Ergonomic equipment investments: benefits to apparel manufacturers

Abstract

Mass production of apparel has traditionally been a labour-intensive process, with production workers performing single operations using the same repetitive motions throughout an eight-hour day. This not only leads to boredom with the job, but it also increases the risk of health problems occurring. The number of lost working days, a commonly used health and safety measurement, almost quadrupled in the textile and apparel industry over the last decade from 37 in 1984 to 141 in 1993 per 100 FTE [1]. The increase in work-related injuries and illnesses over the last five years in the USA has caused many manufacturers to consider making changes in the workplace to reduce stress on the body [2].Many of these changes are based on principles of ergonomics, the science that studies the relationship between workers and their working environment. An important principle of ergonomics is that once a job or task goes beyond the worker's physical limitations, injuries will result [3]. Such injuries, often referred to as repetitive motion injuries or cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs), have a cumulative effect on the body; therefore, the tendency towards injury increases with age. Using ergonomics principles means addressing the physical demands placed on the worker, both understanding how these demands stress the body and finding solutions that will reduce the demands or stressors to a minimal level.Prevention is very important in this manufacturing segment where the labour resource is valued, and manufacturers cannot afford to lose trained workers. Prevention strategies include education and training for workers, redesigning workstations, changing methods for operations where the incidence of workrelated injuries and illnesses is high, using modular or team production systems to encourage operators to change tasks throughout the day and investing in ergonomic equipment and work aids [4]. Some of these strategies require very little investment in time and money resources while others require huge investments of these resources.Investing in ergonomic equipment is a major investment for most companies because of the high initial cost of the equipment. Ergonomic equipment is

Human factors: spanning the gap between OM and HRM

“…Other studies have also shown a co-variation of human and quality effects, without considering the operations system (Dillard and Schwager, 1997;GAO, 1997;González et al, 2003;Govindaraju et al, 2001;Hendrick, 2003;Klatte et al, 1997;Kleiner, 1999;Tari and Sabater, 2006). Part of the effects observed here may be interpreted in terms of human error makingwhich can be interpreted as a phenomena arising from the design of the system which fosters errors, as well as from the human operator's knowledge and ability to avoid or recover from errors (Reason, 1990).…”

“…Errors in the process can […] result in product unreliability, poor productivity or even injury to the workforce or product user.Axelsson (2000) found that jobs with poor postural ergonomics were ten times more likely to have quality deficits than jobs with good ergonomics. Other studies have also shown a co‐variation of human and quality effects, without considering the OS (Dillard and Schwager, 1997; GAO, 1997; González et al , 2003; Govindaraju et al , 2001; Hendrick, 2003; Klatte et al , 1997; Kleiner, 1999; Tari and Sabater, 2006). Part of the effects observed here may be interpreted in terms of human error making – which can be interpreted as a phenomena arising from the design of the system which fosters errors, as well as from the human operator's knowledge and ability to avoid or recover from errors (Reason, 1990).…”

Human Factors: Spanning the Gap between OM & HRM

“…Other studies have also shown a co-variation of human and quality effects, without considering the operations system (Dillard and Schwager, 1997;GAO, 1997;González et al, 2003;Govindaraju et al, 2001;Hendrick, 2003;Klatte et al, 1997;Kleiner, 1999;Tari and Sabater, 2006). Part of the effects observed here may be interpreted in terms of human error makingwhich can be interpreted as a phenomena arising from the design of the system which fosters errors, as well as from the human operator's knowledge and ability to avoid or recover from errors (Reason, 1990).…”

Conceptual Framework of Lean Ergonomics for Assembly Process: PDCA Approach

“…Increasing the injury will disturbed the lean manufacturing process in the long term, the economic saving from quality, productivity and efficiency improvements pay for the higher cost of employee's compensation claims for medical [92]. Designing the machine that can match to the workers/ operators abilities to achieve maximum safety, comfort and efficiency can improve production and reduce work fatigue [93]. Based on that case, study on ergonomics analysis or human factor analysis are the key to reduce waste value creation in lean manufacturing strategy [5].…”