You are on page 1of 77

Proposed Method

Implementation
Chapter 8

20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig, PhD, CPE 1

Action Items
 Return exams
 Turn in labs

20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig, PhD, CPE 2

CH 8 Key Points – Proposed Method
Implementation

 Decide among alternate methods, using value
engineering, cost-benefit analysis, cross-over
charts, and economic analysis
 Sell the new method; people are resistant to
change
 Establish sound base rates using reliable job
evaluation
 Accommodate workers of all abilities

20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig, PhD, CPE 3

new equipment. PhD. Craig. etc. CPE 4 .Proposed Method Implementation  We will look at at a variety of decision making tools developed to assist the analyst choose the “best” (appropriate) alternative  The next step is selling the proposed method  Most important. etc. management’s tight purse strings. job changes. 20 March 2018 Brian N. safety. ergonomic. since if not sold  not installed  Can be true for work method changes.  Selling can be tough  people are resistant to change (Ego's).

) 20 March 2018 Brian N.Proposed Method Implementation  In selling a proposal (Guidelines)  FIRST . lower cost per unit. PhD. materials (indirect and direct). labor (indirect and direct). etc. maintenance. Craig. etc. ROC.)  Talk in management terms  $$$ (ROI.demonstrate HOW it will POSITIVELY effect the bottom line  Start with and focus on IMMEDIATE benefits  something management can almost taste  Value capture and savings (increased productivity. CPE 5 . PP.

Craig. CPE 6 . decreased downtimes (increases in operational availability).Proposed Method Implementation  In selling a proposal (con’t)  Second – more value capture and savings  quality. and other direct effects on management objectives  These are benefits that will be realized later in the project life cycle 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD. reliability (decreases in maintenance).

fines associated with non- compliance. CPE 7 . etc. PhD.Proposed Method Implementation  In selling a proposal (con’t)  Third – cost avoidance issues  costs of injury/illness. scrap. material re-work. 20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig.

I feel this issue should be covered in the initial discussion of the effect to the bottom line  How will we pay for this?  Justification  immediate value and saving benefits. CPE 8 .Proposed Method Implementation  NOTE:  The book discusses the third most important part of the presentation is recovery of capital (or PP). PhD. Craig. intermediate value and saving benefits. finally cost avoidance benefits 20 March 2018 Brian N.

PhD. Craig. CPE 9 .Decision Making Tools  Decision Tables  Value Engineering  Cost Benefit Analysis  Supplemental method (simple and to the point)  Breakeven Charts  Multiple Criteria Decision Making  Economic Decision Tools 20 March 2018 Brian N.

Decision Making Tools  Decision Tables  Structured approach designed to take out the subjectivity (could be an issue surrounded by emotion and ego’s)  Tables consist of condition-action statements  similar to if-then statements in computer programs and flow charts  Another form of these tables AKA Hazard Action Tables (probability-severity tables)  used in safety engineering 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD. Craig. CPE 10 .

et al. Simple Example of Hazard Action Table Severity Frequency Negligible Marginal Critical Catastrophic Extremely remote Remote Reasonably probable * Probable Actions Forget it Long-range study Correct (1 year) Correct (90 days) Correct (30 days) Shutdown From: Henrich.. Craig. 1980 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD. CPE 11 .

CPE 12 .Example  A company manufactures simple. small knife blades inserted into a plastic handle 20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig.Decision Tables . PhD.

Craig.Example  Operation 1 – formation of the knife blade by cutting the blade from a thin strip of stainless steel via a foot pedal operated press  Using tweezers the operator procures a rubber nib from a parts bin and inserts it over the blade to protect it  After press activation. PhD.Decision Tables . CPE 13 . the cut-off blade is placed on a holder plate for later assembly into the handle 20 March 2018 Brian N.

and ankle pain 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD. a stereoscope is used to assist in the operation  Operators have complained about wrist.Example  Because of the small blade size. CPE 14 .Decision Tables . Craig. back. neck.

Example  Possible method changes include:  Replacement of the mechanical pedal with a foot operated electric switch (reduction of ankle fatigue)  Better adjustment of the position of the stereoscope (reduction of neck fatigue)  Implementation of a video projection system for heads-up viewing (reduction of neck fatigue)  Use of gravity feed bins for the nibs (productivity increase. PhD. reduce extended reaches and back pain)  Replace the tweezers with a vacuum operated stylus (improve productivity and eliminate a potential CTD – pinch grip) 20 March 2018 Brian N. CPE 15 .Decision Tables . Craig.

Example  Assumption: the productivity increases in the following table are based on MTM-2 (CH 13) and the injury reductions are based on the CTD Risk Index (Figure 5-25) 20 March 2018 Brian N. CPE 16 . Craig. PhD.Decision Tables .

CPE 17 .000 Gravity feed bin +7 -10 40 Vacuum stylus +1** -40 200 *The current CTD Risk Factor Index does not address lower extremities.Decision Tables . and Cost for Various Method Changes in Cut-Off Operation Work Design and Methods  Productivity (%)  CTD Risk (%) Cost ($) Changes Foot operated electric switch 0 -1* 175 Adjust stereoscope 0 -2 10 Video projection system +1** -2 2. However. but some benefit is expected 20 March 2018 Brian N. **Can’t be quantified from MTM-2. PhD. Injury Risk Potential. Craig. there is reason to believe that the lower force for the electric switch will have some beneficial effect.Example TABLE 7-2 Expected Changes in Productivity.

CPE 18 .Example  Company policy authorizes methods engineers to proceed.Decision Tables . IF Condition 1 and EITHER Condition 2 OR 3 are met  Condition 1 – implementation cost < $200  Condition 2 – productivity increases are > 5%  Condition 3 – injury risk decrease > 33% 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD. with no further authorization needed. Craig.

Decision Table . Craig.Example TABLE 7-3 Decision Table for Cut-Off Operation Methods Changes Conditions Action #1 #2 #3 Policy Electric switch ----- Adjust stereoscope ----- Video projection system ----- Gravity feed bin Proceed Vacuum stylus Proceed Brian Craig 13 February 2001 Decision Table – Cut-Off Operation 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD. CPE 19 .

PhD. Craig. CPE 20 .g.Decision Making Tools  Value Engineering  Simply a payoff matrix using weighted values  E. benefits weighted 0-10  A value (0-4) is assigned to reflect how well each solution produces the desired benefit  The assigned value is multiplied by the appropriate weight and the products are summed for the final score  Highest sum = most appropriate solution  Example coming up 20 March 2018 Brian N.

Example  A company manufactures simple. CPE 21 .Value Engineering . Craig. PhD. small knife blades inserted into a plastic handle 20 March 2018 Brian N.

PhD.Value Engineering . Craig. CPE 22 .Example  Operation 1 – formation of the knife blade by cutting the blade from a thin strip of stainless steel via a foot pedal operated press  Using tweezers the operator procures a rubber nib from a parts bin and inserts it over the blade to protect it  After press activation. the cut-off blade is placed on a holder plate for later assembly into the handle 20 March 2018 Brian N.

Value Engineering . CPE 23 . PhD. Craig. a stereoscope is used to assist in the operation  Operators have complained about wrist. back. neck.Example  Because of the small blade size. and ankle pain 20 March 2018 Brian N.

Craig. reduce extended reaches and back pain)  Replace the tweezers with a vacuum operated stylus (improve productivity and eliminate a potential CTD – pinch grip) 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD.Example  Possible method changes include:  Replacement of the mechanical pedal with a foot operated electric switch (reduction of ankle fatigue)  Better adjustment of the position of the stereoscope (reduction of neck fatigue)  Implementation of a video projection system for heads-up viewing (reduction of neck fatigue)  Use of gravity feed bins for the nibs (productivity increase.Value Engineering . CPE 24 .

CPE 25 . Craig. PhD.Value Engineering .Example  Assumption: the productivity increases in the following table are based on MTM-2 (CH 13) and the injury reductions are based on the CTD Risk Index (Figure 5-25) 20 March 2018 Brian N.

Craig.000 Gravity feed bin +7 -10 40 Vacuum stylus +1** -40 200 *The current CTD Risk Factor Index does not address lower extremities. **Can’t be quantified from MTM-2. but some benefit is expected 20 March 2018 Brian N.Example TABLE 7-2 Expected Changes in Productivity. However. Injury Risk Potential. there is reason to believe that the lower force for the electric switch will have some beneficial effect. CPE 26 .Value Engineering . PhD. and Cost for Various Method Changes in Cut-Off Operation Work Design and Methods  Productivity (%)  CTD Risk (%) Cost ($) Changes Foot operated electric switch 0 -1* 175 Adjust stereoscope 0 -2 10 Video projection system +1** -2 2.

and 8 are assigned to the three factors of interest  Increased productivity (6)  Decreased injury rates (4)  Low cost solutions (8)  Each solution is rated from 0 to 4 for each of the factors  Not very quantitative and very subject to bias 20 March 2018 Brian N. 4. Craig. CPE 27 . PhD.Value Engineering .Example  The weights of 6.

CPE 28 . A B C D E Project: Electric Adjust Video Gravity Vacuum Alternatives Cut-Off Operation Switch Stereo. PhD. Craig.TABLE 7-4 Value Engineering Analysis of the Cut-Off Operation Plant: Dorben Co.Projection Feed stylus Date: 20 February scope Bin 2001 Analyst: BC Factor/Consideration Wt Ratings and Weighted Factors Comments A B C D E Increase in 6 0 0 0 0 1 6 3 18 1 6 productivity Decrease in injuries 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 2 8 3 12 Low cost solution 8 3 24 4 32 1 8 4 32 3 24 Totals 28 36 18 58 42 Remarks: Gravity feed bin is the most justifiable methods change 20 March 2018 Brian N.

Craig. CPE 29 .Decision Making Tools  Cost-benefit Analysis  A more quantitative approach to deciding between different alternatives 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD.

Cost-Benefit Analysis  5 steps of the Cost-benefit Analysis  Determine what is changed due to better design  increased productivity. better quality. PhD. decreased injuries.  Quantify these changes (benefits) into monetary changes  Determine the cost required to implement the changes  Divide the cost of the benefit for each alternative  creating a ratio  The smallest ratio determines the desired alternative 20 March 2018 Brian N. CPE 30 . Craig. etc.

Craig. maybe use percent changes. then you should be able to assign a monetary value to that 20 March 2018 Brian N. CPE 31 . injury numbers.Cost-Benefit Analysis  Step 2 can be very challenging to gather and quantify  If not possible to assign $ values (but remember earlier in the lecture about speaking in terms management understands). or other  My argument would be  if you can get percent changes. and many other metrics. PhD.

PhD. CPE 32 .Cost-Benefit Analysis . Craig.Example  A company manufactures simple. small knife blades inserted into a plastic handle 20 March 2018 Brian N.

the cut-off blade is placed on a holder plate for later assembly into the handle 20 March 2018 Brian N.Example  Operation 1 – formation of the knife blade by cutting the blade from a thin strip of stainless steel via a foot pedal operated press  Using tweezers the operator procures a rubber nib from a parts bin and inserts it over the blade to protect it  After press activation. CPE 33 .Cost-Benefit Analysis . PhD. Craig.

a stereoscope is used to assist in the operation  Operators have complained about wrist.Example  Because of the small blade size. Craig. PhD. CPE 34 . neck.Cost-Benefit Analysis . back. and ankle pain 20 March 2018 Brian N.

CPE 35 .Example  Possible method changes include:  Replacement of the mechanical pedal with a foot operated electric switch (reduction of ankle fatigue)  Better adjustment of the position of the stereoscope (reduction of neck fatigue)  Implementation of a video projection system for heads-up viewing (reduction of neck fatigue)  Use of gravity feed bins for the nibs (productivity increase.Cost-Benefit Analysis . Craig. reduce extended reaches and back pain)  Replace the tweezers with a vacuum operated stylus (improve productivity and eliminate a potential CTD – pinch grip) 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD.

Cost-Benefit Analysis .Example  Assumption: the productivity increases in the following table are based on MTM-2 (CH 13) and the injury reductions are based on the CTD Risk Index (Figure 5-25) 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD. Craig. CPE 36 .

However. but some benefit is expected 20 March 2018 Brian N.000 Gravity feed bin +7 -10 40 Vacuum stylus +1** -40 200 *The current CTD Risk Factor Index does not address lower extremities. and Cost for Various Method Changes in Cut-Off Operation Work Design and Methods  Productivity (%)  CTD Risk (%) Cost ($) Changes Foot operated electric switch 0 -1* 175 Adjust stereoscope 0 -2 10 Video projection system +1** -2 2. Craig. there is reason to believe that the lower force for the electric switch will have some beneficial effect. **Can’t be quantified from MTM-2. Injury Risk Potential.Example Brian Craig 13 February 2001 Cost-Benefit Analysis – Cut-Off Operation TABLE 7-2 Expected Changes in Productivity. PhD. CPE 37 . Cost-Benefit Analysis .

CPE 38 .000)  or $6.Cost-Benefit Analysis . PhD. Craig.Example  Additional information for the cost-benefit analysis  $645/year for each 1% increase in productivity  Decreases in workers compensation can be considered cost avoidance  The company has averaged one CTD case/5 years requiring surgery (cost = $30.000/year  For each 1% decrease in risk. the company benefits $60/year  This data summarized in Table 7-5 20 March 2018 Brian N.

92 2. Craig.61 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis .515 600 5. Gravity feed bin 4. Adjust stereoscope 0 120 120 10 0. #5 5.03 Methods changes #2.115 40 0. Video projection system 645 120 765 2. #4. PhD.400 3.120 8. CPE 39 .Example TABLE 7-5 Cost-Benefit Analysis for Cut-Off Operation Benefit ($) Method Changes Productivity Injury Total ($) Cost ($) Cost- Risk Benefit 1.000 2.280 150 0.08 3.02 20 March 2018 Brian N.045 100 0. Electric Switch 0 60 60 175 2. Vacuum stylus 645 2.01 5.160 3.

CPE 40 .  You are trying to convince a potential client that investing in an ergonomic chair(s) will be a solid investment 20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig.Alternate Method of Cost Justification  You are a consultant/sales representative. etc. PhD.

Alternate Method of Cost Justification

 KEEP IT SIMPLE  your customer must
understand the logic
 Do NOT insult their intelligence
 Do NOT make them feel uncomfortable

20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig, PhD, CPE 41

Alternate Method of Cost Justification
 A simple 1 pager
 Step-by-step
 Show investment (cost)
 Show BENEFIT ($) and TIME to attain that benefit
 Have supplemental materials to back up your claims
and fully understand these materials
 Peer reviewed, scientific journals  NOT anecdotal
evidence - FIRST
 THEN backed up by newspaper, magazine, and other
satisfied customers (companies/corporations) and
success stories (to show practicality/functionality of
your solution)
20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig, PhD, CPE 42

Simplified Example of Cost Justification

Instructions: Please enter figures in the blue spaces

0.04 x $30,000 x 0.8 /12 = $80.00
% Utilization of the
Annual Direct Cost Workplace (how much
Productivity (salary + equipment, time employee spends Monthly Productivity
Increase (entered as space, and other facility in chair; entered as a Opportunity per
a percent 4% = .04) costs) percent - 80% = .80) Employee

$500.00 / $80.00 = 6.25
Monthly Productivity
Opportunity per
Chair Cost Employee Payback Time (months)

84 - 6.25 = 77.75 x $80.00 = $6,220.00
Chair Life in months Monthly Total Productivity
(industry average is Months of "free" life Productivity Opportunity per
7 years = 84 (after the chair has paid Opportunity Employee over the
months) Payback Time (months) for itself) per Employee Life of the Chair

20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig, PhD, CPE 43

PhD. while the alternative may use special equipment at a higher capital cost. CPE 44 . but higher set-up cost. Craig. but lower set-up costs 20 March 2018 Brian N.Decision Making Tools  Breakeven Charts (Crossover Charts)  Useful in deciding which of two alternative methods changes to implement  One methods change may have low capital cost.

Decision Making Tools Total Cost 2 better than 1 2 better than Old 1 better than Old Parts Produced 20 March 2018 Brian N. CPE 45 . Craig. PhD.

Decision Making Tools  Multiple Criteria Decision Making  Refer to text 20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig. CPE 46 . PhD.

Craig. CPE 47 . or payback method  The discounted cash flow method 20 March 2018 Brian N.Decision Making Tools  Economic Decision Tools  The three (4) most frequently used appraisal techniques for determining desirability of investing in a proposed method  The return on sales method  The return on investment. PhD.

PhD. it does NOT consider the original investment required to get started 20 March 2018 Brian N. or increase in dollar value added to the product based on the pessimistic estimate of life of the product  This ratio provides information on the effectiveness. Craig.The Return on Sales Method  Computes the ratio of  The average yearly profit brought about through using the method and  The average yearly sales. CPE 48 .

PhD. based on the pessimistic estimated life of the product and  The original investment  The method of choice would maximize this ratio (high profit and low investment) 20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig. CPE 49 .Return on Investment Method  Provides a ratio of  The average yearly profit brought about through using the method.

CPE 50 . Craig.Payback Method  The reciprocal of the return on investment  Calculates the amount of time that it would take to realize a full return on the original investment 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD.

011 in five years OR  Receiving $1 five years from now may be like having about $0.Discounted Cash Flow Method  Computes the ratio of  The present worth of cash flow.50 today 20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig. based on a percentage return and  The original investment  Utilizes the time value of money  $1 today @ 15% compound interest = $2. PhD. CPE 51 .

1 . find P) P = (1 + i)n – 1/i(1 + i)n Where: i = Interest rate for a given period n= Number of interest periods P = Present sum of money (present worth of principle) S = A sum of money at the end of n periods from the present date.Sinking fund factor (given S.1 .Present worth factor (given S. CPE 52 . PhD.Compound amount factor (given R. find S) S = (1 + i)n – 1/i . Craig. find R) R = i/(1 + i)n . Discounted Cash Flow Method Single Payment . equivalent to P with interest i R = The end of period payment or receipt in a uniform series continuing for the coming n periods. find R) R = i/(1 + i)n/(1 + i)n . find S) S = P(1 + i)n .Present worth factor (given R. find P) P = 1/(1 + i)n Uniform Series .Compound amount factor (given P.Capital recovery (given P. the entire series equivalent to P at interest i 20 March 2018 Brian N.

Craig.600 $1.000 2 $6.000 $2.600 4 $8. CPE 53 .800 $2.000 8 $4.500 $500 Totals $53.000 $2.400 10 $2.600 6 $6.Example of These Methods TABLE 7-7 Comparison of Economic Justification Methods End of Year Increase in sales Cost of production Gross Profit due to values due to with proposed proposed method proposed method method 1 $5.600 $5. PhD.000 $2.000 $1.200 9 $3.300 $2.230 20 March 2018 Brian N.070 $3.000 $2.000 $2.000 $20.400 5 $7.200 $3.800 3 $7.000 $3.000 $1.000 $2.400 $4.200 $3.300 Average $5.700 $32.000 $3.000 $1.800 7 $5.400 $4.000 $2.

Craig.000  Desired return on investment = 10%  Savage value of jigs. and tools = $500  Estimated life of the product for which the proposed method will be used = 10 years 20 March 2018 Brian N. CPE 54 . PhD. fixtures.Example of These Methods  Investment of proposed method = $10.

800 7 $5.000 $2.230 20 March 2018 Brian N.200 $3.200 $3.000 $1.400 5 $7.000 $3.400 10 $2.300 $2.000 $20.400 $4.000 $3.000 $1.070 $3.800 3 $7.000 $2. CPE 55 .000 $2.000 $2.000 $1.700 $32.200 9 $3.000 8 $4. PhD.000 $2.Example of These Methods TABLE 7-7 Comparison of Economic Justification Methods End of Year Increase in sales Cost of production Gross Profit due to values due to with proposed proposed method proposed method method 1 $5.000 $2.000 2 $6.600 $1.600 4 $8.500 $500 Totals $53.000 $2.800 $2.300 Average $5. Craig.400 $4.600 6 $6.600 $5.

230 20 March 2018 Brian N.09Years $3. PhD.3% $10.300 $3.000 Payback   3.000 $10. CPE 56 .Example of These Methods $3.230 Re turnOnSales   61% $5.230 Re turnOnInvestment   32. Craig.

Craig.Example of These Methods  The Discounted Cash Flow requires a few more calculations  General formula for Present Worth of Cash Flow  (Gross profit)(Present Worth Factor) 20 March 2018 Brian N. CPE 57 . PhD.

690 Present worth (4.000)(0. Craig.4665) = $1.025 (1. CPE 58 .800)(0.373 20 March 2018 Brian N.200)(0.4241) = $595 (500)(0. PhD.140 (3.400)(0.730 (3.000)(0.800)(0.5645) = $2.540 (2.600)(0.9091) = $2.3855) = $193 $21.5132) = $1.600)(0.400)(0.6830) = $3.6209) = $2.7513) = $3.Example – Discounted Cash Flow (3.140 (4.460 (5.8264) = $3.860 of cash flow (3.

3855) = $193 20 March 2018 Brian N.Example – Discounted Cash Flow Salvage value of tools (500)(0. Craig. CPE 59 . PhD.

000 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD.Example – Discounted Cash Flow The total present worth of anticipated gross profit and tool salvage value = $21.16 $10. Craig.566  2.566 The ratio of present worth to original investment = $21. CPE 60 .

$11.000 capital investment will take 3. CPE 61 . Craig. PhD.09 years  The cash flow analysis reveals the original investment will be recovered in less than 4 years while earning 10%  During the 10 year anticipated life of the product.Conclusion of Example of These Methods  The new method satisfactorily passes all three (four) appraisal methods  A 61% return on sales  A 32.3% return on capital investment  The return on the $10.566 more than the original investment will be recorded 20 March 2018 Brian N.

Craig. CPE 62 . PhD.Action Items 20 March 2018 Brian N.

cost avoidance issues) – a one-pager. Craig. PhD.Proposed Method Presentation  Written and oral presentation  Summary is the most important part  Present first thing (“need to know” for executives)  Contain 3 elements  Brief explanation the nature of the problem  Recommendations (proposed method changes) and Benefits (immediate financial benefits. like most of you did in lab 20 March 2018 Brian N. intermediate financial benefits. CPE 63 . if possible.

etc. Craig. etc.Proposed Method Presentation  Body – “nice to know”  Introduction  Nature and background. etc  Discussion  Supporting data  Conclusions 20 March 2018 Brian N. benefits.  Methods  Charts. PhD. calculations. CPE 64 . drawings. sketches. assumptions.  Results/recommendations  Improvements. drawings.

accurate  The oral presentation should follow the same general flow as the written (“need to know”  “nice to know”)  Be prepared!!!!  supporting data if needed 20 March 2018 Brian N. easy to follow. PhD. easy to read. Craig. complete. concise. CPE 65 .Proposed Method Presentation  Entire report should be clear.

CPE 66 .Installation  After approval  install  Stay with the installation  After installation  Ensure all aspects of the change conform to specs  Choose and train operator  Evaluate improvements (be cautious of Hawthorne Effect)  Continuous improvement 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD. Craig.

even though that is a major motivation for job change  Know your audience! 20 March 2018 Brian N. CPE 67 . etc. Craig. PhD.Resistance to Change  Rule of thumb  stress the positives for the operator  “Easier to use”  May stay away from “increased efficiency”.

PhD. CPE 68 . Craig.Note  Page 296-306 will be covered in other chapters  Job analysis  Job evaluation 20 March 2018 Brian N.

Craig.Americans with Disabilities Act  Any method changes and during any job performance evaluation  must consider the ADA  Passed in 1990  “…outlaw discrimination in employment against a qualified individual with a disability”  Any employer of 15 or more employees 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD. CPE 69 .

Americans with Disabilities Act  May entail considerable workplace redesign or other accommodations  Covers  Recruitment  Hiring  Promotion  Training  Pay  Layoffs  Firing  Leave  Benefits  Job assignments. etc. PhD. 20 March 2018 Brian N. CPE 70 . Craig.

seeing. Craig. breathing. PhD. CPE 71 .Americans with Disabilities Act  The ADA protects any individual “with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity”  Substantial implies something more than minor. or working  Temporary injuries are not covered 20 March 2018 Brian N. manually feeling or manipulating. walking. while “major life activity” includes hearing. learning. speaking.

CPE 72 . PhD. Craig.Americans with Disabilities Act  The individual with the disability must be qualified to perform the “essential functions” of the job with or without “reasonable accommodation”  Essential functions = basic job duties that an employee must be able to perform  Essential functions from job analysis 20 March 2018 Brian N.

Americans with Disabilities Act  “Reasonable accommodation = any change or adjustment to a job or work environment that allows the individual to perform the essential functions of the job and enjoy the benefits and privileges that all employees enjoy 20 March 2018 Brian N. Craig. CPE 73 . PhD.

Americans with Disabilities Act  Reasonable accommodations can include  Physical modification of the tools. equipment. 20 March 2018 Brian N. CPE 74 . or workstation  Job restructuring  Modification of work schedules  Modification of training materials or policies  Etc. PhD. Craig.

Americans with Disabilities Act  A reasonable accommodation is one that does not place undue hardship on the employer  Not unduly costly. extensive. Craig. PhD. substantial. CPE 75 . or disruptive  Does not fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the business 20 March 2018 Brian N.

PhD. Craig.20 March 2018 Brian N. CPE 76 .

Assignment 20 March 2018 Brian N. PhD. CPE 77 . Craig.