Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Two recent papers show how these ideas have progressed in Finland. Vainio and Mattila (1996) inte-
grated safety concerns within the TQM system for an electrical utility. They made safety and health an
integral part of TQM largely by addressing safety and health issues within the total quality handbook.
More evaluation data were provided by Saari and Laitinen (1996) in a manufacturing setting. They set
up continuous improvement teams for safety, defining best work practices in each area. Then, using
the measurement-based TUTTAVA system, the teams set goals, made continuous improvements, and
validated the results. A posture survey across the whole plant showed considerable improvement over
the course of the project. In addition, injury and illness days lost were reduced by about 90% over
three years.
Beyond safety is the safety role of ergonomics, typically designing to avoid injury. Here also a consider-
able literature is developing. Stuebbe and Houshmand (1995) characterize the production system as an
inadvertent injury-producing system and advocate applying quality control approaches such as control
charting, Pareto analysis, etc., to an “integrated ergonomic-quality system.” This consists of analysis of
the task, worker, and environment using these quality control techniques. Getty, Abbott, and Getty
(1995) link quality initiatives to ergonomic projects, showing how an intervention to control cumulative
trauma disorder in a panel drilling task also had a substantial effect on quality and productivity.
A major program in Sweden, the Quality, Working Environment and Productivity (QPEP) project
(Axelsson, 1994; Eklund, 1995) examined specifically the linkages between quality and ergonomics in
a car assembly plant. In eight departments, they produced an inventory of ergonomically demanding
jobs, both those which were physically demanding and those causing production problems. Two different
measures of quality showed significant differences between ergonomically good and ergonomically poor
tasks, indicating the close link between ergonomics and quality.
One of the most integrated quality ergonomics efforts so far appears to be the implementation of ergo-
nomic change within the TQM philosophy at the mail order clothing manufacturer and distributor, L. L.
Bean (Rooney and Morency, 1992; Rooney, Morency, and Herrick, 1993). Their ergonomic objective was
initially to eliminate the cumulative trauma disorder exposures of repetitive sewing production in a 400-
person manufacturing plant. TQM was seen as defining the mission, objectives, and responsibility for
safety with line management. Ergonomics moved over a six-year period from reacting to employee inju-
ries, through proactive job design using teams, to now become part of the management and employee
performance expectations and rewards.
In a follow-on paper, Rooney et al. (1993) were able to tackle some of the more deep-seated problems
of repetitive work. They redesigned payment systems (with active operator involvement), replacing direct
piece-rates with an annual appraisal system in which units produced were only 35 to 33% of the weight-
ing. More complexity was built into jobs, by using cross-training and team work. Management and
supervisor commitment for the ergonomics program was shown by their active support. Rooney et al.
(1993) see these changes as a way of incorporating the musculoskeletal injury reduction aspects of ergo-
nomics into a wider framework based upon macroergonomics (Hendrick, 1992) and TQM principles.
We can, however, go beyond these examples to provide managerial advice on TQM
human factors
interactions, making use of similarities where they exist and exploiting differences to enhance each
program. Starting with the similarities between the tenets of TQM and ergonomics (Table 6.1 and
Table 6.2) we can suggest, with some combining of categories:
/
1. Study and Measure the Process. Start from a systems focus rather than the current process (also
advocated in Business Process Reengineering, Hammer and Champy, 1990). Use this as the
basis for a detailed quantitative understanding of the process. Standard quality techniques
should be used to measure process parameters, and models of human performance and well-
being to measure and understand the role of the operator in the system. Use these measurements
as the basis for directing and quantifying continuous improvement.
2. Honor Thy User. (To quote Kantowitz and Sorkin, 1987). Respect the operators in the system as
people trying to do their best, and having an inherent stake in performing well. Do not necessarily
blame
the operator
alone
for poor quality
productivity
safety. Tap the potential
for
/
/
Search WWH ::
Custom Search