Abstract Number: 003-0123
Incorporating Human Factors in Manufacturing Automation Decision-Making
Sixteenth Annual Conference of POMS, Chicago, IL, April 29 – May 2, 2005
Bader Al-Mannai, CranfieldUniversity, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 OAL. , Tel. +44 (0)1234 750111, Fax +44 (0) 1234752159
Dr. Rick Greenough,CranfieldUniversity, Cranfield, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 , Tel. +44 (0)1234 750111, Fax +44 (0) 1234752159
Prof. John Kay,CranfieldUniversity,Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 , Tel. +44 (0)1234 754768, Fax +44 (0) 1234752159
ABSTRACT
In the manufacturing systems design literature, many authors emphasise the design of human-centred systems as an alternative to technology-centred systems. They advise managers and designers to ensure appropriate consideration of both technical and human aspects in the design and evaluation of manufacturing systems.
Tools such as HITOP, ACTION, and CIMOP have been developed for the design, decision support, and simulation of human infrastructures for advanced manufacturing systems. However, despite the abilities of these tools to integrate technology, organisation, and people, their application has been sparse. Therefore, what is proposed here is to deploy existing tools that are commonly employed bymanagement in manufacturing systems design andto integrate this concept in the selection of manufacturing automation.
This paper will investigate the practical application of human-centred systems concepts as well as the development of a practical decision support tool that enables organisations to address the integration of technology, organisation, and people at the earliest stages of automation decision-making.
1. Introduction
The manufacturing environment today is vulnerable to disturbance and is increasingly shaped by technology. The way in which people and organisations are considered can shapeeither excellence in such anenvironment, or the diminishment of opportunities. Thus, for some researchers, the move from technology-centred systems to human-centred systems is seen as a necessary step to assist adaptation (Bohnhoff et al., 1992; Ennals et al., 1994; Uden, 1995 and Karwowski et al., 2002). They are calling for the abandonment of indiscriminate attempts to replace humans by machines in manufacturing system design and the adoption of a balanced method based on technology, organisation, and people.
Human-centred systems havevariouslybeen termed as skills-based systems, anthropocentric production systems and sociotechnical systems (Uden, 1995 and Bohnhoff et al., 1992) as they deal with the process of designing a system that ensures an equal share of technical and human consideration, and aim at the full integration of human skills and technology capability to produce systems which are flexible and adaptable to new needs (Uden, 1995).
Increasing competition on flexibility and adaptation to the market environment has led to higher complexity in technology and managing manufacturing systems over the last decade (Duguay et al., 1997 and Sheridan, 1995). Consequently, the investment evaluation criteria and processes can be seen to increase in approach and complexity. There has been a move away from relying on traditional economic justification to the incorporation of intangible benefits and organisational strategy. The literature on investment evaluation is continuously being updated to accommodate the new market demandsand manufacturing technology. However, therecontinue to be reports of investment failures and difficulties in implementation, due to the lack of addressing the people aspects appropriately.
Authors have pointed out the importance of addressing human factors in the evaluation and design of manufacturing systems. In addition, tools and methods have been developed to aid in the design of human-centred systems to address this gap. However, an investigation into human factors and manufacturing automation clearly illustrates that management are still not fully aware of the influence of human factors on their automation decision-making (Almannai et al., 2004).Furthermore, according to Kidd (1990), “the human factors issue in manufacturing traditionally has been concerned with improving working conditions, making equipment easier to use, smoothing the introduction of new technologies, or all of these. It does not, however, question whether the technology is appropriate.” Therefore, what is proposed hereis todevelop an approach that management are familiar with to support them in determining what human factors issues affect their technology acquisition, and accordingly determine technology appropriateness, which in turn will enable them to enhance their technical decisions and support the design of human-centred technology. However, to facilitatethis endeavour areview of the human-centred systems principles and tools is necessary to provide a comprehensive picture of what and where human factors were incorporated, therebydetermining the human factors to be included in the manufacturing automation decision-making process.
2. Human-Centred Systems
The human-centred system is a both a philosophical orientation and a general design approach. It attempts to design technological systems to fit human capabilities and needs (Liker and Majchrzak, 1994). There is academic debate concerning the emergence and consequences of production arrangementsthat require a human-oriented paradigm. Authors are questioning the dominance and uniformity of technology-centred and Tayloristic arrangements in manufacturing, design, use, and application of advanced manufacturing technology (Dawson, 1991; Erensal and Albayrak, 2004).
Taylorist scientific management is predominantly associated with a technology-centred system, as it seeks technological solutions which minimise dependence on theunreliable human element (Ennals et al., 1994). Frederick Taylor intended to bring the workers closer to management and developed the four principles of scientific management (scientific development of work practices, scientific selection, individual training, and co-operation). He believed that each job could be broken down into simple, basic elements, and an accurate control of those elements through time studies would ensure higher output and better compensation for workers (Paez et al., 2004). However, Waterman (1990) viewsTaylor’s approach as one that treats workers as robots. In addition, according to Elton et al. (1994), “Taylor’s ‘time and motion’ ideas were adopted throughout the Western world, without considering the true objectives of Scientific Management. Most managers saw their goal as achieving maximum prosperity for the employer, but gave little thought to the workforce.”
The concept of human-centred technology, on the other hand, relies on skill enhancement rather than skill replacement. This concept was developed by Rosenbrock as an alternative approach for flexible manufacturing implementation (Uden, 1995). It is based on four strategies: decentralisation of production, decreasing the complexity of organisational hierarchy, group technology, and increasing skills and autonomy (Bohnhoff et al., 1992).
In addition, the human-centred systemdesign revolves around three pillars, namely: technology, people, and organisation. People represent one dimension - the workplace, explicitly the individual employee and his/her working environment. Organisation, however, stands for two dimensions,groupwork and networks. Technology refers to the incorporation of the three dimensions: workplace, groupwork, and networks (Brandt, 2004).
The model that has been widely reported for human-centred design is the dual design approach (Uden, 1995; Bohnhoff et al., 1992, and Brandt, 2000). It assists the manufacturing systems designer in comparing both the technology-based design and the working-process-design, to analyse the weaknesses and advantages and disadvantages of both concepts to reach an optimum system.
Consequently, the technology selection process should be aligned with the disciplines of this concept, to ensure congruence with human-centred systems formation. The available literature supports management with the evaluation of the organisation’s readiness and requirements to createhuman-centred systems, and this research is intended to support management with evaluation oftechnology to verify compatibility with human-centred systems initiatives.
To explore which human factors to address in manufacturing automation selection the sociotechnical theory will be reviewed, as it forms a large part of the human-centred systems domain.
3. Sociotechnical Systems
The study of sociotechnical systems was inaugurated at the Tavistock Institute, and the term was first used by Trist and Bamforth in 1951. The idea was strongly influenced by Bertalanffy’s open systems theory (Mumford, 1987). The open system deals with sustaining congruence among the organisation’s subsystems and between the organisation and its larger environment (Bertalanffy, 1956).
Sociotechnical systems theory is a framework for studying how social and technical systems interact to affect organisational performance (Majchrzak, 1997). It is devoted to the joint optimisation and blending of both the technical and social systems of an organisation (Fox, 1995). The technical subsystems refer to the equipment, facilities, methods, programs, procedures, etc. that transfer input into output, whereas the social subsystems refer to the set of members of the organisation acting in their roles, relationships, authority structure, communication structure, learning mechanism, etc. (Majchrzak and Roitman, 1989).
Furthermore, a set of principles for designingsociotechnical systems was developed by the Tavistock Group to be an aim and a checklist for organisations (Mumford, 1987).Cherns (1987) summarised these fundamental concepts into the following nine principles: compatibility, minimal critical specification, variance control, information flow, the multifunctional principle, boundary location, power and authority, support congruence, and transitional organisation.
Sociotechnical systems tools come in two forms; operational tools and process design tools. Operational tools facilitate the operation of the final systems according to sociotechnical principles, and process design tools assist in the design and implementations process (Storhm and Ulich, 1997). There are manually-based tools that involve interviewing, collecting data, discussing implications of data for technical and organisation redesign, reviewing alternative redesign options, in addition to computer-based tools that allow users to gain an interactive knowledge base of sociotechnical systems theory, principles, and practices (Majchrzak, 1997). The prominent computer-based tools that are reported in the sociotchnical systems literature are HITOP, ACTION, and CIMOP.
HITOP
HITOP (High Integration of Technology, Organisation, and People) is a methodology that allows a design team to conduct a structured approach for planning the introduction of technology (Wood et al., 1991). A software version is available called HITOP-A (High Integration of Technology, Organisation, and People-Automated), which requires the user to provide up to 100 inputs on issues relating to the business philosophy, environment reality, allocation of tasks to humans or technologies, and characteristics of the technology (Gasser and Majchrzak, 1992).
The model is based on the open system paradigm, specifically adopting openness to environmental disturbances, dynamic equilibrium, and equifinality principles. It is used to explore how changes in technology and organisational goals affect human and organisational infrastructure. In addition, it is used during the preparation of capital investment proposals to identify hidden costs and benefits associated with planned technological change (Majchrzak andGasser,1991).
ACTION
ACTION is a computer-based decision support system that was developed by the NationalCenter for Manufacturing Sciences and the U.S. Air Force to aid designers in selecting the ideal sociotechnical systems design features. It was built upon the knowledge and insights gained from HITOP and HITOP-A projects. The Unix workstation version is called TOP-Integrator, and the PC version is called TOP-Modeler (Majchrazk, 1997and Gasser et al., 1993).
The knowledge-based tool allows the user to model the impacts of different organisational, technological, and strategic choices to identify system integration-related problems (gaps) and alternative priorities for solving such problems (Karwowski et al., 2002). It uses a multi-level constraint-based representation of organisational features including business objectives, unit structure, skills needed, performance monitoring/reward system, decision-making discretion, employee values, coordination attributes, etc., to both evaluate existing organisation design and to help develop new ones(Gasser et al., 1993). Majchrazk andGasser (2000) present a series of case studies of the applicationof TOP-Modeler, which demonstrate the validity and benefits in supporting complex strategies and operational decision-making.
CIMOP
CIMOP is a software application for evaluating computer-integrated manufacturing, organisation, and people system design(Karwowski et al., 2002).Five evaluation modes are used to determine the overall system design quality: computer-integrated manufacturing system design, organisation subsystem, technology subsystem, information systems subsystem, and people subsystem. The critical design factors are quantified to enable the evaluation of existing or new computer-integrated manufacturing system design.
The evaluation process is based on 75 critical design factors which are extrapolated from various human factors and computer-integrated manufacturing disciplines, upon which the designer can determine which particular system design should be implemented or improved(Karwowski et al, 2002).
These computer-supported sociotechnical systems are intended to diffuse sociotechnical knowledge broadly, and are mainly designed to examine the human and organisational infrastructure. They are all built on human-centred system theory to facilitate adaptation and integration of technological changes.Even though it enhances the design and implementation of manufacturing systems, the spread of applications is considered to be scarce. Therefore, to support this notion and continue in the footsteps of renowned scholars in this field, it is recognised that such a concept should also be incorporated in the evaluation and selection of automated manufacturing systems as it constitutes an important part of the manufacturing systems design.
4. Manufacturing Automation Decision-Making
The issue of strategic justificationis an important factor to address in the acquisition of manufacturing systems technology (Pandya and Satyre, 1996).Traditional methods of investment justification were mainly targeted at financial and technical feasibility. As authors were called in the past to address strategic justification,which is now being incorporated in the evaluation process, similarly, emphasis was directed towards addressing human issues in the justification of manufacturing automation, and now this is being incorporated in the evaluation of factory automation.
Addressing human factors has been an important issue in manufacturing systems design due to the considerable number of reports of unsuccessful implementations and problems associated with thelack of consideration given to human aspects (Mital and Pennathur, 2002;Udo andEbiefung, 1999and Gupta and Yakimchuk, 1988). Consequently, intensified research was conducted in this area to enhance the incorporation of human factors in the design and implementation of advanced manufacturing technology.
Kidd (1990), however, points out that addressing human issues in advance manufacturing technology is not enough. He suggests that the technical factors of organisation and people should be addressed, and not just the human factors of technology, and states that instead of addressing the human factors of advanced manufacturing technology, engineers and managers should be addressing the technical factors of organisation and people. This is also supported bythe Office of Technology Assessment(1984), in that the main stumbling blocks in the near future for implementation of programmable automation technology are not technical, but rather are barriers of factory organisation, availability of appropriate skills and social effects of technology.In addition, Majchrzak and Roitman (1989) state that failures in advanced manufacturing technology are due to organisations failing to understand the organisational/human requirements needed to effectively operate advanced manufacturing technology.
Therefore, as Kidd (1990) points out, instead of installing new technologies and adapting the organisation and people to the technology, organisations should consider adapting the technology to the organisation and people. The sociotechnical discipline is viewed as the solution to such a requirement as it deals with technological change and provides a balanced consideration of technology, organisation, and people. Moreover,Udo and Ebiefung (1999) state that sociotechnical issues are among the critical factors believed to have some impact on the success of advanced manufacturing systems.
Accordingly,the idea of including sociotechnical aspects in the evaluation of manufacturing automation acquisition could enhance the selection process andsupport human-centred systems initiatives.
5. Aim of the Research
The literature emphasisesthe importance of organisation, people, and technology in current manufacturing systems design and implementation. However, managers need to be able to incorporate organisational and human aspects, in addition to the appropriate technology, in their automation decision-making in order to sustain a coherent system design.How to support them in achieving this through the application of familiar tools in new settings is something that will be investigated.
6. Addressing Human Factors in Manufacturing Automation Decision-Making
A management aid tool for incorporating human factors and addressing the human-centred concept in manufacturing automation decision-making is being developed. The tool will also address strategic, financial, technical, and integration factors in the evaluation process. However, from this research perspective, human factors includes not only the micro-ergonomics (people factors), but also the macro-ergonomics (organisational and cultural factors).
Micro-ergonomics is concerned with the design of human-machine interfaces andplays an important role in ensuring that certain conditions are fulfilled before a workplace can be called human-centred (Salvendy, 1997). Macro-ergonomics, on the other hand, has been conceptually defined as a top-downapproach to system design, which isbased on a sociotechnical system perspective. It is associated with the overall structure of organisation and work system as it interfaces with the system’s technology (Hendrick, 1986).
The investigation carried out in the sociotechnical, macro-ergonomics, and micro-ergonomics literature revealed that certain areas within the realm of human factors were influenced by the impact of technological change, and need to be addressed in the manufacturing automation decision-making to support management in determining appropriateness. Therefore, to aid management in assessing these issues and aligning their automation decision with the design of a human-centred system, the following human factors will be incorporated in the decision tool: workstation design, physical workload, mental workload,user/machine interaction, job design, personnel polices, work community, organisational work procedure, and organisation structure. These factors are further sub-divided into evaluation criteria against which manufacturing automation options will be assessed for compatibility and selection justification.
Currently, the research is aimed at reviewing manufacturing systems evaluation tools thatcould be applied for this investigation. The anticipated outcome of this step is to identify the appropriate tools to perform this function. Thedecision-making tool will be designed in a manner that supports management in determiningwhich human factors issues affect their manufacturing automation selection, and ensuring that the right proportions oftechnical, organisational, and human factors are used to determine the most appropriate option.