FMEA and consideration of real work situations for safer design of production systems

Lux, A.; De Bikond, J. M.; Etienne, A.; Quillerou-Grivot, E.

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

FMEA and consideration of real work situations for safer design of production systems

Autorzy

Lux A. , De Bikond J. M. , Etienne A. , Quillerou-Grivot E.

Identyfikatory

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Production equipment designers must ensure the health and safety of future users; in this regard, they augment requirements for standardizing and controlling operator work. This contrasts with the ergonomic view of the activity, which recommends leaving operators leeway (margins for manoeuvre) in performing their task, while safeguarding their health. Following a brief analysis of design practices in the car industry, we detail how the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) approach is implemented in this sector. We then suggest an adaptation that enables designers to consider real work situations. This new protocol, namely, work situation FMEA, allows experience feedback to be used to defend the health standpoint during designer project reviews, which usually only address quality and performance issues. We subsequently illustrate the advantage of this approach using two examples of work situations at car parts manufacturers: the first from the literature and the second from an in-company industrial project.

Słowa kluczowe

design ergonomics FMEA work situations margins for manoeuvre

ergonomia projektowanie systemów produkcyjnych bezpieczeństwo pracy

Wydawca

Taylor & Francis

Czasopismo

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics

Rocznik

2016

Tom

Vol. 22, No. 4

Strony

557--564

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 41 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Lux A.

aurelien.lux@inrs.fr

Institut National de Recherche et de Securite (INRS), France

autor

De Bikond J. M.

Ecole Nationale Superieure des Arts et Metiers (ENSAM), France

autor

Etienne A.

Ecole Nationale Superieure des Arts et Metiers (ENSAM), France

autor

Quillerou-Grivot E.

Institut National de Recherche et de Securite (INRS), France

Bibliografia

1. Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery. OJ. 2006;L157:24-86.
2. Neuman P. Production ergonomics, identifying and managing risk in the design of high performance work systems [doctoral dissertation] Lund: Lund University; 2004.
3. Hale A, Kirwan B, Kjellén U. Safe by design: where are we now? Saf Sci. 2007;45:305-327. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2006.08.007
4. Ghemraoui R, Mathieu L, Tricot N. Design method for systematic safety integration. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol. 2009;58(1):161-164. doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2009.03.073
5. Eurofound. Fifth European working conditions survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2012 [ cited 2014 January 6]. Available from: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2011/82/en/1/EF1182EN.pdf
6. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Safety of machinery - human physical performance - part 3: recommended force limits for machinery operation. Brussels: CEN; 2008. Standard No. EN 1005-3:2002+A1:2008
7. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Ergonomic principles related to mental workload - part 2: design principles. Brussels: CEN; 2000. Standard No. EN ISO 10075-2:2000.
8. Hubault F, Bourgeois F. Disputes sur l’ergonomie de la tâche et de l’activité, ou la finalité de l’ergonomie en question [Disputes involving task and activity ergonomics or purpose of ergonomics concerned]. Activités. 2004;1(1):34-53. doi: 10.4000/activites.1149
9. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Ergonomic principles in the design of work systems. Brussels: CEN; 2004. Standard No. EN ISO 6385:2004.
10. Moraes ASP, Arezes PM, Vasconcelos R. From ergonomics to design specifications: contributions to the design of a processing machine in a tire company. Work. 2012;41:552-559.
11. Sagot JC, Gouin V, Gomes S. Ergonomics in product design: safety factor. Saf Sci. 2003;41:137-154. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00038-3
12. Theureau J, Pinsky L. Paradoxe de l’ergonomie de conception et logiciel informatique [Paradox of ergonomics in design and computer software]. Revue des conditions de travail. 1947;9:25-31.
13. Daniellou F. Les modalités d’une ergonomie de conception, son introduction dans la conduite des projets industriels [Rules for design-based ergonomics and its introduction into industrial project management]. Québec: INRS; 1987 (Note documentaire ND1647-129-87).
14. Maline J. Simuler le travail [Simulating work]. Lyons: Editions de l’ANACT; 1994.
15. Garrigou A, Daniellou F, Garballeda G, et al. Activity analysis in participatory design and analysis of participatory design activity. Int J Ind Ergon. 1995;15:311-327. doi: 10.1016/0169-8141(94)00079-I
16. Douillet P, Schweitzer JM. TMS, stress: gagner des marges de manoeuvre [Stress: increasing margins for manoeuvre]. BTS Newsletter, 2002;19:64-66.
17. Roquelaure Y, Malchaire J, Cock N, et al. Quantification de l'activité gestuelle au cours des tâches répétitives de production de masse [Quantifying gestural activity during repetitive mass production tasks]. Documents pour le médecin du travail: DMT. 2001;85:167–176.
18. Brunet M, Riff J. Analyse et exploitation de la variabilité gestuelle dans la prevention des TMS [Analysis and use of gestural variability in preventing MSDs]. Pistes. 2009;11(1). Available from: http://pistes.revues.org/2270.
19. Coutarel F, Daniellou F, Dugué B. Interroger l'organisation du travail au regard des marges de manoeuvre en conception et en fonctionnement. La rotation est-t-elle une solution aux TMS? [Questioning work organization in relation to margins for manoeuvre in design and operation. Is task rotation a solution to MSD?]. Pistes. 2003;5(2). Available from: http://pistes.revues.org/3328.
20. Béguin P, Cerf M. Formes et enjeux de l’analyse de l’activité pour la conception des systèmes de travail [Forms and challenges of activity analysis for designing work systems]. Activité. 2004;1(1):54-71. doi: 10.4000/activites.1156
21. Lamonde F, Richard JG, Langlois L, et al. La prise en compte des situations de travail dans les projets de conception [Consideration of work situations in design projects]. Montréal: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST); 2010. Rapport R-636.
22. Morais A, Aubineau A. Articulation entre l’ergonomie et le lean manufacturing chez PSA [Interplay between ergonomics and lean manufacturing at PSA]. Activités. 2012;9(2):179–197. doi: 10.4000/activites.468
23. Bourgeois F, Gonon O. Le lean et l’activité humaine. Quel positionnement de l’ergonomie, convoquée par cette nouvelle doctrine de l’efficacité? [Lean manufacturing and human activity: what position for ergonomics under this new doctrine of efficiency?]. Activités. 2010;7(1):136–142.
24. Falk A, Rosenkvist M. What are obstacles and needs of proactive ergonomics measures at early product development stages? – An interview study in five Swedish companies. Int J Ind Ergon. 2012;42:406–415. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2012.05.002
25. US Department of Defense. Military standard. Procedures for performing a failure mode, effects and criticality analysis (Mil-Std-1629A). Washington (DC): Department of Defense; 1980.
26. Neagoe BS. Recent researches in manufacturing engineering. 3rd WSEAS international conference on manufacturing engineering, quality and production systems (MEQAPS’11), Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania, 2011.
27. FMEA info centre [cited 2014 January 6]. Available from: http://fmeainfocentre.com
28. Liu H-C, Liu L, Liu N. Risk evaluation approach in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review. Expert Syst Appl. 2013;40:828–838. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.010
29. Rhee S-J, Ishii K. Using cost based FMEA to enhance reliability and serviceability. Adv Eng Inform. 2003;17:179–188. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2004.07.002
30. Subburaman K. A modified FMEA approach to enhance reliability of lean systems [master’s thesis]. Knoxville (TN): University of Tennessee; 2010.
31. Barsky I, Dutta SP. Cost assessment for ergonomic risk (CAFER). Int J Ind Ergon. 1997;20:307–315. doi: 10.1016/S0169-8141(96)00063-7
32. Village J, Annett T, Lin E, et al. Adapting the failure modes effect analysis (FMEA) for early detection of human factors concerns. Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference, Association of Canadian Ergonomists, October 18-20, 2011.
33. Berthe F, Vimeux J. AMDEC Sécurité, 56è fiche, Favi. 1997 [cited 2014 January 6]. Available from: http://www.favi.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Fiche-56.pdf
34. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Safety of machinery – general principles for design - risk assessment and risk reduction. Brussels: CEN; 2010. Standard No. EN ISO 12100:2010.
35. Lux A, Quillerou-Grivot E. Production activity analyzed by an engineer and a psychologist: what contributions for taking health into account when designing production systems? Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Modeling, Optimization et Simulation (MOSIM); Nancy, France; 2014 Nov 5-7.
36. Rasmussen J. Risk Management in a dynamic society: A modeling problem. Saf Sci. 1997;27(2-3):183–213. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0
37. Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Wieringa PA. Theory of safety-related violations of system barriers. Cogn Technol Work. 2002;4:171-179. doi: 10.1007/s101110200016
38. Vanderhaegen F, Zieba S, Enjalbert S, et al. A benefit/cost/deficit (BCD) model for learning from human errors. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2011;96:757-766. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2011.02.002
39. Bourgeois F. Que fait l’ergonomie que le lean ne sait/ne veut pas voir? [What does ergonomics do that lean manufacturing cannot/will not see?]. Activités. 2012;9(2):138-147. doi: 10.4000/activites.444
40. Hollnagel E. Accidents and barriers. Proceedings of the 7th European conference on cognitive science approaches to process control (CSAPC). 1999, France: Villeneuve d’Ascq; 175-180.
41. Genaidy A, Salem S, Karwowski W, et al. The work compatibility improvement framework: An integrated perspective of the human-at-work system. Ergonomics. 2007;50(1):3–25. doi: 10.1080/00140130600900431

Uwagi

Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-cdc4811e-20f1-4fd2-ab84-ff98a34e1e4f