Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Macroergonomic Compatibility Index for Manufacturing Work Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Macroergonomics for Manufacturing Systems

Part of the book series: Management and Industrial Engineering ((MINEN))

  • 433 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we develop a macroergonomic compatibility index (MCI). The methodology combines employee perceptions regarding the macroergonomic practices implemented in their companies in the five macroergonomic factors previously addressed (person, organization, technologies and tools, tasks, and environment) with the assessment of experts regarding the importance of such macroergonomic practices. The MCI relies on dimensional analysis, which is why the result is a similarity index with respect to an ideal solution. The chapter describes step by step the methodology for the index generation and provides the results of the MCQ validation, which showed 91.3% of statistical reliability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Macroergonomic Compatibility Index (MCI), the attributes correspond to macroergonomic factors and their elements.

References

  • Balbinotti G, Paupitz A (2015) Internationally management of socio-technical projects—a case study in a vehicle assembly. Procedia Manuf 3:6345–6352. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrera-Álvarez JO (2009) Evaluación experimental de una herramienta de corte DFE rosas prototipo desarrollada en el Centro de Estudios de Ergonomía. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana

    Google Scholar 

  • Basto M, Pereira JM (2012) An SPSS R-menu for ordinal factor analysis. J Stat Softw 46(4):1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann A, Holness DL, Norman P, Idriss-Wheeler D, Boucher P (2012) The ergonomic program implementation continuum (EPIC): integration of health and safety—a process evaluation in the healthcare sector. J Safety Res 43:205–213. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2012.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg M (1999) Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. Int J Med Inform 55:87–101. doi:10.1016/S1386-5056(99)00011-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolis I, Sznelwar LI (2015) A case study of the implementation of an ergonomics improvement committee in a Brazilian hospital—challenges and benefits

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown TA (2015) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, 2nd edn. New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayon P (2012) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safety, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayon P, Hoonakker PLT (2004) Macroegronomic organizational questionnaire survey (MOQS). In: Stanton N, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrick HW (eds) Handbook of human factors and ergonomic methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 71–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayon P, Hundt A, Karsh BT, Gurses AP, Alvarado CJ, Smith M, Brennan P (2006) Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Heal Care 15:i50–i58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayon P, Wetterneck TB, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Hundt A, Hoonakker P, Holden R, Gurses AP (2014) Human factors systems approach to healthcare quality and patient safety. Appl Ergon 45:14–25. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.04.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castañeda M, Cabrera A, Navarro Y, De Vries W (2010) Procesamiento de datos y análisis estadísticos utilizando SPSS: un libro práctico para investigadores y administradores educativos. EdiPUCRS, Porto Alegre, Brasil

    Google Scholar 

  • Celik M, Kahraman C, Cebi S, Er ID (2009) Fuzzy axiomatic design-based performance evaluation model for docking facilities in shipbuilding industry: the case of Turkish shipyards. Expert Syst Appl 36:599–615. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.09.055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang H-C, Yao J-S, Ouyang L-Y (2004) Fuzzy mixture inventory model with variable lead-time based on probabilistic fuzzy set and triangular fuzzy number. Math Comput Model 39:287–304. doi:10.1016/S0895-7177(04)90012-X

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng C-H, Lin Y (2002) Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 142:174–186. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00280-6

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Choi B, Granero R, Pak A (2010) Catálogo de sesgos o errores en cuestionarios sobre salud. Rev Costarr Salud Pública 19:106–118

    Google Scholar 

  • de Macedo-Guimarães LB, Anzanello MJ, Duarte Ribeiro JL, Saurin TA (2015) Participatory ergonomics intervention for improving human and production outcomes of a Brazilian furniture company. Int J Ind Ergon 49:97–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Dockrell S, O’Grady E, Bennett K, Mullarkey C, Mc Connell R, Ruddy R, Twomey S, Flannery C (2012) An investigation of the reliability of rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) as a method of assessment of children’s computing posture. Appl Ergon 43:632–636. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2011.09.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez M, Blancas F, Guerrero F, González M (2011) Una revisión crítica para la construcción de indicadores sintéticos. Rev MÉTODOS CUANTITATIVOS PARA LA Econ Y LA Empres 11:41–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez S (2012) Propuesta para el cálculo del Alfa Ordinal y Theta de Armor. Rev Investig en Psicol 15:213–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Drews FA (2013) Human factors in critical care medical environments. Rev Hum Factors Ergon 8:103–148. doi:10.1177/1557234X13493250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dul J, Neumann W (2009) Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Appl Ergon 40:745–752. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrando P, Anguiano-Carrasco C (2010) El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Papeles del psicólogo 31:18–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg A, Stover JB, de la Iglesia G, Fernández M (2013) Correlaciones Policóricas y Tetracóricas en Estudios Factoriales Exploratorios y Confirmatorios. Ciencias Psicológicas 7:151–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaderman AM, Guhn M, Zumbo BD (2012) Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: a conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Pract Assest Res Eval 17:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Alcaraz JL, Noriega SA, Díaz JJ (2006) Análisis comparativo de técnicas multicriterio para justificación de inversiones en robots. Cienc Ergo Sum 13:68–74

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Alcaraz JL, Alvarado A, Maldonado-Macías AA (2013) Selección de proveedores basada en análisis dimensional. Contaduría y Adm 58:249–278. doi:10.1016/S0186-1042(13)71229-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Alcaraz JL, Maldonado-Macías AA, Alvarado A, Rivera DG (2014) Human critical success factors for kaizen and its impacts in industrial performance. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 70:2187–2198. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5445-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genaidy A, Salem S, Karwowski W, Paez O, Tuncel S (2007) The work compatibility improvement framework: an integrated perspective of the human-at-work system. Ergonomics 50:3–25. doi:10.1080/00140130600900431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover WJ, Farris JA, Van Aken EM, Doolen TL (2011) Critical success factors for the sustainability of Kaizen event human resource outcomes: an empirical study. Int J Prod Econ 132:197–213. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groza M, Pronschinske M, Walker M (2011) Perceived organizational motives and consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR. J Bus Ethics 102:639–652. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0834-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson R (2010) Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson R, Tatham RL (2006) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley J (2014) Some thoughts on Likert-type scales. Int J Clin Heal Psychol 14:83–86. doi:10.1016/S1697-2600(14)70040-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hignett S, McAtamney L (2000) Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Appl Ergon 31:201–205. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00039-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden R, Or C, Alper S, Rivera A, Karsh B (2008) A change management framework for macroergonomic field research. Appl Ergon 39:459–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden R, Carayon P, Gurses A, Hoonakker P, Hundt A, Ozok A, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ (2013) SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics 56:1–30. doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.838643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyer NL, Brown KA, Zimmerman S (1999) A socio-technical systems approach to cell design: case study and analysis. J Oper Manag 17:179–203. doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00034-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamboj SK, Oldfield L, Loewenberger A, Das RK, Bisby J, Brewin CR (2014) Voluntary and involuntary emotional memory following an analogue traumatic stressor: the differential effects of communality in men and women. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 45:421–426. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B (1998) The job content questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol 3:322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsh B, Waterson P, Holden RJ (2014) Crossing levels in systems ergonomics: a framework to support “mesoergonomic” inquiry. Appl Ergon 45:45–54. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.04.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karwowski W (2001) International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors, 3rd edn. Taylor & Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Karwowski W (2006) Symvatology: the science of an artifact-human compatibility. In: International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, pp 206–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner BM (1998) Macroergonomic analysis of formalization in a dynamic work system. Appl Ergon 29:255–259. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(97)00034-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner BM (2006) Macroergonomics: analysis and design of work systems. Appl Ergon 37:81–89. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2005.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling J (1995) High performance work systems and firm performance. Mon Labor Rev 118:29–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavasani SM, Zendegani A, Celik M (2015) An extension to fuzzy fault tree analysis (FFTA) application in petrochemical process industry. Process Saf Environ Prot 93:75–88. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2014.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Q (2013) A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory. Expert Syst Appl 40:1609–1618. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.09.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li K, Lee C-L (1999) Postural analysis of four jobs on two building construction sites. An experience of using the OWAS method in Taiwan. J Occup Health 41:183–190. doi:10.1539/joh.41.183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin C-T, Chiu H, Chu P-Y (2006) Agility index in the supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 100:285–299. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.11.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire M (2014) Socio-technical systems and interaction design—21st century relevance. Appl Ergon 45:162–170. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.05.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maldonado-Macías A, Alvarado A, García J, Balderrama C (2013) Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS for ergonomic compatibility evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 70:2283–2292. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5444-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maldonado-Macías A, Realyvásquez A, García-Alcaraz J, Alor-Hernández G, Limón-Romero J, Avelar-Sosa L (2017) Assessment of ergonomic compatibility on the selection of advanced manufacturing technology. In: Current trends on knowledge-based systems, 1st edn. Springer International Publishing, pp 223–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Maldonado A, García JL, Alvarado A, Balderrama CO (2013) A hierarchical fuzzy axiomatic design methodology for ergonomic compatibility evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 66:171–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marras WS, Hancock PA (2014) Putting mind and body back together: a human-systems approach to the integration of the physical and cognitive dimensions of task design and operations. Appl Ergon 45:55–60. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson FP, Humphrey SE (2003) Work design questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure of work design. In: Paper presented at the 62nd annual meeting of the academy of management. Seattle, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson FP, Humphrey SE (2006) The work design questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J Appl Psychol 91:1321–1339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman LC (2002) Macroergonomic methods: interviews and focus groups. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 46:1355–1359. doi:10.1177/154193120204601508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocaña MT, Pérez M, Quijano R (2013) Elaboración y validación de una escala de creencias de los alumnos de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria respecto al medio ambiente. Profesorado 17:431–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliden PE, Zumbo BD (2008) Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada. Psicothema 20:896–901

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlovic-Veselinovic S, Hedge A, Veselinovic M (2016) An ergonomic expert system for risk assessment of work-related musculo-skeletal disorders. Int J Ind Ergon 53:130–139. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2015.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preziosi RC (1980) Organisational diagnosis questionnaire (ODQ). In: University Associates (ed) The 1980 annual handbook for group facilitators. New Jersey, pp 112–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Realyvásquez A, Maldonado-Macías AA, García-Alcaraz J, Blanco-Fernández J (2015) Effects of organizational macroergonomic compatibility elements over manufacturing systems’ performance. Procedia Manuf 3:5715–5722. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Realyvásquez A, Maldonado-Macías A-A, Romero-González J (2016a) Macroergonomic work systems’ design factors: a literature review. In: Alor-Hernández G, Sánchez-Ramírez C, García-Alcaraz JL (eds) Handbook of research on managerial strategies for achieving optimal performance in industrial processes, English. IGI-Global

    Google Scholar 

  • Realyvásquez A, Maldonado-Macías A, García-Alcaraz J, Cortés-Robles G, Blanco-Fernández J (2016b) Structural model for the effects of environmental elements on the psychological characteristics and performance of the employees of manufacturing systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:1–21. doi:10.3390/ijerph13010104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiman T, Oedewald P (2007) Assessment of complex sociotechnical systems—theoretical issues concerning the use of organizational culture and organizational core task concepts. Saf Sci 45:745–768. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2006.07.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson MM, Huang Y-H, Lee J (2015) Effects of a macroergonomics intervention: examining the relationship of environmental control. In: Proceedings 19th triennial congress of the IEA, p 14

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Ruíz Y, Guevara-Velasco C (2011) Empleo de los Métodos Erin Y Rula en la Evaluación Ergonómica de Estaciones de Trabajo/Assessment of Workstations Using Erin and Rula Ergonomic Tools. Ing Ind 32:19–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez A, García M, Manzanedo MÁ (2007) Métodos de evaluación y herramientas aplicadas al diseño y optimización ergonómica de puestos de trabajo. In: The XI Congreso de Ingeniería de Organización. Madrid, pp 239–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze R, Hilger A-L, Engelberg P (2015) Factor analysis and latent variable models in personality psychology. In: Wright JD (ed) International encyclopedia of the social y behavioral sciences, Second edn. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 703–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherehiy B, Karwowski W (2014) The relationship between work organization and workforce agility in small manufacturing enterprises. Int J Ind Ergon 44:466–473. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2014.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shumway-Cook A, Matsuda P, Taylor C (2015) Investigating the validity of the environmental framework underlying the original and modified dynamic gait index. J Am Phys Ther Assoc 95(6):864–870. doi:10.2522/ptj.20140047

  • Stanton N, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrick HW (2004) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. CRC Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres T, Rodríguez M (2007) Evaluación Ergonómica de Puestos de Trabajo de la Industria Pesquera del Ecuador. Rev Tecnológica - ESPOL 20:139–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Vink P, Koningsveld EAP, Molenbroek JF (2006) Positive outcomes of participatory ergonomics in terms of greater comfort and higher productivity. Appl Ergon 37:537–546. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Liu Q, Tu Y (2005) Interpretation of partial least-squares regression models with VARIMAX rotation. Comput Stat Data Anal 48:207–219. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2003.12.005

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, Instituto Tecnológico de Tijuana, Calzada Tecnológico, Tijuana, 22414, Baja California, Mexico

    Arturo Realyvásquez-Vargas

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering and Manufacturing, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Av. del Charro 450 Norte, Ciudad Juárez, 32310, Chihuahua, Mexico

    Aide Aracely Maldonado-Macías & Jorge Luis García-Alcaraz

Authors
  1. Arturo Realyvásquez-Vargas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aide Aracely Maldonado-Macías
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jorge Luis García-Alcaraz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arturo Realyvásquez-Vargas .

Appendix: Samples of MCQ Versions

Appendix: Samples of MCQ Versions

See Tables 12.4, 12.5 and 12.6.

Table 12.4 Sample of the MCQ-WV
Full size table
Table 12.5 Sample of the MCQ-HDV
Full size table
Table 12.6 Sample of the MCQ-EV
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Realyvásquez-Vargas, A., Maldonado-Macías, A.A., García-Alcaraz, J.L. (2018). A Macroergonomic Compatibility Index for Manufacturing Work Systems. In: Macroergonomics for Manufacturing Systems. Management and Industrial Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68684-4_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68684-4_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68683-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68684-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation