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

net/publication/275414228

Does Ergonomics Improve Product Quality and Reduce Costs? A Review Article

Article in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing · April 2015

DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20623

CITATIONS READS
86 9,460

5 authors, including:

Mohsen Zare René Brunet

Université de Technologie de Belfort-Montbéliard University of Angers
64 PUBLICATIONS 644 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 372 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yves Roquelaure
University of Angers
568 PUBLICATIONS 7,641 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohsen Zare on 05 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Does Ergonomics Improve Product Quality and Reduce
Costs? A Review Article
Mohsen Zare,1,2 Michel Croq,3 Farhad Hossein-Arabi,4 Rene Brunet,1
and Yves Roquelaure1
1 Laboratory of Ergonomics and Epidemiology in Occupational Health (LEEST), LUNAM University, University of Angers,
Angers, France
2 Department of Occupational Health, School of Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
3 Occupational Medicine, Safety and Health Department, SCANIA Production Angers SAS, Anger, France
4 Département de l’Ergonomie Groupe PSA Peugeot-Citroën, Paris, France

Abstract
Competition is an ongoing challenge confronting industrial corporations, particularly automobile
manufacturing. Striving to improve product quality and productivity, automotive industries have used
different quality management approaches, such as reduced variability, total quality management, and
lean management, over recent years. Furthermore, incorporating proactive ergonomics such as physical
and organizational ergonomics and psychosocial factors into the structure of a company is considered
to be a support for productivity and quality. Several studies have shown the effects of ergonomics on
better quality. Application of both quality management approaches and ergonomics in an integrated
manner in the manufacturing production system is emphasized because they are similar concepts
with the same objectives, that is, to improve efficiency. In this study, a comprehensive review was
undertaken and 25 studies were reviewed in order to define how integration of an ergonomic approach
in the manufacturing production system can reduce defects and improve quality in the production
process. C 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: Ergonomic approach; Product quality; Errors; Automotive industry

1. INTRODUCTION ways tried to attain greater efficiency and the least cost
in their processes. Many disciplines were therefore in-
Industrial companies and manufacturers have to be troduced, such as Taylor’s theory, total quality manage-
competitive as they face new challenges in the indus- ment (TQM), Six Sigma, the Toyota Production Sys-
trial world. Higher quality, lower waste, and efficiency tem, lean management, and kaizen (Liljedahl & Muftic,
are important factors to achieve success in the mar- 2012). The main idea of these tools is to define a set
ket (Falck & Rosenqvist, 2012; Törnström, Amprazis, of principles and mechanisms to generate systematic
Christmansson, & Eklund, 2008). Companies have al- improvement in the process to achieve customer sat-
isfaction and reduce waste (Törnström et al., 2008).
Correspondence to: Mohsen Zare, LUNAM Université, However, most of the quality management approaches
Université d’Angers, Laboratoire d’ergonomie et focus on methods and tools to gain advantages, while
d’épidémiologie en santé au travail (LEEST), Angers, France. human aspects have been ignored or paid little at-
Phone: +33787722141; e-mail: [email protected] tention to. Reports in the literature have stated that,
Received: 12 July 2014; revised 20 February 2015; accepted 23 without considering the ergonomic approach, qual-
February 2015 ity management disciplines will not achieve their goals
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hfm (Hines, Holweg, & Rich, 2004; Liljedahl & Muftic, 2012;
DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20623 Taleghani, 2010; Williams et al., 1992). Nevertheless,

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 00 (0) 1–19 (2015) 
c 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1
Ergonomics and Product Quality Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al.

managers see ergonomics as a strictly health and safety of an ergonomic approach in a firm’s production
tool that is useful for injury/illness prevention instead system would be profitable in the short and long term,
of recognizing its potential to improve productivity as its effects may vary, from human aspects, including
and quality and to reduce costs. This misconception in reduction of discomfort, pain, and fatigue, to system
companies thus prevents ergonomics thinking within aspects, such as speed of performance, decreased re-
firms’ production systems or quality management sys- jection rates, and good quality of service (Genaidy,
tems (Neumann & Dul, 2010). Although most manu- Salem, Karwowski, Paez, & Tuncel, 2007). The main
facturers have recently established production system purpose of this article is to document empirical evi-
approaches as principal procedures for production, the dence that supports the proposition that incorporating
role of ergonomics has been seen more as prevention an ergonomic approach in a firm’s production system
of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) than as a tool for should be considered a key business objective because
quality development. the benefits of ergonomics would have not only effects
According to the literatures, adverse ergonomic risk on health and injury prevention but also on product
factors influence not only human well-being but also and process quality by reducing errors and the costs of
human performance, such as increasing rejection rates poor product quality.
and decreasing product quality (Govindaraju, Pen-
nathur, & Mital, 2001; Kazmierczak, Neumann, & 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR
Winkel, 2007). The costs of errors and failures were es-
timated about 10–40% of a company’s income (Falck &
EFFECTS OF ERGONOMICS ON COST
Rosenqvist, 2012). Several studies suggest that errors, The conceptual framework is shown in Figure 1. This
rejection rates, and reworking would decrease signifi- framework illustrates the consequences of a poor er-
cantly with the integration of ergonomics in the pro- gonomic approach in a production system. Work char-
duction system (da Silva, Pruffer, & Amaral, 2012). The acteristics, including physical ergonomic, organiza-
new strategy of the SCANIA group for the year 2020 tional ergonomic, cognitive, and psychosocial factors,
is to produce 120,000 trucks, 15,000 buses, and 20,000 are defined as the ergonomic approach, and these in-
engines with the same staff. They believe that it would dependent characteristics influence human well-being
be possible to reach this goal if they could achieve zero and production levels. Finally, business and market-
failures. A study in this group showed that ergonomics ing would be affected in terms of brand image reduc-
and the work environment could help to prevent the tion, problems with recruitment of new employees,
frequent occurrence of production failures (poor qual- and price. In this study, we reviewed the effects of each
ity; Liljedahl & Muftic, 2012). The Volkswagen group dimension of the ergonomic approach on quality of
confirmed the need for ergonomics in the production products. A poor ergonomic approach influences pro-
system to prevent health hazards, to optimize produc- duction level, particularly quality loss, which would
tion time, and to improve product quality (Toledo, increase errors, scrap, and reworking. The potential
2012). Dul and Neumann (2009) showed a link be- quality gains of the appropriate ergonomic approach
tween business factors and ergonomic design of the were more than US$900,000 per year in a car assembly
workplace, and Neumann, Ekman, and Winkel (2009) plant (Falck, Örtengren, & Hogberg, 2010). In this re-
emphasized the integration of ergonomics in the pro- view, we did not study the impact of the ergonomic ap-
duction system. Battini, Faccio, Persona, and Sgarbossa proach on productivity and human well-being. How-
(2011) developed a new 14-step integrated method- ever, as shown in Figure 1, there are strong interactions
ological model to achieve productivity and quality per- between these concepts.
formance in an assembly system in which different
tools, such as assembly time measurement, ergonomic
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
evaluation, and ergonomic improvements, were inte-
grated. This framework was tested in two case studies This article represents a literature review of the em-
and showed improvement in line flow and in flexibility pirical evidence that emanated from the relationship
(Battini et al., 2011). between ergonomics in the workplace and its effects
Integration of ergonomics in firms’ strategies or pro- on product quality and rejection rates. According to
duction systems of manufacturing has thus emerged. the guiding principles of the Cochrane Collaboration
Companies should be convinced that incorporation System (Higgins, Green, & Cochrane Collaboration,

2 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al. Ergonomics and Product Quality

Figure 1 Conceptual framework illustrates the consequences of poor ergonomic approach

2008), the methodological steps of this literature re- effects, manufacturing and company system, and cost-
view were the criteria for considering peer-reviewed benefits. The first set of phrases related to ergonomics
articles for inclusion, search methods for identification included 20 terms, for example, Occupational Er-
of peer reviews, selection of peer reviews, appraisal of gonomics, Human Factors, Human Factor Engineer-
peer reviews included in the study, and data synthe- ing, Ergonomics Solution, Ergonomics Integrat(ion,
sis. The academic databases, which were searched from ed, ing), Work(s, ing, place) Condition, Workstation
1980 to March 2014, were Google Scholar, EMBASE, Design(ing), Participat(ory, ing, ion) Ergonomics, Oc-
Web of Knowledge, Science Directs, Wiley-Blackwell, cupational Health & Ergonomics. The second cate-
the Cochran Library, and Springer. In addition, some gory of key words were 25 expressions, for example,
peer-reviewed journals, such as Ergonomics in Tay- Qualit(y, ies), Process Quality, Service(s, ing) Qual-
lor & Francis, Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assess- ity, Improv(ed, ing) Quality, Poor Quality, Continu(e,
ment & Rehabilitation, Applied Ergonomics, and Hu- ing) Improv(ement, ing), Production Waste, Rejection
man Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Rate, Reduced Scrap, Human Error. The third category
Industries were specifically searched. We used different included Assembl(y, ing) Plant, Assembl(y, ing) Sys-
search strategies and words for each database to obtain tem, Production System, Firm Strateg(y, ies), Manual
the best results and to avoid missing literature. First, Assembly, Automotive Manufactur(ing, er, e), Auto-
to formulate the search strategy, the important con- motive Industry, Production Process. The final cate-
cepts within the question were identified. Then, the gory of phrases included key words related to Cost-
search terms to describe those concepts were specified, Savings, Cost Benefits, and Cost Effectiveness. These
and the synonyms of those terms were considered. Fi- terms were combined several times and in different
nally, our search strategy was prepared. Our queries ways with the Boolean operators. Furthermore, to en-
consisted of a set of phrases that were combined us- sure that all peer-reviewed articles were reviewed in
ing different Boolean operators, such as “AND,” “OR,” this area, we checked the reference lists of the rele-
parenthesis, and wildcards (stemming). As far as possi- vant articles. Combining the results of all databases
ble, we tried to use the phrases that were combinations and journals searched provided more than 260 re-
of words that were found in the exact order in the sults for inclusion in the review. We reviewed the titles
search documents. In our queries, two or three con- and abstracts of the articles identified. Some articles
cepts that included six or seven words were applied. We were excluded following scanning of the abstracts and
classified all key words in four categories as er- some after reading the full text. The articles included
gonomics and occupational health, quality and system in our review finally consisted of peer-reviewed studies

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 3
Ergonomics and Product Quality Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al.

undertaken in industrial workplaces, particularly the plant, 55 assembly tasks were analyzed for 24443 cars.
automotive industry throughout the world. Studies in The quality errors related to high physical ergonomic
health-care facilities and service sectors, such as medi- workload assembly tasks (red tasks) were 39%, and
cal centers and hospitals, were excluded. Occupational for medium physical ergonomic workload assembly
health and safety interventions were excluded unless tasks (yellow tasks) 48%, while there were 13% for low
they had clear ergonomics involvement. Research deal- physical ergonomic (green tasks) workload tasks. Fol-
ing with the effects of ergonomic interventions on only lowing 216 completed cars over 8 weeks after sales in
human effects or productivity was excluded. The arti- the market indicated that 70% of the errors were re-
cles included were appraised and the information on lated to red tasks, 27% were related to yellow tasks,
the aims of the research, interventions, study design, and just one error was related to green tasks (Falck
populations, factory and workplaces, confounding fac- et al., 2010). In contrast to the market, yellow tasks
tors, outcomes, results, and conclusion were gathered. caused more in plant-quality errors than red tasks. The
possible reasons are the effect of other ergonomic fac-
tors (organizational/cognitive/psychosocial) and mis-
4. RESULTS
classifications of tasks as red or yellow (observer ef-
The comprehensive search in the above databases fects). The authors realized that high-risk tasks, such
yielded several articles that had investigated the effects as working underneath/hidden/at distance, awkward
of the ergonomics approach on humans and systems. postures, and forceful operations, created more errors.
Following a review of the articles found and primary However, material handling, static tasks, and sharp
screening of full articles, 29 studies were finally selected edges showed zero errors. In another similar study by
for inclusion in our review. Assessment of method- Flack et al. (2010), just one single task, evaluated as
ological quality was then undertaken for the 29 eligible yellow, caused 92% of errors identified in the mar-
studies, from which four were then excluded (da Silva ket. The errors identified for red tasks and green tasks
et al., 2012; Drury, 2003; Inman, Blumenfeld, Huang, & were 7.4% and 0.65%, respectively. Analyzing 47 as-
Li, 2003; Silva et al., 2012), because of incompatibility sembly tasks for 47,061 cars in plant showed that the
with this review. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the failure rate was 55.1% for red tasks, 37.8% for yellow
25 articles finally included with key findings and sum- tasks, and 7.1% for green tasks (Falck, Örtengren, &
maries of the investigations conducted. These studies Rosenqvist, 2014; Falck & Rosenqvist, 2014). In agree-
include the effects of organizational and physical er- ment with their hypothesis, the numbers of errors for
gonomic factors as well as cognitive and psychosocial green tasks were significantly less than for yellow and
factors on quality of products. The articles reviewed red tasks in both studies. However, inconsistency was
mainly demonstrated system and human effects of the observed between the error rates for yellow and red
ergonomic approach elements. tasks in both studies of Falck and Rosenqvist (2014)
and Falck et al. (2010). Falck et al. (2010) disregarded
common physical ergonomic risks that created quality
4.1. Effects of Physical Ergonomics
errors in their second study. The results showed that
on Quality
the type of physical ergonomic risks and other dimen-
Twelve studies showed the relationship between phys- sions of the ergonomic approach probably changed
ical ergonomic risks and product quality. In general, the rate of failures/errors for high workload tasks. The
all the studies included showed a strong relationship similar case study by Almgren and Schaurig (2012) in
between quality errors and high ergonomic workload. Volvo truck manufacturing showed that red assembly
Falck et al., 2010 conducted a series of case studies in tasks caused 12.68 errors/min on average, while green
the Volvo manufacturing industry (including car en- tasks created 4.79 errors/min. In this study, the au-
gineering processes, car assembly plant, and quality thors classified tasks into two categories, and yellow
tracking of completed cars in the market). A consid- tasks were ignored or distributed between green or red
erable relationship was found between poor physical tasks. Furthermore, green tasks were identified in a
ergonomics and quality errors in all three phases. Of different way compared to red tasks. Therefore, some
the 352 quality problems logged in the manufactur- tasks might have been classified wrongly (Almgren
ing engineering phase for three new car models, 23.5% & Schaurig, 2012). In contrast to the studies by Falck
were related to ergonomic problems. In the assembly et al. (2010, 2014), in the study by Almgren and

4 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al. Ergonomics and Product Quality

TABLE 1. Summary of Research Focus on Link between Ergonomics and Quality Errors

Ergonomic
Approach
First Authors Workplace Variables Studied Study Description Quality Outcomes

Hamrol et al. Car wire harness Workplace risk Psychosocial and Interviews with 100 Work monotony
(2011) assembly factors, such organizational assembly workers increased the risk
as work factors and about the main of quality failures
monotony, environmental reasons for failures and interaction of
noise level, ergonomics and analysis of the work monotony
and quality relationships of threefold and
work monotony, noise level
noise level, and increased the risk
their interactions of quality failures
with quality 10-fold while
assembly process noise level alone
did not have
impact on quality
Almgren & 6 sections of Ergonomic Physical Red and green tasks Errors for red were
Schaurig assembly line workload and ergonomic were selected, and 165% of those
(2012) at Volvo truck product factors technical for green tasks.
manufacturing quality information about The difference
them was gathered; between
quality defects of correction times
these tasks in Quils was 186%. Costs
system were for red assembly
collected, and the tasks were more
results were than US$50,000
compared in a year.
Axelsson (2000) Assembly plant Work postures Physical 40 tasks were Ergonomic
and quality ergonomic evaluated by RULA improvements
factors and 17 high-risk reduced quality
tasks were assessed defects from
as causing 80% of 8.9% to 5.0%
quality problems. 15
tasks were improved
ergonomically; then
RULA and quality
assessment were
performed after
intervention
Das et al. (2007) Simulated drill Ergonomic, work Physical In an intervention Increase in output
press design and ergonomic study, ergonomic quality was
operations modifications, factors evaluation was 49.57%, and
task undertaken in terms productivity was
performance of production tasks, 22%. Operator
(quantity and equipment, existing satisfaction
quality of workstations. scores also
products), and Workstation increased after
worker redesign and intervention
satisfaction operator training
were then
performed. The
variables were
compared in two
situations
(Continued)
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 5
Ergonomics and Product Quality Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al.

TABLE 1. Continued

Ergonomic
Approach
First Authors Workplace Variables Studied Study Description Quality Outcomes

De Looze et al. Emergency light Participatory Participatory A 7-step participatory 25% reduction in
(2010) company ergonomic ergonomics ergonomic reworking related
approach (organiza- approach was to failure
tional and undertaken (quality). Benefit
physical from increase in
factors) quality was
€27250 per year
Eklund (1995) Swedish car Ergonomic Organizational, 6 phases of study Relative risk of
manufacture conditions and physical, and were performed in 8 quality problems
assembly quality psychosocial departments. 58 for high-risk tasks
outcomes factors tasks were in final
categorized as adjustment
physical demands, department was
psychological 2.95 (P < .05),
demands, and and in the
design that made random
assembly difficult. disassembly
Quality statistics inspection
were gathered and department the
inspectors were relative risk was
interviewed 1.94
Erdinc & Vayvay Machine sewing Ergonomic risk Physical A 3-phase intervention Defects in products
(2008) tasks factors and ergonomic study, including due to operators’
quality factors planning, errors were
assessment, and reduced from 7%
implementation, to 3.4%.
was performed. Ergonomic risk
Ergonomics training factor and
and workstation awkward
adjustment were postures
undertaken after significantly
ergonomic reduced
assessment
Falck et al. Car manufacture Ergonomics, Physical 47 assembly tasks The percentage of
(2014) assembly quality errors, ergonomic were categorized as quality errors for
costs factors high (16), moderate high, moderate,
(18), and low and low manual
ergonomic assembly were
workloads. Then 55.1%, 37.8%,
47,061 cars were and 7.1%,
analyzed regarding respectively
error rates related to
manual assembly
Falck et al. Car manufacture Ergonomics, Cognitive and Experimental study to Cognitive
(2014) assembly assembly physical analyze cognitive ergonomics
complexity, ergonomic and physical significantly
quality errors factors ergonomics relating increase quality
to errors errors
(Continued)

6 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al. Ergonomics and Product Quality

TABLE 1. Continued

Ergonomic
Approach
First Authors Workplace Variables Studied Study Description Quality Outcomes

Falck et al. Survey in 5 Proactive Cognitive Interviews were 78% of

(2012) Swedish ergonomics, ergonomic conducted with 64 respondents
companies quality and factors engineers about believed that
assembly their opinions, poor assembly
errors, experience, and ergonomics
assembly knowledge of caused quality
complexity, ergonomics. The losses. 89%
geometry questions involved thought that
assembly there are
ergonomics, relationships
product geometry, between
assembly assembly
complexity, and complexity and
product quality. assembly errors
and scrap
Falck et al. Automobile Quality defects, Physical The study started in In manufacturing
(2010) company in ergonomics, ergonomic manufacturing engineering,
Sweden and costs in 3 factors engineering, and 3 80% of the tasks
processes, new car projects with high and
including were chosen. medium
manufacturing Ergonomic ergonomic
engineering, workload and workloads had
assembly quality for assembly quality defects. In
process, and items were production
factory compared. Then 55 assembly,
complete cars assembly items of assembly items
24,443 cars during with high and
8 weeks were medium
analyzed in workload had 3
assembly and 3.7 higher
production. Finally, quality risks
quality problems for compared to
55 selected lower physical
assembly items for workload
completed cars assembly items.
were collected over In after-sale
16 weeks in the market, 61% of
after-sale market errors were
related to
high-risk tasks,
37% to
medium-, and
0.01% to
low-risk tasks
Fritzsche et al. Large Ergonomics, Physical In a cross-sectional High workload
(2014) automotive team diversity, ergonomic study over 1 year, tasks increased
industry in absenteeism, factors 56 automotive errors by 80%.
Germany and quality assembly teams Age diversity was
performances (n = 623) were not related to
(Continued)

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 7
Ergonomics and Product Quality Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al.

TABLE 1. Continued

Ergonomic
Approach
First Authors Workplace Variables Studied Study Description Quality Outcomes

studied regarding error rates while

the effects of gender diversity
ergonomics, age, has positive
and gender on effects on errors
absenteeism and
quality performance
Guimarães et al. Brazilian shoe Macro- Participatory An intervention, Reworking and
(2012) industry ergonomic ergonomics including noise spoilage (quality)
intervention to (organiza- reduction, decreased to less
improve both tional and substitution of than 1%,
human physical solvents, changing productivity
well-being and factors) layout of production increased by 3%.
system area and working The savings after
performance hours, and intervention were
implementation of US$433,347
socio-technical
model, was
undertaken in a
pilot line for 2 years.
Human and system
benefits were then
compared before
and after
intervention
González et al. Metal factory Ergonomics, Physical Folding sector was After ergonomic
(2003) production ergonomic selected, then direct intervention
quality factors observation to reprocessed parts
identify quality reduced by 22%
records, and RULA and rejected parts
method was applied reduced by 45%
to identify
ergonomic risks.
Interventions were
performed and new
process was defined
according to RULA
score.
Il ardi (2012) Manual Quality, Physical OCRA method and No significant
deboning productivity, ergonomic Nordic correlation was
process in and factors Questionnaire were found between
salmon fish ergonomics used to determine quality and
industry in ergonomically ergonomic
Chile high-risk tasks. The high-risk tasks
information
regarding quality of
deboned meat was
collected
Larson et al. 500 companies 30 years Integrating Ergonomic program Reduction in the
(2012) of US 3M integration of ergonomics in integrated in 3 MSDs and
ergonomics in the production phases, including increase in quality
and productivity
(Continued)
8 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al. Ergonomics and Product Quality

TABLE 1. Continued

Ergonomic
Approach
First Authors Workplace Variables Studied Study Description Quality Outcomes

US 3M system (orga- micro-ergonomic

manufacturing nizational and strategy,
physical participatory
factors) ergonomics, and
macro-ergonomics
Lin et al. (2001) Assembly of Ergonomic Organizational 2 lines (an older The error per week
disposable workload and physical nonautomated and for Line B showed
cameras (time pressure ergonomic a newer 52.3% variance
and awkward factors semiautomated line) from Line A
postures), followed for 6 and 3
quality weeks, respectively.
performance The regression
model for the
number of defective
cameras (quality
index) and
ergonomic variables
were calculated
Motamedzadeh 2 hospital and 5-stage Participatory A 5-stage participatory After performing
et al. (2003) medical participatory ergonomics ergonomic the participatory
equipment ergonomics, (organiza- intervention was program in
manufacturers working tional and performed in Factory A, quality
conditions, physical Factory A (case) index showed
productivity, factors) while Factory B improvement
and quality (control) had an about 10%. In
ergonomist addition,
consultant who productivity and
proposed some working
changes and conditions index
modification in the significantly
processes. To assess increased
the effectiveness of
the model, the
determined indexes
was compared
before and after
intervention in
Factory A and with
the results of
Factory B
Neubert et al. Volkswagen Model describing Physical Ergonomic workplace Reducing
(2012) automotive positive ergonomics design impact on reworking, scrap
industry impact of the various indicators of and time,
ergonomics on production level, decrease in
reducing workforce level, and health risks and
losses business level of the finally increase in
organization to quality and
generate efficiency productivity. 20%
(Continued)

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 9
Ergonomics and Product Quality Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al.

TABLE 1. Continued

Ergonomic
Approach
First Authors Workplace Variables Studied Study Description Quality Outcomes

return for
ergonomics
investment
Neumann Electronic and Focus on Integrating In the new production The aim of this
(2004), automotive stakeholders ergonomics in system, human model was to
Neumann industries to integrate the production factors were achieve 20%
et al. (2009), ergonomics system (orga- integrated in various improvement in
Neumann & nizational and stakeholder groups. both health and
Village (2012) physical Feedback about system effects
factors) productivity, quality (quality &
and health defined productivity)
Thun et al. German Ergonomic risk Organizational Questionnaire Automotive
(2012) automotive factors, and physical containing manufacturing
industry worker ergonomic ergonomic issues managers
impact, factors such as harmful believed that
ergonomic tasks and companies with
modification, conditions, potential high
workplace ergonomic implementation
impact, modifications, and of ergonomic
ergonomic economic and social practice could
modification, indicators was filled achieve better
and economic out by productivity and
and social manufacturing human effects
improvement managers. The but not quality
companies were improvements
divided into high
implementation of
ergonomic practice
and low
implementation of
ergonomic practice
to assess impact of
ergonomics on
economic and social
factory
Sen & Yeow Electronic Cost- Organizational First, site walk-through After ergonomic
(2003) motherboard effectiveness and physical and interview with redesign,
section in a of ergonomic ergonomic engineers and motherboard
computer redesign factors managers and defects reduced
manufacturing operators about 67% and
factory undertaken to the factory saved
identify ergonomic US$469,715
risks, followed by
direct observation
and ergonomic
redesign
Vieira et al. Automotive ergonomics and Integrating Integrating of 30% increase in
(2012) factory in kaizen ergonomics in ergonomics and vehicle
Brazil the production kaizen concepts in a production
(Continued)

10 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al. Ergonomics and Product Quality

TABLE 1. Continued

Ergonomic
Approach
First Authors Workplace Variables Studied Study Description Quality Outcomes

system (orga- lean production without

nizational and system reworking
physical (quality), increase
factors) in productivity,
decrease in
absenteeism and
accident index
Yeow & Sen Manual Ergonomic Physical Questionnaire filled Intervention
(2006) component intervention, ergonomic out to identify decreased quality
insertion line quality, factors ergonomic risks and defects in factory
printed circuit productivity, causes of poor by 29.6% and at
assembly and costs productivity and customer sites by
factory quality. Then direct 11.4%.
observation Productivity
undertaken for each increased by
higher-rated cause. 50.1% and
Finally intervention revenue raised by
performed for root 59.8%. Saving
causes of errors was US$943,296
per year
Yeow & Sen Electrical test Ergonomic Physical Interviews and Quality defects of
(2003) workstation in workstation ergonomic subjective customers’ site
printed circuit design, factors assessment and factory site
assembly productivity, performed to reduced by 3%
factory quality, cost, identify the and 2.2%,
and ergonomic risks and respectively.
occupational workstation design 6.1% reduction
safety and requirements. Direct in the cycle time
health of observation was and 6.5%
workers then undertaken increase in
and intervention productivity were
planned for major achieved. Total
problems in cost saving was
workplace US$717,600

Schaurig (2012) assembly operators (instead of er- with Almgren and Schaurig’s study (2012) in truck
gonomists) identified ergonomic high-risk tasks. The assembly. Falck et al. (2010, 2014) and Almgren and
validity of the ergonomic evaluation might therefore Schaurig (2012) gathered information on quality er-
have been uncertain. This is probably the reason that rors in the assembly plant retrospectively as analysis
red tasks in this study influenced quality errors (2.65 of errors was performed after they took place. With
times more than green tasks) less than in Falck’s study regard to rapid change in manufacturing plant due
(2014; 7.8 times more than green tasks). Almgren to customer and production requirements over time,
and Schaurig (2012) illustrated common quality er- retrospective studies provide confounding factors as
rors made with high-risk tasks. However, common ergonomic risks were not similar according to the time-
physical ergonomic risk factors that had created more quality errors that occurred. Moreover, interactions be-
failures were overlooked. The most common quality tween different elements of the ergonomic approach
errors made with high-risk tasks in the study of Falck and their impact on quality were disregarded in these
et al. (2010) in a car assembly were fairly consistent studies.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 11
Ergonomics and Product Quality Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al.

Eklund (1995) showed that relative risk of quality er- 2000). González et al. (2003) showed that, after phys-
rors for high workload tasks in a car assembly plant was ical ergonomic intervention, the quality of products
almost three times higher than for other tasks. High- increased by 2%, and reprocessing of parts significantly
risk physical ergonomic workload tasks resulted in 79 reduced. Although loss of materials decreased to less
errors per task, and 58% of tasks with high physical than 45%, the number of rejected parts was not statis-
ergonomic demands resulted in quality errors. Quality tically different after intervention. The possible reason
errors increased further along the assembly line as qual- is that physical ergonomic risk factors were solved
ity errors for ergonomically high-risk tasks were higher by providing facilities (lifting tools) and instructions
in the final adjustment department (RR = 2.95) than (for taking good postures) although task workloads
the random disassembly inspection department (RR = remained high in nature. Production changes, design,
1.94; Eklund, 1995). The question regarding where and other dimensions of the ergonomic approach were
quality errors occurred most frequently in the not investigated in this intervention study. Amounts
assembly line and the possibility of quality errors of scrap after intervention still remained high, which
accumulating throughout the process was mostly indicated that intervention had little effect on crucial
overlooked in previous studies. In the study by Eklund cases of quality errors. Furthermore, lack of a control
(1995), various people in each department analyzed group made it difficult to conclude on the effectiveness
the ergonomic workload, which might have increased of intervention on quality (González et al., 2003).
observer bias in assessing the task workloads. Further- Yeow and Sen (2006) demonstrated in an electronic
more, the severity of workloads for each task was not company that low-cost physical ergonomic interven-
evaluated. Moreover, the types of ergonomic problems tions can yield 30% error reduction (quality) in plant
that created more quality errors were not revealed. and 11% at customer sites. Productivity raised by 50%
However, Eklund (1995) estimated that 40% of quality and the factory increased profit by US$950,000 per
errors were more related to fitting deficiencies than year (Yeow & Sen, 2006). The strength of this study was
material handling tasks. that the authors explained clearly the types of error
Fritzsche, Wegge, Schmauder, Kliegel, and Schmidt and the interventions in addition to costs and benefits
(2014) conducted a study among 623 assemblers in for each separately. Task execution failures (slips)
a German automotive industry. Ergonomic workload were the most common errors, and interventions
was assessed by an in-house version of the Automotive included extra facilities (such as using weighing scales,
Assembly Worksheet method. A total of 22821 errors conveyors, and tools), good illumination, and training.
were selected and classified according to the Reason However, assessment of the ergonomic problems was
method (Reason, 1990) as 53% slips (task execution), ambiguous, and the effects of its severity on quality
36% lapses (memory failures), and 11% mistakes were not reported. Furthermore, ergonomic inter-
(work planning). The results showed that in general ventions showed a much greater influence on quality
the errors increased by 80% for the highest physical and costs than in other similar studies. In another
workloads. Physical workloads increased the risk of similar study conducted by Yeow and Sen (2003) in
slips by 3.66 and lapses by 2.44, although there was an electrical test workstation in the same factory,
no relationship with mistakes. In this study, the con- quality errors decreased by 3% in plant and 2.2% in
founding factors of age and diversity were considered the market. Productivity also increased by 6% (Sen &
and common errors were classified (Fritzsche et al., Yeow, 2003; Yeow & Sen, 2003). Reductions in quality
2014). The type of errors that occurred was consistent errors were significantly different in these two similar
with the findings of Falck et al. (2010) and Almgren studies. These positive results might reflect the impact
and Schaurig (2012), as task execution failures were the of other elements, not only ergonomic interventions
most frequently identified errors. However, Fritzsche but also factors such as the Hawthorne effect as the
et al. (2014) did not study the impact of different physi- operators produced their best performance because of
cal workloads, psychosocial factors, and organizational monitoring. Considering a control group might prove
factors. the effectiveness of interventions.
Axelsson (2000) showed that 17 tasks with high Erdinc and Vayvay (2008) undertook low-cost phys-
ergonomic risks caused 80% of operators’ errors. Inter- ical ergonomic interventions and ergonomics training
vention was undertaken for 15 tasks out of 17, and the in two machine sewing lines. The interventions resulted
rejection and failure rates reduced by 3.9% (Axelsson, in 5% reduction in quality defects for Line 1 and 3%

12 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al. Ergonomics and Product Quality

reduction for Line 2 (Erdinc & Vayvay, 2008). The ma- proach for integration of ergonomics in production
jority of interventions in this study consisted of training systems. This approach required the involvement of
and work instructions, which raised the possibility a wide range of stakeholders, including manufactur-
of the Hawthorne effect. The participants might have ing strategies, selection of new services and products,
improved their performance not only for ergonomic product design, system and organization design, and
interventions but also in response to their awareness implementation in the workplace. Indeed, human fac-
of being observed. The effects of other dimensions of tors and ergonomics should be integrated at each stage,
an ergonomic approach were not investigated. and the advantages of ergonomics should encourage
Neubert, Bruder, and Toledo (2012) showed that the stakeholders to support this approach. Proactive
awkward postures led to many quality defects, such ergonomics and risk tracing would thus be adopted in
as leakages, loose clips, neglected screws, and crooked a regular manner throughout the organization instead
placements. A model, including production level (cycle of late consideration of ergonomics in the final stages
time, reworking and scrap), business level (quality and of an existing system. Feedback relating to disorders,
productivity), and operators’ level (health and perfor- quality defects, and productivity would be received by
mance), was therefore proposed that was influenced by stakeholders at each level to help them find solutions
physical ergonomics. Although the authors did not ex- and continuous improvement. This approach aims to
amine their model experimentally, they estimated that, reach 20% improvement at three levels in the company
depending on the industry, ergonomics in such a model (human well-being, business and marketing, and pro-
could save 20%. Evidence related to the effects of awk- duction; Dul & Neumann, 2009; Neumann et al., 2009;
ward postures on quality errors and reducing costs was Neumann & Village, 2012). Neumann et al. (2004)
not reported in Neubert’s study (Neubert et al., 2012). tested this approach in case studies within the auto-
In an experimental study, Das, Shikdar, and Win- motive and electronic industries. Although in both
ters (2007) proposed ergonomic interventions such as studies productivity and ergonomic performance in-
suitable chairs and tables, changes in design and layout, creased significantly, no evidence was shown regarding
and comprehensive training methods (using Methods- quality improvements because there was a lack of com-
Time Measurement (MTM) analysis) in a drill press parative quality data for the old and new design systems
operation. An experimental investigation that included (Neumann, 2004; Neumann, Kihlberg, Medbo, Math-
two groups was then designed to test productivity iassen, & Winkel, 2002; Neumann, Winkel, Medbo,
(number of holes created), quality (number of good Magneberg, & Mathiassen, 2006).
holes), and operator satisfaction. There was a signifi- Vieira et al. (2012) integrated ergonomics into a
cant improvement in quality (50%), and productivity lean production system in an automobile factory in
increased by 22% (Das et al., 2007). However, this study Brazil. This system initially included 5’S, dexterity,
was performed in a laboratory in an academic setting standardization, kaizen, time measure, quality con-
in which the participants were not professional opera- trol, performance management of resources, just in
tors, and there are many confounding factors, such as time, and guidelines for management. The researchers
workplace conditions, and cognitive and psychosocial then added ergonomics to this system. They found that
factors in the real work environments that affect results. the percentage of vehicles without reworking increased
from 48% to 78% after integration of ergonomics.
There was also a decrease in absenteeism and accidents
4.2. Organizational Ergonomics:
and an increase in productivity. The main gap in this
Integration of Ergonomics in Production
study was that the authors did not explain clearly the
Systems
phases in which ergonomics were integrated in the pro-
Three studies reported integrating ergonomics in en- duction system (design/development, engineering pro-
tire manufacturing production systems and its mul- cess, or assembly). Furthermore, lack of information
tiple outcomes such as quality, productivity, and hu- about the nature of the ergonomic interventions (phys-
man well-being (Larson, Oshiro, & Camargo, 2012; ical, cognitive, or psychosocial) make it difficult to con-
Larson & Wick, 2012; Neumann et al., 2009; Neu- clude on the effectiveness of the program on quality.
mann & Village, 2012; Vieira, Balbinotti, Varasquin, In two linked studies by Larson and Wick (2012),
& Gontijo, 2012). In a series of studies, Neumann et al. the integration of ergonomics was monitored over
(2004) proposed a new organizational ergonomic ap- 30 years at 3M Company throughout the world. The

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 13
Ergonomics and Product Quality Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al.

company ergonomics program was divided into three tions between these dimensions were not reported.
stages. The first included micro-ergonomics, the sec- De Looze, Vink, Koningsveld, Kuijt-Evers, and Van
ond participatory ergonomics, and the third transition Rhijn (2010) applied a participative and integrative
from a U.S. technical program focused on engineering ergonomic approach in a print assembly company and
changes to a global program using participatory in final assembly of emergency lighting. It was esti-
ergonomics in the framework of macro-ergonomics. mated that reworking and failures reduced by 25% due
The results of this change in the company production to the ergonomic intervention. However, the company
system were increase in quality, productivity, and changed the quality policy, and significantly less re-
efficiency as well as a 75% decrease in the risk of expo- working in the new situation was also related to the new
sure to MSDs. Moreover, case studies at 3M factories company policy. The total investment of €141,210 over
in Brazil and Poland showed significant increases in 5 years provided €215,789 benefits per year in terms of
product quality and quality of life of the workers. productivity, quality, and health. The benefit related
However, the evidence of quality improvement was to quality was €27,250 per year (de Looze et al., 2010).
not investigated, and Larson and Wick (2012) just Lin, Drury, and Kim (2001) reported the increase
received feedback regarding quality improvements. of quality errors per week due to poor physical and or-
Three intervention studies included in the review ganizational ergonomic factors in two lines of camera
introduced comprehensive macro-ergonomics and a assembly. The more time pressure and the poorer the
participatory model and showed cost-benefits. Mo- work postures the more quality errors produced per
tamedzade, Shahnavaz, Kazemnejad, Azar, and Karimi week (Lin et al., 2001). However, a small number of
(2003) designed a participatory ergonomics model workstations and tasks were evaluated. Furthermore,
in a medical equipment manufacturing company in awkward postures and time pressure were the single
Iran. Scraps, reworking, and rejection reduced by type of physical and organizational ergonomic factors
5%, 8%, and 10% after intervention, respectively. that were investigated. In a survey among 100 car
Although the researchers demonstrated positive wire harness assembly operators, Hamrol, Kowalik,
trends in quality and productivity indicators following and Kujawińsk (2011) cited time pressure as the main
ergonomics interventions, durable process changes reason for operators’ failures. Though, the authors
were not observed because there was no commitment did not report evidence about relationships between
by top management. This is the only intervention time pressure and risk of errors (Hamrol et al., 2011).
study reviewed that included a control group in their Eklund (1995) demonstrated that long assembly time
study design (Motamedzade et al., 2003). Guimarães, related to the design involved difficult-to-assemble
Ribeiro, and Renner (2012) investigated the impact of and high workload tasks. However, Falck et al.
a macro-ergonomic intervention in a large footwear (2014) reported a nonsignificant relationship between
factory. Organizational intervention, such as team- ergonomic level and assembly time. There was a gap
work and increasing workers’ skills, reduced reworking in the literature on the relationship between operation
and spoilage by 0.8% and 0.9% in the new pilot line. times and ergonomics and quality errors.
Furthermore, the cost saving just on quality issues The literature showed that design of products could
was US$173400. Guimarães et al. (2012) also reported significantly influence time operation, ergonomic
reduction of accidents, absenteeism, and risk of workloads, and quality. Eklund (1995) reported that
MSDs. Moreover, the cost-benefit ratio of ergonomic design involving difficult assembly led to the largest
interventions was more than 7 (Guimarães, Ribeiro, number of quality errors (130 errors/tasks). Falck et al.
& Renner, 2012). Nevertheless, the Hawthorne effect (2010) reported that design engineers overlooked the
might have positively influenced results. Quality, pro- consequences of poor product design on the difficulty
ductivity, and human effect indicators were collected of assembly, ergonomic workloads, and quality. Baraldi
2 years after launching the intervention (instead of and Paulo (2011) compared two automotive assembly
periodically during the study). It is possible that system lines, the first of which was new, with high ergonomic
and human improvements were not merely related investment in design and organization, and the second
to ergonomics interventions and that other aspects was traditional with low consideration of ergonomics.
of production yielded these findings. Furthermore, The new assembly line had 30% fewer quality errors
they performed a range of ergonomic interventions compared to the traditional assembly line. Assembly
(organizational and environmental), but the interac- time and absenteeism on the new ergonomic assembly

14 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al. Ergonomics and Product Quality

line were also lower (Baraldi & Paulo, 2011). The However, it was unclear which dimension had more
interactions between various ergonomic interventions effect on quality errors. Action costs for high cognitive
and also their exclusive impact on quality were not workload tasks were 22 times more than low cogni-
investigated in this study. Confounding factors, such tive workload tasks. The authors considered only one
as operators’ skills and product complexity for each aspect of cognitive ergonomics (complexity) while cog-
line, were not reported. nitive workloads have various elements (e.g., memory,
Thun, Lehr, and Bierwirth (2011) undertook a perception). Furthermore, complexity of assembly is
questionnaire survey in 55 automotive industries such a complicated concept that its measurement is a
in Germany where the respondents were manufac- matter of debate in the literature.
turing managers. They believed that organizational Very few researchers have investigated the impact
ergonomics are more harmful than physical er- of psychosocial factors on quality. In a survey study,
gonomics (task-related risk factors and environmental Hamrol et al. (2011) reported employee fatigue, work
ergonomic risks). An ergonomic approach (both orga- monotony, noise, and manual work as main reasons
nizational and physical) could significantly influence for operators’ failures. The relationship between work
systems and human well-being such as increase in pro- monotony, noise level, and the assembly process quality
ductivity, flexibility, safety, work comfort, motivation, was then investigated. Work monotony increased the
and satisfaction. In terms of quality effects, manu- risk of failure threefold, whereas noise level did not in-
facturing managers responded that a high-quality fluence the quality. The interaction of work monotony
ergonomic situation could not significantly reduce er- and noise level increased the risk of failure 10-fold.
rors in comparison to a poor ergonomic situation. The Eklund (1995) showed that 70% of tasks with qual-
manufacturers believed that work-focused ergonomics ity errors were tasks with high psychological demands.
interventions can decrease the risk of mistakes and González et al. (2002) reported on the impact of psy-
defects much more than worker-focused intervention. chosocial factors on quality errors without providing
This survey showed that implementation of an evidence. Revealing a relationship between psycholog-
ergonomic approach in manufacturing industries ical factors and risk of errors, particularly interactions
requires development of managers’ perceptions re- with other ergonomic approaches, is still a matter of
garding the impact of ergonomics on poor production debate because of the subjective nature of psychosocial
quality (Thun et al., 2011). factors.

4.3. Impact of Cognitive Ergonomics 5. DISCUSSION

and Psychosocial Factors on Quality
The major hypothesis of this review was that a poor
We found two studies in the literature that investi- ergonomic approach is related to product quality in
gated the interactions between assembly complexity, terms of errors and failures. The concept of the er-
physical ergonomics, and quality (Falck et al., 2014; gonomic impact on quality has been under investiga-
Falck & Rosenqvist, 2012). In this review, we consid- tion since the 1990s (Burri & Helander, 1991; Helander
ered assembly complexity as cognitive workload. Falck & Burri, 1995), but in this study, we included the most
and Rosenqvist (2012) interviewed 64 engineers in five recent research. The focus of this review was mainly on
Swedish companies: 90% of respondents thought poor studies involving automotive assembly because the link
physical ergonomics led to quality defects, 73% of the between work conditions and product quality is much
engineers perceived that poor ergonomics were related stronger in the automotive industry. Of the 25 studies
to assembly complexity, and 85% stated that assem- included, 13 studies had been conducted in automo-
bly complexity was the cause of errors and scrap. This bile manufacture. Although there is strong evidence of
survey showed the positive opinions of engineers re- the relationship between ergonomics and quality in the
garding interactions between different ergonomic ap- automotive industries, reviewing the ergonomics pro-
proaches. In another experimental study, Falck et al. grams in many car manufacturing industries showed
(2014) showed that both physical and cognitive er- few links between ergonomics and quality policy. The
gonomics (complexity) significantly increased errors Volvo Car Corporation (VCC) and Volkswagen are two
in assembly plants. The authors also reported a rela- examples of companies whose ergonomics programs
tionship between physical and cognitive ergonomics. are a part of their quality strategy (Hägg, 2003). The

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 15
Ergonomics and Product Quality Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al.

relationship between ergonomics and better quality is Ten studies involved intervention research, but none
weaker in other industries such as the meat indus- were performed in automotive industries. Electrical
try. Ilardi (2012) found no relationship between high- and computer assembly companies and shoe and metal
risk tasks and quality of deboning in the fish industry. industries have been the focus of most intervention
Three studies by Falck et al. (Falck et al., 2014; Falck studies. The results of quality improvement due to er-
& Rosenqvist, 2014; Falck et al., 2010) in the VCC, gonomic intervention have varied considerably. Erdinc
which specifically focused on the quality errors related and Vayvay (2008) and Axelsson (2000) found a reduc-
to physical and cognitive ergonomics provided strong tion in quality defects of about 4% after ergonomic
evidence of the impact of ergonomics on quality in intervention, while Yeow and Sen (2006) found about
the automotive industries. The evidence was not the 30% reduction in errors in a manual component in-
same in all of Falck’s studies, and the risk of failures sertion line of printed circuit assembly. However, in
for high-risk ergonomic tasks varied from two to eight another study by Yeow and Sen (2003) in an electrical
times. Eklund (1995) and Fritzsche et al. (2014) re- test workstation, the reduction was about 3%. Labora-
ported the risk of failures as three times and Almgren tory studies (Das et al., 2007) showed a high percent-
and Schaurig (2012) discovered more than twice as age of quality improvements compared to empirical
many errors for ergonomically poor tasks. The differ- studies (Erdinc & Yeow, 2011). The Hawthorne effect
ences in ergonomic risk evaluation, work conditions, might have occurred in several. Furthermore, the type
work methods,and standards might be the main rea- of industry, type of ergonomic intervention (physical,
sons for these variations. Furthermore, the articles re- organizational, or both), and the definition of quality
viewed discussed the impact of ergonomically high- indicators have a significant effect on these differences.
risk tasks on quality in general terms, and few articles The type of ergonomic intervention varied from solv-
reported most common ergonomic risk factors that ing single technical problems (physical approach) to
had the most effect. Lifting heavy components does not integrating ergonomics in the company production
have the same impact on quality as performing precise system (organizational approach). In this review, three
tasks. Eklund (1995) reported that 40% of quality er- investigations proposed integrating ergonomic pro-
rors were related to fitting defects. Falck et al. (2010) grams in the overall strategy of the production sys-
showed that obstructions, working underneath, and tem. Although all of them mentioned the strong
hidden assembly were main reasons for errors. In their influence of integrating ergonomics in production sys-
survey among manufacturing managers, Thun et al. tems on product quality, the quality and quantity of
(2011) showed that repetition and manipulation are evidence were not sufficient. However, there was sci-
significant reasons for failure. The greatest gap is in entific evidence for such an influence on productiv-
empirical research investigating separately the effects ity, reduction in physical ergonomic workload, and
of different physical ergonomic workloads on errors. human well-being (Ashraf Genaidy, Karwowski, &
Errors are not only due to the effects of physical er- Christensen, 1999). Although some studies such as
gonomic risk factors, whereas other job characteristics Hamrol et al. (2011) and Lin et al. (2001) showed
such as organizational, cognitive, and psycho-social that organizational factors had more impact on qual-
factors have a major impact on product quality (Layer, ity, most of the intervention studies reviewed con-
Karwowski, & Furr, 2009). Lin et al. (2001), Thun et al. tained technical and engineering changes through er-
(2011) and Hamrol et al. (2011) showed that time pres- gonomic modification of workstations and tools (phys-
sure is an important factor in failures. In his survey ical ergonomic factors). Few intervention studies re-
among design and manufacturing engineers, Falck and ported the effect of organizational factors’ modifica-
Rosenqvist (2012) showed that cognitive demands (as- tion on quality failures reduction. As there is a lack
sembly complexity) are related to both failure rates of studies that prioritize the principal and common
and physical ergonomic workloads. Another empirical ergonomic risk factors that cause quality defects, a
study showed a significant relationship between as- similar gap was found in the types of practical er-
sembly complexity and both ergonomic workload and gonomic interventions that could result in better qual-
failure rates (Falck et al., 2014). More studies are re- ity or system effects. The range of interventions in the
quired to make it possible to apply these results to other studies included was very wide, and studies focusing
workplaces. on valid ergonomic interventions leading to quality

16 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al. Ergonomics and Product Quality

improvement are rare. However, Hendrick (2003), 6. CONCLUSION

Erdinc and Vayvay (2008), and Yeow and Sen (2003,
2006) demonstrated that focusing on obvious physical The aim of this review was to investigate the impact of
ergonomic risks, which can often be solved by sim- the ergonomic approach on product quality, particu-
ple and inexpensive improvements, could have signif- larly in automotive manufacturing. Twenty-five empir-
icant effects in terms of quality. Modifications such ical studies were included. The studies reviewed pro-
as providing suitable equipment (chairs, footrests, ta- vided evidence of the effects of the poor ergonomic
bles), proper layout and adjusting workstations, along approach on quality errors, mainly in the automotive
with substitution of well-designed tools instead of poor industry. However, the interaction between different
tools sometimes have a highly significant cost-benefit ergonomic dimensions (physical, organizational, cog-
payback (Hendrick, 2003). It is difficult to conclude nitive, and psychosocial) and their effects on quality re-
that any quality improvement in intervention studies main undemonstrated. Research on the effects of cog-
is actually related to changes in ergonomic approach nitive ergonomic and psychosocial factors on quality is
because the quality policy and production system of still scant. Survey studies among manufacturing man-
the industries also changed. De Looze et al. (2010) agers showed that they still see ergonomics as a health
estimated that just 25% of all total improvement in and disease prevention tool and not as a method for
quality was related to ergonomic changes, as most im- cost saving and waste reduction.
provements were because of quality policy changes.
Most intervention studies investigated the effects of
ergonomics on both human and system outcomes, in- References
cluding quality and productivity. The impact on pro- Almgren, J., & Schaurig, C. (2012). The influence of pro-
ductivity has been a more frequent focus. In a re- duction ergonomics on product quality (Unpublished
view study that included 45 articles, Neumann and master’s thesis). Chalmers University of Technology,
Dul (2010) showed that the main system effects of Gothenburg, Sweden.
studies were productivity (89% of articles), while 31% Axelsson, J. (2000). Quality and ergonomics—towards
reported quality effects of ergonomics. successful integration (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
Survey studies have shown the opinions of man- tion). Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
ufacturing managers, engineers, and workers. Thun Baraldi, E. C., & Paulo, C. (2011). Ergonomic planned
et al. (2011) showed that automotive manufacturing supply in an automotive assembly line. Human Factors
managers thought that physical and organizational and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries,
ergonomic intervention could reduce mistakes and 21(1), 104–119.
Battini, D., Faccio, M., Persona, A., & Sgarbossa, F. (2011).
would have cost-saving effects. However, the evidence
New methodological framework to improve productiv-
for system effects was not strong, and the managers’ ity and ergonomics in assembly system design. Interna-
opinions about ergonomics were more on its effec- tional Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 41(1), 30–42.
tiveness in decreasing workloads and absenteeism, and Burri, G. J., Jr, & Helander, M. G. (1991). A field study
increasing health, safety, satisfaction, and motivation. of productivity improvements in the manufacturing of
Neumann and Dul (2010) stated that managers rec- circuit boards. International Journal of Industrial Er-
ognize ergonomics as a health and safety tool. This gonomics, 7(3), 207–215.
misconception in companies affects the effectiveness Das, B., Shikdar, A. A., & Winters, T. (2007). Workstation
of ergonomics and investment within industries. How- redesign for a repetitive drill press operation: A com-
ever, manufacturing engineers and quality inspectors bined work design and ergonomics approach. Human
in Sweden believed in the effectiveness of ergonomics Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service
for quality improvement (Eklund, 1995; Falck & Industries, 17(4), 395–410.
da Silva, M. P., Pruffer, C., & Amaral, F. G. (2012). Is there
Rosenqvist, 2012), and assemblers who were inter-
enough information to calculate the financial benefits
viewed by Hamrol et al. (2011) had similar opin- of ergonomics projects? Work: A Journal of Prevention
ions. Therefore, changing the thinking of manu- Assessment & Rehabilitation, 41, 476–483.
facturing managers and bringing it closer to the de Looze, M. P., Vink, P., Koningsveld, E. A. P., Kuijt-
opinions of the engineers and assemblers should be Evers, L., & VanRhijn, G. (2010). Cost-effectiveness
considered. of ergonomic interventions in production. Human

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 17
Ergonomics and Product Quality Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al.

Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Govindaraju, M., Pennathur, A., & Mital, A. (2001). Qual-
Industries, 20(4), 316–323. ity improvement in manufacturing through human
Drury, C. (2003). Service, quality and human factors. AI performance enhancement. Integrated Manufacturing
& SOCIETY, 17(2), 78–96. Systems, 12(5), 360–367.
Dul, J., & Neumann, W. P. (2009). Ergonomics contri- Guimarães, L. B. d. M., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Renner, J. S.
butions to company strategies. Applied Ergonomics, (2012). Cost–benefit analysis of a socio-technical in-
40(4), 745–752. tervention in a Brazilian footwear company. Applied
Eklund, J. A. E. (1995). Relationships between ergonomics Ergonomics, 43(5), 948–957.
and quality in assembly work. Applied Ergonomics, Hägg, G. M. (2003). Corporate initiatives in
26(1), 15–20. ergonomics—an introduction. Applied Ergonomics,
Erdinc, O., & Vayvay, O. (2008). Ergonomics interven- 34(1), 3–15.
tions improve quality in manufacturing: A case study. Hamrol, A., Kowalik, D., & Kujawińsk, A. (2011). Impact
International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engi- of selected work condition factors on quality of manual
neering, 3(6), 727–745. assembly process. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Erdinc, O., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2011). Proving external va- Manufacturing & Service Industries, 21(2), 156–163.
lidity of ergonomics and quality relationship through Helander, M. G., & Burri, G. J. (1995). Cost effectiveness
review of real-world case studies. International Journal of ergonomics and quality improvements in electron-
of Production Research, 49(4), 949–962. ics manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial
Falck, A.-C., Örtengren, R., & Hogberg, D. (2010). The Ergonomics, 15(2), 137–151.
impact of poor assembly ergonomics on product qual- Hendrick, H. W. (2003). Determining the cost–benefits
ity: A cost-benefit analysis in car manufacturing. Hu- of ergonomics projects and factors that lead to their
man Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Ser- success. Applied Ergonomics, 34(5), 419–427.
vice Industries, 20(1), 24–41. Higgins, J. P., Green, S., & Cochrane Collaboration.
Falck, A.-C., Örtengren, R., & Rosenqvist, M. (2014). (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of
Assembly failures and action cost in relation to com- interventions (Vol. 5). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
plexity level and assembly ergonomics in manual as- Hines, P., Holweg, M., & Rich, N. (2004). Learning to
sembly (Part 2). International Journal of Industrial evolve: A review of contemporary lean thinking. Inter-
Ergonomics, 44(3), 455–459. national Journal of Operations & Production Manage-
Falck, A.-C., & Rosenqvist, M. (2012). What are the ob- ment, 24(10), 994–1011.
stacles and needs of proactive ergonomics measures at Ilardi, J. S. (2012). Relationship between productiv-
early product development stages? An interview study ity, quality and musculoskeletal disorder risk among
in five Swedish companies. International Journal of In- deboning workers in a Chilean salmon industry. Work,
dustrial Ergonomics, 42(5), 406–415. 41(Suppl 1), 5334–5338.
Falck, A.-C., & Rosenqvist, M. (2014). A model for calcu- Inman, R. R., Blumenfeld, D. E., Huang, N., & Li, J. (2003).
lation of the costs of poor assembly ergonomics (Part 1). Designing production systems for quality: Research op-
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44(1), portunities from an automotive industry perspective.
140–147. International Journal of Production Research, 41(9),
Fritzsche, L., Wegge, J., Schmauder, M., Kliegel, M., & 1953–1971.
Schmidt, K.-H. (2014). Good ergonomics and team di- Kazmierczak, K., Neumann, W. P., & Winkel, J. (2007). A
versity reduce absenteeism and errors in car manufac- case study of serial-flow car disassembly: Ergonomics,
turing. Ergonomics, 57(2), 148–61. productivity, and potential system performance. Hu-
Genaidy, A., Karwowski, W., & Christensen, D. (1999). man Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Ser-
Principles of work system performance optimization: A vice Industries, 17(4), 331–351.
business ergonomics approach. Human Factors and Er- Larson, N., Oshiro, R., & Camargo, O. (2012). 3M Brazil
gonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 9(1), ergonomics: A success story in the making. Work,
105–128. 41(Suppl 1), 5977–5980.
Genaidy, A., Salem, S., Karwowski, W., Paez, O., & Tuncel, Larson, N., & Wick, H. (2012). 30 years of ergonomics
S. (2007). The work compatibility improvement frame- at 3M: A case study. Work, 41(Suppl 1), 5091–
work: An integrated perspective of the human-at-work 5098.
system. Ergonomics, 50(1), 3–25. Layer, J. K., Karwowski, W., & Furr, A. (2009). The effect of
González, B. A., Adenso-Dı́az, B., & González Torre, P. cognitive demands and perceived quality of work life on
(2003). Ergonomic performance and quality relation- human performance in manufacturing environments.
ship: An empirical evidence case. International Journal International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(2),
of Industrial Ergonomics, 31(1), 33–40. 413–421.

18 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
 Zare, Croq, Hossein-Arabi, et al. Ergonomics and Product Quality

Liljedahl, A., & Muftic, A. (2012). Managing produc- Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University
tion deviations: A case study at Scania AB. (Unpub- Press.
lished Master of Science dissertation). KTH University, Sen, R. N., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2003). Cost effectiveness of
Sweden. ergonomic redesign of electronic motherboard. Applied
Lin, L., Drury, C. G., & Kim, S. W. (2001). Ergonomics Ergonomics, 34(5), 453–463.
and quality in paced assembly lines. Human Factors Silva, K. M., Coelho, B. G., Junior, J. V., Faria, L. F., Dutra,
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, L., Alvarenga, M., . . . Echternach, E. H. (2012). The
11(4), 377–382. footwear factory’s assembly sector: Opposing organiza-
Motamedzade, M., Shahnavaz, H., Kazemnejad, A., Azar, tional structure and quality from the ergonomic work
A., & Karimi, H. (2003). The impact of participatory analysis. Work, 41(Suppl 1), 1683–1690.
ergonomics on working conditions, quality, and pro- Taleghani, M. (2010). Key factors for implementing the
ductivity. International Journal of Occupational Safety lean manufacturing system. Journal of American Sci-
and Ergonomics, 9(2), 135–147. ence, 6(7), 287–291.
Neubert, N., Bruder, R., & Toledo, B. (2012). The charge of Thun, J.-H., Lehr, C. B., & Bierwirth, M. (2011). Feel
ergonomics—a model according to the influence of er- free to feel comfortable—an empirical analysis of er-
gonomic workplace design for economical and efficient gonomics in the German automotive industry. Interna-
indicators of the automotive industry. Work, 41(Suppl tional Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 551–
1), 4389–4395. 561.
Neumann, W. P. (2004). Production ergonomics: Identi- Toledo, B. (2012). Global ergonomics strategy in Volk-
fying and managing risk in the design of high perfor- swagen: F the product construction, over the plan-
mance work systems (Unpublished doctoral disserta- ning until the serial process. Work, 41(Suppl 1), 4413–
tion). Lund University, Sweden. 4417.
Neumann, W. P., & Dul, J. (2010). Human factors: Törnström, L., Amprazis, J., Christmansson, M., & Ek-
Spanning the gap between OM and HRM. Interna- lund, J. (2008). A corporate workplace model for er-
tional Journal of Operations & Production Manage- gonomic assessments and improvements. Applied Er-
ment, 30(9–10), 923–950. gonomics, 39(2), 219–228.
Neumann, W. P., Ekman, M., & Winkel, J. (2009). Vieira, L., Balbinotti, G., Varasquin, A., & Gontijo, L.
Integrating ergonomics into production system (2012). Ergonomics and kaizen as strategies for compet-
development—the Volvo Powertrain case. Applied Er- itiveness: A theoretical and practical in an automotive
gonomics, 40(3), 527–537. industry. Work, 41(Suppl 1), 1756–1762.
Neumann, W. P., Kihlberg, S., Medbo, P., Mathiassen, Williams, K., Haslam, C., Williams, J., Cultler, T., Ad-
S. E., & Winkel, J. (2002). A case study evaluating the croft, A., & Johal, S. (1992). Against lean production.
ergonomic and productivity impacts of partial automa- Economy and Society, 21(3), 321–354.
tion strategies in the electronics industry. International Yeow, P. H. P., & Sen, R. N. (2003). Quality, productivity,
Journal of Production Research, 40(16), 4059–4075. occupational health and safety and cost effectiveness of
Neumann, W. P., & Village, J. (2012). Ergonomics action ergonomic improvements in the test workstations of an
research II: A framework for integrating HF into work electronic factory. International Journal of Industrial
system design. Ergonomics, 55(10), 1140–1156. Ergonomics, 32(3), 147–163.
Neumann, W. P., Winkel, J., Medbo, L., Magneberg, R., Yeow, P. H. P., & Sen, R. N. (2006). Productivity and
& Mathiassen, S. E. (2006). Production system design quality improvements, revenue increment, and rejec-
elements influencing productivity and ergonomics: A tion cost reduction in the manual component insertion
case study of parallel and serial flow strategies. Inter- lines through the application of ergonomics. Interna-
national Journal of Operations & Production Manage- tional Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(4), 367–
ment, 26(8), 904–923. 377.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 19

View publication stats