Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Development of fuzzy based ergonomic-value

stream mapping (E-VSM) tool: a case study in
Indian glass artware industry

Bhawana Rathore, Ashok Kumar Pundir, Rauf Iqbal & Rohit Gupta

To cite this article: Bhawana Rathore, Ashok Kumar Pundir, Rauf Iqbal & Rohit Gupta (2022):
Development of fuzzy based ergonomic-value stream mapping (E-VSM) tool: a case study in Indian
glass artware industry, Production Planning & Control, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2022.2035447

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2022.2035447

Published online: 09 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 297

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2022.2035447

Development of fuzzy based ergonomic-value stream mapping (E-VSM) tool: a

case study in Indian glass artware industry
Bhawana Rathorea, Ashok Kumar Pundira, Rauf Iqbala and Rohit Guptab
a
Operations and Supply Chain Management Area, National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India; bOperations Management
Area, Indian Institute of Management Ranchi, Ranchi, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In a competitive working environment, conscious workers and stringent labour regulations have forced Received 4 January 2021
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) to focus on operational performance along with workers’ Accepted 17 January 2022
performance and their health issues. Evidence from literature uncovered that lean implementation in
KEYWORDS
the manufacturing industry worsens the workers’ health and safety due to the lack of consideration of
VSM; ergonomics; human
social aspects. This ignorance has forced SMEs to focus on considering social aspects along with eco- factors; musculoskeletal
nomic and environmental aspects for improving their workers’ health and safety. Therefore, this study disorders; lean
aims to develop a tool that integrates lean and ergonomics to improve the workers’ health and safety,
along with operational performance. Hence, Human Factors and Ergonomic (HFE) indicators were
incorporated into the VSM tool under a fuzzy environment. The Fuzzy-based Ergonomic-Value Stream
Mapping (E-VSM) tool identifies the area of scope for ergonomic and managerial interventions at the
workplace and evaluates the HFE indicators with lean indicators. This integrated tool helps manage-
ment to improve the Workers’ health and safety and enhance operational performance synergistically.

1. Motivation and introduction work environment by improving the operational performance

There has been increasing pressure on Small and Medium-
Sized Enterprises (SMEs) due to conscious workers and strin-
gent labour regulations for improving their Worker’s health
and safety issues at the workplace. Workers’ health and
safety issues such as awkward working posture, repetitive
task, mental stress, and job satisfaction are exacerbated in
SMEs of industrially developing countries (ILO 2018).
Moreover, competitive working environment are escalating
more pressure on SMEs to align their business strategies in
such a way, that synergistically improves operational and
Worker’s performance (Sakthti Nagaraj and Jeyapaul 2018).
Previous studies highlighted and suggested the increased
importance for industries, irrespective of their size, to incorp-
orate lean and ergonomics/human factors either simultan-
eously or sequentially for achieving operational excellence
and enhancing Worker’s performance to sustain in a com-
petitive global market (Jasti and Kodali 2015; Choudhary
et al. 2019). However, Costa et al. (2019) reported that indus-
tries were failed to achieve the successful integration of lean
and ergonomics. Therefore, several researchers identified rea-
sons behind these failures such as lack of training and skill
(Yadav, Jain, Mittal, Panwar, and Lyons 2019), the complexity
of Lean Manufacturing (LM) implementation (Lander and
Liker 2007; Magnani, Carbone, and Moatti 2019), and lack of
consideration of social aspect (Jarebrant et al. 2016).
Many industries considered lean as one of the potential
solutions to meet customer demand and create a healthy
(Technical aspect) and workers’ performance (social aspect).
The social aspects concern human relations, whereas tech-
nical aspects are the process components. However, they
focus on the technical aspect for improving operational per-
formance and often ignore the social aspect while imple-
menting lean (Botti, Mora, and Regattieri 2017). This
ignorance can affect the Worker’s health and safety1 at their
workplace. Several studies examined the association of lean
implementation and its impact on workers’ health and safety
(Losonci, Demeter, and Jenei 2011; Koukoulaki 2014;
Abeysekera and Illankoon 2016). Many studies on lean imple-
mentation found that the negative impacts on workers are
strongly associated with some lean practices (Bouville and
Alis 2014; Pearce, Pons, and Neitzert 2018). Sakthi Nagaraj
and Jeyapaul (2021) highlighted the reasons behind the
above negative effect, such as fast work pace, time pressure,
and increased workload, which impacts the Worker’s health
and can cause Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs). For
instance, Womack, Armstrong, and Liker (2009) reported
MSDs and mental health issues among auto-assembly work-
ers due to repetitive tasks, work pace, forceful exertion, and
awkward posture. According to Lloyd and James (2008), a
high prevalence of upper limb disorders was found due to
increased work pace by incorporating Just in Time tool in
their food processing supply chain. These negative impacts
of lean implementation on Worker’s health and safety
affected the workers’ performance which can cause an

CONTACT Bhawana Rathore bhawana.rathore.2017@nitie.ac.in, bhavanaiec@gmail.com Operations and Supply chain management Area, National Institute
of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India
ß 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. RATHORE ET AL.
overall reduction in operational performance due to higher
absenteeism and injury rates (Sobhani et al. 2017).
Many studies sporadically offer valuable insights and rec-
ommendations to integrate Human Factors and Ergonomics
(HFE) with lean for improved results (Westgaard and Winkel
2011, Tortorella, Vergara, and Ferreira 2017). This can be
achieved by understanding and comparing these two para-
digms, as shown in Figure 1. In this integrated relationship,
the following dimensions are identified to be common:
‘Motion waste reduction’, ‘Employee and employer relation-
ship’, ‘Lead time reduction’, ‘Improved operational perform-
ance and Workers’ performance’ and served as a basis for this
integration. The long-term goal of integrating HFE into the
lean tools is to enable the organization to consider production
system performance and risk factors for the prevalence of
workers’ issues in the manufacturing sector (Hoffmeister et al.
2015). However, no pragmatic integration could be found
where lean and HFE is integrated to map, measure, and
improve operational and workers’ performances synergistically.
Therefore, there is a need of a tool, which can be used to
integrate both workers and operational aspects to throw light
on potential improvement opportunities for manufacturing
SMEs. Measuring the Physical, Psychosocial, Managerial, and
Work design risk factors across the whole process map and
incorporating it with the traditional Value Stream Mapping
(VSM) could help to visualize the opportunities for improving
operational and Worker’s performance, simultaneously. This
integration increases the proportion of Value-Added Work2
(VAW) in the manufacturing process and simultaneously
reduces the workers’ workload.
Figure 1. Integrating relationship between lean and ergonomics paradigms.
With this motivation, this study attempted to develop a
fuzzy-based Ergonomic-Value Stream Mapping (E-VSM) tool
and demonstrated it with the help of the SME case study.
SMEs are considered as backbone of manufacturing sector and
are a primary source of income in emerging economies across
the world (Yadav, Jain, Mittal, Panwar, and Lyons 2019). The
contribution of Indian SMEs towards Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) is 37.54%. Indian Glass artware industry is one of the
home-based arts and craft SME that contribute to the Indian
economy by offering employment. Unfortunately, SMEs are
plagued with several occupational hazards and health issues of
workers’ than medium and large industries because of the
scarcity of resources and technical capabilities (Cagno et al.
2014). These industries are highly labour-intensive and prone
to several HFE risk factors, such as awkward working posture,
repetitive task, mental stress, and heavy workload among the
workers (ILO 2015; Rathore, Pundir, and Iqbal 2020). Therefore,
ensuring the safety concerns and competitiveness of SME sec-
tor is important to achieve the overall growth of manufactur-
ing Sector as well as the national economy. Hence, this study
integrated HFE risk factor into the VSM tool in four categories,
namely, Physical, Psychosocial, Managerial, and Work design fac-
tors for evaluating HFE risk level through experts’ (experienced
workers’ and industrial engineers) opinions. But in some instan-
ces, these expert’s opinion carries uncertainty and subjective
nature of human thinking. In order to capture this vagueness
in the decision-making process, the Fuzzy set theory
(Zadeh 1965) is incorporated into the study to consider the
uncertainty, vagueness, and subjective nature of human think-
ing and quantifying the HFE indicators more easily.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
presents an overview of the theoretical background of lean
and HFE through an extensive literature review. Section 3
states the research objectives with a brief outline of the
research methodology. Section 4 introduces the case study
considered in this study. Section 5 demonstrates the findings
of the study with a list of ergonomic interventions. Section 6
presents a discussion on the results obtained and verified
with the previous studies. Section 7 highlights some man-
agerial implications of this study. The last section of this
study presents the limitations and future scope.
2. Literature review
This section aims to understand the theoretical background
of lean and its impact on Worker’s health and safety. In add-
ition, this section also identifies HFE categories and their
measuring indicators with the help of reputed peer-reviewed
journals’ studies.
2.1. Background of lean and VSM
After the second world war, the most renowned Toyota
motor corporation could not afford huge resources and high
investment to rebuild the massive devastated infrastructure
and facilities. Therefore, the engineers Eiji Toyoda and Taiichi
Ohno at Toyota started implementing the Toyota Production
System (TPS), later known as Lean (Ohno 1988). Krafcik
(1988) first time coined the word ‘Lean’ based on TPS in his
thesis at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Shah and
Ward 2007). After this, it was popularized by the books ‘The
Machine that Changed the World’ (Womack, Jones, and Roos
1990) and ‘Lean Thinking’ (Womack and Jones 1997). Many
researchers reported several mature lean tools in the market
such as VSM, JIT, Kaizen, and TPM, which are used as oper-
ational practice (Bhamu and Sangwan 2014; Hu et al. 2015).
VSM is a widely used lean tool that helps to identify
value-added and non-value-added activities within the pro-
duction system by visualizing information and material flow
with the help of symbols, arrows, and indicators (Rother and
Shook 1999; Womack and Jones 2003; Carmignani 2017). It
visualizes the waste across the entire value chain using dif-
ferent lean performance indicators, such as lead time, prod-
uctivity, cycle time, operator performance, quality, standard
time, and take time (Pakdil and Leonard 2014). Some other
unique and additional features which make VSM is an appro-
priate tool for this study is given below:
i. VSM tool provides leverage to analyse qualitatively and
quantitatively (Serrano, Ochoa, and Castro 2008).
ii. It provides a proper understanding of local (workstation
level) and global process (entire value chain) improve-
ment scenarios and rational connections between two
levels. (Thanki and Thakkar 2016)
iii. VSM tool is very flexible and adaptable. Therefore, it
can be used in different application areas such as the
manufacturing, service, and construction sector (Seth,
Seth, and Goel 2008).
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 3
iv. This tool helps in capturing the relationship between
process and control (e.g. relationships between manu-
facturing processes and controls like production sched-
uling) (Seth, Seth, and Dhariwal 2017)
Many researchers have developed extensions of VSM such
as sustainable value stream mapping (Sus-VSM) (Faulkner
and Badurdeen 2014; Brown, Amundson, and Badurdeen
2014), scrap-value stream mapping (Carmignani 2017),
green-value stream mapping (Mun ~oz-Villamizar et al. 2019),
energy value stream mapping (Bush et al. 2014), and LCA-
integrated VSM (Vinodh, Ruben, and Asokan 2016). Similarly,
many previous studies implemented VSM and demonstrated
the significance of VSM implementation in their SMEs in the
Indian context (Vinodh et al. 2010). Thus, the implementation
of the VSM tool is considered feasible in India using the
Rother and Shook (1999) VSM framework, as shown in
Figure 2. Moreover, earlier studies have recommended inte-
grating ergonomics and VSM paradigms to improve oper-
ational efficiency and Worker’s health issues simultaneously
in the manufacturing system (Botti, Mora, and Regattieri
2017; Brito, Vale, et al. 2020). Therefore, there is a demand to
modify the VSM tool by incorporating the HFE paradigm
under the fuzzy environment for enhancing operational effi-
ciencies and decrease the overall Worker’s health issues.
2.2. Impact of lean practices on workers’ health
and safety
Lean philosophy is based on sociotechnical systems theory,
and it was coined by Tavi-stock Institute of Human Relations
in the 1950s (Koukoulaki 2014). This theory provides an
understanding of the interrelationship between the technical
and human aspects of lean manufacturing. It recommends
that technical and social sub-systems should be optimized to
create an effective and healthy work environment. But in
some instances, a technical system is implemented that
causes negative effects on the social system with the conse-
quences of reduced performance of the whole system (Eason
2007). In the last two decades, several studies have examined
the aftermath of lean implementation on Worker’s health
and safety in the manufacturing and service industry (Sprigg
and Jackson 2006; Hasle et al. 2012; Koukoulaki 2014).
Table 1 presents the overview of studies investigating the
impact of lean on workers’ health and safety. Around 75% of
the studies revealed the negative impact of lean such as
fatigue, repetitive tasks, heavy workload, and mental stress
on workers’ health and safety which reduces the organiza-
tions’ productivity. However, few studies reported the posi-
tive outcome of lean on Worker’s health and safety
(Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe 2011; Marudhamuthu
and Pillai 2011).
Moreover, previous studies investigated the relationship
between lean and the risk factors (e.g. job autonomy, work
pace, job satisfaction, ergonomic risk) and found the high
prevalence of MSDs issues, upper extremities, fatigue, and
stress among the workers (Saurin and Ferreira 2009). Leroyer
et al. (2006) examined the psychosocial factors and
4 B. RATHORE ET AL.

Figure 2. Framework for VSM implementation. Source: adapted from Rother and Shook (1999).

Table 1. Overview of studies investigating the impact of lean on workers’ health and safety.
Study Industry Methodology HFE indicators Results
Jackson and Garment industry Survey analysis Job demands Positive impact (þ)
Mullarkey (2000) Increased job demand
Mehri (2006) Automobile industry Qualitative study Workload and illness Negative impact ()
& injuries High record of illness and injuries and
heavy workload
Leroyer et al. (2006) Automobile industry Time series Job demand and Negative impact ()
Worker’s health Reduced psychological health and high
physical work demand
Conti et al. (2006) Metal industry Cross sectional study Physical and mental stress Negative impact ()
Increased physical and mental stress
Sprigg and Service industry Cross sectional study Job clarity, job Negative impact ()
Jackson (2006) autonomy, workload Lower job autonomy, Less job clarity,
Heavy workload
Karia and Asaari (2006) Mixed industry Cross sectional study Job satisfaction Positive impact (þ)
High job satisfaction
Lloyd and Food processing industry Historic perspective Prevalence of MSDs, Negative impact ()
James (2008) Work pressure High prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders
issues and increased work pressure
Womack, Armstrong, Automobile industry Cross sectional study Ergonomic risk factors Negative impact ()
and Liker (2009) More repetitive task
Saurin and Manufacturing assemble line Historic perspective Work pace and workload Negative impact ()
Ferreira (2009) Increased work pace and workload
Marudhamuthu and Garment industry Case study Worker fatigue Positive impact (þ)
Pillai (2011) Reduce worker fatigue
Wickramasinghe and Textile industry Longitudinal study Job involvement Positive impact (þ)
Wickramasinghe Increased job involvement
(2011)
Kumar and Garment industry Case study Worker fatigue Negative impact ()
Sampath (2012) Increased worker fatigue
Br€annmark and General manufacturing industry Literature review MSDs risk factors Mixed impact ()
Håkansson (2012)
Jonker et al. (2013) Healthcare industry Cohort study Mechanical exposure duration No major differences
Bouville and Alis (2014) Mixed industry Empirical study Job satisfaction, job stress, Negative impact ()
health condition at work Worsening health condition, increased
job stress
Abeysekera and Supply chain Survey analysis Sitting posture, Assessment Negative impact ()
Illankoon (2016) of workplace conditions Awkward working posture, Worsen noise
and heat condition
Sakthti Nagaraj and Textile industry Survey analysis Job strain, awkward work Negative impact ()
Jeyapaul (2018) posture, job satisfaction Awkward working posture, Heavy job strain,
Low job satisfaction

ergonomics risk factors and their impact on the Worker’s
health during the lean implementation. Llyod and James
(2008) implemented customer controlled Just in Time in the
food processing supply chain and revealed a high prevalence
of upper limb disorders among the food processing worker’s
due to high repetitive tasks and increased work pace.
Similarly, a study investigated the association of lean job
design and musculoskeletal risks and found the repetition of
the task is higher at the lean plant (Womack, Armstrong, and
Liker 2009). In conclusion, implementation of lean principles,

especially in the manufacturing industry is strongly associ-
ated with a high prevalence of MSDs symptoms, stress, and
fatigue issues among the workers. These issues among the
workers can reduce their performance and productivity at
the workstation, which leads to reduced operational perform-
ance. Therefore, there is a need to develop a tool that
integrates lean and ergonomics to improve workers’ perform-
ance and operational performance synergistically. In order to
develop this tool, HFE categories and their indicators are
required to identify from the literature and incorporate into
the VSM tool.
2.3. Identification of HFE indicators to access the
human factor risk level
HFE is a discipline that focuses on human and machine
interaction, viewed from the multiple perspectives of the
engineering, design, technology, science, and management of
human-compatible systems (Karwowski 2005). Many studies
have widely discussed how HFE can optimize worker’s output
and overall system performance (Karwowski 2005; Karwowski
2012). Ergonomic interventions such as digital designed work-
station, improved tool and task design is considered as one of
the solutions for improving workers’ output and overall system
performance (Zare et al. 2020). Ergonomically designed work-
stations and jobs decrease the risk of MSDs issues, injuries,
absenteeism rates and simultaneously enhancing operational
performance. Larson and Wick (2012) found that implementa-
tion of ergonomically designed workstations decreased the
MSDs issues and improved workers’ productivity.
Rathore, Pundir, and Iqbal (2020) investigated the relation-
ship between physical risk factors (e.g. awkward work posture,
forceful exertion, and repetitive task) and the prevalence of
MSDs symptoms among the glass artware workgroup. Similarly,
many studies have examined the association of psychosocial
(job satisfaction, mental workload, job stress, psychological
strain), managerial (supervisor support, communication system,
co-workers support, and reduction of resources) and work
design risk factors (job clarity, job autonomy, job rotation) with
the prevalence of MSDs issues among the workers (Bouville
Figure 3. HFE category and their indicators considered in this study.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 5
and Alis 2014; Koukoulaki 2014; Arezes, Dinis-Carvalho, and
Alves 2015; Rodrıguez et al. 2016). These risk factors are consid-
ered in our study as HFE categories to measure the risk level3
in glass artware industry, as shown in Figure 3. The detailed
description of HFE risk factors categories and their measuring
indicators are presented in Table 2.
2.4. Integration of HFE categories and their indicators
into VSM tool under fuzzy environment
The integration of HFE into lean tools plays a significant role
in the successful implementation of the lean strategy (Botti,
Mora, and Regattieri 2017). Past studies have widely exam-
ined the impact of lean implementation on the workers’
health and safety (Yusoff, Arezes, and Costa 2013; Koukoulaki
2014; Sakthi Nagaraj et al. 2019; Sakthi Nagaraj and Jeyapaul
2021). Womack, Armstrong, and Liker (2009) investigated the
risk factors with the help of their expert’s opinion and exam-
ined the association of lean job design with MSDs symptoms.
Sakthi Nagaraj et al. (2019) found repetitive task is one of
the prominent physical risk factors at the lean manufacturing
plant with the help of expert’s opinion that were collected in
five-point Likert scale. Similarly, Koukoulaki (2014) revealed
an association between lean practice and the prevalence of
MSDs, cumulative trauma disorders, and psychosocial impact
through assessment graded scale of 1 to 10. None of the
abovementioned studies has considered uncertainty and
vagueness associated with expert’s opinion.
Some vagueness, ambiguity, and impreciseness exist in
workers’ responses due to the absence of past data and the
subjective nature of human judgement (Rathore and Gupta
2021). In order to overcome this drawback, our study incor-
porated Fuzzy Set Theory (FST) to capture the ambiguity in
experts’ responses (Singh and Benyoucef 2011). Triangular
Fuzzy Numbers (TFN) are used to take the experts’ responses
in this study. This is widely adopted in many problems of
operations management due to its robustness and their
computational simplicity (Taylan et al. 2014; Chan, Sun, and
Chung 2019). Previous studies reported that TFN is a profi-
cient way to formulate decision problems involving
6 B. RATHORE ET AL.

Table 2. Human factor and ergonomic (HFE) indicators used in this study with description and literary sources.
HFE categories HFE indicators
Physical factors 1. Repetitive task
2. Working posture
3. Forceful Exertions
4. Occupational vibration
Psychosocial factors 1. Job satisfaction
2. Mental workload
3. Job stress
4. Psychological strain
Managerial factors 1. Reduction of resources
2. Supervisor support
3. Communication system
4. Co-workers’ support
Work design factors 1. Job rotation
2. Job clarity
3. Task design
4. Job autonomy
MSDs: musculoskeletal disorders
Description with literary sources
Repetitive tasks refer to the task performed again and again (Kilbom 1994) and this causes the
development of MSDs among SMEs workers (Dianat and Salimi 2014). Therefore, the repetitive
task can be included in the VSM tool (Jarebrant et al. 2016).
Working posture refers to the posture adopted by the workers while performing the task (Corlett,
Madeley, and Manenica 1979). Awkward posture can increase the risk of developing MSDs
among SMEs workers and should be considered for leanness (Hermawati, Lawson, and Sutarto
2014; Santos, Vieira, and Balbinotti 2015). Hence, this factor has been considered as a human
factor indicator into VSM tool (Jarebrant et al. 2016).
Extreme forceful exertion has been associated with the development of MSDs (Alasim, Nimbarte,
and Jaridi 2019) and it can be considered as HFE indicator into VSM tool (Jarebrant et al. 2016).
Occupational vibration refers to vibration experienced to whole body or a certain part of the
workers’ body, especially hand-arm system while executing the manual task (Kjellberg1990).
Occupational vibration is one of factor which cause MSDs among the manual activity (Finco
et al. 2021). Therefore, it is important to consider this in our study.
Job Satisfaction refers to the favourableness with which employees view their work. Bouville and
Alis (2014) identifies adverse effect of job satisfaction on lean implementation but Rodrıguez
et al. (2016) stated that job satisfaction is positively associated with the operational
performance.
Mental workload may refer either to the objective workload imposed by the task or to the subjective
ratings of the operator with regard to the demands of the task (Gaillard 1993). It also considered as
aspect of cognitive load (Paas et al. 2003). According to Koukoulaki (2014), lean implementation can
cause time pressure that may impact the physical and psychological workload parameters among
the workers.
Job stress is defined as a dynamic condition in which a worker is confronted with an opportunity,
constraint, or demand on doing what he or she desires (Schuler 1980).
Psychological strain or psychological distress refers to the feeling emotional and mental stress.
Koukoulaki (2014) found that lean implementation develops the psychological strain on workers.
This refers to reducing any kind of resources (raw material, machine, personnel skill, etc.) during
performing the task. Koukoulaki (2014) highlighted the positive correlation of lean
manufacturing (Just-In-Time) with reduction of resources.
Supervisor support refers the degree to which supervisors recognize the value of employees’
voluntary (Goussinsky and Livne 2016)
According to Cassell, Worley, and Doolen (2006), communication is critical component to the
requirements of the internal customer and coupled with the one-piece flow which forms the
foundation of lean systems.
Co-workers’ support help to share knowledge and expertise when others face problems or novel
issues. Koukoulaki (2014) found that the lack of co-worker support can cause stress among
the workers.
Job rotation is considered as a strategy for substituting workers between activities with different
occupational demands and exposure levels (Howarth et al. 2009). Many studies identified
negative outcome of lean implementation on job rotation (Bouville and Alis 2014).
The amount of information and briefing available to a worker that is necessary to perform the required
tasks effectively (Chan and Schmitt 2000). Briefing and performance monitoring are related with low
job clarity (Sprigg and Jackson 2006).
Task design means outlining the task, duties, responsibilities, qualifications, methods and
relationships required to perform the given set of a task.
Job autonomy allows the employees to determine the pace, sequence, and methods when
accomplishing tasks (Volmer, Spurk, and Niessen 2012). Hasle et al. (2012) identified negative
impact of lean manufacturing practices in job autonomy.

impreciseness and vagueness (Zhao, Guo, and Zhao 2019; and Gupta 2021). The lP ðx Þ is a membership function of
Sah, Gupta, and Bani-Hani 2021). For a better understanding the fuzzy number (refer Figure 4), as explained below:
of the fuzzy method, we elucidated some frequent used
8
fuzzy terms and described them in next sub-sections. >
> 0, x  a1
>
> x  a1
>
< , a1  x  a2 ;
lP ð xÞ ¼ a2a a1
3 x
2.4.1. Fuzzy set theory (FST) >
> , a2  x  a3 ;
>
>
Let us assume X is the universe of discourse : a30, a2
>
a3  0
XeðX1 , X2 , X3 . . . . . . Xn Þ: Then, a fuzzy set P in a universe of
discourse is expressed by a membership function lP , which
is expressed as lP ðxÞ ! ½0, 1: The key idea of a fuzzy set is ii. Linguistic term
that an element has a degree of membership in a fuzzy set, When experts expressed their opinion in words or senten-
ranging between 0 and 1. ces in the form of natural or artificial language (Herrera,
Herrera-Viedma, and Martınez 2000). The conversion scales
i. Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN) are required to translate language words into fuzzy numbers,
A fuzzy number P ¼ ða1 , a2 , a3 Þ is known to be TFN. which are defined by the TFN (Gul, Ak, and Guneri 2019).
Where, a1 is small possible value, a2 is middle possible value Therefore, we employed a linguistic term table to obtain
and a3 is large possible value in TFN respectively (Rathore responses from the workers.
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 7

To sum up, the literature review found the negative
impact of lean implementation on workers’ health and safety
and their consequences on workers performance. Therefore,
previous studies have suggested to develop a tool that prag-
matically integrates HFE and lean paradigms for improving
the workers’ and operational performance synergistically. In
addition, the review of the available literature reveals that
there is a lack of tool which integrate HFE into VSM in Indian
glass artware industry under the fuzzy environment, as
shown in Table 3.
3. Research objectives and methodology
Several previous studies have discussed and investigated the
relationship between ergonomics and lean by highlighting
the potential benefits of their integration in different con-
texts (Jarebrant et al. 2016; Brito, Ramos, et al. 2020; Brito,
Vale, et al. 2020) and their impact on Worker’s performance
(Bouville and Alis 2014; Abeysekera and Illankoon 2016).
However, no pragmatic integration could be found where
HFE and VSM are integrated under the fuzzy environment to
map, measure, and improve operational and Worker’s per-
formances synergistically. Therefore, the present work aims
to develop a fuzzy-based E-VSM tool to enhance operational
efficiencies and decrease workers’ health and safety issues in
Figure 4. Membership function for the triangular fuzzy number P.
Indian glass artware industry. Hence, this study was
attempted by setting the following research objectives:
RO1: To identify the lean and HFE indicators to measure the
human factor risk level.
RO2: To incorporate human factors and ergonomics indicators
into value stream mapping.
RO3: To explain the fuzzy-based E-VSM approach through a case
study of glass artware manufacturing process.
In order to achieve the aforementioned objectives, HFE
indicators were integrated into traditional VSM to develop a
fuzzy-based E-VSM tool to visualise both lean and ergonom-
ics wastes throughout the entire value chain and accom-
plished in five steps, as presented in Figure 5. First, HFE and
lean performance indicators are identified through an exten-
sive literature review. Second, measurement items for each
identified indicator are developed and validated through
questionnaire to access the human factor risk level. Third,
HFE categories are incorporated in traditional VSM. Fourth, it
explains the fuzzy-based integrated tool of HFE and lean tool
in glass artware industry. In the last step, the results of the
current state and future state are compared and discussed.
4. Overview of the case study
The glass artware is one of the home-based cottage SMEs in
India and a major source of income for rural communities. It
manufactures glass artware products such as bangles, crock-
ery, souvenir, and chandelier using the traditional manufac-
turing process. Its manufacturing process consists of ten
activities such as, mixing of raw materials, batch preparation
from mixed raw material, charging (Feeding the mixed raw
material into furnace), Melting (Heating the raw material at a
temperature of 1350 C), Gob making (convert the raw mater-
ial into glass bulb), Parison preparation and joining
(Hammering and shaping the glass bulb), Reheating (again
reheat the shaped glass bulb), Spiral making (glass bulb feed
to machine for giving spiral shape), cutting (bangles are cut
from each other) and sorting (discarded damaged and
defective bangles). The detailed glass bangle manufacturing
operations and sequence of the activities are shown in

Table 3. Summary of studies integrating HFE and VSM under fuzzy environment.
Research studies Economic aspect Societal aspect Fuzzy aspect Industry type
Panizzolo et al. (2012) 冑 Small and medium enterprises manufacturing
Schmidtke, Heiser, and Hinrichsen (2014) 冑 Production process of exhaust gas purification catalysts
Jasti and Sharma (2014) 冑 Crankshaft manufacturing
Tyagi et al. (2015) 冑 Gas turbines manufacturing
Alaskari, Ahmad, and Pinedo-Cuenca (2016) 冑 Small and medium enterprises manufacturing
Lacerda, Xambre, and Alvelos (2016) 冑 Automobile manufacturing
Rodrıguez et al. (2016) 冑 冑 Plastic manufacturing
Jarebrant et al. (2016) 冑 冑 Plastic component manufacturing
Botti, Mora, and Regattieri (2017) 冑 冑 Hard shell tool cases manufacturer
Seth, Seth, and Dhariwal (2017) 冑 Transformer manufacturing
Pearce, Pons, and Neitzert (2018) 冑 Engineering jobbing shop
Dhiravidamani et al. (2018) 冑 Automobile
Bhuvanesh Kumar and Parameshwaran (2018) 冑 冑 Polyethylene
Brito, Ramos, et al. (2020) 冑 冑 Metallurgical company
Brito, Vale, et al. (2020) 冑 冑 Packaging company
Sakthi Nagaraj et al. (2019) 冑 冑 Textile manufacturing
Our study 冑 冑 冑 Glass artware manufacturing
Note.冑 sign indicates the particular aspect is included in that study.
8 B. RATHORE ET AL.

Figure 5. Research methodology for evaluating integration of HFE into lean implementation.

Figure 6. The selected case study operates 12 months per
year with the demand of 2200 Toras4/month and has four
main plant sections:
i. Tank furnace area- It consists of a tank furnace with
many orifices opening, and each opening depicts a
specific colour used for bangle making. Total natural gas
consumed by the tank furnace is 950,000 m3/day. It
operates on a single shift of 8 hours per day from
Monday to Saturday, excluding breaks for lunch and rest.
ii. Moulding area- It consist of many moulding worksta-
tions where gob making process is carried out by giving

Figure 6. Detailed process of glass artware (bangle) manufacturing operation.
proper shape through moulding and reheating. It oper-
ates on a single shift of 8 h, excluding 30 min for lunch
and 20 min for breaks, resting, and workstations’ clean-
ing area.
iii. Spiral shaping fabrication area- It consists of machines
where gob material is converted into a round bangle
shape through a spiral shaping machine. It requires
skilled workers to make accurate precision to create dif-
ferent size bangles. After this, bangles are separated by
cutting through a diamond cutter tool.
iv. Inspection area- It consists of sorting and inspecting
bangles for the further final deployment process.
This industry experiences a high prevalence of MSDs issues
and a significant amount of non-VAW, which reduces both
the workers’ and operational performance. Moreover, workers
are directly exposed to an extensive range of psychosocial
(mental stress, job dissatisfaction, and strain) and physical
hazards (MSDs issues and fatigue) (ILO 2015; Srivastava et al.
2000). Therefore, the company focuses on interventions (ergo-
nomic and managerial) to reduce musculoskeletal discomfort
among the glass artware workers and productivity improve-
ment to sustain quality. The company is committed to:
 To decrease its overall societal issues
 To enhance the Workers’ health and safety at the work-
place and operational performance.
4.1. Data collection
Traditional VSM is used for the visualization of quantitative
representation of a value-added or non-value-added process.
In this study, visualization of four HFE categories, namely,
physical, managerial, psychosocial, and work design factors,
were also incorporated in traditional VSM to represent the
score for each activity in their respective category, as shown
in Figure 7. This study required two types of data, namely
hard data (e.g. cycle time, customer demand, lead time, and
standard time) and soft data (worker posture, repetitive task,
job autonomy, and job satisfaction) to represent the present
and future state of the production system. First, Hard data
was collected through Gemba-walk (Tyagi et al. 2015; Seth,
Seth, and Dhariwal 2017), observation, and interviews in the
glass artware industry. Time study was conducted by using
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 9
the videos and photos method in order to estimate the
standard time for all the ten processes. Initial ten observa-
tions were taken for each activity to compute the cycle time.
After collecting the valid number of observations, cycle time,
operator performance, throughput yield, defects, and scraps
were calculated and presented in Table 4. Second, soft data
was collected with the help of expert’s opinion to quantify
the human factor risk level using measurement items under
sixteen identified HFE indicators (refer Appendix Table A2).
Workers were asked to rate the measurement items for each
activity with the help of a linguistic scale, as shown in
Table 5.
The English version of the questionnaire was translated
into the local language according to their comprehension
level, and all illiterate workers were assisted in filling the
questionnaire and survey. Two academicians and an indus-
trial engineer verified the translated survey sheet by using a
face validation approach. Initially, the sheet was also vali-
dated by some workers through a pilot study. The reliability
of the test-retest questionnaires was examined using Kappa
coefficients (0.81–0.89), exhibiting a proficient questionnaire.
The investigator conducted a one-hour session to introduce
the methodology and purpose of the study. We explained
this by giving examples of MSDs issues and explaining how
this study is important. After this, we trained them on how
to respond to the survey. The survey on HFE risk factor was
performed on the working day of the week and at the end
of the shift.
4.2. Calculation of HFE category score
During data collection, measurement items were rated the
human factor risk level for each activity with the help of
linguistic terms. The experts expressed their opinions in a
linguistic term, which are further defined by the TFN varia-
bles (a1 , a2 , a3 ). Referring to Gupta, Biswas, and Kumar (2019)
the crisp value of these fuzzy variables can be calculated by
Eq. (1) and considered as a rating of measurement items
(Ra ). The average of these rating (Ra ) is the score for individ-
ual HFE indicators (Ib ) and calculated by using eq. (2). The
average of individual HFE indicators (Ib ) depicts the score for
the HFE category (ICc ) and is computed by using Eq. (3).
a1 þ 2  a2 þ a3
Crisp value ðRa Þ ¼ (1)
4
10 B. RATHORE ET AL.

Figure 7. Modified value stream mapping tool.

Table 4. Data collection for developing current state map.

Lean performance indicators 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CT (min) 1.5 2.1 0.55 1.9 0.51 0.58 0.35 0.52 0.25 0.41
ST (min) 0.51 1.2 0.39 0.5 0.4 0.45 0.24 0.42 0.15 0.32
OP (%) 34.00 57.14 70.91 26.32 78.43 77.59 68.57 80.77 60.00 78.05
Input 400 400 400 384 384 384 384 384 375 375
Scrap 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 4 0 8
Defects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 5
TPY (%) 100 100 97.50 100 100 100 100 98.44 100 96.53
WIP (Toras) 100 30 15 17 15 20 15 20 25 35
Note: low skilled operation; semi-skilled operation; skilled operations
1: Raw material mixing; 2: batch preparation; 3: charging; 4: melting; 5: gob making; 6: Parison preparation and joining; 7: reheating; 8: spiral formation; 9:
cutting; 10: sorting.

Table 5. Fuzzy linguistic scale. Ib: Average score of the of bth HFE indicator (I)
Code Linguistic term Triangular fuzzy number (b ¼ 1,2,3 … … . n), and n represents the total number of
1 Very low risk level (0,1,2) HFE indicators in an indicator category.
2 Low risk level (1,2,3)
3 Medium risk level (2,3,4)
ICc: Average score of cth HFE indicators category (IC).
4 High risk level (3,4,5)
5 Very high-risk level (4,5,5)
5. Demonstration of fuzzy based E-VSM tool
Ib ¼ ðR1 þ R2 þ R3 ::::Rm Þ=m (2) 5.1. Current state map

I1 þ I2 þ I3 In The current state map of fuzzy-based E-VSM tool was devel-

ICc ¼
n
Where, a1, a2, and a3 are the triangular fuzzy numbers.
Ra: Rating of the ath measurement items (a ¼ 1,2,
3 … … m), and m represent the sum of all measurement
items corresponding to respective indicator.
(3) oped by using the collected data, which presents lean indica-
tors and human factor risk score corresponding to each
activity, as shown in Figure 8. Lean indicators (lead time, cycle
time, standard time, operator performance, and throughput
yield) for each activity were calculated using the formula
(refer Appendix Table A1), and human factor risk score was
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 11

computed for each activity with the help of the above-men- Total Scrap per shiftðminÞ ¼ Total number of scrap product
tioned Equations (1–3).

cycle time
Lean performance indicators of the current state map are
presented in Table 6. Total team performance in the current ¼ 22
8:67 ¼ 190:74 min
state map was low (52.83%) because of the additional time Total defects per shift ðminÞ
(4.09 min) required to complete a toras over Standard Time
¼ ðNumber of defects products of each operation
(ST). Time waste due to defective products and scrap products
was 12.39 min and 190.74 min respectively per shift. Time loss
Respective cycle timeÞ þ allowances
due to the scrap bangles was the total time spent to finish ¼ ð17
0:52 þ 2
0:25 þ 5
0:41Þ þ 1 ¼ 12:39 min
the total number of bangles, and time loss due to defective
bangles was estimated by adding Cycle Time (CT) of each
HFE category score obtained from Equation (3) are ranged
defective bangles and allowances. 1 min was assigned to gob-
making activity for transferring gob for the next operation. from 0 to 5 and then classified into risk levels [0–1: Very low
Total time loss due to defective and scrap products was level, 1–2: Low level, 2–3: Medium level, 3–4: High level, and
approximately 203.13 min. The reason behind this time loss 4–5: Very high level]. In this study, activity above the
was a quality issue, machine breakdowns, or other issues. The medium risk level was considered as a critical activity, as
results of the lean performance indicators used for the current shown and highlighted in Table 7. On the basis of the phys-
state of the glass artware production process were calculated ical factor category, spiral formation activity was at a very
by given below expressions: high-risk level, and raw material mixing, gob making, and
" # parison preparation and joining activity were at a high-risk
Standard TimeðSTÞ
Operator PerformanceðOPÞ ¼
100% level. It is also observed that all skilled activities (5, 6, and 8)
Cycle TimeðCTÞ were at a high and very high-risk level due to the complex
4:58 nature of work and acquired awkward work postures by
¼ ¼ 52:8%
8:67 workers. Raw material mixing was a low-skilled activity, but it
was at a high-risk level due to repetitive hand and arm
Rolled Throughput Yield ðRTPYÞ%
movement and vibration during mixing, whereas other low-
¼ TPY1
TPY2
TPY3 :::TPY10 skilled activities were at a medium-risk level.
¼ 1
1
0:975
1
1
1
1
0:945
0:994
0:965 On the basis of the psychosocial factor’s category score, gob
making, and spiral formation were at very high-risk level as
¼ 0:889 ¼ 88:9%
they composed of critical activities that require high decision-

Figure 8. Current state map of fuzzy based E-VSM tool.

12 B. RATHORE ET AL.
Table 6. Current state lean performance indicators.
Lean performance indicators
CT (min)
ST (min)
TP (%)
RTPY (%)
Defects per shift (min)
Total lead time (min)
Scrap per shift (min)
Table 7. The score of HFE risk level corresponding to each activity.
Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Physical factors 3.73 2.99 2.85 2.71 3.36 3.54 2.75 4.01
Psychosocial factors 3.66 2.98 2.79 3.43 4.02 2.77 2.68 3.94
Managerial factors 2.91 2.65 2.49 3.25 3.51 2.69 3.13 2.47
Work design factors 2.74 2.49 2.07 1.99 3.48 2.19 2.09 4.08
Note: Score between 0–1: very low risk level; 1–2: low risk level; 2–3: medium
risk level; 3–4: high risk level; 4–5: very high-risk level.
1: Raw material mixing; 2: batch preparation; 3: charging; 4: melting; 5: gob
making; 6: Parison preparation and joining; 7: reheating; 8: spiral formation; 9:
cutting; 10: sorting
Note: low skilled operation; semi-skilled operation; skilled operations.
making skills, concentration, and focus with continuous physical
movement, which causes mental stress among these workers
(Conti et al. 2006). Melting was at a high-risk level. Raw material
mixing and Sorting are low-skilled activities, but they found at
high risk. Very high and high-risk activities are comprised of
various psychosocial factors such as mental stress, cognitive
workload, and high dependency on decision-making.
On the basis of managerial factors category score, melting,
gob-making activity, and reheating were at high-risk level due
to the improper workstation and work design. This high risk
was associated with abandonment from the supervisor and a
lack of resources. Reheating is considered as low-skilled oper-
ation but was at a high-risk level due to the low priority
given by management towards this activity.
On the basis of work design factors category score (refer
Table 7), only gob making, and spiral forming activities were
considered critical activities. These activities demand repetitive
hand movement and prolonged standing during the entire
working shift. Therefore, they required properly designed tools
and job clarity for these activities. However, it was observed
that the high-risk level of these two activities was associated
with the improper design of tool and job unclarity, whereas
the remaining activities were at a medium and low-risk level.
5.2. Actions taken: ergonomic interventions
The ergonomic interventions were identified for all critical
activities, as shown in Table 8. Some common risk factors
such as the awkward work posture while performing task,
repetitive hand and arm movement, mental stress, and strain
were identified for all activities. To eradicate the abovemen-
tioned risk factors, the following ergonomic interventions
were suggested to the management:
 The inclusion of the anthropometry aspect in the design-
ing of ergonomic tools and workstations.
 Antifatigue mat and some additional accessories for easy
gripping and comfort during material handling.
 Participatory ergonomic training and proper counselling
to reduce job pressure and stress among the workers.
8.67  Managerial recommendations are aiming to improve the
4.58 working conditions at the workplace by providing:
52.83
88.9 i. Proper rest and break
12.39 ii. Limited working hours per shift
40.5 iii. Extra fatigue allowances to prolonged stand-
190.74
ing activity
iv. Medium workload
v. Moderate work pace
9 10 vi. Effective job rotation.
2.58 2.49
2.37 3.74
2.28 2.67
2.12 2.71
5.3. Future state map
The abovementioned ergonomic interventions were imple-
mented in the manufacturing system. The implementation
activities were carefully monitored and observed for 30 days.
After 30 days, data was collected to develop the future state
of the fuzzy-based E-VSM tool, as visualized in Figure 9, and
their lean performance indicators & HFE categories are
shown in Tables 9 and 10.
5.4. Monitoring the effects of implemented interventions
In this study, a significant reduction in the risk level of phys-
ical and psychosocial factors category was observed for each
critical activity. Whereas risk level of managerial and work
design category was significantly reduced in critical activities
and slightly reduced in non-critical activities. A comparison
of HFE risk levels before and after ergonomic intervention for
each category is presented in Figure 10(a–d).
Critical activities such as raw material mixing, gob making,
reheating, spiral making, and cutting achieved above 10% of
workers’ performance. Cycle time and work in process inven-
tory in the VSM were reduced as follows: Raw material mix-
ing (1.5–1.1 and 100), Gob making (0.51–0.47 and 10),
Reheating (0.35–0.27 and 13), Spiral making (0.52–0.47 and
15) and cutting (0.25–16 and 19).
Lean performance indicators significantly improved for
the corresponding activity after implementing ergonomic
interventions in the glass artware industry. Cycle time was
lessened by 19.15% per toras and total lead time by 17.73%.
RTPY increased by 1.24%, representing an increase in process
quality. Regarding the quality aspect, scrap and defects were
decreased by 22.8 and 21.79%, respectively. Team perform-
ance increased by 23.6%. Figure 11 presents the percentage
improvement in lean performance indicators in the glass
bangle manufacturing process.
6. Discussion
Previous studies have highlighted and suggested the import-
ance of improving societal sustainability and operational effi-
ciency simultaneously in the manufacturing system to gain
competitive advantage and address different Workers’ issues
such as MSDs issues and stricter labour regulations (Santos,
Vieira, and Balbinotti 2015; Botti, Mora, and Regattieri 2017).
There has been increasing attention to develop a tool which
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 13

Table 8. Root causes and ergonomic intervention for critical activities of glass artware manufacturing.
Category Risk level Activities Perceived reasons Ergonomic interventions
Physical factors High 1. Raw material  Applying pressure while manual mixing of i. Focus on improving the existing way
mixing raw material. of performing gobe making activities.
 Awkward working posture with ii. A high prevalence of MSDs symptoms
prolonged standing. in the lower body regions
 Repetitive hand and arm movement. recommends the ergonomists that
High 5. Gob making  Prolonged standing more attention should be paid while
 Repetitive task movement of hand and arm designing and implementing
while pick and place of gob ergonomic interventions.
 Backward flexed neck iii. Working conditions can be improved
High 6. Parison Preparation  Repetitive hand movement with hammer in by introducing a modified workstation,
and joining a same place working postures, and tools based on
 Prolonged same working posture anthropometry data of these
Very high 8. Spiral Formation  Prolonged sitting posture with folded leges working groups
 Repetitive hand and arm movement
Psychosocial High 1. Raw  Target pressure for preparing batch in a i. Psychosocial session should be
factors material mixing proper ratio organised timely
High 4. Melting  Pressure for quality issues ii. Complicate activities should be
Very high 5. Gob making  Qualities issues dispersed among the team members
 Pressure for preparing proper shape iii. Support and training from
High 8. Spiral Formation  Anxiety for occurring defective lot the supervisor
 Failure pressure due to taking inappropriate
raw material
High 10. Sorting  Last step quality audit failure
Managerial High 4. Melting  Lack of management because of providing i. Design of effective job rotation
factors improper tool ii. Fatigue allowance should be calculated
 Improper workplace design for temperature for each activity
High 5. Gob making  Lack of fatigue allowances to prolonged
standing activity
 Lack of participatory ergonomic training
High 7. Reheating  Not providing proper guidance and training
Work High 5. Gob making  Tool design i. Ergonomically designed workstation
design factors Very high 8. Spiral Formation  Issues in work design and tool should be provided
by management
ii. Organize ergonomic awareness and
training programs for the workers to
assist them in carrying out their tasks
and knowledge about the adverse
effect of MSDs symptoms.

Figure 9. Future mapping of fuzzy based E-VSM tool.

14 B. RATHORE ET AL.

Table 9. Future state of lean performance indicators. company-wide rollout of this strategy. Further, this fuzzy-
Lean performance indicators based E-VSM tool has potential usage to reap benefits for
CT (min) 7.01 many cash-starved SMEs, who cannot afford advanced manu-
ST (min) 4.58 facturing machines or large consultancy services to achieve
TP (%) 65.33
RTPY % 90 desired improvements in their operations.
Defects per shift (min) 9.69
Total lead time (min) 33.32
Scrap per shift (min) 147.21 7. Managerial implications
This research could have several implications for industry and
Table 10. Future mapping of score of risk factors category corresponding to researchers. However, this integration of lean and HFE para-
each activity.
digms to achieve societal and operational goals demands more
Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
profound investigation. The developed fuzzy-based E-VSM tool
Physical factors 2.96 2.74 2.57 2.71 2.68 2.54 2.61 3.36 2.28 2.33
Psychosocial factors 2.68 2.61 2.67 2.77 3.04 2.57 2.68 2.99 2.37 3.09
helps the manufacturing SMEs to understand the importance of
Managerial factors 2.82 2.57 2.38 2.87 2.68 2.57 2.79 2.39 1.99 2.58 HFE and identify the scope of interventions for the critical activ-
Work design factors 2.66 2.43 1.99 1.89 2.86 2.08 2.06 2.99 1.98 2.58 ity. Whereas industrial practitioners can identify interventions
Note: 1: raw material mixing; 2: batch preparation; 3: charging; 4: melting; 5: (ergonomics and managerial) for each critical activities in the
gob making; 6: Parison preparation and joining; 7: reheating; 8: spiral forma-
tion; 9: cutting; 10: sorting way that lean and HFE concept is integrated to achieve excel-
Note: low skilled operation; semi-skilled operation; skilled operations. lence in operations and fulfil the organization’s responsibility
towards workers’ health and safety. This would help researchers
integrates operational efficiency with Worker’s performance and production managers to understand the importance of
through lean paradigm, primarily by modifying the traditional Workers’ health and their quality of life at the workplace.
VSM. Jarebrant et al. (2016) accessed the risk level for five dif- Moreover, this tool improved the case study company’s oper-
ferent activities of plastic manufacturing operation by consid- ational performance without compromising their Workers’ per-
ering only physical risk factors under four indicators (e.g. formance-thereby finding a novel way to balance societal and
porosity, force, posture, and physical variation). However, our economic priorities in their goal for sustainable business practi-
study accessed the risk level for ten different activities of glass ces. The major managerial implications are as follows:
bangle manufacturing operation by taking four risk factors
categories, namely psychosocial, physical, managerial, and work  This integrated tool helps management to improve the
design, under sixteen indicators (refer Appendix Table A2). An Workers’ health and safety and enhance operational per-
overview on the comparison of the present study with the formance synergistically.
Jarebrant et al. (2016) study is presented in Table 11.  Fuzzy-based E-VSM tool creates a productive and healthy
Our study has contributed to the existing body of know- work environment for workers and management.
ledge by conducting an empirical study on efficaciously inte-  This study incorporates a fuzzy set in the proposed meth-
grating lean and HFE concepts under the fuzzy environment odology, which captures the vagueness in the workers’
that overcome the trade-offs between these two concepts response and provides more accurate, precise, and realis-
and produce an overall improved synergistic result. Further, tic results.
this study applied an innovative methodology to integrate  This integration offers flexibility for industries to incorporate,
lean and HFE concepts using action case research to collect, omit or modify their approaches to lean and HFE considera-
analyze, and interpret qualitative evidence. Action research is tions based on their specific requirements and situations.
appropriate for examining the adoption and implementation
of lean tools in SMEs case study. The results achieved from
8. Conclusion, limitations, and future scope
the pilot study indicate that the concurrent deployment of
the lean and HFE paradigms is a simple, practical, and effect- The conscious workers and stringent labour regulations pro-
ive approach to improve SMEs’ workers’ performance. For pels the consideration of HFE strategies into operational strat-
instance, both types (lean and ergonomics) of wastes, such egies for improving the Worker’s health and safety at the
as motion, waiting, and defect waste, were reduced substan- workplace. However, the integration of lean and HFE concepts
tially through the entire value chain in the future state of is still in its infancy with lesser practical implementation within
the fuzzy-based E-VSM tool. The fuzzy-based E-VSM tool Indian SMEs. Therefore, it motivates us to perform and dem-
helped in improving the operational efficiency by decreasing onstrate this research with the help of case study. The main
the lead time by 17.73% (Figure 11), and at the same time contributions of this study are fourfold: First, we developed
enhanced the Worker’s performance by decreasing the score the fuzzy-based E-VSM tool for improving lean performance
of risk level (Figure 10(a–d)). The results of this study are vali- and Worker’s health and safety. Second, the fuzzy-based E-
dated by Botti, Mora, and Regattieri (2017), who recom- VSM tool helped increase the overall operational efficiency by
mended that an integrated tool could be very imperative for reducing the lead-time, cycle time, scrap, and defects and sim-
improving the Worker’s performance in the production line. ultaneously improving the Worker’s performance by decreas-
The method of integrating HFE paradigms into the trad- ing the risk level score. Third, this tool incorporates fuzzy set
itional VSM tool under fuzzy environment has successfully which provides more accurate, precise, and realistic risk level
pilot run in the case industry. It has vociferously advocated a score. Fourth, this study helps to identify the critical activities
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 15

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 10. (a) Comparison of human factor risk level before and after the ergonomic interventions for physical factor category. (b). Comparison of human factor risk
level before and after the ergonomic interventions for psychosocial factor category. (c) Comparison of human factor risk level before and after the ergonomic inter-
ventions for managerial factor category. (d). Comparisons of human factor risk level before and after the ergonomic interventions for work design factor category.

in terms of HFE risk in the industry that were not possible
with the traditional VSM. Finally, the fuzzy-based E-VSM tool
ensures a healthy and productive work environment along
with lean practices in the glass artware industry. In addition,
this study contributed to the SMEs by addressing the research
gap concerning the successful integration of lean-HFE para-
digms and provided a framework to overcome losses.
In future, the fuzzy-based E-VSM tool has a wider application
in multiple case studies on SMEs from other industry sectors
for further validation. Future research could extend our study
by incorporating the green paradigm for improving environ-
mental performance.
Like other studies, this study has some limitations. First, this
study considered only one manufacturing layout consist of ten
16 B. RATHORE ET AL.

Figure 11. Percent improvement in the lean performance indicators.

Table 11. Comparison of Jarebrant et al. (2016) with the Fuzzy based E-VSM tool.
Fuzzy based E-VSM tool
Dimensions Jarebrant et al. (2016) study (our study)
Country Sweden India
Industry Plastic component manufacturing Glass artware manufacturing
Lean indicators Lead time Cycle time, standard time, team performance, lead time, defect, scrap and throughput yield
HFE indicators Physical factors Psychosocial, physical, managerial and work design
Target experts Experienced workers Experienced workers with industrial engineering experts
Quantitative method Measurement scale ranged from 1 to 10 Measured items through fuzzy linguistic scale
Interventions No intervention Ergonomics and managerial interventions

activities. Second, environmental, chemical, and safety factors
were overlooked in this study. Such factors also contributed to
workers’ performance, but these factors can be considered ave-
nues for future research work. Third, time exposure, design of
tool and layout of workstation can be HFE indicators to access
the human factor risk level. Though they did not emerge as a
vital HFE indicators in the current study, it cannot be over-
looked but we can consider as potential future scope for the
researchers. Moreover, this study can be performed by various
lean tools and techniques incorporating HFE indicators to
improve workers’ health and safety in the future.
Ashok Kumar Pundir is former Professor in opera-
tions and supply chain management area and former
Dean of Student Affairs at National Institute of
Industrial engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India. He has
completed his Doctoral Program and Post-
Graduation in Industrial Engineering from National
Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai
and B. Tech. in Mechanical Engineering from G.B.
Pant University, Pantnagar, India. He has more than
39 years of academic and industrial experience. His current area of
research includes supply chain management, Operations Management.
He has published research papers in referred international journals and
also presented research papers in national and international
conferences.

Notes
1. Worker’s health and safety denotes the right of every worker/employee
to perform his assigned task in a safe environment, irrespective of
industry. Based on this definition, our study measures the workers’
health and safety through HFE risk level.
2. VAW is defined as that part of the overall processing time spent by the
workers in creating value (Liker 2004).
3. Risk level referred to the how much the workers are experiencing the risk
of developing MSDs issues, fatigue and stress.
4. One Toras ¼ 296 Bangles.
Notes on contributors
Rauf Iqbal is an associate professor in operations
and supply chain management area at National
Institute of Industrial engineering (NITIE), Mumbai,
India. He has completed his Doctoral Program in
Ergonomics domain. He has more than 21 years of
academic and industrial experience. His current area
of research includes work-system design, layout and
facility planning, Engineering anthropometry,
Biomechanics of human movement and
Occupational ergonomics. He has published more than 120 papers in
referred international journals. He has also presented more than 50
research articles in national and international conferences.

Bhawana Rathore is pursuing doctoral program in

Rohit Gupta is an Assistant Professor in Operations
operations and supply chain management area from
Management area at the Indian Institute of
National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE)
Management (IIM) Ranchi. He obtained his Ph.D.
Mumbai. She did her master’s in industrial engineer-
from IIM Lucknow. He completed his Master of
ing from VNIT Nagpur. Her research interest is
Technology (M.Tech.) programme in Industrial
focussed on work system design, fuzzy logic, supply
Engineering and Management from IIT(ISM)
chain risk, and application of multi-criteria decision-
Dhanbad before joining the Ph.D. programme. His
making techniques.
research interests include application of game theory

in supply chain management, supply chain coordination, fuzzy logic,
Cyber security, and multi-criteria decisions making. He has published
papers in reputed journals like IJPR and C&IE.
References
Abeysekera, J., and P. Illankoon. 2016. “The Demands and Benefits of
Ergonomics in Sri Lankan Apparel Industry: A Case Study at MAS
Holdings.” Work 55 (2): 255–261. doi:10.3233/WOR-162393.
Alasim, H. N., A. D. Nimbarte, and M. Jaridi. 2019. “Impact of Pulling
Direction and Magnitude of Force Exertion on the Activation of
Shoulder Muscles.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 69:
14–22. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2018.09.008.
Alaskari, O., M. M. Ahmad, and R. Pinedo-Cuenca. 2016. “Development of
a Methodology to Assist Manufacturing SMEs in the Selection of
Appropriate Lean Tools.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 7 (1):
62–84. doi:10.1108/IJLSS-02-2015-0005.
Arezes, P. M., J. Dinis-Carvalho, and A. C. Alves. 2015. “Workplace
Ergonomics in Lean Production Environments: A Literature Review.”
Work 52 (1): 57–70. doi:10.3233/WOR-141941.
Ayough, A., M. Zandieh, and F. Farhadi. 2020. “Balancing, Sequencing,
and Job Rotation Scheduling of a U-Shaped Lean Cell with Dynamic
Operator Performance.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 143:
106363. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2020.106363.
Bhamu, J., and K. S. Sangwan. 2014. “Lean Manufacturing: literature Review
and Research Issues.” International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 34 (7): 876–940. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-08-2012-0315.
Bhuvanesh Kumar, M., and R. Parameshwaran. 2018. "Fuzzy integrated
QFD, FMEA framework for the Selection of Lean Tools in a
Manufacturing Organisation." Production Planning & Control 29 (5):
403–417.
Botti, L., C. Mora, and A. Regattieri. 2017. “Integrating Ergonomics and
Lean Manufacturing Principles in a Hybrid Assembly Line.” Computers
& Industrial Engineering 111: 481–491. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2017.05.011.
Bouville, G., and D. Alis. 2014. “The Effects of Lean Organizational
Practices on Employees’ Attitudes and Workers’ Health: Evidence from
France.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25
(21): 3016–3037. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.951950.
Br€annmark, M., and M. Håkansson. 2012. “Lean Production and Work-
Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: overviews of International and
Swedish Studies.” Work 41 (Supplement 1): 2321–2328. doi:10.3233/
WOR-2012-0459-2321.
Brito, M. F., A. L. Ramos, P. Carneiro, and M. A. Gonçalves. 2020. “A
Continuous Improvement Assessment Tool, considering Lean, Safety
and Ergonomics.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 11 (5):
879–902. doi:10.1108/IJLSS-12-2017-0144.
Brito, M., M. Vale, J. Le~ao, L. P. Ferreira, F. J. G. Silva, and M. A.
Gonçalves. 2020. “Lean and Ergonomics Decision Support Tool
Assessment in a Plastic Packaging Company.” Procedia Manufacturing
51: 613–619. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2020.10.086.
Brown, A., J. Amundson, and F. Badurdeen. 2014. “Sustainable Value
Stream Mapping (Sus-VSM) in Different Manufacturing System
Configurations: application Case Studies.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 85: 164–179. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.101.
Bush, A., C. Palasciano, A. P. Staudacher, M. Taisch, and S. Vitali. 2014.
“Investigating Lean Methodology for Energy Efficient Manufacturing.”
Paper Presented at IFIP International Conference on Advances in
Production Management Systems, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer.
Cagno, E., G. J. L. Micheli, C. Jacinto, and D. Masi. 2014. “An Interpretive
Model of Occupational Safety Performance for Small-and Medium-
Sized Enterprises.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44 (1):
60–74. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2013.08.005.
Carmignani, G. 2017. “Scrap Value Stream Mapping (S-VSM): a New
Approach to Improve the Supply Scrap Management Process.”
International Journal of Production Research 55 (12): 3559–3576. doi:
10.1080/00207543.2017.1308574.
Cassell, C.,. J. M. Worley, and T. L. Doolen. 2006. “The Role of
Communication and Management Support in a Lean Manufacturing
Implementation.” Management Decision 44 (2): 228–245. doi:10.1108/
00251740610650210.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 17
Chan, D., and N. Schmitt. 2000. “Interindividual Differences in
Intraindividual Changes in Proactivity during Organizational Entry: A
Latent Growth Modeling Approach to Understanding Newcomer
Adaptation.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (2): 190–210. doi:10.
1037/0021-9010.85.2.190.
Chan, H. K., X. Sun, and S. H. Chung. 2019. “When Should Fuzzy Analytic
Hierarchy Process Be Used instead of Analytic Hierarchy Process?”
Decision Support Systems 125: 113114. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2019.113114.
Choudhary, S., R. Nayak, M. Dora, N. Mishra, and A. Ghadge. 2019. “An
Integrated Lean and Green Approach for Improving Sustainability
Performance: A Case Study of a Packaging Manufacturing SME in the
UK.” Production Planning & Control 30 (5–6): 353–368. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2018.1501811.
Conti, R., J. Angelis, C. Cooper, B. Faragher, and C. Gill. 2006. “The Effects
of Lean Production on Worker Job Stress.” International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 26 (9): 1013–1038. doi:10.1108/
01443570610682616.
Corlett, E. N., S. Madeley, and I. Manenica. 1979. “Posture Targeting: A
Technique for Recording Working Postures.” Ergonomics 22 (3):
357–366. doi:10.1080/00140137908924619.
Costa, F., L. Lispi, A. P. Staudacher, M. Rossini, K. Kundu, and F. D. Cifone.
2019. “How to Foster Sustainable Continuous Improvement: A Cause
Effect Relations Map of Lean Soft Practices.” Operations Research
Perspectives Advance Perspectives 6: 100091. doi:10.101.6/j.orp.2018.
Dhiravidamani, P., A. S. Ramkumar, S. G. Ponnambalam, and N.
Subramanian. 2018. “Implementation of Lean Manufacturing and Lean
Audit System in an Auto Parts Manufacturing Industry–an Industrial
Case Study.” International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing 31 (6): 579–594. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2017.1356473.
Dianat, I., and A. Salimi. 2014. “Working Conditions of Iranian Hand-Sewn
Shoe Workers and Associations with Musculoskeletal Symptoms.”
Ergonomics 57 (4): 602–611. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.891053.
Eason, K. 2007. “Local Sociotechnical System Development in the NHS
National Programme for Information Technology.” Journal of Information
Technology 22 (3): 257–264. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000101.
Fagerholm, F.,. M. Ikonen, P. Kettunen, J. M€ unch, V. Roto, and P.
Abrahamsson. 2015. “Performance Alignment Work: How Software
Developers Experience the Continuous Adaptation of Team
Performance in Lean and Agile Environments.” Information and
Software Technology 64: 132–147. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2015.01.010.
Faulkner, W., and F. Badurdeen. 2014. “Sustainable Value Stream
Mapping (Sus-VSM): Methodology to Visualize and Assess
Manufacturing Sustainability Performance.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 85: 8–18. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.042.
Finco, S., M. A. Abdous, M. Calzavara, D. Battini, and X. Delorme. 2021. “A
bi-Objective Model to Include Workers’ Vibration Exposure in Assembly
Line Design.” International Journal of Production Research 59(13):
4017–4032.116
Franchetti, M., and P. Barnala. 2013. “Lean Six Sigma at a Material
Recovery Facility: A Case Study.” International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma 4 (3): 251–264. doi:10.1108/IJLSS-05-2013-0026.
Gaillard, A. W. K. 1993. “Comparing the Concepts of Mental Load and
Stress.” Ergonomics 36 (9): 991–1005. doi:10.1080/00140139308967972.
Goussinsky, R., and Y. Livne. 2016. “Coping with Interpersonal
Mistreatment: The Role of Emotion Regulation Strategies and
Supervisor Support.” Journal of Nursing Management 24 (8):
1109–1118. doi:10.1111/jonm.12415.
Gul, M., M. F. Ak, and A. F. Guneri. 2019. “Pythagorean Fuzzy VIKOR-
Based Approach for Safety Risk Assessment in Mine Industry.” Journal
of Safety Research 69: 135–153. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2019.03.005.
Gupta, R., I. Biswas, and S. Kumar. 2019. “Pricing Decisions for Three-
Echelon Supply Chain with Advertising and Quality Effort-Dependent
Fuzzy Demand.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (9):
2715–2731. doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1547434.
Hasle, P., A. Bojesen, P. L. Jensen, and P. Bramming. 2012. “Lean and the
Working Environment: A Review of the Literature.” International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 32 (7): 829–849. doi:
10.1108/01443571211250103.
Hermawati, S., G. Lawson, and A. P. Sutarto. 2014. “Mapping Ergonomics
Application to Improve SMEs Working Condition in Industrially
18 B. RATHORE ET AL.
Developing Countries: A Critical Review.” Ergonomics 57 (12):
1771–1794. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.953213.
Herrera, F., E. Herrera-Viedma, and L. Martı nez. 2000. “A Fusion
Approach for Managing Multi-Granularity Linguistic Term Sets in
Decision Making.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114 (1): 43–58. doi:10.1016/
S0165-0114(98)00093-1.
Hoffmeister, K., A. Gibbons, N. Schwatka, and J. Rosecrance. 2015.
“Ergonomics Climate Assessment: A Measure of Operational
Performance and Employee Well-Being.” Applied Ergonomics 50:
160–169. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.03.011.
Howarth, S. J., T. A. Beach, A. J. Pearson, and J. P. Callaghan. 2009. “Using
Sitting as a Component of Job Rotation Strategies: Are Lifting/Lowering
Kinetics and Kinematics Altered Following Prolonged Sitting.” Applied
Ergonomics 40 (3): 433–439. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.10.006.
Hu, Q., R. Mason, S. J. Williams, and P. Found. 2015. “Lean
Implementation Within SMEs: A Literature Review.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 26 (7): 980–1012. doi:10.1108/
JMTM-02-2014-0013.
ILO. 2015. The Glass Industry: Recent Trends and Changes in Working
Conditions and Employment Relations. Geneva. https://www.ilo.org/sec-
tor/Resources/publications/WCMS_442086/lang–en/index.htm.
ILO. 2018. The Impact of Social Dialogue and Collective Bargaining on
Working Conditions in SMEs. Geneva. https://www.ilo.org/empent/
Publications/WCMS_651378/lang–en/index.htm.
Jackson, P. R., and S. Mullarkey. 2000. “Lean Production Teams and
Health in Garment Manufacture.” Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 5 (2): 231–245. doi:10.1037//1076-8998.5.2.231.
Jarebrant, C., J. Winkel, J. Johansson Hanse, S. E. Mathiassen, and B.
€
Ojmertz. 2016. “ErgoVSM: A Tool for Integrating Value Stream
Mapping and Ergonomics in Manufacturing.” Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 26 (2): 191–204. doi:
10.1002/hfm.20622.
Jasti, N. V. K., and R. Kodali. 2015. “Lean Production: literature Review
and Trends.” International Journal of Production Research 53 (3):
867–885. doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.937508.
Jasti, N. V. K., and A. Sharma. 2014. “Lean Manufacturing Implementation
Using Value Stream Mapping as a Tool.” International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma 5 (1): 89–116.
Jonker, D., B. Rolander, I. Balogh, L. Sandsjo €, K. Ekberg, and J. Winkel.
2013. “Rationalisation in Public Dental Care–Impact on Clinical Work
Tasks and Mechanical Exposure for Dentists–a Prospective Study.”
Ergonomics 56 (2): 303–313. doi:10.1080/00140139.2012.760751.
Karia, N., and M. H. A. H. Asaari. 2006. “The Effects of Total Quality
Management Practices on Employees’ Work-Related Attitudes.” The
TQM Magazine 18 (1): 30–43. doi:10.1108/09544780610637677.
Karwowski, W. 2005. “Ergonomics and Human Factors: The Paradigms for
Science, Engineering, Design, Technology and Management of
Human-Compatible Systems.” Ergonomics 48 (5): 436–463. doi:10.
1080/00140130400029167.
Karwowski, W. 2012. “The Discipline of Human Factors and Ergonomics.”
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics 4: 3–37.
Kilbom, Å. 1994. “Repetitive Work of the Upper Extremity: Part II—the
Scientific Basis (Knowledge Base) for the Guide.” International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 14 (1–2): 59–86. doi:10.1016/0169-8141(94)90006-X.
Kjellberg, A. 1990. “Psychological Aspects of Occupational Vibration.”
Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health 16: 39–43.
Koukoulaki, T. 2014. “The Impact of Lean Production on Musculoskeletal
and Psychosocial Risks: An Examination of Sociotechnical Trends Over
20 Years.” Applied Ergonomics 45 (2): 198–212. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.
2013.07.018.
Krafcik, J. F. 1988. “Triumph of the Lean Production System.” MIT Sloan
Management Review 30 (1): 41.
Kumar, B. S., and V. R. Sampath. 2012. “Garment Manufacturing through
Lean Initiative-an Empirical Study on WIP Fluctuation in T-Shirt
Production Unit.” International Journal of Lean Thinking 3 (2): 102–116.
Lacerda, A. P., A. R. Xambre, and H. M. Alvelos. 2016. “Applying Value
Stream Mapping to Eliminate Waste: A Case Study of an Original
Equipment Manufacturer for the Automotive Industry.” International
Journal of Production Research 54 (6): 1708–1720. doi:10.1080/
00207543.2015.1055349.
Lander, E., and J. K. Liker. 2007. “The Toyota Production System and Art:
making Highly Customized and Creative Products the Toyota Way.”
International Journal of Production Research 45 (16): 3681–3698. doi:
10.1080/00207540701223519.
Larson, N., and H. Wick. 2012. “30 Years of Ergonomics at 3M: A Case
Study.” Work 41: 5091–5098. doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-1043-5091.
Leroyer, A., H. Kraemer-Heriaud, L. Marescaux, and P. Frimat. 2006.
“Prospective Evaluation of the Impact of a Change in the
Organization of Work on Perceived Stress and Health in Assembly-
Line Workers in an Automobile Plant.” Revue D’ epidemiologie et de
Sante Publique 54 (1): 15–25. doi:10.1016/S0398-7620(06)76691-3.
Lloyd, C., and S. James. 2008. “Too Much Pressure? Retailer Power and
Occupational Health and Safety in the Food Processing Industry.”
Work, Employment and Society 22 (4): 713–730. doi:10.1177/
0950017008098366.
Losonci, D., K. Demeter, and I. Jenei. 2011. “Factors Influencing Employee
Perceptions in Lean Transformations.” International Journal of
Production Economics 131 (1): 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.12.022.
Magnani, F., V. Carbone, and V. Moatti. 2019. “The Human Dimension of
Lean: A Literature Review.” Supply Chain Forum: An International
Journal 20 (2): 132–144. doi:10.1080/16258312.2019.1570653.
Marudhamuthu, R., and D. M. Pillai. 2011. “The Development and
Implementation of Lean Manufacturing Techniques in Indian Garment
Industry.” Jordan Journal of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering 5 (6):
527–532.
Mehri, D. 2006. “The Darker Side of Lean: An Insider’s Perspective on the
Realities of the Toyota Production System.” Academy of Management
Perspectives 20 (2): 21–42. doi:10.5465/amp.2006.20591003.
Mun ~oz-Villamizar, A., J. Santos, J. J. Garcia-Sabater, A. Lleo, and P. Grau.
2019. “Green Value Stream Mapping Approach to Improving
Productivity and Environmental Performance.” International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 68 (3): 608–625. doi:10.
1108/IJPPM-06-2018-0216.
Ohno, T. 1988. The Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale
Production. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Paas, F., J. E. Tuovinen, H. Tabbers, and P. W. Van Gerven. 2003.
“Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load
Theory.” Educational Psychologist 38 (1): 63–71. doi:10.1207/
S15326985EP3801_8.
Pakdil, F., and K. M. Leonard. 2014. “Criteria for a Lean Organisation:
Development of a Lean Assessment Tool.” International Journal of
Production Research 52 (15): 4587–4607. doi:10.1080/00207543.2013.
879614.
Panizzolo, R., P. Garengo, M. L. Sharma, and A. Gore. 2012. “Lean
Manufacturing in Developing Countries: Evidence from Indian SMEs.”
Production Planning & Control 23 (10–11): 769–788. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2011.642155.
Pearce, A., D. Pons, and T. Neitzert. 2018. “Implementing Lean—
Outcomes from SME Case Studies.” Operations Research Perspectives 5:
94–104. doi:10.1016/j.orp.2018.02.002.
Rathore, B., and R. Gupta. 2021. “A Fuzzy Based Hybrid Decision-Making
Framework to Examine the Safety Risk Factors of Healthcare Workers
During COVID-19 Outbreak.” Journal of Decision Systems : 1–34.
Rathore, B., A. Pundir, and R. Iqbal. 2020. “Ergonomic Risk Factors in
Glass Artware Industries and Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorder.”
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 80: 103043. doi:10.1016/j.
ergon.2020.103043.
Rodrıguez, D., D. Buyens, H. Van Landeghem, and V. Lasio. 2016. “Impact of
Lean Production on Perceived Job Autonomy and Job Satisfaction: An
Experimental Study.” Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing &
Service Industries 26 (2): 159–176. doi:10.1002/hfm.20620.
Rother, M., and J. Shook. 1999. Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to
Add Value and Eliminate Muda. Brookline, MA: The Lean Enterprise
Institute. Inc.
Rother, M., and J. Shook. 2003. Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to
Add Value and Eliminate Muda. Lean Enterprise Institute.
Saghaei, A., H. Najafi, and R. Noorossana. 2012. “Enhanced Rolled
Throughput Yield: A New Six Sigma-Based Performance Measure.”
International Journal of Production Economics 140 (1): 368–373. doi:10.
1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.002.

Sah, B., R. Gupta, and D. Bani-Hani. 2021. “Analysis of Barriers to
Implement Drone Logistics.” International Journal of Logistics Research
and Applications 24 (6): 531–550. doi:10.1080/.13675567.2020.1782862.
Sakthi Nagaraj, T., and Jeyapaul, R. 2018. “Ergonomic Study on Work
Postures of Sewing Machine Operators in Government Industry: A
Case in Lean Environment garment industry.” In Ergonomic Design of
Products and Worksystems-21st Century Perspectives of Asia (pp.
83–101). Singapore: Springer.
Sakthi Nagaraj, T., and R. Jeyapaul. 2021. “An Empirical Investigation on
Association between Human Factors, Ergonomics and Lean
Manufacturing.” Production Planning & Control 32 (16): 1337–1351.
Sakthi Nagaraj, T., R. Jeyapaul, K. E. K. Vimal, and K. Mathiyazhagan.
2019. “Integration of Human Factors and Ergonomics into Lean
Implementation: Ergonomic-Value Stream Map Approach in the
Textile Industry.” Production Planning & Control 30 (15): 1265–1282.
doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.1612109.
Santos, Z. G. D., L. Vieira, and G. Balbinotti. 2015. “Lean Manufacturing and
Ergonomic Working Conditions in the Automotive Industry.” Procedia
Manufacturing 3: 5947–5954. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.687.
Saurin, T. A., and C. F. Ferreira. 2009. “The Impacts of Lean Production
on Working Conditions: A Case Study of a Harvester Assembly Line in
Brazil.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39 (2): 403–412.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2008.08.003.
Schmidtke, D., U. Heiser, and O. Hinrichsen. 2014. “A Simulation-Enhanced
Value Stream Mapping Approach for Optimisation of Complex
Production Environments.” International Journal of Production Research
52 (20): 6146–6160. doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.917770.
Schuler, R. S. 1980. “Definition and Conceptualization of Stress in
Organizations.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 25
(2): 184–215. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(80)90063-X.
Serrano, I., C. Ochoa, and R. D. Castro. 2008. “Evaluation of Value
Stream Mapping in Manufacturing System Redesign.” International
Journal of Production Research 46 (16): 4409–4430. doi:10.1080/
00207540601182302.
Seth, D., N. Seth, and D. Goel. 2008. “Application of Value Stream
Mapping (VSM) for Minimization of Wastes in the Processing Side of
Supply Chain of Cottonseed Oil Industry in Indian Context.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 19 (4): 529–550. doi:10.1108/
17410380810869950.
Seth, D., N. Seth, and P. Dhariwal. 2017. “Application of Value Stream
Mapping (VSM) for Lean and Cycle Time Reduction in Complex
Production Environments: A Case Study.” Production Planning &
Control 28 (5): 398–419. doi:10.1080/09537287.2017.1300352.
Shah, R., and P. T. Ward. 2007. “Defining and Developing Measures of
Lean Production.” Journal of Operations Management 25 (4): 785–805.
doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019.
Singh, R. K., and L. Benyoucef. 2011. “A Fuzzy TOPSIS Based Approach
for e-Sourcing.” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 24 (3):
437–448. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2010.09.006.
Sobhani, A., M. I. M. Wahab, and W. P. Neumann. 2017. “Incorporating
Human Factors-Related Performance Variation in Optimizing a Serial
System.” European Journal of Operational Research 257 (1): 69–83. doi:
10.1016/j.ejor.2016.06.057.
Sprigg, C. A., and P. R. Jackson. 2006. “Call Centers as Lean Service
Environments: Job-Related Strain and the Mediating Role of Work
Design.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11 (2): 197–212.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.2.197.
Srivastava, A., R. Kumar, E. Joseph, and A. Kumar. 2000. “Heat Exposure
Study in the Workplace in a Glass Manufacturing Unit in India.” The
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 44 (6): 449–453. doi:10.1016/S0003-
4878(00)00003-X.
Taylan, O., A. O. Bafail, R. M. Abdulaal, and M. R. Kabli. 2014.
“Construction Projects Selection and Risk Assessment by Fuzzy AHP
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 19
and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methodologies.” Applied Soft Computing 17:
105–116. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2014.01.003.
Thanki, S. J., and J. J. Thakkar. 2016. “Value–Value Load Diagram: A Graphical
Tool for Lean–Green Performance Assessment.” Production Planning &
Control 27 (15): 1280–1297. doi:10.1080/09537287.2016.1220647.
Tortorella, G. L., L. G. L. Vergara, and E. P. Ferreira. 2017. “Lean
Manufacturing Implementation: An Assessment Method with Regards
to Sociotechnical and Ergonomics Practices Adoption.” The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 89 (9–12):
3407–3418. doi:10.1007/s00170-016-9227-7.
Tyagi, S., A. Choudhary, X. Cai, and K. Yang. 2015. “Value Stream
Mapping to Reduce the Lead-Time of a Product Development
Process.” International Journal of Production Economics 160: 202–212.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.11.002.
Vinodh, S., K. R. Arvind, and M. Somanaathan. 2010. “Application of
Value Stream Mapping in an Indian Camshaft Manufacturing
Organisation.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 21
(7): 888–900. doi:10.1108/17410381011077973.
Vinodh, S., R. B. Ruben, and P. Asokan. 2016. “Life Cycle Assessment
Integrated Value Stream Mapping Framework to Ensure Sustainable
Manufacturing: A Case Study.” Clean Technologies and Environmental
Policy 18 (1): 279–295. doi:10.1007/s10098-015-1016-8.
Volmer, J., D. Spurk, and C. Niessen. 2012. “Leader–Member Exchange
(LMX), Job Autonomy, and Creative Work Involvement.” The
Leadership Quarterly 23 (3): 456–465. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.10.005.
Westgaard, R. H., and J. Winkel. 2011. “Occupational Musculoskeletal and
Mental Health: Significance of Rationalization and Opportunities to
Create Sustainable Production Systems–a Systematic Review.” Applied
Ergonomics 42 (2): 261–296. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2010.07.002.
Wickramasinghe, D., and V. Wickramasinghe. 2011. “Perceived Organisational
Support, Job Involvement and Turnover Intention in Lean Production in
Sri Lanka.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 55 (5–8): 817–830. doi:10.1007/s00170-010-3099-z.
Womack, J. P., and D. T. Jones. 1997. “Lean Thinking—Banish Waste and
Create Wealth in Your Corporation.” Journal of the Operational
Research Society 48 (11): 1148–1148. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600967.
Womack, J. P., and D. T. Jones. 2003. “Banish Waste and Create Wealth
in Your Corporation.” Recuperado de. http://www.kvimis.co.in/sites/
kvimis.co.in/files/ebook_attachments/James.
Womack, J. P., D. T. Jones, and D. Roos. 1990. The Machine That Changed
the World. New York, NY: Rawson Associates.
Womack, S. K., T. J. Armstrong, and J. K. Liker. 2009. “Lean Job Design and
Musculoskeletal Disorder Risk: A Two Plant Comparison.” Human Factors
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing 19 (4): 279–293. doi:10.1002/hfm.20159.
Yadav, V., R. Jain, M. L. Mittal, A. Panwar, and A. C. Lyons. 2019. “The
Propagation of Lean Thinking in SMEs.” Production Planning & Control
30 (10–12): 854–865. doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.1582094.
Yadav, V., R. Jain, M. L. Mittal, A. Panwar, and M. K. Sharma. 2019. “An
Appraisal on Barriers to Implement Lean in SMEs.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 30 (1): 195–212. doi:10.1108/
JMTM-12-2017-0262.
Yusoff, S. M., P. Arezes, and N. Costa. 2013. The integration of lean man-
ufacturing and ergonomics approach in workplace design. http://hdl.
handle.net/1822/25323.
Zadeh, L. A. 1965. “Fuzzy Sets.” Information and Control 8 (3): 338–353.
doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
Zare, M., N. Black, J. C. Sagot, G. Hunault, and Y. Roquelaure. 2020.
“Ergonomics Interventions to Reduce Musculoskeletal Risk Factors in
a Truck Manufacturing Plant.” International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 75: 102896. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102896.
Zhao, H., S. Guo, and H. Zhao. 2019. “Comprehensive Assessment for
Battery Energy Storage Systems Based on Fuzzy-MCDM Considering Risk
Preferences.” Energy 168: 450–461. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.129.
20 B. RATHORE ET AL.

Appendix

Table A1. Lean performance indicator used in study with literary sources
Lean performance
Indicators (units of measurement) Description Sources
Cycle time (min) Cycle time (CT) refers to the time period between repetitions of Rother and Shook (2003); Lacerda, Xambre, and Alvelos
the same task. It is, therefore, the time taken by all operations (2016); Jarebrant et al. (2016); Seth, Seth, and
of the slowest station/operator of the process. Dhariwal (2017); Sakthi Nagaraj et al. (2019)
Lead time (min) Lead time (LT) refers to the time a product takes to flow from Rother and Shook (2003); Lacerda, Xambre, and Alvelos
start to finish through the value stream or the process. (2016); Jarebrant et al. (2016); Sakthi Nagaraj
Lead time ðLTÞ ¼ customer WIP

60 mins et al. (2019)
demand per hour
Where, WIP ¼ work in process inventory
Total lead time ¼ LT þ CT
Standard time (min) Standard time (ST) refers to the time required by an average Franchetti and Barnala (2013); Dhiravidamani et al.
skilled operator, working at a normal pace, to perform a (2018); Sakthi Nagaraj et al. (2019)
particular task using a proposed method
Operator performance (%) Operators’ performance (OP) refers to the ability of a worker with Ayough, Zandieh, and Farhadi (2020)
comparison to an average skilled operator, as measured by
given below equation
 
ST
OP ¼ CT
100%

Team performance (%) Team performance (TP) refers to the workers’ efficiency as a Fagerholm et al. (2015)
team to manufacture a product and measured by given below
equation
 
TP ¼ TotalCT STper pertorastoras
100%

In 1 toras ¼ 296 bangle, in the glass bangle manufacturing

Throughput yield (%) Throughput yield refers to the Worker’s reliability for a specific Sakthi Nagaraj et al. (2019)
activity measured by given below equation:
 
i  Scrapi  Defecti
TPY ¼ Total input
Total input
100%
i

Rolled throughput yield (%) Rolled throughput yield (RTPY) refers to the reliability of the Saghaei, Najafi, and Noorossana (2012)
whole operation and is measured by given below equation:
RTPY ¼ TPY 1
TPY 2
TPY 3 . . . TPY n
Table A2. Table measurement items for determining the risk level of HFE indicators and their category
HFE risk factor categories Indicators Measurement items
Physical factors 1. Repetitive task 1. Work is monotonous.
2. Twisting; wringing; above shoulder level work; gripping movement during repetitive task.
2. Working posture 1. Awkward working posture.
2. Bending and twisting working posture.
3. Disbalanced sitting/standing posture.
4. Stretching distance of hand from chest horizontally/vertically or both.
5. Time duration of prolonged standing/seating in the same place.
3. Forceful exertions 1. Need for operating force or carrying loads.
2. Monitoring the distance between the hand and chest
4. Vibration 1. Experiencing any tingling with the muscles and joints of your hands or arms.
2. Suffering with weakness of grip.
Psychosocial factors 1. Job satisfaction 1. Work activity is motivating and challenging.
2. The simpleness of the issues to resolve.
3. Freedom provided to the workers to prepare their own opinion and decision.
2. Mental workload 1. Complicated task engaged to the workers that may not be accomplished by a worker successfully.
2. Needed cognitive and perceptual activity (Like, deciding, calculating, remembering, thinking, searching, looking, etc.) to accomplish
their activities.
3. Compelling them to accomplish the activity on time to accomplish the target
3. Job stress 1. Workers feel that their job is adversely impacting their physical or mental well-being.
2. Workers have too much work to do and/or too many unreasonable deadlines.
4. Psychological strain 1. Workers are allowed to decide the methods to be used in getting their job done.
2. Workers are allowed to schedule their work.
3. Workers can decide when to do particular job activities.
Managerial factors 1. Lack of resources 1. Availability and allocation of machines and materials to complete a task.
2. Sufficient workers allocated for a job
2. Supervisor support 1. Possibility of supervisor fulfils workers’ requirements.
2. Communication of any major changes among the workers in the work environment informed by the supervisor.
3. Supervisor encourages/motivates Worker even in challenging situations.
3. Communication system 1. Organizing regular inspection and meeting.
2. Ensuing regional language communication.
3. Availability of display accessories for standard operating procedures.
4. Conducting and analyzing internal customer feedback.
4. Co-workers support 1. Possibility of support from fellow Worker in an unfavourable condition.
2. Fellow workers are willing to offer assistance.
Work design factors 1. Job rotation 1. Balancing among the workers in an assembly line.
2. Workers’ willingness to participate in multi-tasks.
3. Resources are available for multi-tasks.
4. Worker’s multi-skill.
2. Job clarity 1. Workers have properly brief about the objectives of their job.
2. Proper briefing of what has to be done.
3. Understanding and idea about what is expected from activity.
3. Task design 1. Work scheduling autonomy
2. Skill variety
3. Decision-making autonomy
4. Job autonomy 1. Workers can decide the method to be used in getting their work done.
2. Workers can schedule their work.
3. Workers can allow to decide when to do specific job.
4. Change work schedule according to workload
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
21