Classification and Quantification of Human Error in Manufacturing: A Case Study in Complex Manual Assembly
Source abstract
Abstract
Manual assembly operations are sensitive to human errors that can diminish the quality of final products. The paper shows an application of human reliability analysis in a realistic manufacturing context to identify where and why manual assembly errors occur. The techniques SHERPA and HEART were used to perform the analysis of human reliability. Three critical tasks were selected for analysis based on quality records: (1) installation of three types of brackets using fasteners, (2) fixation of a data cable to the assembly structure using cushioned loop clamps and (3) installation of cap covers to protect inlets. The identified error modes with SHERPA were: 36 action errors, nine selection errors, eight information retrieval errors and six checking errors. According to HEART, the highest human error probabilities were associated with assembly parts sensitive to geometry-related errors (brackets and cushioned loop clamps). The study showed that perceptually engaging assembly instructions seem to offer the highest potential for error reduction and performance improvement. Other identified areas of action were the improvement of the inspection process and workers’ provision with better tracking and better feedback. Implementation of assembly guidance systems could potentially benefit worker’s performance and decrease assembly errors.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Occupational Health and Safety Research · Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Quality and Safety in Healthcare
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical Engineering, École de Technologie Supérieure (ÉTS), 1100 Notre-Dame St W, Montreal, QC H3C 1K3, Canada
Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Otto-Berndt-Straße 2, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
Funding
Mitacs
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. ElMaraghy, H.A. (2009). Changeable and Reconfigurable Assembly Systems. Changeable and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems, Springer.10.1007/978-1-84882-067-8 ↗
2. Dinlersoz, E., and Wolf, Z. (2018). Automation, Labor Share, and Productivity: Plant-Level Evidence from US Manufacturing. US Census Bur. Cent. Econ. Stud. Work. Pap., 18–39.
3. Improving manual assembly lines devoted to complex electronic devices by applying Lean tools10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.115 ↗
4. Experimental investigation into aircraft system manual assembly performance under varying structural component orientations10.1177/0954405419883047 ↗
5. Ergonomics Simulation in Aircraft Manufacturing—Methods and Potentials10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.187 ↗
6. Yang, L., Su, Q., and Shen, L. (2012, January 20–21). A novel method of analyzing quality defects due to human errors in engine assembly line. Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, Sanya, China.10.1109/ICIII.2012.6339943 ↗
7. Prediction of Defect Propensity for the Manual Assembly of Automotive Electrical Connectors10.1016/j.promfg.2016.08.014 ↗
8. The impact of poor assembly ergonomics on product quality: A cost–benefit analysis in car manufacturing10.1002/hfm.20172 ↗
9. Integrating ergonomics and lean manufacturing principles in a hybrid assembly line10.1016/j.cie.2017.05.011 ↗
10. Ergonomic effects of a management-based rationalization in assembly work—A case study10.1016/0003-6870(95)00063-1 ↗
11. Swain, A.D., and Guttmann, H.E. (1983). Handbook of Human-Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Sandia National Labs. Final Report.10.2172/5752058 ↗
12. Wong, Y.C., Wong, K.Y., and Ali, A. (2009, January 17–20). Key Practice Areas of Lean Manufacturing. Proceedings of the 2009 International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology-Spring Conference, Singapore.10.1109/IACSIT-SC.2009.44 ↗
13. Kagermann, H. (2013). Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: Securing the Future of German Manufacturing Industry, Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group.
14. Industrie 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing—A Review of Research Issues and Application Examples10.20965/ijat.2017.p0004 ↗
15. Human reliability: A key to improved quality in manufacturing10.1002/hfm.20032 ↗
16. Human reliability in manual assembly systems: A Systematic Literature Review10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.396 ↗
17. Critical realism in case study research10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.06.004 ↗
18. A (very) brief refresher on the case study method
19. Identifying the Task Variables That Predict Object Assembly Difficulty10.1518/001872006778606868 ↗
20. Landau, K., Brauchler, R., and Rohmert, W. (2003). The AET method of job evaluation. Occupational Ergonomics Principles of Work Design, CRC Press.10.1201/9780203507926.ch20 ↗
21. Measuring complexity as an aid to developing operational strategy10.1108/01443579510083640 ↗
22. Assessing the structural complexity of manufacturing systems configurations10.1007/s10696-006-9012-2 ↗
23. Criteria for Assessment of Basic Manual Assembly Complexity10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.152 ↗
24. Swift, K.G., and Booker, J.D. (2013). Chapter 10—Assembly Systems. Manufacturing Process Selection Handbook, Butterworth-Heinemann.10.1016/B978-0-08-099360-7.00010-0 ↗
25. Experimental study of cognitive aspects affecting human performance in manual assembly
26. Effects of Information Content in Work Instructions for Operator Performance10.1016/j.promfg.2018.06.092 ↗
27. Application of design principles for assembly instructions—Evaluation of practitioner use10.1016/j.procir.2018.02.011 ↗
28. Backstrand, G. (2008, January 11–13). The impact of information presentation on work environment and product quality: A case study. Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Conference of the Nordic Ergonomics Society, Reykjavik, Iceland.
29. Atsuko, E. (2019, October 15). “Assembly-navigation System” that Supports Manufacturing around the World. Available online: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/portal/contents/story/assembly_navigation/index.html.
30. Evaluation of Guidelines for Assembly Instructions10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.598 ↗
31. Hagan, R., Lichtner, D., and Senesac, C. (2009, January 27–29). Three-dimensional model based manufacturing work instructions. Proceedings of the 65th Annual Forum-American Helicopter Society, Grapevine, TX, USA.
32. A Publishing Method of Lightweight Three-Dimensional Assembly Instruction for Complex Products10.1115/1.4029753 ↗
33. Torres, Y., and Nadeau, S. (2020). Operator 4.0 in Manufacturing: Trends, Potential Technologies and Future Perspectives. Kongress der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft, GfA-Press.
34. Augmented reality technology in the manufacturing industry: A review of the last decade10.1080/24725854.2018.1493244 ↗
35. One-Fits-All vs. Tailor-Made: User-Centered Workstations for Field Assembly with an Application in Aircraft Parts Manufacturing10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.287 ↗
36. Brolin, A. (2011, January 18–21). The use of kitting to ease assemblers’ cognitive workload. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Nordic Ergonomics Society Conference, Oulu, Finland.
37. Modeling Errors in Kitting Processes for Assembly Lines Feeding10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.104 ↗
38. A case study of a principally new way of materials kitting—an evaluation of time consumption and physical workload10.1016/S0169-8141(02)00077-X ↗
39. Assembly work execution and materials kit functionality in parallel flow assembly systems10.1016/S0169-8141(02)00220-2 ↗
40. Modelling human errors and quality issues in kitting processes for assembly lines feeding10.1016/j.cie.2017.04.004 ↗
41. Looking for errors of omission and commission or The Hunting of the Snark revisited10.1016/S0951-8320(00)00004-1 ↗
42. The Role of Visual Inspection in the 21st Century10.1177/1541931213601548 ↗
43. Industrial inspection performance depends on both viewing distance and oculomotor characteristics10.1016/S0003-6870(98)00025-8 ↗
44. Drury, C., and Fox, J. (1975). The imperfect inspector. Human Reliability in Quality Control, Halsted Press.
45. A Real-Time Automated Visual Inspection System for Hot Steel Slabs10.1109/TPAMI.1983.4767445 ↗
46. Visual inspection in industrial manufacturing10.1109/40.387679 ↗
47. A vision and robot based on-line inspection monitoring system for electronic manufacturing10.1016/j.compind.2005.05.022 ↗
48. Sobel, J.O.N. (2020, September 12). Liberating Machine Vision from the Machines. Available online: https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/01/liberating-machine-vision-machines/.
49. A literature review of lean manufacturing
50. A smart assistance system for cable assembly by combining wearable augmented reality with portable visual inspection10.1016/j.vrih.2019.12.002 ↗
51. Augmented and Virtual Reality for Inspection and Maintenance Processes in the Aviation Industry10.1016/j.promfg.2018.01.022 ↗
52. Leidenkrantz, A., and Westbrandt, E. (2018). Implementation of Machine Vision on a Collaborative Robot. Automation Engineering, University of Skovde.
53. Makrini, I.E. (2017, January 24–28). Design of a collaborative architecture for human-robot assembly tasks. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
54. Nicholson, A.S., and Ridd, J.E. (1988). Chapter 4-Assessment and Prediction of Human Reliability. Health, Safety and Ergonomics, Butterworth-Heinemann.
55. Boring, R. (October, January 27). Is Human Reliability Relevant to Human Factors?. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Houston, TX, USA.
56. Holroyd, J., and Bell, J. (2009). Review of Human Reliability Assessment Methods.
57. Towards a framework to select techniques for error prediction: Supporting novice users in the healthcare sector10.1016/j.apergo.2008.11.004 ↗
58. IAEA (1989). Human Error Classification and Data Collection, The International Atomic Energy Agency.
59. IEEE (2018). IEEE Guide for Incorporating Human Reliability Analysis into Probabilistic Risk Assessments for Nuclear Power Generating Stations and Other Nuclear Facilities, IEEE.
60. Assessment of Flight Crew Errors Based on THERP10.1016/j.proeng.2014.09.059 ↗
61. Calixto, E. (2016). Chapter 5-Human Reliability Analysis. Gas and Oil Reliability Engineering, Gulf Professional Publishing. [2nd ed.].10.1016/B978-0-12-805427-7.00005-1 ↗
62. Human reliability assessment in context
63. Høyland, A., and Rausand, M. (2009). System Reliability Theory: Models and Statistical Methods, John Wiley & Sons.
64. Oxstrand, J., Bladh, K., and Collier, S. (2010, January 7–11). Qualitative Analysis Makes Simple HRA Methods a Competitive Alternative. Proceedings of the 10th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management Conference, Seattle, WA, USA.
65. CCPS (2004). Qualitative and Quantitative Prediction of Human Error in Risk Assessment. Guidelines for Preventing Human Error in Process Safety, Center for Chemical Process Safety.
66. Stamatis, D.H. (2003). Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution, Quality Press.
67. Assembly FMEA: A Simplified Method for Identifying Assembly Errors
68. Armacost, R., Balakrishnan, D., and Pet-Armacost, J. (2011, January 21–25). Design for Remanufacturability Using QFD. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Reno, NV, USA.
69. Cross-disciplinary method for predicting and reducing human error probabilities in manual assembly operations10.1080/14783363.2012.669549 ↗
70. A Simulator for Human Error Probability Analysis (SHERPA)10.1016/j.ress.2015.02.003 ↗
71. HEDOMS—Human Error and Disturbance Occurrence in Manufacturing Systems: Toward the development of an analytical framework10.1002/(SICI)1520-6564(199924)9:1<87::AID-HFM5>3.0.CO;2-2 ↗
72. On the track of human errors—Procedure and results of an innovative assembly planning method10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.106 ↗
73. Assembly-specific database for predicting human reliability in assembly operations10.1080/14783363.2015.1068589 ↗
74. Torres, Y., Nadeau, S., and Landau, K. (2019). Application of Human Errors Analysis in Manufacturing: A Proposed Intervention Framework and Techniques Selection. Kongress der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft, GfA-Press.
75. Blais, G. (2011). Méthodologie de Sélection D’anti-erreur à L’assemblage par Calcul de L’efficacité et du Coût Global d’une Application. MECHANICAL Engineering, École de Technologie Supérieure.
76. Baez, Y.A., Rodriguez, M.A., Limon, J., and Tlapa, D.A. (2014, January 9–12). Model of human reliability for manual workers in assembly lines. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.10.1109/IEEM.2014.7058878 ↗
77. Meister, M. (2014). Resilience in Socio-Technical Systems—A System-Theoretical Analysis of Production Using the Example of a BMW AG Engine (Translated from German). Lehrstuhl für Ergonomie, Technische Universität München.
78. Flick, U. (2018). Doing Triangulation and Mixed Methods, SAGE Publications Ltd.10.4135/9781529716634 ↗
79. Hollnagel, E. (2003). Hierarchical Task Analysis in Handbook of Cognitive Task Design, CRC Press.10.1201/9781410607775 ↗
80. Embrey, D. (2009). Human Reliability SHERPA: A Systematic Human Error Reduction and Prediction Approach, Informa UK Limited.
81. Heart—A Proposed Method for Achieving High Reliability in Process Operation by Means of Human Factors Engineering Technology10.1080/09617353.2015.11691046 ↗
82. Embrey, D. (2014). SHERPA: A Systematic Human Error Reduction and Prediction Approach to modelling and assessing human reliability in complex tasks. 22nd European Safety and Reliability annual conference (ESREL 2013), CRC Press.10.1201/b15938-49 ↗
83. Teaching Methods-Time Measurement (MTM) for Workplace Design in Learning Factories10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.033 ↗
84. A Model for Complexity Assessment in Manual Assembly Operations through Predetermined Motion Time Systems10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.111 ↗
85. A multi-dimensional measure for determining the complexity of manual assembly operations10.1007/s11740-009-0171-3 ↗
86. Boring, R.L. (2010, January 7–11). How Many Performance Shaping Factors are Necessary for Human Reliability Analysis?. Proceedings of the 10th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management Conference (PSAM10), Seattle, WA, USA.
87. Effectiveness of three-dimensional digital animation in teaching human anatomy in an authentic classroom context10.1002/ase.1446 ↗
88. Boeing (2013). Maintenance Error Decision Aid (MEDA)—User’s Guide, The Boeing Company.
89. Brands, J. (2019, March 05). Tightening Technology 4.0: Flexible and Transparent Production with Decentralized Intelligence. Factory Automation 2018. Available online: https://community.boschrexroth.com/t5/Rexroth-Blog/Tightening-technology-4-0-Flexible-and-transparent-production/ba-p/151.
90. Camillo, J. (2019, May 10). Error-Proofing with Power Tools. Assembly Magazine 2010. Available online: https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/87830-error-proofing-with-power-tools.
91. Inspection errors and statistical quality control: A survey10.1080/05695557808975202 ↗
92. Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models10.1109/TSMC.1983.6313160 ↗
93. Shappell, S.A., and Wiegmann, D.A. (2019, January 10). The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Available online: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Human_Factors_Analysis_and_Classification_System_(HFACS).
94. HSE (2019, January 04). Understanding Human Failure, Available online: http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/lwit/assets/downloads/human-failure.pdf.
95. Missing mediated interruptions in manual assembly: Critical aspects of breakpoint selection10.1016/j.apergo.2017.01.010 ↗
96. Massaiu, S. (2018). NRC: International HRA Empirical Study—Phase 1 Report (NUREG/IA-0216, Volume 1), Technical Report November 2009.
97. Learning to predict human error: Issues of acceptability, reliability and validity10.1080/001401398186162 ↗
98. Error Probabilities and Relationships in Assembly and Maintenance of Aircraft Engines10.1177/1541931218621361 ↗
99. Hodkinson, P., and Hodkinson, H. (2020, January 27–28). The strengths and limitations of case study research. Proceedings of the Learning and Skills Development Agency Conference, Cambridge, UK.
100. Romero, D. (2016, January 29–31). Towards an Operator 4.0 Typology: A Human-Centric Perspective on the Fourth Industrial Revolution Technologies. Proceedings of the CIE46, Tianjin, China.