Workstation redesign for a repetitive drill press operation: A combined work design and ergonomics approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A typical or conventional workstation for a repetitive drill press operation was evaluated and subsequently redesigned by incorporating the concepts and principles of work design and ergonomics. The production task comprised of drilling four holes on a prepared steel plate. A methods–time measurement (MTM) analysis was conducted to eliminate unnecessary motions and improve the necessary (work) motions involved in task performance. The specific features of the redesigned workstation were specially designed equipment (jig, fixture, etc.), a suitable adjustable chair, proper work height, a placement of tools/equipment within reach envelope, and a comprehensive operator training method. An experimental investigation was conducted to evaluate and test the redesigned workstation in terms of operator productivity (production quantity and quality output) and satisfaction. The increases in quantity (number of holes drilled) and quality (number of good holes drilled) output were 22 and 50%, respectively, for the redesigned workstation compared to the typical or conventional workstation. The high improvement in quality output (50%) could be attributed to the improved design of the jig and fixture and the comprehensive operator training method, which emphasizes the quality aspect of production output. The improvement in operator satisfaction (scores) were highly significant. This investigation has demonstrated the beneficial effect of a combined work design and ergonomics approach, especially for the redesign of a workstation for a repetitive drill press operation. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Hum Factors Man 17: 395–410, 2007.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".