is better to see as well as to hear the information of any
trouble from an Andon system in a lean jobshop.
(4) Assessment of the level of relaxed work, e.g. we can improve the level of relaxed work by use of Digital Assistance
Systems (DAS).

2.1.2. The function of the principle of information processing economy

(1) If the WI information does not conform with the principle of information processing economy, then the
unreasonable, unstable, and useless information in the work instruction needs to be cancelled.
(2) Factors that easily cause mental fatigue and error in the WI information are removed based on the principle of
information processing economy, so that the operator is not exposed to a cognitive overload.
(3) Grasp the principle of information processing economy, improve the awareness of information visualisation, prob-
lem and improvement consciousness, and conceive and use efficient job information analysis methods, e.g. we
can compile work instruction and provide safety warning information according to the principle of information
processing economy.

2.1.3. The main application areas of the four basic principles include the following aspects
(1) The design of Standard Operation Procedure and Digital Assistance Systems.
(2) The design of signs for workplace safety, branding and wayfinding.
(3) Design of manufacturing execution system.
(4) The improvement of measuring methods and instruments.

2.2. Study on the framework of the complexity of operation process and the evaluation model of job difficulty analysis
From the point of view of information processing, the complexity of an operation process is about the difficulty of the
operator in the cognitive processing of all kinds of information in the job. It is related to the methods and features

Table 1. Framework for the evaluation of the complexity of the operation process.
Elements related to information processing
The perceived The principle of The task
amount of Depth of information characteristics of
information of a job information processing information processing
(information load) processing Job information output economy (Time pressure)
Influence factors 1 Objective 1 The load 1 Attention 1 To reduce 1 Operating time
quantity produced by alloca- the amount of of task T/s
/Number of the interaction tion(Information information 2 Operating time
information among the that is perceived 2 Reducing quota of task CT/s
elements elements in the is not all valid the depth of
2 Presentation information information) information
of information/ 2 From the 2 Difference of processing.
Information presentation of human knowledge 3 Audio-visual
presentation information, the structure (opera- information is
intensity intensity and tor’s training level, presented at the
the information SA) same time
matching decision) 4 relaxed work
Control processing (eg. DAS or not)
Automatic
processing
4 F. Kong

Table 2. Framework for evaluation model of the difficulty of operations.

Lean feature of working areas
Tool, equipment Motion and its The principle of Environmental
and layout posture comfort motion economy characteristics
Influence factors 1 Rate of use of tools 1 Handling analysis 1 Number of motion involved Lighting,
and raw materials in 2 biomechanical in completing a job should be Air quality,
fixed order analysis minimised Noise level
2 Fixed position 3 analysis 2 Simultaneous operation rate of
storage rate of tools of upper limb both hands
and raw materials assessment(RULA) 3 Shortest distance principle(Reach
4 posture comfort rate of tool and raw material)
analysis 4 easy work technical assistance
systems
e.g. collaborative robots)

of the information expressed on the production site. Based on the principle of information processing economy pro-
posed by the author, a framework for the evaluation of the complexity of the operation process was developed as shown
in Table 1.
As can be seen from Table 1, there are many factors that influence the complexity of information processing in the whole
job execution cycle, such as information quantity, information processing depth, operation information output modes, and
time pressure of information processing. The principles of information processing economy restrict these factors and point
out the direction for visualisation management and the design of a digital assistance system.
Corresponding to Table 1, a framework for the evaluation model of the difficulty of operations in the production process
is set up, based on the principle of motion economy, as shown in Table 2.
It can be seen from Table 2 that the difficulty of an operation is related to the comfort of the operator’s posture and the
ease of implementation of the operation. It is an objective complexity and is not affected by the subjective consciousness
of operators, which is influenced by the comprehensive characteristics of the task, layout, fixture and machine, human body
structure, and the possible existence of a robot-aided machining system. Therefore, the evaluation system of the difficulty of
the production operation is set up from three aspects: the characteristics of the working areas, the operating posture, and the
economic principle of the motion. The higher the coincidence rates of motion economy, the lower the job difficulty, hence,
the higher the operation comfort and operation efficiency. Therefore, these factors directly affect the quality and efficiency
of the operator’s completion of the task.

3. Metric model of integrated complexity of the production process

3.1. Evaluation of operation difficulty concerning physical tasks
3.1.1. Motion and working area evaluation
(1) Evaluation of the use of the human body

According to the motion economy principle, in operations with hands, the two hands should begin motion at the same
time and not remain idle simultaneously except during rest periods. The motion of the arms should be made in opposite and
symmetrical directions simultaneously. The two-hand job ratio (B) is defined as the ratio of the number of motions that meet
the above requirements (d), to the total number of hand jobs or manual tasks (D), and is given by

d
B= (1)
D

(2) Evaluation of the arrangement of the work areas

According to the motion economy principle, everything should be in its specified place, and three kinds of evaluation
indexes are set up in order to assess the space layout factors that influence the operational difficulty of work tasks. These
are tools and materials reachable rate with hands, fixed order using rate, and fixation position rate.
 International Journal of Production Research 5

Figure 1. Body size and range of motion. Area 1 is the most appropriate area for workers. Area 2, 3 are the limited area. Area 4 is
difficult for workers.

Tools and materials reachable rate with hands (R) in the workplace is defined as the ratio of the number of tools and
materials within area 1 (as shown in Figure 1) to the total number of tools and materials in the working areas, given by
r
R= (2)
N
where r is the number of tools and materials within the most appropriate area for the workers, and N is the total number of
tools and materials in the working area.
The tools and materials reachable rate with hands reflects the rationality of the layout of the workspace and describes
the convenience of the workers to access tools.
Fixed order using ratio ( s1 ) is defined as the ratio of the number of tools and materials used with fixed orders (n) to the
total number of tools and materials used in the operational process (N) and given by
n
s1 = (3)
N
The fixed order using ratio describes the difficulties faced by operators in choosing tools and materials for the work
process.
Fixed position rate ( s2 ) is defined as the ratio of the number of tools and materials with fixed position (m) to the total
number of tools and materials used in the working areas (N), given by
m
s2 = (4)
N
The fixed position rate describes the difficulty of searching for tools and materials in the working areas.

3.1.2. Grade evaluation of operating posture comfort

In the production process, operating posture is an important factor that affects the level of fatigue and hence, the comfort of
a human being. Operating posture is usually classified as static and moving posture. The common static operating posture
includes sitting, squatting (kneeling) and standing (bending). The standing posture is the most common operating posture in
the mechanical manufacturing process, which can be analysed by using the CATIA 3D/Human CAD/ErgoMaster software.
(1) Due to differences in the size of human bodies, operators feel a difference of comfort in the same workspace. In this
study, the human body model was established by using fiftieth percentile human data in order to maximise the accuracy and
versatility of evaluation of operating comfort. The details can be obtained by using CATIA software for simulation analysis.
6 F. Kong

Figure 2. Ergonomics items and evaluation method.

(2) According to the actual situation of different workstations, the working posture model was established, the first angle
set up, and the simulation evaluation carried out.
The body parts commonly used in the production process are the waist, arms, legs, and eyes. Accordingly, the evaluation
items and method for the comfort of each position of the body parts was established, as shown in Figure 2.
According to handling analysis, biomechanical analysis, upper limb evaluation and analysis (RULA), and Posture
Comfort Analysis of CATIA software, the above motion elements were classified according to Figure 3.
After grading each evaluation item, we can obtain the average value of all evaluation items for calculating the operation
comfort of a task from the Equation (5) below:
 

G = Average gi (5)
i

where gi is the value of the grade of ergonomics item based on evaluation criteria, and G is the operation comfort level.

3.1.3. The metrics of operation difficulty

Based on the above task difficulty evaluation system, there are five kinds of effects of task difficulty index. They are Two-
hand job ratio (B), Tools and materials reachable rate (R) with hands, Fixed order using rate s1 , Fixation position rate s2 , and
the average value (G) of the grade of ergonomics item. Among these, only the average value (G) of the grade of ergonomics
item is determinable, while the others are probable values. To this end, using the operation comfort level as the weight, we
used the concept of information entropy to define the Metrics of operation difficulty as follows:

Td = −G(R ln R + S1 ln S1 + S2 ln S2 + B ln B) (6)

It can be seen that higher the average value (G), more difficult is the operation. And when the task difficulty index is smaller,
the operation is more difficult. Therefore, the metrics of operation difficulty should be based on rationality.

3.2. Metrics of the operation complexity concerns mental tasks

Information processing in a situation is one of perception, understanding and prediction of information. Therefore, infor-
mation is the key factor affecting the complexity of the human cognitive process. The purpose of cognitive psychological
analysis is to reduce uncertainty in the cognitive process and improve the compatibility between the work information and
human cognitive process. In the production process, with an increase in the amount of information and complexity of infor-
mation processing, the uncertainty in operators getting accurate and useful information is also increasing. Therefore, the
evaluation of the complexity of the operation depends on the uncertainty of the information that needs to be perceived,
understood, and predicted.
Information about sensing is denoted by S, information about understanding by U, and information about output by O,
while the variable about information processing is represented by Ip. Obviously, Ip is a function of S, U and O, and the
 International Journal of Production Research 7

Figure 3. Assessment template for operating comfort level.

8 F. Kong

relation between these quantities is given by

Ip = F(S, U, O) (7)

Based on the Information theory, the complexity of information processing is a measure of information processing
entropy H(Ip), which is defined as operation complexity and can be calculated as:

H(Ip) = H(S) + H(U) + H(O) (8)

where, the uncertainties in information sensing, understanding and output are measured by the respective entropies H (S),
H(U) and H(O). It is known that the entropy of Ip reflects the average uncertainty of information processing.

3.2.1. Evaluation of information sensing process

The process of information acquisition is based on human perception of external information. People’s perception of
information is influenced by many factors, such as the quantity, clarity, and diversity of information.
The production process mainly involves four types of information: product information ( S1 ), process information ( S2 ),
tools and equipment information ( S3 ), and field information ( S4 ). Product information refers to the number of products and
accessories required to be processed by a task. For example, in the machining and welding process, product information
refers to the number of products that need to be processed or welded. Process information refers to the type and quantity
of the processing technology needed to complete the task. Tools and equipment information refers to the type and quantity
of tools and equipment required for processing the product or part. Field information is the type and quantity of the field
required to complete the task, e.g. two workbenches, one fitting room and so on. In this study, the complexity of perception
of information is determined from the uncertainty of information relations which can be measured by information entropy
as follows:
For any information variable S, which has n possible values (S 1 ,S 2 , . . . ,Sn ), assuming that the information variables
have specific relationships between them (such as calling, being-called, self-relation, and no-relation), the following can be
defined:
R = (self-relation, calling, being-called, no-relation) = (1, 1, 1, 0)
Then, Ri (i = 1, 2, . . . n) is the relationship between the information variable and the other information variables and the
relationship of R with respect to all the variables. The uncertainty with which the information variable X can be sensed is
measured by information sensing entropy H(S), and defined as:


n
H(S) = − pi log2 pi (9)
i=1


n
where, pi = Ri
R
, and R = Ri
i=1
(1) Uncertainty of product information acquisition
Let us suppose that a task P contain n1 items of product information, then, S 1 = (S 11 , S 12 , . . . ,S 1n ). If the sum of the
relationship of product information variables is R1 and the relationship between each product information variable S1i is R1i ,
then the uncertainty of product information acquisition is measured by the product information acquisition entropy H(S1 ),
defined as:


n1
H(S1 ) = − p1i log2 p1i (10)
i=1

1
where ni=1 p1i = 1, p1i = RR1i1
(2) The uncertainty of processing information acquisition
Similarly, suppose the task P contains n2 items of processing information, then, S2 = (S 21 , S 22 , . . . ,S 2n ). For n3 items
of tools and equipment information, S 3 = (S 31 , S 32 , . . . ,S 3n ), and n4 items of field information, S 4 = (S 41 , S 42 , . . . ,S 4n ).
 International Journal of Production Research 9

Based on the concept of entropy defined in the information theory, a set of uncertainty measures can be defined as follows


n2
H(S2 ) = − p2i log2 p2i (11)
i=1

n2
where i=1 p2i = 1, p2i = R2i
R2


n3
H(S3 ) = − p3i log2 p3i (12)
i=1
n3
where i=1 p3i = 1, p3i = R3i
R3


n4
H(S4 ) = − p4i log2 p4i (13)
i=1
4
where ni=1 p4i = 1, p4i = RR4i4
Then, the entropy of information used to describe the uncertainty of production information acquisition can be
calculated as

4 
nj
H(S) = − pji log 2 pji (14)
j=1 i=1

The information entropy reflects the average uncertainty in the perception of the four kinds of production information, that is,
the complexity of the relationship between information and information perception. The more complicated the information
relationship, the greater would be the uncertainty of operators to obtain the information.

3.2.2. Evaluation of information processing process

Information processing is the core content of the cognitive process of a human being, which is the activity of the brain.
Information processing is a complex process within which people sort and weigh the information obtained by sensing,
and determine the effective information. In order to measure the complexity of information processing, the concept of
effective information chain is put forth in this paper. An effective information chain refers to the combination of information
obtained through a human brain processing all kinds of information actually existing in production activities. The process
of information processing is to get the effective information chain which, in production, involves four types of production
information, namely, workplace, product, tools and equipment, and process. This would yield effective information of the
production process regarding the location of the workplace, the product, tools and equipment to be used, and the process to
be carried out.
Suppose the number of items of effective information is I ( I = n1 + n2 + n3 + n4 ), and the total amount of information
involved in all the effective information chains is F. For any kind of production information i, the number of times it appears
in the effective information chain is fi , and pi = Ffi is the frequency of effective information i appearing in the brain. Based
on the information theory, the uncertainty of information processing, measured by information processing entropy, can be
calculated as:

I I
fi fi
H(U) = − pi log2 pi = − × log2 (15)
i=1 i=1
F F

3.2.3. Evaluation of information prediction and output

The process of prediction and output of information is the last stage of the human cognitive process. It is the process of using
the memory information in the brain to guide the action. The so-called forecast output information refers to the effective
information that is perceived, processed, weighed and determined by the brain which is sent to the executor continuously,
so as to realise the behaviour process that directs the movement of the body. The operator needs attention in the process
of exporting the effective information chain obtained by the processing. More attention is needed for more complex and
effective information chains. In order to complete the output of the effective information and guide the operation, the
operator needs to pay attention to every kind of information in the effective information chain. As a result, the higher the
10 F. Kong

frequency of information, the higher the attention required of the operator. In view of the above, the method of evaluation
of the uncertainty in the information output process is given as follows:
Suppose the task has m effective information chains through information processing. If the amount of effective infor-
mation contained in the ith effective information chain is mi , the total amount of effective information that needs to be
processed is

m
M = mi
i=1

The output rate of effective information is defined as pi = mMi . Based on the information theory, the uncertainty in effective
information output, measured by effective information output entropy, can be calculated by


m 
m
mi mi
H(O) = − pi log2 pi = − × log2 (16)
i=1 i=1
M M

In the information output process, the operator has limited attention resource. The attention of the operator is distracted
towards different production information. The higher the average of the information on different processes, i.e. the greater
the similarity in the importance of information, the more uncertain would be the information output.

3.3. The time stress of productive tasks

Time stress is related to the organisation mode of the task. From the point of view of the flow assembly line, the time stress
of the task is related to the rhythm of the assembly line, and the time pressure of the operator changes with the change of
rhythm. Therefore, we define the time stress index as the ratio of the time required to complete the task to the time allotted
for the task, and is given by
Tp = T/CT (17)
where Tp is the time stress index, T is the task time, and CT is the time allotted for the task.

3.4. Assistance systems influence index of operation complexity

With the advancement of technical assistance systems, there may be auxiliary devices present at the production site. For
example, industrial robots have been used already in the past to automate certain tasks for improved production economy
and to relieve human workers from rough and strenuous working conditions. Collaborative robots have been developed,
which, due to their on-board sensitivity as well as communicative and cognitive capabilities, are better than ever able to
directly support humans physically in manufacturing processes. Latest developments in the field of augmented reality as
well as mobile and wearable devices have enhanced possibilities to provide information to operators right on the work
process as needed and in a digital format due to the development of digital assistance systems (Philipp and Fabian 2016;
Philipp et al., 2017). The emergence of these assistance systems greatly reduces the complexity of tasks. In order to consider
the influence of assistance systems, this study introduces an assistance system influence index to measure this effect. We
denote the influence coefficient of the technical assistance systems on the difficulty of the operation by r1 a1 , the influence
coefficient of the digital assistance systems on the complexity of the operation by r2 a2 , where r1 and r2 are greater than 0 and
less than 1; when assistance systems exist in the production site, a1and a2 are equal to 1, and when there is no assistance
system a1and a2 are 0 .

3.5. Metric method of production process integrated complexity

As mentioned earlier, the production process integrated complexity (PPIC) is a function of the operation difficulty, the
operation complexity and the time pressure of the production task, namely,

PPIC = f (Td, H, Tp ) (18)

We need to consider different situations to define the comprehensive complexity evaluation index. For example, in the
main control room of a nuclear power station and the cab of an automobile aircraft, people pay much more attention to
the complexity than to the level of difficulty of the task operation. In a general manufacturing production site, people may
grant the same attention to both, or may be more concerned with the difficulty level of the task. In the production of free
 International Journal of Production Research 11

beats, people do not care about time. In the production of mandatory rhythm, time pressure is an important factor that
causes product quality problems and workers’ fatigue. In the field of intelligent manufacturing, there are usually technical
assistance devices and digital assistance devices which greatly reduce the complexity of production tasks. Considering the
above factors, based on the information theory and the framework of complexity analysis proposed in this paper, the metrics
of production process integrated complexity can be defined as follows:

PPIC = Tp × (w1 × Td × r1 a1 + w2 × H × r2 a2 ) (19)

where w1 and w2 are the weighting coefficients, which depend on the production area or production mode to another.

4. A case study – development of the integrated complexity of production process in a welding station
A lorry crane boom welding task is considered as an example. The production cycle of a stretched arm welding operation
is six days, with two shifts per day, and each shift of a duration of seven and a half hours. 100 stretched arms are completed
in a cycle. The cycle time can be calculated as follows:
6 × 7.5 × 2
CT = = 0.90h = 3240s
100
The actual cycle time ( T) of the welding workstation is 1557.764s by a time study. Then, the time stress in a stretched
arm welding workstation can be obtained from the formula (13):

Tp = 1557.764/3240 = 0.481

4.1. Evaluation of welding process difficulty

(1) Evaluation of the use of the human body
The assembling process of a stretched arm is studied with the help of a two- hand process chart. The results are shown in
Table 3, which indicates that the number of two-hand operations is 8, the total number of motions is 30, hence, according to
Equation (1), the two-hand job ratio B is calculated as
8
B= = 26.67%
30
(2) Evaluation of the arrangement of the work place
It can be seen from Table 4 that seven kinds of tools and equipment are required for the welding task. As shown in Figure 4,
the position of the welding points on the welding bed and welding gun is in the normal operating space of the human body
model. The hammer, support locator, and wrench are in the normal operating range of the horizontal area, but not so in the
vertical direction. In the process of operation, it is necessary to bend the waist to operate. The coaxiality locator and the
ruler are placed far away from the normal working space. According to Equation (2), the tools and materials reachable ratio
R can be calculated as
R = 2/7 = 0.286
According to the process requirements, there are five tools that need to be used in a fixed order in the stretched arm welding
process, namely, welding bed, coaxial locator, support locator, wrench, and welding gun. The rest of the tools, like hammers
and rulers, need not be used in a fixed order. Therefore, according to Equation (3), the ratio of tools and equipment used by
the fixed order can be calculated as
5
S1 = = 0.714
7
In addition, although there is no designated location in the management area for the tool equipment, the operator, by force
of habit and characteristics of the tools like welding torch, welding bed, positioning, supporting device and spanner, keeps
them in a fixed position, so that they need not be searched for while in use. Therefore, according to Equation (4), the ratio
of tools and equipment placed in a fixed location can be calculated as
4
S2 = = 0.571
7
12 F. Kong

Table 3. Two-hand process chart of a stretched arm welding task.

Table 4. Properties of a stretched arm welding operation.

Production characteristics Resource requirement
System Parts Process Stage Material Operator Tools and Equipment Field
Gib lubing A stretched Assembling Installation, A stretched arm Riveter (1) Alignment locator, Welding bed,
mechanism arm measurement, body (1) hammer, welding torch, fitting area
spot welding Purchased parts welding beds, support
(3) the locator, wrench,
the ruler
(Each 1 pieces)

(3) Grade evaluation of operating posture comfort

When the operator welds the part to a stretched arm tail, the operating posture has been modelled with CATIA as shown
in Figure 4. The task is spot welding completed by one worker. The workstation consists of two material boxes and five
kinds of accessories. The length, width and height of the worktable are 3, 1.2 and 0.6 m, respectively. Since the worktable
is inappropriate, the worker has to repeatedly stoop, carry and squat. We videoed the motion analysis, and scored every
ergonomics item based on Figures 2 and 3. The results are shown in Figure 5. According to Equation (5), the average
evaluation value of all the items on operating comfort is calculated as follows:

1 
7
1
G= × gi = × (1 + 2 + 5 + 4 + 5 + 2 + 5) = 3.4
7 i=1
7

(4) Metrics of operation difficulty of welding process of a stretched arm

According to Equation (6), the difficulty index of a stretched arm welding operation is calculated as

Td = −3.43 × (0.286 ln 0.286 + 0.714 ln 0.714 + 0.571 ln 0.571 + 0.267 ln 0.267) = 4.36

4.2. Metrics of operation complexity of the welding process of a stretched arm

The four production information variables of the welding operation for a stretched arm are as follows:
With n1 = 4 product variables, S1 = (a stretched arm body, outsourcing component 1, outsourcing component 2,
outsourcing component 3)
 International Journal of Production Research 13

Figure 4. 3-dimensional space and plane analysis diagram of the welding operations.

Figure 5. Radar schematic diagram of results of evaluation of operational comfort.

A boom arm Outsourcing Outsourcing Outsourcing

component 2 component 3 Installation Measurement Spot welding
body component 1

Product processing sequence diagram Process sequence diagram

Coaxial Support Welding

Wrench
locator locator torch Welding External
work table buffer

Welding bed Hammer Ruler

Site use diagram
Diagram of the use of tooling
Figure 6. Information relationship diagram of a stretched arm welding process.

With n2 = 3 process variables, S2 = (assembling, measurement, spot welding)

With n3 = 7 tooling variables, S3 = (coaxial locator, locator supporting, wrenches, welding torch, welding bed, hammer,
ruler)
With n4 = 2 space variable, S4 = (welding bed, the staging area of outsourcing)
(1) Complexity index of information sensing process
In the information sensing stage, there are four kinds of relations: product processing sequence, process sequence relation-
ship, calling or called relation between information variables, and the location relation. These are summarised in Figure 6
from which we can calculate the total sum of the relationship between each variable and the total sum of the relationship of
each kind of information variable, and hereby obtain the relationship matrix. The uncertainty of information relationship of
each kind information variable can then be calculated as shown in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8.
14 F. Kong

Table 5. Relation matrix of product information variables.

Relation r = (1,0)
Stretched Outsourcing Outsourcing Outsourcing
Variable arm body component 1 component 2 component 3 Sum of relation p1i −p1i log2 p1i
Stretched arm body 1 1 0 0 2 0.2 0.464
Outsourcing component 1 1 1 1 0 3 0.3 0.521
Outsourcing component 2 0 1 1 1 3 0.3 0.464
Outsourcing component 3
 0 0 1 1 2 0.2 0.521
10 1 1.97

Table 6. Relation matrix process of information variables.

Relation r = (1,0)
Variable Installation Measurement Spot welding Sum of relation p2i −p2i log2 p2i
Installation 1 1 0 2 0.286 0.516
Measurement 1 1 1 3 0.428 0.524
 welding
Spot 0 1 1 2 0.286 0.516
7 1 1.556

Table 7. Relation matrix of tooling equipment information variables.

Relation r = (1,0)
Variable Coaxial Support Wrench Torch Bed Hammer Ruler Sum of relation p4i −p4i log2 p4i
Coaxial 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 5 0.185 0.450
Support 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 0.148 0.408
Wrench 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 5 0.185 0.450
Torch 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0.112 0.354
Bed 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0.074 0.278
Hammer 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 0.148 0.408
Ruler
 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 4 0.148 0.408
27 1 2.756

Table 8. Relation matrix of site variables.

Relation r = (1,0)
Variable Welding work table External buffer Sum of relation p3i −p3i log2 p3i
Welding work table 1 1 2 0.5 0.5
External
 buffer 1 1 2 0.5 0.5
4 1 1

Based on Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8, according to Equation (14), the information complexity of the external component of the
welding operation for a stretched arm can be calculated as follows:


4 
nj
H(S) = − pji log 2 pji = 1.97 + 1.556 + 2.756 + 1 = 7.282
j=1 i=1

(2) Complexity index of information processing

There are five effective information chains for a stretched arm welding operation as shown in Figure 7. The total amount of
effective information in the process can be calculated as follows:


5
M = mi = 4 + 9 + 7 + 7 + 7 = 34
i=1
 International Journal of Production Research 15

Figure 7. Information chain of a stretched arm welding operation.

It is known that a stretched arm welding operation contains 16 kinds of information (I = 16). The frequency of each
type of production information appearing in the valid information chain is calculated, respectively, as follows (e.g. p1 =
the number of stretched arm body appearing in the effective information chain (4) divided by the total number of effective
information chains (34))
p1 = 0.118, p2 = p3 = p4 = p5 = 0.088, p6 = p7 = 0.029, p8 = 0.147, p9 = 0.059, p10 = p11 = p12 = p13 = 0.029,
p14 = 0.088, p15 = p16 = 0.029. Thus, based on Equation (15), the uncertainty in the information processing of the task
can be calculated as follows:


I
H(U) = − pi log2 pi = 3.753
i=1

(3) Information output of the complexity index

According to the effective information chain of the actual production process as shown in Figure 7, the total information
output is 34 (M = 34). The output ratios of effective information are, respectively, (e.g. p1 is the number of any effective
information in the links of information (4) divided by the total amount of information output (34)) p1 = 4/34 = 0.117, p2 =
9/34 = 0.265, p3 = 7/34 = 0.206, p4 = 7/34 = 0.206, p5 = 7/34 = 0.206. According to Equation (16), the uncertainty in
information output can be calculated as follows:


5
H(O) = − pi log2 pi = 2.278
i=1

(4) Operation complexity of the welding process of a stretched arm

According to Equation (8), the operational complexity index of a stretched arm welding process can be calculated as follows:

H(Ip) = H(S) + H(U) + H(O) = 7.282 + 3.753 + 2.278 = 13.31

4.3. Integrated complexity of the welding process of a stretched arm

In this case, it was assumed that the contribution of operation difficulty and operation complexity to the integrated com-
plexity of the welding process are equal, that is, we assume that both w1 and w2 are valued at 1. Since there is no assistance
system at the welding workstation, a1 = a2 = 0. Considering the effects of time stress, according to Equation (19), the
16 F. Kong

integrated complexity index of a stretched arm welding process can be calculated as follows:

PPIC = 0.481 × (4.36 × r1 0 + 13.31 × r2 0 ) = 8.5

Moreover, in the mechanical manufacturing field, as gleaned from information, workers pay more attention to operation
difficulty than operation complexity. Therefore, taking W1 as 0.7 and W2 as 0.3, we get

PPIC = 0.481 × (0.7 × 4.36 × 1 + 0.3 × 13.31 × 1) = 3.39

The above calculation shows that, different weights lead to different integrated complexity, hence it is obvious that the
choice of weights is very important.

5. Conclusion and remarks

(1) The theoretical analysis of a model framework of production process complexity carried out in this study considers
operation difficulty, complexity of information processing, time stress and other factors needed to complete the production
process. An integrated complexity and evaluation system is established and the corresponding metric method of every
evaluation index developed.
(2) The method proposed in this paper can be used for ergonomics evaluation of workstations, and it has good flexibility
to take full account of the changes in labour load in the industrial 4.0 era and the role of all kinds of intelligent auxiliary
systems, as compared to traditional evaluation methods.
(3) The case study proves the rationality of the theoretical framework of the integrated complexity analysis and the
feasibility of the evaluation framework and the corresponding evaluation indexes of the complexity information processing
and operation difficulty.
Although the analysis of the production task of structural parts is taken as the background to carry out the research,
the analysis framework is universal, and metric methods combined with specific application background of the modifica-
tions can be applied to many different fields. The operational framework model proposed in this paper can provide useful
information for task assignment, operator selection and training, work organisation and performance prediction.
This study is still in its primary stage, so there are still many issues which need to be examined further. For example, the
issue of operability threshold value: What is the limit of maximum operability value for operation of a task? Another issue
is how to obtain the weights of operation ease and operation complexity in calculating the operability values. What factors
should be taken into account when we select the two weights? All these issues are not mentioned in this paper, but need to
be investigated further.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their helpful comments and insightful advice.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
Our work was supported by National Science and Technology Development Agency [grant number 2017ZX04017001].

References
Busogi, Moise, et al. 2017. “Computational Modelling of Manufacturing Choice Complexity in a Mixed-Model Assembly Line.”
International Journal of Production Research 2: 1–15.
Campbell, D. J. 1988. “Task Complexity: A Review and Analysis.” Academy of Management Review 13 (1): 40–52.
Chipman, S. F. 2013. “Cognitive Task Analysis.” International Journal of Educational Research 25 (5): 403–417.
Cooke, N. J. 1994. “Varieties of Knowledge Elicitation Techniques.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 41: 801–849.
Falck, A., M. Tarrar, S. Mattsson, L. Andersson, M. Rosenqvist, and R. Soderberg. 2017. “Assessment of Manual Assembly Complexity:
A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison of two Methods.” International Journal of Production Research 55: 7237–7250.
Gertman, D., H. Blackman, J. Marble, J. Byers, and C. Smith. 2005. The SPAR-H Human Reliability Analysis Method (NUREG/CR-6883).
Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 International Journal of Production Research 17

Hackman, R. J. 1969. “Toward Understanding the Role of Tasks in Behavioral Research.” Acta Psychologica 31: 97–128.
Ham, D.-H., J. Park, and W. Jung. 2012. “Model-based Identification and Use of Task Complexity Factors of Human Integrated Systems.”
Reliability Engineering & System Safety 100: 33–47.
Liu, P., and Z. Li. 2014. “Comparison Between Conventional and Digital Nuclear Power Plant Main Control Rooms: A Task Complexity
Perspective, Part II: Detailed Results and Analysis.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44: 3–11.
Miller, G. A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.”
Psychological Review 63 (2): 81–97.
Niebel, Benjamin W., and Andris Freivalds. 1999. Methods, Standards and Work Design. 10th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
O’Hara, J. M., W. S. Brown, P. M. Lewis, and J. J. Persensky. 2002. The Effects of Interface Management Tasks on Crew Performance
and Safety in Complex, Computer-based Systems: Overview and Main Findings (NUREG/CR-6690, Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Park, J., K. Jeong, and W. Jung. 2005. “Identifying Cognitive Complexity Factors Affecting the Complexity of Proceduralized Steps in
Emergency Operating Procedures of a Nuclear Power Plant.” Reliability Engineering and System Safety 89 (2): 121–36.
Philipp, Hold, and Ranz Fabian. 2016. “Planning Operator Support in Cyber-Physical Assembly Systems.” IFAC-Papers OnLine 49-32
(2016) 060–06, International Federation of Automatic Control, Hosting by Elsevier Ltd.
Philipp, Hold, Erolb Selim, Reisingera Gehard, and Sihna Wilfried. 2017. “Planning and Evaluation of Digital Assistance Systems.”
Procedia Manufacturing 9: 143–150.
Sun, X., R. Houssin, J. Renaud, and M. Gardoni. 2018. “Towards a Human Factors and Ergonomics Integration Framework in the Early
Product Design Phase: Function-Task-Behaviour.” International Journal of Production Research 4: 1–13.
Vicente, K. J., and C. M. Burns. 1995. “A Field Study of Operator Cognitive Monitoring at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station – B
(CEL 95-04).” Cognitive Enginnering Laboratory, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wei, J., and G. Salvendy. 2004. “The Cognitive Task Analysis Methods for job and Task Design: Review and Reappraisal.” Behaviour
and Information Technology 23: 273–299.