Process Improvement through Ergonomic Design in Welding Shop of an

Automotive Factory

Mesut Kumru Pınar Kılıcogulları

Department of Industrial Engineering Department of Industrial Engineering,
Dogus University Kadıkoy / İstanbul, Turkey Kocaeli University İzmit / Kocaeli, Turkey
mkumru@dogus.edu.tr pinarki@kou.edu.tr

Key words: Business process management, process improvement, ergonomic design, motion
study, ergonomic risk mapping, work life quality.

1. Introduction
Continuous improvement in product quality and productivity can only be realized by means of
systematic analyses and optimization of all of the industrial production processes. Capable
production processes and ergonomically designed workplaces provide the basis for the
manufacture of products of consistently high quality and productivity. This can be approached
under business process management, which refers to activities performed by organizations to
manage and improve the business processes, intends to increase productivity and efficiency in
business processes by means of developing a central continuous improvement system on
critical business processes. For this purpose, it needs to determine the process goals, measure
the outcomes properly, compare the outcomes with the goals, collect new improvement
suggestions, then make applications and provide progress by continuous questioning. Process
improvement plays a key role in this broad scope of business process management.

2. Process Improvement and Ergonomic Design

Process improvement is a series of actions taken to identify, analyze and improve existing
processes within an organization to meet new goals and objectives. These actions often follow
a specific methodology or strategy to create successful results. Ergonomic design may be one
of these actions to be used for this purpose.
Ergonomic design is the application of the body of knowledge (about human abilities,
human limitations and human characteristics that are relevant to design) to the design of tools,
machines, systems, tasks, jobs, and environments for safe, comfortable and effective human
use. (Board of Certification for Professional Ergonomists (BCPE), 1993)
The goals of ergonomics and the sequence of design activities are given in Figure 1.
 Figure 1. Goals and design activities of ergonomics.

Goals of Ergonomics Sequence of Design

Activities

Occupational injury and

ilness reduction

Workers’ compensation Evaluation and control of risk

factors
costs containment

Productivity Identification & quantification

of risk conditions
improvement

Work quality Recommendations of controls

to reduce risk conditions
improvement

Absenteeism reduction Education to risk conditions

Government regulation
compliance

The primary work characteristics that are called ergonomic risk factors include task
physical characteristics (interaction between the worker and the work setting; posture, force,
velocity / acceleration, repetition, duration, recovery time, heavy dynamic exertion, and
segmental vibration) and environmental characteristics (interaction between the worker and
the work environment; heat stress, cold stress, whole body vibration, lighting, and noise).
After evaluating and controlling the work risk factors, assessing the workplace for ergonomic
risk conditions generally involves two steps of identification of the existence of ergonomic
risks and quantification of the degree of ergonomic risk. Engineering, administrative and
work practice controls are included in prevention and control of ergonomic risk conditions.
Management and workers are educated to risk conditions (ergoweb, 2007).
An improvement of working conditions can be a difficult objective. Notable advances are
easy to achieve in the field of routine fabrication of small-to-medium-size items, but the
situation is different with the fabrication of large one-off constructions (Gonnet, 1995).
Klatte and others (1997) emphasized standardized, ergonomically designed work places and
capable processes as the basis for improvement in production performance Govindaraju and
others (2001) stated that ergonomic considerations can improve human performance, but
compounding the problem is the current inability of most ergonomists to make ergonomic
recommendations that do not run counter to the productivity and quality goals of system
designers. That’s why, ergonomic studies are all the more efficient as they are preventive
(Gonnet, 1995). Several ergonomic studies of particular importance have been carried out so
far. Schaub et.al. (2000) introduced a screening tool “Design Check” jointly developed by
several institutions which allows the detection of ergonomic deficits in workplace layouts, and
tested it at the assembly lines of automotive industry.
Mavrikios et al. (2006) discussed human motion modeling using experimental motion data
analyzed by a statistical design of experiments approach. ANOVA was performed for the
determination of the impact factor of the anthropometric parameters influencing the motion
path. Gonzales et al. (2003) analyzed the quality results of a selected firm after varying the
initial work method on de basis of the results of an ergonomic evaluation and evidenced
statistically an improvement thereon. While Eklund (1995, 2000) focused on quality and
ergonomics in general, various industrial applications were executed by other authors. Yeow
and Sen (2003) conducted an ergonomic study to improve the workstations for electrical tests
in a printed circuit assembly in an industrially developing country. The interventions
implemented were simple and inexpensive but resulted in many benefits. Cost effectiveness of
ergonomics and quality improvement in electronic manufacturing was studied by Helander
and Burri (1995). Quinn et al. (1991) redesigned ergonomically the packaging workstation for
automotive component parts. Sen and Yeow (2001) attained ergonomic improvements for the
manufacture of printed circuit assemblies through design changes. Yeow and Sen (2000)
discussed ergonomic improvements of workstations for visual inspection and electrical tests
in a multimedia product factory. Yeow andn Sen (2002) investigated quality, productivity,
occupational health and safety, and cost effectiveness of 5 ergonomic studies in electronic
factories.
Apart from these works, an original process improvement case study performed through
ergonomic design in automotive industry was given below.

3. Industrial Application
Ford Otosan Company / Kocaeli Plant
As a joint venture between Ford Motor Co. and Koc Holding (TR), Ford Otosan Co. is the
leading automotive company in Turkey with its comprehensive engineering and
manufacturing capabilities, 2 manufacturing plants (Kocaeli and Inonu), domestic and export
sales, and 8000 employees. In Kocaeli plant medium and light commercial vehicles (Transit
and Transit Connect), in Inonu plant heavy truck (Cargo), engine and powertrain components
are manufactured. In 2005 Ford Otosan produced 243.000 vehicles of which 162.000 were
exported to more than 90 countries in 5 continents. Kocaeli plant is located in the region of
Kocaeli (near Istanbul) on an open area of 3 million m 2 of which 160.000 m 2 is closed. The
plant has press, weld (body), paint, and assembly shops. Daily capacity is around 800 units of
vehicles.
Weld shop is highly automated section of the factory with over 100 robots in operation.
Pressed-panels are welded together to create complete body shells. It is the widest area in the
factory. The weld (body) shop is broken down into five major areas; subassemblies,
underbody, side frame lines, body framing, and body final operations. Raw stampings are
supplied from the press shop. Most welding is done with spot-welding guns, although some
final operations use mig-welding. Operation flow of the weld shop is given in Figure 2.

Ergonomic Design
Ergonomic process improvement study in Ford Otosan factory was started due to increasing
number of occupational injuries and illnesses resulting in considerable worker absenteeism
problem (around 30 %). Because of inadequate working conditions, hazardous body motions
and handling of heavy materials (from 1 to almost 50 kg) ergonomic risks seemed to be high.
A need was obvious for ergonomic design in the factory to improve productivity as well as
the work life of the operators. The goals of ergonomic design and the methodology used for
its implementation were considered principally as was given in Figure 1. Process
improvement methodology however involved three basic stages during implementation,
which were stage of preparation, stage of evaluation, and stage of recommendation
Stage of Preparation: At this initial stage management of the company was given process
management seminars and emphasized their commitment for success. Right after, the
processes to be analyzed and improved were selected according to the risk factors involved
and their owners were appointed. In the factory, 4 of the 7 welding lines were operative, and 2
of these 4 lines were selected to study based on the injury and illness statistics supported with
motion analyses reports.

Figure 2. Operations flow in Weld Shop.

Front Floor Pan Rear Compartment Sliding Door

Subassembly Pan Subassembly

Front Door
Underbody Framing Line
Paint
Body Framing Line Shop

Cowl and Dash Side Frame Metal Engine Lid

Subassembly Finishing

Rear Shelf Panel Roof Skin Back Door

Subassembly

At this stage also, improvement teams were assigned and trained. Teams were composed of
operators, supervisors, and work safety personnel.
Stage of Evaluation: Draft ergonomic maps of present situation were drawn at this stage of
implementation. Upon interviews with internal customers the areas (points) to be improved
were decided.
Stage of Recommendation: At this final stage goals of the ergonomic design were set. Root
causes of the problems were detected, improvement alternatives were developed. By selecting
among alternatives probable solution suggestions were presented to apply.
A special risk analysis form was designed to record team evaluations on the critical
processes. Teams assessed by observation the level of effort spent, its duration and the
number of repetition per minute for each individual operation. The level of effort was the
degree of impact of the effort on the specified parts of the human body. It was scored over 3
with one of each integer points 1, 2, and 3. Point 1 indicated that the effort lasted along 1/3 of
the operation, while point 3 was used for an effort lasting along the whole operation. The
duration of effort implied the time length of effort spent during the work and its scoring was
also assessed over 3. The number of effort per minute meant how many times it repeated
within one minute and was given a point over 3, such that, if it is done once in one minute the
point appraised was 1; for two-three times per minute it was 2; and if four or more times the
effort was repeated within one minute it was 3 which points out that it is a heavy work.
Any risk factors that scored a 3 indicated that the specific risk factor under consideration was
hazardous and must be controlled regardless of the total job score.
Overall scores (OS) represented the highest points of each column (effort, effort spent,
repetition). According to these overall scores ergonomic risk level of the tasks were evaluated
with respect to the following decision criteria.
OS ≥ 7: Very high (hazardous) risk level (two or more 3 points)
OS ≥ 7: High risk level (one 3 points)
5 ≤ OS ≤ 6: Medium risk level OS ≤ 4: Low risk level.
 During the application, thirty-two numbers of forms were filled in and supported with
necessary pictorial documents. Five of these forms are given as examples in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Exemplary forms of ergonomic risk analyses.

Ford Otosan Co. ERGONOMIC RISK ANALYSIS Shop Welding Date

16/11/06

Manufacturing Line / Task Description : Rear chassis, bar subassembly………………………….

Problem: Operator is bending very much. Due to the insufficiency of work area, he is to act improperly, and
the components picked up are very heavy. ……………………………………………………………

Working Muscle Effort Effort

Number of
Groups Spent Duration
Efforts / min
Back 3 2 2
Knee - - -
Neck - - -
Shoulders 3 2 2
Forearm and Wrist 3 2 2
Fingers - - -
OVERALL 3 2 2
Evaluation: High risk level. ……………………………………………………………………….
Suggestions: 1. Because of the heavy weight of the part operator is getting strained. The weight of the part
should be lightened by use of electrical chain hoist. 2. The parts should be moved from the
previous station in standard position so that the operator does not need to turn them over.
3. Since it is a heavy work, work rotation can be applied. ………………………………
…………………………

Ford Otosan Co. ERGONOMIC RISK ANALYSIS Shop Welding Date

16/11/06

Manufacturing Line / Task Description : Rear chassis, bar subassembly …………………………..

Problem: Operator is assembling chassis bars at Station 70 and carrying them manually to Station 75 to
complete, and then to the stock stand by the same way. The main problem is that the rear chassis is very heavy
and carried by hand. ……………………………………………………………………….............

Working Muscle Effort Effort

Number of
Groups Spent Duration
Efforts / min
Back 2 2 1
Knee - - -
Neck - - -
Shoulders - - -
Forearm and Wrist 2 1 2
Fingers - - -
OVERALL 2 2 2
Evaluation: Medium risk level.…………………………………………………………………….
Suggestions: Use electrical chain hoist. ………………………………….…………………………
Ford Otosan Co. ERGONOMIC RISK ANALYSIS Shop Welding Date 16/11/06

Manufacturing Line / Task Description : Engine compartment, chassis bar subassembly. …………..
Problem: Spot welding gun is heavy and not ergonomically designed. Holding position is wrong. Operator is
getting load on his shoulders. ……………………………………………………………………….

Working Muscle Effort Effort

Number of
Groups Spent Duration
Efforts / min
Back - - -
Knee - - -
Neck - - -
Shoulders 1 2 1
Forearm and Wrist - - -
Fingers - - -
OVERALL 1 2 1
Evaluation: Low risk level.…………………………………………………………………….
Suggestions: 1. The balancing hawser is not in correct position due to the fall down of welding gun. This
makes it difficult to operate. Repairing the balancer is necessary. 2. With horizontal spot welding gun four
times vertical welding is realized. This may be done easily by using vertical spot welding gun. …………

Ford Otosan Co. ERGONOMIC RISK ANALYSIS Shop Welding Date 16/11/06

Manufacturing Line / Task Description : Spot welding. ………………………………………….

Problem: It is inappropriate and difficult to use the present welding guns at Station 100. Because they are
heavy and old-fashioned. ……………………………………………………………………..........

Working Muscle Effort Effort

Number of
Groups Spent Duration
Efforts / min
Back 2 2 2
Knee - - -
Neck - - -
Shoulders - - -
Forearm and Wrist 2 3 1
Fingers - - -
OVERALL 2 3 1
Evaluation: Medium risk level. …………………………………………………………………….
Suggestions: Renew the present guns used at the Station. …………………………………………….
Ford Otosan Co. ERGONOMIC RISK ANALYSIS Shop Welding Date
16/11/06

Manufacturing Line / Task Description : Rear chassis assembly, spot welding of components.………
Problem: The stand is low and full of parts. It is difficult for operator to select and get the appropriate one.

Working Muscle Effort Effort

Number of
Groups Spent Duration
Efforts / min
Back 2 2 2
Knee - - -
Neck - - -
Shoulders - - -
Forearm and Wrist - - -
Fingers 2 2 2
OVERALL 2 2 2
Evaluation: Medium risk level. ……………………………………………………………………
Suggestions: 1. Height of the stand can be raised and sloped. 2. Excessive loadings to the stand must be
avoided. 3. A special apparatus can be designed for easy selection of pieces. ……………………………
Ford Otosan Co. ERGONOMIC RISK ANALYSIS Shop Welding Date
16/11/06

Manufacturing Line / Task Description : Body, ceiling finishing (spot welding) ……………………
Problem: Spot welding that can not be done by robots are performed here. It is heavy and executed for
difficult points, so that spot welding is to strain the operator. Further, faulty monorails make it more difficult
to work. ……………………………………….........

Working Muscle Effort Effort

Number of
Groups Spent Duration
Efforts / min
Back 2 3 1
Knee - - -
Neck - - -
Shoulders - - -
Forearm and Wrist 3 3 1
Fingers - - -
OVERALL 3 3 1
Evaluation: Very high risk level. …………………………………………………………………..
Suggestions: 1. Make the welding guns suitable for easiness of usage to the place where they are used. 2.
Do maintenance for monorails or renew them if necessary. ……………………….....................

4. Conclusion
It is quite widespread that, even if it causes employee grievance and health problems,
companies are insisting to increase their productivity and profits by speeding up the
production tempo, excessive splitting of work, disregarding physical/environmental hazards,
alternating shifting systems, etc. This attitude, which is not of course tolerated by the workers,
makes it necessary to search for a tradeoff, and consequently to investigate the present
working conditions, look for alternative ways, and design new production tools and
equipments for any improvements if possible thereon. Ergonomic improvements attained due
to this type of need provide the basis to increase the efficiency of the production units as well
as the work life quality of employees. In order to continuously improve the ergonomic
processes it is a must to manage effectively the primary protection function (field surveys,
risk assessment, auditing, health surveying and protection trainings, statistical data analyses),
and the secondary protection function (control on the work, general protection, rehabilitation
programs, and work orientation programs). Risk analyses take a special part in this content.
Because, the cheapest and the most effective way to prevent accidents is to identify and
analyze the probable risks before lost occurs, and remove them by using the most possible
effective methods or reduce them to the level acceptable. Identification and analysis of risk is
the vital element of work safety, health and environmental management program. Risk
analyses make it possible to achieve the necessary improvements and apply the methods of
lost prevention and control. Risk evaluations should be made when process changed,
accidents / dangerous activities happened, new machines / equipments were purchased, and
once a year for control purpose.
During the ergonomic design study conducted for welding process improvement several
engineering tools and methods were used and valuable suggestions were derived.
Suggestions as to the design of welding robots, production tools and equipments (chain hoists,
stands, selection apparatuses, masks, eyeglasses, etc.), worker positioning and rotation, and
staffing (reserve operators ) were put into operation. Worker absenteeism dropped 1/3. Labor
productivity and workers’ work life quality has increased substantially. Due to time and cost
limitations the work could have been applied in welding shop only for two process lines
among the seven which were similar in fact.
Process improvement is a never-ending cycle. It needs continuous efforts to bring new
suggestions. Change in customer needs, change in technology and competitors’ working
systems speed up these efforts.

References
Eklund, J.A.E. (1995), “Relationship between ergonomics and quality in assembly work”,
Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 15-20.
Eklund, J.A.E. (2000), “Development work for quality and ergonomics”, Applied
Ergonomics, Vol.31 No. 6, pp. 641-648.
www.ergoweb.com/resources/faq/concepts.cfm , viewed 15 January 2007.
Gonnet, L. (1995), “Towards an ergonomic design of welding stations”, Welding Research
Abroad, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 2-8.
Gonzales, B.A. and others. (2003), “Ergonomic performance and quality relationship: an
empirical evidence case”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 33-40.
Govindaraju, M., Pennathur, A. and Mital, A. (2001), “Quality improvement in
manufacturing
through human performance enhancement”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12
No. 5, pp. 360-367.
Helander, M.G. and Burri, G.J. (1995), “Cost effectiveness of ergonomics and quality
improvement in electronic manufacturing”, International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, Vol. 15, pp. 137-151.
Klatte, T., Daetz, W. and Laurig, W. (1997), “Quality improvement through capable
processes and ergonomic design”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp. 399-411.
Mavrikios, D. and others. (2006), “An approach to human motion analysis and modeling”,
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 36 No. 11, pp. 979-989.
Quinn, D. and others. (1991), “The ergonomic redesign of a packaging workstation for
automotive component parts”, Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety III,(Editors:
Karwowski and Yates), Taylor and Frances, London, pp. 549-553.
Schaub, K.G. and others. (2000), “Ergonomic screening of assembly tasks in automotive
industries”, Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics
Association, pp. 409-412.
Sen, R.N. and Yeow, P.H.P. (2001), “Ergonomic improvements for the manufacture of
printed circuit assemblies through design changes”, Proceedings of the 37th Annual
Conference of the Ergonomic Society of Australia Incorporate, Australia, pp. 241-247.
Yeow, P.H.P. and Sen, R.N. (2000), “Ergonomic improvements of workstations for visual
inspection and electrical tests in a multimedia product factory”, Proceedings of the
International Ergonomics Association XIV Triennial Congress, Vol. 5, San Diego, pp.
107-110.
Yeow, P.H.P. and Sen, R.N. (2002), “Quality, productivity, occupational health and safety,
and cost effectiveness of 5 ergonomic studies in electronic factories”, Proceedilngs of the
Nordic Ergonomic Society’s 34th Annual Congress, Kolmarden, Sweden, pp. 847-852.