See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289235132

Ergonomics for electronics manufacturing

Conference Paper · January 2006

CITATIONS READS
40 1,349

2 authors, including:

Mahiyar Farrokh Nasarwanji

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Center for Disease Control,
29 PUBLICATIONS   195 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Slip, Trip, and Fall View project

ErgoMine App View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahiyar Farrokh Nasarwanji on 24 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ergonomics for Electronics Manufacturing
Mahiyar F Nasarwanji, Victor L Paquet
Department of Industrial Engineering,
State University of New York at Buffalo,
Amherst, New York 14260. U.S.A.

Abstract
Electronics manufacturing often requires small batch sizes and a large variety of products that change quickly with
time, and therefore highly automated manufacturing systems are not often used to produce such products. The
processes often require manual assembly tasks performed by operators that could potentially lead to work related
musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). This article discusses the implementation of an ergonomics program in an
electronics assembly and manufacturing plant to prevent WMSDs. The program comprises of ergonomics job
evaluations, job rotation, ergonomics design guidelines and training; each implemented with a varying degree of
success. The results indicate that relatively simple tools can be used to identify effective ergonomics solutions,
particularly when a participatory approach is used.

Keywords: Ergonomics Program, Electronics Manufacturing, Job Evaluation.

1. Introduction
The electronics manufacturing industry usually comprises of continuous flow and small batch size processes for a
variety of products that change quickly with time. This product variability is what keeps the industry afloat due to
the ever increasing customer demands. As a consequence a company is required to cross-train operators to perform
multiple tasks and have multiple responsibilities [1]. The high variability in the products often makes automation
cost prohibitive. Some of the reasons why manual assembly is likely to remain even though automation is available
are as follows [2] [3]:

· Automated technology requires a large amount of programming (requiring time and skill).
· Humans are flexible, versatile, and capable of communicating with each other.
· Humans can lift and place any size component by hand. Machines do not have the same flexibility.
· Humans serve as backup systems for machines.
· Humans are capable of learning and adapting existing knowledge to new situations.

Electrical and computer manufacturing is projected to decrease in the U.S. by 7% over the next 10 years [4], but
manufacturing worldwide is likely to increase dramatically. This together with the use of human operators in
electronics assembly and manufacturing creates a need to study the effect of electronics manufacturing and assembly
work on humans. The potential risk factors associated with manual assembly of electronic components are
repetition, localized mechanical stress, forceful exertions and poor working posture [1] [2] [5] [6], which lead to
discomfort primarily in the hands, wrists, shoulders, neck and upper back [7] and potentially leading to work related
musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs).

This paper discusses methods and tools that can be used in the implementation of an ergonomics program to prevent
WMSDs in electronics assembly and manufacturing plants.

2. Background
The authors were asked to implement an ergonomics program in an electronics assembly plant which was
responsible for the manufacturing and assembling of small batteries used in critical medical equipment. The
company was in the process of relocation to a new facility, with certain areas already relocated and running at the
new facility. This was the ideal time to implement such a program for the company; as not only was the
management structure under change but the manufacturing environment itself was being reassembled. A number of
changes that were required to both manufacturing and management structure could be implemented. The plant floor
was divided into production areas, which were further divided into work cells. Each cell was overseen by a team
leader who was in charge of production for that particular cell. There was a job rotation program in place for
workers to rotate between jobs within the cell. There was also a program already in place that mandated short breaks
specifically for muscle stretching.

The ergonomics program being implemented was primarily to reduce the risk associated with musculoskeletal
injuries in the manufacturing and assembly area of the plant. The program was divided into 4 parts as follows:
1. Ergonomic job evaluation: Provide a preliminary evaluation of certain areas and provide a tool for
ergonomic job evaluations to prevent musculoskeletal injuries.
2. Job rotation: Develop a methodology to evaluate jobs and help improve the existing job rotation.
3. Ergonomic Guidelines: Prepare a set of guidelines for design and manufacturing engineers to use while
designing workstations, tools and fixtures to reduce the risk of WMSDs.
4. Training: Provide basic training to operators and advanced training to team leaders and engineers to
increase awareness of ergonomics and how to adjust workstation layouts.

The aim was to use a participatory technique to successfully implement the program with the final aim of reducing
WMSDs among employees of the plant.

3. Method
As in any industry for the successful implementation of any program the most important factor is management
support [8]. The initiative for this program came specifically from the plant manager, but there seemed to be little or
no involvement from employees who worked on the plant floor. The implementation of the proposed ergonomics
program, as described earlier, was assigned to the manufacturing – engineering group of the company. Since a
participatory approach was to be used, the original plan was to initially train all employees in ergonomics concepts.
Due to production demands, training was postponed for several months. However, in order to facilitate
communication about ergonomics throughout the plant and encourage involvement from employees, an Ergonomics
Team was created. This team was comprised of team leaders and voluntary participants from each area of the plant
in addition to management. The Ergonomics Team facilitated communication between management and the
operators on the floor. A small set of engineers also participated on the team to ensure the integration of ergonomics
into new products and workstations, tools and fixtures being developed and designed.

3.1. Ergonomics Job Evaluations

The aim of the evaluations was to provide a preliminary evaluation of certain areas; to provide simple qualitative
and quantitative tools that could be used to identify jobs with the greatest overall likelihood of contributing to
WMSDs. One area of the plant was chosen consisting of 5 work cells. Initially injury logs, observation and
unstructured interviews were utilized to identify jobs that might require a further detailed ergonomic evaluation.
Based on the interviews and observation, jobs were prioritized based on the severity of the ergonomics problems.

For those jobs with the highest priority, two additional ergonomics job analysis techniques were used to provide
more detailed information. The first was the use of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for Hand Activity for mono task work [9] [10]. This was used as a semi-
quantitative method to classify the job based on the Hand Activity Level (HAL), which accounts for the combined
influences of effort, effort duration and repetition in a qualitative assessment on a scale of 0 to 10; and the
Normalized Peak Force (NPF) which is an indication of the relative level of effort that a person of average strength
would exert in the same posture as required by the task on a scale of 0 to 10. The HAL used a 10 point scale with
verbal anchors and the NPF required self reports of exertion with the Borg CR-10 scale. For all jobs that were
analyzed with this approach a grip force hand dynamometer or a pinch grip dynamometer was used to estimate the
maximum force utilized while performing the job and compared to the maximum voluntary force that could be
exerted by the operators. This data were also used for to verify the NPF. The second method was video analysis,
which involved a multiple observer analysis of each job’s posture, force and repetition requirements. The video was
also used to study the task in detail so that recommendations could be made to reduce ergonomics problems. For one
job, an electromyographic study of the muscles of the forearm was used to quantify the benefits of an intervention to
reduce the duration and intensity of muscle loading.
Recommendations were made to reduce the risk associated with those jobs by modifying work, tools, fixtures or
work layout. When changes were implemented, a post-intervention evaluation was carried out to study the
effectiveness of the recommendation and also validate the tool used in the evaluation.

3.2. Job Rotation

Many jobs in electronics assembly and manufacturing usually entail repetition, localized mechanical stress, forceful
exertions and poor working posture[1] [2] [5] [6], while some do not. This can lead to a higher risk associated with
WMSDs. One way to alleviate this problem is to have operators rotate between jobs so the muscle groups used
change [11] leading to a recovery of the muscles.

Previously job rotation was carried out based on operators’ opinions about useful rotations, which may or may not
have been influenced by concerns about ergonomics. One aim of this project was to develop a method to create
effective rotation schedules that allowed recovery from physically demanding jobs throughout the day.

The important ergonomics concerns considered in the development of job rotation schedules included: peak force,
posture and repetition [12]. Other ergonomics concerns were not considered important for this facility. For each of
the three factors, guidelines were created to classify jobs into three categories from low priority to high priority. The
evaluation focused on the hands, wrists, neck, shoulder and the back. There was a classification criteria developed
based on literature for various body parts. As an example, Table 1 summarizes the criteria used to evaluate the
seriousness of ergonomics problems associated with the hand.

Table 1: Criteria used to evaluate seriousness of ergonomics problems associated with the hands.

Body Part Category 1: Low Priority
Hand
Posture Pinch or lateral pinch for less
than 10 sec &/or less than
20% of the cycle time
Peak Force Power grasp less than 2 lbs;
pinch or lateral pinch less than
0.5 lbs
Repetition Fingers idle most of the time,
long pauses, or very slow
motions
Category 2: Medium Priority
Pinch or lateral pinch between
10 sec & 30 sec &/or between
20%-50% of cycle time
Power grasp between 2lbs &
5 lbs; pinch or lateral pinch
between 0.5lbs & 2 lbs
Fingers moving slowly but
steady, or faster with frequent
brief pauses
Category 3: High Priority
Pinch or lateral pinch greater
than 30 sec. &/or greater than
50% of the cycle time
Power grasp greater than 5 lbs;
pinch or lateral pinch greater
than 2 lbs
Fingers moving rapidly with
no regular pauses

Once the jobs were classified based on the aforementioned classification criteria a rotation schedule was created for
the jobs in the cells based on the following criteria.

· If Category 1: rotate to a job in any Category.

· If Category 2 (up to 2 hours): rotate to a job in any Category.
· If Category 2 (up to 4 hours): rotate to a job in either Category 1 or 2.
· If Category 2 (up to 6 hours): rotate to a job in Category 1.
· If Category 3: rotate to a job in Category 1.

3.3. Ergonomics Design Guidelines

The primary aim was to develop a set of guidelines that could be used by design and manufacturing engineers when
designing new and modifying pre-existing workstations, tools and fixtures. The design guidelines were divided into
four major categories; seated work, standing work, microscope work and tool design. The guidelines primarily were
based on reach envelopes, recommendations for heights, clearances, weight and forces. As microscope use was
highly prevalent and associated with ergonomics problems in the plant, special guidelines were developed for the
microscopes and for the use of the microscopes. In addition to a set of guidelines, checklists were developed to be
used as a quick evaluation tool for designs produced for workstations, tools and fixtures.

All of the above processes were documented in detail to provide the company with a usable program with numerous
examples and detailed descriptions on how to perform analysis and implement ergonomics solutions.
4. Results

4.1. Ergonomics Job Evaluations

During the initial evaluation, 28 tasks were identified as high risk jobs with regard to WMSDs. The risk factors were
primarily posture, repetitive forceful exertions, high force requirements for the job, work and workstation layout and
tools and fixture design. A subset of 6 jobs with the most important ergonomics concerns was chosen for further
analysis. These six jobs were analyzed using the ACGIH-TLV for hand activity and it was found that all the jobs fell
above the Threshold Limit for at least one hand. Video analysis indicated problems associated with non neutral
posture and other issues such as inappropriate fixture design and poor work layout.

Recommendations were made to tools, fixtures or workstations, to promote neutral postures, prevent forceful
exertions and ease material flow. Changes were also recommended to workstation layout and design. As the
objective was to have simple cost-effective solutions, the recommendations were in two categories; one involving a
low cost solution which was a “quick-fix” and would alleviate the concern but not eliminate it. The other was
potentially more effective but required higher fixed costs that would be paid off over a longer period of time. The
final decision was left to the company as to which solution would be implemented. Based on the recommendations,
there was one high cost solution implemented involving the elimination of the use of a power tool by automating the
process. Three low cost solutions were eventually implemented.

4.2. Job Rotation

The jobs that were classified based on the selected criteria were analyzed and charts made summarizing the job
rotation schedules that most closely followed the job rotation rules described previously. One problem encountered
was that all of the guidelines provided for implementing the rotation schedule could not be followed. As an example
in one cell there was a constant loading on the hands, which included pinch grips, and high repetitive forces. Hence
there was no ideal job rotation that could be developed. In cases such as this it was recommended that improvements
be made to the job based on an ergonomics analysis. Another problem encountered was with operator cross-training;
as all the operators were not trained on all the jobs in the cell rotation schedules had to be modified. The best
solutions could only be implemented once all the operators had the required level of training.

5. Discussion
This paper looked at the implementation of an ergonomics program in an electronics manufacturing and assembly
plant with the primary goal to reduce WMSDs. As with the implementation of any program there is always a level
of success and failure associated with it.

For the implementation of any ergonomics program, it is essential to have not only management involved but have
all those present in the plant and especially the operators involved as early as possible. This is usually initiated
through training to increase awareness about and appreciation for ergonomics. In this study, training was postponed
until the ergonomics program was partially developed. This in a way was a shortcoming, but one that was not
difficult to overcome; as the team leaders were given some basic information that was passed down to operators.

With regards to the ergonomic job evaluation, the interviews and observations were fair indicators of the problems
that existed among the jobs in the plant. The video analysis proved to be a critical tool for evaluating the problems.
Also all interventions required fine tuning on the plant floor. This suggests that a more participatory approach by
incorporating operators’ ideas and prototyping may improve the initial designs of the interventions that are
introduced to the operators.

Perhaps the greatest success was in the development of the ergonomics guidelines. The engineers welcomed the
guidelines as a starting point for design concepts and to evaluate existing designs.

6. Conclusion
The risk associated with WMSDs in the electronics manufacturing industry is one that should be addressed. This
paper discusses the implementation of an ergonomic program at an electronics assembly plant. Often simple tools
can be used for the evaluation of jobs along with observation and interviews.
It is recommended that for the implementation of such a program, a participatory approach be used with the active
involvement of operators. This study shows that prototyping of engineering controls such as hand tools can be an
effective ergonomics intervention tool; provided, operators are allowed to participate in the design process.

Acknowledgements
We greatly appreciate the assistance provided by Richard Stone in the collection of data and especially the
electromyographic study. We would also like to thank David Feathers for his invaluable input in the use of
ergonomics job analysis methods.

References
1. Helander, M., & Burri, G., 1995, “Cost effectiveness of ergonomics and quality improvements in
electronics manufacturing”. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 137 – 151.
2. Quintana, R., & Hernandez-Masser, V., 2003, “Limiting design criteria framework for manual electronics
assembly”. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 13 (2), 165 – 179.
3. Shalin, V., Prabhu, G., & Helander, M., 1996, “A cognitive perspective on manual assembly”. Ergonomics,
39, 108 – 127.
4. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Career Guide to Industries, 2006-07 Edition,
“Computer and electronic product manufacturing”, on the Internet at
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs010.htm (visited January 13, 2006).
5. Keyserling, W.M., Stevenson, D.S., Silverstein, A., & Brouwer, M.L., 1993, “A checklist for evaluating
ergonomics risk factors associated with upper extremity cumulative trauma disorders”. Ergonomics, 36,
807 – 831.
6. Laville, A., 1985, “Postural stress on high precision work”. Ergonomics, 28, 229 – 236.
7. Chee, H.L., Rampal, K.G., 2004, “Work-related musculoskeletal problems among women workers in the
semiconductor industry in peninsular Malaysia”. Industrial Health, 42, 373 – 381.
8. General Accounting Office, 1997, “Private sector ergonomics programs”. Washington, DC, Health,
Education, and Human Services Division. Publication number 97 – 163.
9. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 2001, “Threshold limit value for mono-
task work”.
10. Franzblau, A., Armstrong, T., Werner, R., Ulin, S., 2005, “A cross-sectional assessment of the ACGIH
TLV for hand activity level”. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15 (1), 57 – 67.
11. Chaffin, D.B., Andersson, G.B, Martin, B.J., 1999, Occupational Biomechanics, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
12. Bullinger, H.J., Rally, P.J., & Schipfer, J., 1997, “Some aspects of ergonomics in assembly planning”.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20 (5), 389 – 397.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

View publication stats