Special Issue: Performance Measurement

International Journal of Engineering

Business Management
On the relationship between human factor Volume 15: 1–13
© The Author(s) 2023
and overall equipment effectiveness (OEE): Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/18479790231188548
An analysis through the adoption of analytic journals.sagepub.com/home/enb

hierarchy process and ISO 22400

Sebastiano Di Luozzo1 , Fiorenza Starnoni1 and Massimiliano Maria Schiraldi1

Abstract
In the industrial field, one of the most widespread KPIs is represented by the Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), first
introduced by Seiichi Nakajima within the Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) theory and aimed at identifying the in-
efficiencies of industrial assets. While OEE has been objective of several studies, the relationship between the Overall
Equipment Effectiveness and the role of the human factor in achieving its high levels of values has not been extensively
investigated. In recent years few scientific studies have investigated the relationship, showing that there is a link between
OEE and human factors, even significant, but not clearly identified yet. In order to examine this relationship, our study
proposes a framework to clarify the links between human factors, OEE parameters, the industrial sector, and the degree of
automation. This framework is then validated through the application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) meth-
odology. As a result, 13 aspects related to the human factor were identified. Finally, the study provides practical guidance
and implications for maximizing the outcomes of the investigation, with the goal of improving an organization’s overall
manufacturing performance. By understanding the impact of the human factor on OEE, organizations can make informed
decisions to optimize their operations and achieve higher levels of productivity.

Keywords
Overall equipment effectiveness, OEE, ISO22400, KPI, human factor

Date received: 28 April 2023; accepted: 28 June 2023

Introduction In this context, although Nakajima underlines the main

Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), first introduced by
Nakajima in 1988 within the TPM theory, is a key per-
formance indicator extensively adopted in the
manufacturing context.1 Its huge diffusion can be linked to
the easiness of reading and to the capability to sum up
several metrics generally monitored by companies.2,3
Considering the number of scientific articles published in
the last years, the role of the OEE within industrial and
scientific context appears clear and recognized: the scien-
tific publications regarding the Overall Equipment Effec-
tiveness and the improvement of the indicators itself are
increasing.
role of manpower in the achievement of a high rate of the
KPI,1 by reviewing the existing literature it is possible to
understand how the relationship between the performance
indicator and human factor has not been deepened. In
conclusion, the ways in which people carry out operational
1
Department of Enterprise Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata,
Rome, Italy
Corresponding author:
Sebastiano Di Luozzo, Department of Enterprise Engineering, University of
Rome Tor Vergata, Via del Politecnico 1, Rome 00133, Italy.
Email: sebastiano.di.luozzo@uniroma2.it

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use,
reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the
SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 International Journal of Engineering Business Management
activities exerts an influence on the KPI and can play a key
role in achieving high OEE values – and therefore to the
achievement of corporate effectiveness improvement – have
not been appropriately deepened in the literature.4,5 Con-
sidering the points discussed, the aim of our study is rep-
resented by the investigation of the existing relationship
between human factors and OEE and understand how the
human activities can exert an influence on reaching high
levels of OEE. To our knowledge, no other scientific
contribution has proposed a deep dive on the human ac-
tivities able to influence the Overall Equipment
Effectiveness.
In the context of industrial manufacturing, the influence
of the human factor plays a significant role in the overall
efficiency and productivity of the production processes.
Manufacturing operations often involve complex machin-
ery, automated systems, and intricate workflows, but it is the
human element that ultimately governs and interacts with
these systems. As a result, understanding and addressing the
impact of human factors is crucial for optimizing opera-
tional performance, ensuring quality output, and maxi-
mizing the overall equipment efficiency (OEE). In this
context, human factors encompass a wide range of ele-
ments, including but not limited to the skills, capabilities,
knowledge, experience, training, and behavior of the in-
dividuals involved in the manufacturing process. These
factors can have both positive and negative effects on the
various parameters that contribute to OEE.
By linking human factors to each parameter of OEE,
organizations can gain a comprehensive understanding of
how human-related aspects influence equipment efficiency
and overall manufacturing performance. This understanding
enables them to implement targeted strategies and inter-
ventions to optimize human performance, address potential
weaknesses, and capitalize on strengths. It also underscores
the importance of investing in ongoing training and de-
velopment programs, fostering a positive safety culture,
improving communication and collaboration, and im-
plementing ergonomic design principles to create a har-
monious interaction between humans and the
manufacturing systems. According to this reasoning, the
paper discusses the following research question:
RQ: Which are the main human factors influencing the
achievement of high levels of OEE? What is their relationship
with the indicator?
The paper is hence arranged as follows, in order to answer
to the aforedescribed research question. Background is
dedicated to the definition of the OEE, its background and
the relationship with human factors; Method is dedicated to
the introduction of the methodology used for the research
work; Analysis of the OEE and human factor in the scientific
literature is aimed at identifying and clarifying the
relationship between human factors impacting OEE;
Analysis of the human factors affecting OEE elements
through the adoption of ISO 22400 standard taxonomy and
Relationship between human factor, industrial sector and
degree of automation reports in order the analysis con-
ducted for the identification of the elements of the KPI
impacted by the human factors and the relationship be-
tween human factors, degree of automation and industrial
sector. The validation of the results is shown in AHP
analysis, results and discussions, where Analytic Hier-
archy Process (AHP) analysis has been performed and its
results analyzed. Lastly Conclusions reports the conclu-
sions of the article.
Background
The Overall Equipment Effectiveness is as a Key Perfor-
mance Indicator (KPI) that integrates three distinct indi-
cators, namely Availability, Performance Efficiency, and
Quality.1 The definition of the indicator is elaborated as
follows:
OEE ¼ Availability Performance Efficiency Quality (1)
Specifically, as reported by2:
· Availability refers to the portion of scheduled time
that is utilized after accounting for all the time losses
due to major machinery stoppages, eliminating losses
caused by failures, downtime, and setup losses;
· Performance Efficiency indicates the proportion of
operating time that is utilized after accounting for all
the time losses caused by minor machinery stoppages
or reductions in speed, including idling and minor
stoppages, reduced speed, and reduced yield;
· Quality Rate indicates the percentage of net operating
time that is utilized after accounting for time losses
resulting from work activities for processing of non-
sellable units (such as production waste or rework of
defective units).
Table 1 presents the values defined by Nakajima1 for the
various indicators that can be targeted to evaluate good
manufacturing performance. Nakajima also established a
benchmark level for OEE, known as the “World-Class
Level” (85%).
However, the scientific literature does not always concur
with these values. Kotze3 contends that, unlike Nakajima,
an OEE of 50% or less is a more realistic benchmark due to
variations in industrial realities. Conversely, Ericsson,4
suggests that an OEE ranging from 30% to 80% can be
an effective reference benchmark. These discrepancies may
arise from difficulties in evaluating and comparing OEE
across various production processes and industries.5
Luozzo et al.
Table 1. World-class level target values.
Availability (%) Performance efficiency (%)
90 95
Consequently, several authors have proposed alternative
methods for calculating the OEE indicator, tailored to
specific industries or production processes, leading to
ambiguity in implementing the indicator in manufacturing
settings. To provide KPI definitions that are independent of
a company’s production and operational context, the In-
ternational Organization for Standardization (ISO) intro-
duced the ISO22400 standard (“Key performance
indicators (KPIs) for manufacturing operations manage-
ment”) for manufacturing operations management.6,7 The
standard includes two definitions of Overall Equipment
Effectiveness referred to as “Model A” and “Model B,”
which were discussed in detail by Schiraldi and Varisco in
2020,8 who analyzed their consistency with Nakajima’s
original definition.1 Thus, significant efforts have been
made to develop comprehensive definitions and frameworks
for implementing OEE to enable continuous improvement
and streamline production processes and performances:
manufacturing organizations have the chance to improve
their production processes and performance by evaluating
the factors that affect OEE, allowing them to re-engineer,
standardize and streamline their operations.9
While attention was originally focused on assessing
equipment, machinery, and other tangible factors in
manufacturing processes, investigating the relationship
between human factors and Overall Equipment Effective-
ness has become crucial to achieving a competitive ad-
vantage.10 As stated by Nakajima,1 even highly automated
plants cannot eliminate the positive and negative impact of
manpower on manufacturing outcomes. For example,
manual maintenance and retooling activities can affect
execution times, Performance Efficiency, or Quality Rate
during visual inspection. The scientific literature proposes a
classification of operational losses due to human actions,11
which includes:
Certain influence of operators on wasted time
Losses where the duration of downtime, starting from the
occurrence of a fault until the machinery resumes op-
eration, is influenced by the actions performed by the
operators;
Uncertain influence of operators on wasted time
Losses that may have varying duration of downtime based
on the activities carried out by the operators;
3
Quality (%) OEE (%)
99 85
No influence of operators on wasted time
Losses in which the duration of downtime is not influenced
by the activities performed by the operators.
In a similar approach, human errors affecting plant per-
formance are classified into six categories by,12 including
operating errors, assembly errors, design errors, inspection
errors, installation errors, and maintenance errors. Further-
more, the importance of the relationship between workers’
skills, competences, and attitudes and OEE is gaining
attention.13,14 The human element is now considered a source
of competitiveness,15 owing to the intangible characteristics of
human nature, including organizational knowledge, skills,
attitudes, and knowledge.16 Chen et al.’s research17 on the
attitudes of human resources in large manufacturing compa-
nies identifies the main elements and factors that can be
leveraged to improve operational productivity. Some publi-
cations recommend performance improvement through the
implementation of approaches, such as TPM, where the central
role of the human factor is acknowledged but do not detail the
human elements that affect performance.18 Other publications
describe specific cases where manpower has significantly
influenced operational activities.19
Therefore, it is evident from the literature review that there
is a link between business performance and human activities.
However, this relationship is not fully elucidated regarding
the human factor’s influence on OEE. As a result, this study
aims to explore the relationship between OEE and the human
factor, providing a comprehensive framework and organi-
zational guidance to improve manufacturing performance.
Method
A procedure was created to identify the human activities that
impact the Overall Equipment Effectiveness, as illustrated
in Figure 1.
The initial stage of this study involves conducting an
extensive literature review to assess the current state of
knowledge on the link between human factors and OEE. This
process entails examining articles from key databases, such
as Scopus and Web of Science. Once the literature portfolio is
defined, the identified human elements are categorized into
macro-categories based on a hierarchical structure, which is
necessary for the next phase of the procedure.
Next, the second phase of the study involved collecting
opinions from experts in Operations Excellence, with the
aim of confirming or rejecting the identified relationships
and determining the relevance and hierarchy of importance
4 International Journal of Engineering Business Management
Figure 1. flow of the proposed procedure.
of the human elements in relation to OEE performance. This
was accomplished through a questionnaire administered to a
Think Tank in Operations Excellence,1 and the opinions
collected of 13 involved experts were analyzed using the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology. Accord-
ing to Saaty,20 the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a
multi-criteria method used to obtain pairwise comparison
scales for continuous and discrete factors. Developed at the
Wharton School of Business, it provides decision support
in situations where problem structuring is difficult, ratio-
nality is limited, and there are multiple decision-making
criteria that may be in contrast with each other. It enables
both tangible and intangible factors, such as experiences and
values of the decision-maker, to be included in the choice
among solution alternatives. It can also overcome defi-
ciencies in the description of the problem/criteria and accept
contributions from decision-makers (e.g., situations in-
volving different areas).21
Thus, the categorization of human factors influencing
OEE was used to determine the AHP questionnaire, which
was compiled by experts. The questionnaire aimed to define
a comparison of the importance of human macro-factors in
influencing OEE values and to compare the sub-factors
within the same macro-category. The experts’ responses
were then used to validate the human factors and quanti-
tatively identify the factors that can significantly affect the
achievement of a high degree of OEE. Indeed, expert
opinions and subjective judgments were gathered through
pairwise comparisons, where the relative importance of
each human factor within a specific OEE parameter is as-
sessed. Participants ranked the factors in terms of their
impact, using a numerical scale, considering criteria such as
expertise, experience, and knowledge. The collected
judgments have then been used to calculate weightings for
each factor using mathematical algorithms, such as the
Saaty’s eigenvector method. These weightings reflect the
relative importance of the human factors within each OEE
parameter. Once the weightings have been established, they
were applied to the respective OEE parameters to quantify
the influence of the human factor on each parameter. This
allows for a numerical evaluation and comparison of the
impact of different human factors on the overall efficiency
of the manufacturing process.
Analysis of the OEE and human factor in
the scientific literature
The procedure begins with a review of the current state of
research aimed at identifying the primary human factors that
impact OEE values. The analysis focuses on articles that
consider OEE in specific production contexts, both from a
theoretical and practical standpoint. To accomplish this, the
search for articles within major scientific databases incor-
porates the keyword “OEE,” along with other specific terms
associated with improvement activities such as Lean
Manufacturing and Six Sigma. These terms include “Im-
provement,” “SMED,” “TPM,” “Fishbone diagram,”
“WCM,” and “Performance measurement management”.
The selected publications were then assessed to deter-
mine their usefulness in identifying human activities that
influence OEE. The reference dataset used in this study
solely comprises scientific articles that identify how human
actions impact plant, machine, or line performance at the
OEE level. The resulting dataset analyzed in this study
comprises 34 scientific articles, which are listed in
Appendix A. The bibliographic portfolio analysis was then
conducted to identify and categorize the hierarchical
structure of human factors affecting OEE, as outlined in
Table 1. The model is structured into three hierarchical
levels:
1° hierarchical level
the first level identifies the macro-categories of human
factors that impact achieving high OEE values. These
macro-categories are grouped by impact area;
2° hierarchical level
The second level identifies the specific human factors that
influence performance indicator values, categorized ac-
cording to the reference category;
3° Hierarchical level
The third hierarchical level involves identifying the factors
that may impact the accurate execution of manual activities
Luozzo et al.
and contribute to achieving higher OEE levels. These
factors are classified as either “Personal Features,” which
includes Personal Abilities, Experience, and Training, or
“Human Interaction with the Environment,” which com-
prises Low Noise Intensity, Proper Illumination, Proper
Temperature and Humidity Conditions, Low Exposure to
Vibrations, Electromagnetic Fields, Artificial Optical Ra-
diation, Infrasound and Ultrasound, and Hyperbaric
Atmospheres.
Analysis of the human factors affecting
OEE elements through the adoption of ISO
22400 standard taxonomy
In order to identify a strong relationship between the human
factors and the Overall Equipment Effectiveness, the in-
fluence that each human factor exerts on the KPI has been
underlined through the analysis of the specific OEE ele-
ments. For this reason, the starting point is represented by
the study of the Overall Equipment Effectiveness following
the two definitions of the KPI, OEEA and OEEB , provided
by the ISO22400 standard. In this context, the study of KPIs
is linked from the introduction of the ISO22400 standard,
which attempts to provide unambiguous definitions of in-
dicators in such a way as to promote standardisation. The
ISO 22400 standard is based directly on the IEC
62264 standard and is linked to several other standards
referring to the various levels of the functional hierarchy.
This means that to take full advantage of ISO22400, a
company should really understand the activities within the
MOM domain and their description provided in IEC
62264.7
Within the ISO22400 standard, two different defini-
tions are provided for Overall Equipment Effectiveness,
for which the convention for the definition of “Model A”
and “Model B” will be adopted. In the first definition
(Model A), OEE is defined as that indicator representing
“the KPIs of work unit availability, work unit efficiency
and quality rate integrated into a single indicator”.6 In
formulas:
OEEA ¼ Availability * Ef f ectiveness * Quality ratio
Availability ¼ APT = PBT
Ef f ectiveness ¼ PRI * PQ = APT
Quality Ratio ¼ GQ = PQ
5
APT PRI * PQ GQ
OEEA ¼ * *
PBT APT PQ
On the other hand, ISO 22400 defines the Model B of the
OEE as an indicator that “represents the availability of a
work unit, the efficiency of a work unit and the rate of
finished products integrated in a single indicator”.6 In
formulas:
OEE ¼ Availability *Performance rate *Finished Goods Ratio
Availability ¼ OPT =LT
Performance Ratio ¼ NOT =OPT
Finished Goods Ratio ¼ GQ =CM
Where Table 2 describes the elements characterizing both
OEE models:
After the identification of all the parameters configuring
the OEE, the human factors have been linked to each pa-
rameter considering the influence that they exert. The ra-
tionale behind this approach is to gain a comprehensive
understanding of how human-related aspects impact the
efficiency of equipment, for both types of OEE. This un-
derstanding can help in optimizing processes and improving
overall efficiency by addressing human factors appropri-
ately. Indeed, by linking human factors to each parameter,
organizations can make informed decisions and take ap-
propriate actions to optimize their processes, reduce
downtime, enhance performance, and improve the quality
of their output.
The results are showed in the following table:
With the Same Aim of the Previous Investigation, an
Additional Analysis has Been Conducted in Order to Define
the Possible States of the Machinery or the Asset Could be
at the Time of the Occurrence of the Human Factor
Influencing the Attainment of High OEE Indicator Values.
Indeed, Schiraldi and Varisco in 20208 Proposed in Their
Study a Classification of the State of Machinery in Relation
to the Cause of the Specific State and the Factor of Overall
Equipment Effectiveness for Both Model a and Model B,
Whose Relationship With the Human Factors has Been
Reported in Table 3.
Relationship between human factor,
industrial sector and degree of automation
An additional evaluation has been carried out to determine
the combined relationship between human factors
6 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

impacting OEE, industrial sector and degree of automaton publications was used. As in the industrial sector, also in the
of the company. Indeed, in this way it is possible to identify case of the analysis in relation to the degree of automation, it
the most relevant elements to be considered for the specific was not possible for all publications to identify the specific
organization under assessment. production mode: in several scientific articles, in fact, the
In order to perform the analysis on the basis of the in- parameter in question was not specified. In the latter case,
dustrial sector of reference, the International Standard In- the objective was to identify if a specific human factor was
dustrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) impacting in either the context of an automatic production
was used. ISIC proposes an international reference classi- system, or a semi-automatic production system, or a manual
fication of production activities, the purpose of which is to one. However, it is possible to point out that OEE is
propose various categories of activities that can be used for considered to be more suitable for semi-automatic and
the collection and reporting of statistical research based on automatic processes11 and, on the contrary, not recom-
these activities. mended for performance measurement with regard to
Starting from the papers identified in the literature within manual and semi-automatic assembly processes.1 For these
which the impact of human activities on OEE was observed reasons, the analysis was conducted with the objective of
(Table A.1), the reference industrial sector was analysed for analysing only the degree of semi-automatic and automatic
each paper according to the ISIC classification. For the automation.
analysis of the relationship between human factors and OEE The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4, which
parameters according to the degree of automation typical of reports the relationship between the industrial sector, degree
the specific production plant, the same dataset of scientific of automation and human factor impacting their combi-
nation. Note that for simplicity the level 2 human factors are
reported exclusively with their label (e.g., “D” stands for
Table 2. Elements characterizing OEE models as per ISO 22400 “Proper execution of logistics activities”).
standard. Looking at the results shown in Table 4, it is possible to
OEE model Parameters Description highlight the presence of three critical factors for each industry
sector of reference and for each degree of automation:
OEEA APT Actual production time
PBT Planned busy time · Proper execution of production activities;
PRI Planned runtime per item
· Proper execution of maintenance interventions;
PQ Produced quantity
GQ Good quantity · Proper execution of setup interventions.
OEEB OPT Operating time
LT Loading time Those three factors refer to the category of “Organization
NOT Net operating time and planning of manual activities” and these results could
GQ Good quantity produced derive from the need, regardless of the company’s configu-
CM Consumed material ration by degree of automation and reference industrial sector,

Table 3. Machinery states and human factors relationship.

Level 1 Level 2 Machinery state

Organization and planning of manual activities Proper execution of production activities (A) OFF; SLOW
Proper execution of setup interventions (B) OFF
Proper execution of maintenance interventions (C) OFF; STOP
Proper execution of logistics activities (D) SLOW
Definition and execution of standards, quality, Proper execution of procedures (E) SLOW
and procedures Expertise for conducting operational activities (F) OFF; SLOW; STOP
Order and cleanliness in the management of equipment within SLOW; OFF; ON;
the workplace (G) STOPS
Design of production and logistics systems Proper design and sizing of machinery (H) OFF; SLOW; STOP
Proper design of the production department layout (I) STOP; SLOW
Proper ergonomics of the operators’ workstations (L) SLOW
Proper design of material handling systems (M) SLOW
Information management Accuracy of manual data management (N) SLOW
Correct communication and sharing of information within the OFF
team (O)
Luozzo et al. 7

Table 4. Relationship between the human factors, industrial sector and degree of automation.

Industrial sector Semi-automatic Automatic

Defense & Space A; B; C; D A; C; E

Pharmaceutical A; B; D; E A; C; D; E
Food production A; C; D; E; F; G; H; I A; C; E; G; H
Aviation & Aerospace A; B; C; D; G; A; C; E
Automotive B; C; D; E; G; H; M G; L
Chemicals A; B; C; D; E; G A; C; E; G; L
Machinery A; B; C; D; G A; C; E
Shipbuilding A; B; C; D; G A; C; E
Textiles B; C; D; E; G C; E; A
Printing A; B; C; D; G A; C; E
Electrical & electronic manufacturing A; C; D; E; G A; C; E; G; L
Plastics A; B; C; D; G A; C; E
Renewables & environment A; B; C; D; G A; C; E
Glass, ceramics & concrete A; B; C; D; E; G; H; N A; C; E; G; H
Packaging & containers A; B; C; D; E; G A; C; E; G
Industrial automation A; B; C; G A; C; E
Paper & forest products A; B; C; D; E; G; H A; C; E; G
Railroad manufacture A; B; C; D; G A; C; E

for the scheduling by companies of production activities,
maintenance activities and setup interventions.
On the other hand, when analysing the factors identified
for companies characterised by a semi-automated degree of
automation, it can be observed that there are two human
factors that are repeated for each industrial sector. The
parameters in question are the Expertise for conducting
operational activities and Proper execution of procedures,
that is, the operator’s ability to identify anomalies, such as
possible signs of machine failure or non-conforming
products, and training, that is, the degree of instruction
on the processes and methods for carrying out the activities
learned within the enterprise.
AHP analysis, results and discussions
To determine the importance of the different levels of hu-
man factors, an AHP questionnaire based on the proposed
hierarchical structure has been developed to determine the
levels 1-2 factors weights. The questionnaire was filled by
the Operations Excellence Think Tank members and re-
quired participants to perform pairwise comparisons be-
tween level 1 and level 2 criteria, as well as hierarchical
ranking of level 3 criteria.
Saaty’s AHP semantic scale22 was used for the pairwise
comparisons, while experts ranked the level 3 criteria based
on their impact on the specific level 2 factor, with position
one representing the highest ranking.
The responses were then averaged to identify the most
relevant personal features and environmental conditions.
Each respondent was assigned a Consistency Ratio (CR) for
further analysis of the level 1-2 factor weights. The results
for the level 1 factors are presented below:
Table 5 reveals that the factors that have a significant
impact on achieving high OEE values are related to “def-
inition and execution of standards, qualities, and proce-
dures” and “Design of production and logistics systems”.
These results highlight the importance of developing ac-
curate Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and taking into
consideration system design to improve OEE values.
Hence, organizations should focus on these factors to im-
prove their overall performance. The results for the level
2 factors are presented below:
It is worth noting that only one question was included
in the pairwise comparison for the level 2 factors be-
longing to the “information management” macro-
category, which resulted in a cr of 0. Consequently,
the weights for these factors are as follows: 0.78 for the
accuracy of manual data management and 0.22 for the
correct communication and sharing of information
within the team. Based on the results, the most important
level 2 factors are related to the proper execution of
production and setup activities, expertise in operational
activities, and the ergonomic conditions of operators’
workstations. These weights indicate that while planning
and organizing production and setup activities are crit-
ical for achieving efficient operations, the ergonomics,
working conditions, and expertise of operators are also
vital for obtaining high oee values. In fact, the level
2 factor concerning the expertise of operators is the most
significant factor overall. finally, Tables 6 and 7 present
the results for the level 3 factors.
8 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

Table 5. Weights of the level 1 factors.

Level 1 factors CR<0.1 CR<0.2 CR<0.3 Overall

Organization and planning of manual activities 0.36 0.29 0.22 0.18

Definition and execution of standards, quality and procedures 0.22 0.38 0.34 0.38
Design of production and logistics systems 0.32 0.22 0.34 0.32
Information management 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.12

Table 6. Average ranking of the level 3 factor “personal features”(for Each of the Impacted Level 2 Factor).

Level 2 factors Personal abilities Experience Training

Proper execution of production activities (A) 2.58 1.65 1.77

Proper execution of setup interventions (B) 2.64 2.18 1.18
Proper execution of maintenance interventions (C) 2.45 1.82 1.73
Proper execution of logistics activities (D) 2.27 1.91 1.82
Proper execution of procedures (E) 2.18 2.36 1.45
Expertise for conducting operational activities (F) 2.00 3.00 1.00
Order and cleanliness in the management of equipment in the workplace (G) 2.00 2.36 1.64
Proper design and sizing of machinery (H) 1.91 1.64 2.45
Proper design of the production department layout (I) 2.00 1.82 2.18
Proper ergonomics of the operators’ workstations (L) 2.09 1.64 2.27
Proper design of material handling systems (M) 2.18 1.91 1.91
Accuracy in manual data management (N) 2.00 2.45 1.55
Correct communication and sharing of information within the team (O) 2.18 2.18 1.64

Table 7. Average ranking of the level 3 factor “Human Interaction With the Environment” (for each of the impacted level 2 factor).

Low Low exposure

noise Proper Proper temperature and humidity to
Level 2 factors intensity illumination conditions vibrations, etc.

Proper execution of production activities (A) 2.18 1.64 2.55 3.64

Proper execution of setup interventions (B) 2.09 1.36 2.64 3.91
Proper execution of maintenance interventions (C) 2.00 1.45 2.73 3.82
Proper execution of logistics activities (D) 2.27 1.36 2.55 3.82
Proper execution of procedures (E) 2.36 1.36 2.27 4.00
Expertise for conducting operational 2.27 1.45 2.27 4.00
activities (F)
Order and cleanliness in the management of equipment in 2.45 1.27 2.45 3.82
the workplace (G)
Luozzo et al. 9

Table 8. hierarchical structure of the human factors impacting the KPI.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Organization and planning of manual Proper execution of production activities (A) Personal features
activities Human interaction with the
environment
Proper execution of setup interventions (B) Personal features
Human interaction with the
environment
Proper execution of maintenance interventions (C) Personal features
Human interaction with the
environment
Proper execution of logistics activities (D) Personal features
Human interaction with the
environment
Definition and execution of standards, Proper execution of procedures (E) Personal features
quality, and procedures Expertise for conducting operational activities (F) Personal features
Order and cleanliness in the management of equipment Personal features
within the workplace (G)
Design of production and logistics systems Proper design and sizing of machinery (H) Personal features
Human interaction with the
environment
Proper design of the production department layout (I) Personal features
Human interaction with the
environment
Proper ergonomics of the operators’ workstations (L) Personal features
Human interaction with the
environment
Proper design of material handling systems (M) Personal features
Human interaction with the
environment
Information management Accuracy of manual data management (N) Personal features
Correct communication and sharing of information Personal features
within the team (O)

Table 9. Analysis of human factors and OEE elements.

Level 1 Level 2 OEEA OEEB

Organization and planning of manual Proper execution of production activities (A) PRI; PBT Lt; OPT
activities Proper execution of setup interventions (B) PBT GQ; LT
Proper execution of maintenance interventions (C) APT OPT; LT
Proper execution of logistics activities (D) APT POT
Definition and execution of standards, Proper execution of procedures (E) PRI; APT NOT; LT
quality, and procedures Expertise for conducting operational activities (F) APT; PRI; NOT; LT; OPT;
GQ GQ
Order and cleanliness in the management of equipment APT NOT; OPT
within the workplace (G)
Design of production and logistics systems Proper design and sizing of machinery (H) PRI OPT
Proper design of the production department layout (I) APT; PBT OPT; LT
Proper ergonomics of the operators’ workstations (L) APT NOT
Proper design of material handling systems (M) PRI OPT
Information management Accuracy of manual data management (N) APT OPT
Correct communication and sharing of information within APT OPT
the team (O)
10 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

Table 10. Weights of the level 2 factors (for Level 1 Factor “Organization and Planning of Manual Activities”).

Level 2 factors CR<0.1 CR<0.2 CR<0.3 Overall

Proper execution of production activities (A) 0.43 0.47 0.39 0.33

Proper execution of setup interventions (B) 0.36 0.33 0.36 0.41
Proper execution of maintenance interventions (C) 0.08 0.09 0.15 0.15
Proper execution of logistics activities (D) 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11

Table 11. Weights of the level 2 Factors (for Level 1 factor “definition and Execution of Standards, Qualit y, and Procedures”).

Level 2 factors CR<0.1 CR<0.2 CR<0.3 Overall

Proper execution of procedures (E) 0.25 / / 0.25

Expertise for conducting operational activities (F) 0.41 / / 0.41
Order and cleanliness in the management of equipment in the Workplace (G) 0.34 / / 0.34

Table 12. Weights of the level 2 factors (for Level 1 Factor “Design of Production and Logistics Systems”).

Level 2 factors CR<0.1 CR<0.2 CR<0.3 Overall

Proper design and sizing of machinery (H) 0.16 0.12 0.24 0.24
Proper design of the production department layout (I) 0.31 0.28 0.27 0.25
Proper ergonomics of the operators’ workstations (L) 0.3 0.4 0.33 0.35
Proper design of material handling systems (M) 0.23 0.2 0.17 0.16

It is possible to observe that for the greater part of the
level 2 factors, “Training” and “Proper illumination” are
assessed as the most important elements for increasing the
Overall Equipment Effectiveness. Hence, this result allows
to state that personal characteristics and the soft side of
people are actually evaluated by decision-makers as rele-
vant towards the reaching of excellence in operations
performances, supporting the considerations of the shift
from Operational Excellence to Human Excellence theory23
and showing the required need for an individualized Human
Resource Management.14
Moreover, it must be noted that some of the obtained
responses show a medium-high CR level, due to the limited
number of gathered responses. Managing a high consis-
tency ratio in AHP matrices is an important aspect of en-
suring the reliability and validity of the analysis. Indeed,
several strategies can be employed to mitigate this effect:
1. Reviewing and revising judgments;
2. Increasing the number of participants;
3. Conducting sensitivity analysis;
4. Expert consultation and consensus building;
5. Training and calibration sessions.
By employing these strategies, researchers and practi-
tioners can effectively manage and mitigate the impact of a
high consistency ratio in AHP matrices, leading to more
robust and trustworthy findings in the assessment.
Conclusions
The objective of this study is to establish the correlation
between Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) and the
human factors that have the greatest influence on this key
performance indicator. To achieve this scope, the study aims
to identify the activities or elements related to manpower
that impact OEE performance and, if appropriately con-
trolled and managed, could result in achieving high OEE
values. The study relies on a comprehensive literature re-
view to identify four categories of human factors that di-
rectly affect OEE values and two categories that indirectly
affect the indicator. In total, twenty human factors were
identified and organized into a hierarchical structure to
better understand their impact on the OEE indicator. Those
human factors can be assessed and evaluated, for instance,
through the adoption of Key Activity Indicators (KAIs),
which can be used also for the evaluation of activities re-
lated to the human sphere.
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology
was adopted to validate the identified relationships. A
questionnaire was developed and completed by experts
from an Operations Excellence Think Tank. The analysis of
Luozzo et al.
the results helped determine the relative importance of the
different human factors and provided guidelines for im-
proving OEE. The study concluded that the “definition and
execution of standards, qualities, and procedures” and the
“Design of production and logistics systems” are the main
areas requiring attention, particularly regarding the exper-
tise and training of operators.
However, the results of the analysis were characterised
by responses that were not always perfectly consistent
and by matrices of pairwise comparisons with Consis-
tency Ratios above the threshold value of 0.1. For these
reasons, in the future, it might be advisable to carry out an
AHP analysis in the first instance, presenting answers that
are as consistent as possible. Alternatively, it might be
advisable to carry out an analysis for the validation of the
results that takes into consideration a wider range of
respondents, thus being able to perform statistical ana-
lyses of the results.
Additionally, the identified human factors have been
related to the OEE models described by the ISO
22400 standard, which represents the international norm
categorizing KPIs in Manufacturing Operations Manage-
ment, and successively to the specific company’s industrial
sector and degree of automation. Indeed, within the study
human factors were also classified according to the in-
dustrial sector of reference and the degree of automation
typical of the production plant of reference. In this sense, it
could also be interesting to validate the results obtained
through a case study that takes these variables into
consideration.
Those results could represent the starting point for a
deeper analysis regarding the factors that affect the
achievement of high level of OEE. Moreover, they also
represent a set of factors that the companies could start
monitoring through specific indicators in concert with the
Overall Equipment Effectiveness. Thanks also to the
framework proposed, companies could understand which
are the most suitable indicators to be monitored based on
their characteristics, considering the combination of the
industrial sector and degree of automation.In conclusion,
the research area is not yet well explored, and this study
may serve as a starting point for further analysis of the
relationship between OEE and human factors. Future
studies should focus on identifying additional human
factors in production settings and expanding the study to
include respondents from both industrial and aca-
demic backgrounds to validate the results obtained
Tables 8–12.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
11
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, au-
thorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Sebastiano Di Luozzo  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2591-1738
Note
1. The Think Tank in Operations Excellence was founded in
2019 in ‘Tor Vergata’ University of Rome to provide a
platform for information sharing, exchange of ideas,
knowledge creation, and dissemination of Operations Ex-
cellence best practices in industries. Currently, it is com-
posed of 13 experts at managerial or executive positions
with 10 to 30+ years of proven qualification in Operations
Excellence themes, on behalf of six multinational compa-
nies operating in different sectors: consumer goods, food,
beverage, pharmaceutical, textile manufacturing, robotics,
and automation technologies.
References
1. Nakajima S. Introduction to TPM. Portland, Oregon: Pro-
ductivity Press, 1988.
2. Cesarotti V, Introna V, Rotunno R, et al. Investigating the
relationship between energy consumption and overall
equipment effectiveness for improving manufacturing
systems’productivity: an application in the thermo-
forming process. Int J Prod Qual Manag 2016; 18(2/3):
279.
3. Kotze D. Consistency, accuracy lead to maximum OEE
benefits. TPM Newsletter 1993; 4(2).
4. Ericsson J. Disruption analysis – an important tool in lean
production. Lund: Department of Production and Materials
Engineering, Lund University, 1997.
5. Jonsson P and Lesshammar M. Evaluation and im-
provement of manufacturing performance measurement
systems- the role of OEE. Int Jrnl of Op & Prod Mna-
gemnt 1999; 19(1): 55–78.
6. ISO22400:2, Automation system and integration- key per-
formance indicators (KPIs) for manufacturing operations
management-Part 2: definitions and descriptions, Geneva,
Switzerland: international Organization for Standardization,
2014
7. Di Luozzo S, Varisco M and Schiraldi MM. The diffusion of
international standards on managerial practices. Int J Eng Bus
Manag 2020; 12: 184797902092161.
8. Schiraldi MM and Varisco M. Overall equipment effective-
ness: consistency of ISO standard with literature. Comput Ind
Eng 2020; 145: 106518.
9. Mathur A, Dangayach GS, Mittal ML, et al. Performance
measurement in automated manufacturing. Measuring
Business Excellence 2011; 15(1): 77–91.
12 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

10. Di Luozzo S, Pop GR and Schiraldi MM. The human per-
formance impact on oee in the adoption of new production
technologies. Appl Sci 2021; 11(18): 8620.
11. Hedman R, Subramaniyan M and Almström P. Analysis of
critical factors for automatic measurement of OEE. Procedia
CIRP 2016; 57: 128–133.
12. Dhillon B and Liu Y. Human error in maintenance: a review.
J Qual Mainten Eng 2006; 12(1): 21–36.
13. John G and Andrew C. Knowledge management and pro-
fessional experrience: the uneasy dynamics between tacit
knowledge and performativity in organizations. J Kwoled
Manag 2017; 21(4): 872–884.
14. Aloini D, Fronzetti Colladon A, Gloor P, et al. Enhancing
operations management through smart sensors: mea-
suring and improving well-being, interaction and per-
formance of logistics workers. TQM journal 2022; 34(2):
303–329.
15. Barney J and Wright P. On becoming a strategic partner: the
role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage.
Hum Resour Manage 1998; 37(1): 31–46.
16. Bollinger A and Smith R. Managing organizational
knowledge as a strategic asset. J Knowl Manag 2001; 5:
8–18.
17. Chen L, Liaw S and Lee T. Using an HRM pattern approach to
examine the productivity of manufacturing firms – an em-
pirical study. Int J Manpow 2003; 24(3): 299–318.
18. Sun H, Yam R and Wai-Keung N. The implementation and
evaluation of total productive maintenance (TPM) – an action
case study in a Hong Kong manufacturing company. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2003; 22(3): 224–228.
19. Pinto L, Nunes E and Sousa S. A framework to improve
training and development of workers’ technical skills: effects
on operational performance during company relocation.
Procedia Manuf 2020; 51: 1806–1813.
20. Saaty R. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it
is used. Math Model 1987; 9(5): 161–176.
21. Battistoni E. Decisioni a razionalità limitata. In: La Bella A
and Capece G (eds). Manuale di direzione d’impresa. Milan,
Italy: FrancoAngeli, 2012, pp. 287–342.
22. Battistoni E, Colladon AF, Scarabotti L, et al. Analytic hi-
erarchy process for new product development. Int J Eng Bus
Manag 2013; 5(42): 42.
23. Schiraldi MM, Marino M and Luozzo SD. Human excel-
lence maturity model: leveraging human resource man-
agement to achieve operational excellence. Int J Bus Excel
2021; 1: 1.

Appendix

Table A1. selected bibliographic portfolio.

ID Reference Title Journal Year

1 (Xiang & feng, 2021) Implementing total productive maintenance in a Journal of industrial engineering and 2021
manufacturing Small or medium-Sized enterprise management
2 (Di Luozzo, et al., The human performance impact on OEE in the adoption Applied Sciences 2021
2021) of New production technologies
3 (Heng, et al., 2019) Automatic estimate of OEE considering uncertainty 52nd CIRP conference on manufacturing 2019
systems
4 (Dal, et al., 2000) Overall equipment effectiveness as a measure of International journal of operations & 2000
operational improvement- a practical analysis production management
5 (Fakhri, et al., 2019) Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) analysis to IOP conference Series: Earth and 2019
improve the effectiveness of vannamei (Litopenaeus environmental Science
vannamei) shrimp freezing machine performance at
PT. XY, Situbondo-east java
6 (Tsarouhas, 2018) Improving operation of the croissant production line International journal of productivity and 2018
through overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) performance management
7 (Huang, et al., 2010) Manufacturing productivity improvement using International journal of production response 2010
effectiveness metrics and simulation analysis
8 (Zuashkiani, et al., Mapping the dynamics of overall equipment effectiveness Journal of quality in maintenance engineering 2011
2011) to enhance asset management practices
9 (Zennaro, et al., Micro downtime - data collection, analysis and impact on International journal of quality & reliability 2018
2018) OEE in bottling lines the San benedetto case study management
10 (Tsarouhas, 2020) Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) evaluation for an International journal of productivity and 2020
automated ice cream production line performance management

(continued)
Luozzo et al. 13

Table A1. (continued)

ID Reference Title Journal Year

11 (Soltanali, et al., Measuring the production performance indicators for Measurement 2021
2021) food processing industry
12 (Castro & oliveira Proposal for OEE (overall equipment effectiveness) Brazilian journal of operations & production 2012
de Arujo, 2012) indicator deployment in a beverage plant management
13 (Muchiri & pintelon, Performance measurement using overall equipment International journal of production research 2008
2008) effectiveness (OEE): Literature review and practical
application discussion
14 (Hansson & Lycke, Managing commitment: Increasing the odds for International journal of quality & reliability 2003
2003) successful implementation of TQM, TPM or RCM management
15 (Phogat & Gupta, Identification of problems in maintenance operations Journal of quality in maintenance engineering 2017
2017) and comparison with manufacturing operations: A
review
16 (Mansour, et al., Evaluation of operational performance of workover rigs International journal of productivity and 2013
2013) activities in oilfield performance management
17 (Gupta & Vardhan, Optimizing OEE, productivity and production cost for International journal of production research 2016
2016) improving sales volume in an automobile industry
through TPM: a Case study
18 (Kshantra, et al., Calculation and improving the overall equipment International journal of emerging trends in 2020
2020) effectiveness for textile industry machine engineering research
19 (Ohunakin & Total productive implementation in a beverage industry: Journal of engineering and applied Science 2012
Leramo, 2012) A case study
20 (Rasib, et al., 2021) Non-conformance time As the component of time loss Journal of physics: Conference Series 2021
measures in assembly processes
21 (Li & rong, 2009) The reliable design of one-piece flow production system Computers & operations research 2009
using fuzzy ant colony optimization
22 (Hedman, et al., Analysis of critical factors for automatic measurement of Procedia CIRP 2016
2016) OEE
23 (Martomo & Analysis of total productive maintenance (TPM) 3rd international conference on industrial 2018
Laksono, 2018) implementation using overall equipment effectiveness mechanical, electrical, and chemical
(OEE) and six big losses: A case study engineering, ICIMECE 2017
24 (Nayak, et al., 2013) Evaluation of OEE in a continuous process industry on an International journal of innovative research 2013
insulation line in a cable manufacturing unit in Science, engineering and technology
25 (Sousa, et al., 2018) Applying SMED methodology in cork stoppers Procedia manufacturing 2018
production
26 (Tsarouhas, 2007) Implementation of total productive maintenance in food Journal of quality in maintenance engineering 2007
industry: a Case study
27 (Trattner, et al., Why slow down? Factors affecting speed loss in process The international journal of Advanced 2020
2020) manufacturing manufacturing technology
28 (Hopp & Spearman, Factory physics: Foundations of manufacturing McGraw-Hill 2008
2008) management
29 (Strauch, 2002) Investigating human error: Incidents, Accidents, and CRC press 2002
complex systems
30 (Nakajima, 1988) Introduction to TPM Productivity press 1988
31 (Benjamin, et al., Scrap loss reduction using the 5-whys analysis International journal of quality & reliability 2010
2010) management
32 (Dhillon, 2014) Human error in maintenance: An investigative study for IOP conf. Series: Materials Science and 2014
the future engineering
33 (Dhillon & Liu, Evaluation of operational performance of workover rigs Journal of quality in maintenance engineering 2007
2007) activities in oil field
34 (Aboutaleb, 2015) Empirical study of the effect of stochastic variability on Published PhD thesis 2015
the performance of human-dependent flexible flow
lines
Copyright of International Journal of Engineering Business Management is the property of
Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.