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, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 OAL.
b.al.mannai.2002@cranfield.ac.uk, Tel. +44 (0)1234 750111, Fax +44 (0) 1234752159
Dr. Rick Greenough, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 OAL.
r.m.greenough@cranfield.ac.uk, Tel. +44 (0)1234 750111, Fax +44 (0) 1234752159
Prof. John Kay, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 OAL. j.m.kay@cranfield.ac.uk, 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 by management in manufacturing
systems design and to 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 shape either excellence in such an environment,
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 have variously been 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 demands and manufacturing technology. However, there continue 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 humancentred 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 here is to develop 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 facilitate
this endeavour a review of the human-centred systems principles and tools is necessary to provide a
comprehensive picture of what and where human factors were incorporated, thereby determining 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 arrangements that 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 the unreliable 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) views Taylor’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 system design 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 create human-centred systems, and this research
is intended to support management with evaluation of technology 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 designing sociotechnical 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 and Gasser, 1991).
ACTION
ACTION is a computer-based decision support system that was developed by the National Center 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,
1997 and 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 and Gasser (2000) present a
series of case studies of the application of 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 humancentred 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 justification is 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 the lack of consideration
given to human aspects (Mital and Pennathur, 2002; Udo and Ebiefung, 1999 and 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 by the 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 and support human-centred systems initiatives.
5. Aim of the Research
The literature emphasises the 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 and plays 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-down approach to system design,
which is based 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 that could be applied for
this investigation. The anticipated outcome of this step is to identify the appropriate tools to perform this
function. The decision-making tool will be designed in a manner that supports management in determining
which human factors issues affect their manufacturing automation selection, and ensuring that the right
proportions of technical, organisational, and human factors are used to determine the most appropriate option.
7. Conclusion
The current research on human-centred concepts extends the development of methods to balancing technology,
organisation, and people during the design and implementation of manufacturing systems. The next logical step
in this endeavour is to incorporate such concepts in the selection and justification of manufacturing technology.
The past and present review of human-centred systems presented in this paper illustrates the importance of
addressing technology, organisation, and people in a way that ensures joint optimisation of both technology and
humans. Sociotechnical frameworks and models are continuously being developed to achieve joint optimisation
and integration of human factors in the manufacturing environment. However, as mentioned earlier, the
literature continues to point out reported failures of manufacturing technology implementations and outcomes,
due to inadequate consideration of human factors in manufacturing.
Consequently, a decision aid tool is being developed to support the spread of human-centred concept and
enable management to incorporate human factors in their automation decision-making to sustain a coherent
system design. The design and evaluation of such a tool is the subject of continuing research, which will be
described in future papers.
References
Almannai, B., Greenough, R., and Kay, J. (2004). Human factors and manufacturing automation – a survey.
Advances in Manufacturing Technology, Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Manufacturing
Research, 7-9 September, Sheffield, UK, pp. 48-53.
Bertalanffy, L. (1956). General system theory. General Systems Yearbook of the Society for General Systems
Theory, Vol. 1, pp. 1-10.
Bohnhoff, A., Brandt, D., and Henning, K. (1992). The Dual design approach as a tool for the interdisciplinary
design of human-centered systems. International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, Vol. 2 (3), pp.
289-301.
Brandt, D. (2004). Human-centred technology. http://www.zlw-ima.rwthaachen.de/forschung/publications/human_centred_technology.html.
Cherns, A. (1987). Principles of sociotechnical design revisted. Human Relations, Vol. 40 (3), pp. 153-162.
Dawson, P. (1991). From machine-centred to human-centred manufacture. International Journal of Human
Factors in Manufacturing, Vol. 1 (4), pp. 327-338.
Duguay, C., Landry, S. and Pasin F. (1997). From mass production to flexible/agile production. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(12), pp. 1183-1195.
Elton, D., Madgwick, S., and Newman, V. (1994). Taylorism and lean production.In: Advances in agile
manufacturing, edited by: Kidd, P. and Karwowski, W., ISO Press, USA, pp. 37-40.
Ennals, R, Kaura, R., and Ainger, A. (1994). Human-centred systems: the 21st century paradigm. In: Advances
in agile manufacturing, edited by: Kidd, P. and Karwowski, W., ISO Press, USA, pp. 48-51.
Erensal, Y. and Albayrk, E. (2004). Successful adoption of macroergonomics in manufacturing: using a
multicriteria decision-making methodology-analytical hierarchy process. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing, Vol. 14 (4), pp. 353-377.
Fox, W. (1995). Sociotechnical system principles and guidelines: past and present. Journal of Applied
Behaviour Science, Vol. 31 (1), March, pp. 91-105.
Gasser, L. and Majchrzak, A. (1992). HITOP-A: coordination, infrastructure and enterprise integration.
Enterprise Integration Modeling, Proceeding of the 1st International Conference, 8-12 June, Hilton Head, SC,
USA, pp. 373-381.
Gasser, L., Hulthage, I., Leverich, B., Lieb, J., and Majchrzak, A. (1993). Organisation as complex, dynamic,
design problems. 6th Portuguese Conference on AI, EPIA, Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 6-8 October,
Porto, Portugal. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Gupta, Y. and Yakimchuk, M. (1988). Impact of advanced manufacturing on industrial relations: a comparative
study. International Journal of Operation and Production Management, Vol. 9 (3), pp. 5-14.
Hendrick, H. (1986). Macroergonomics: a conceptual model for integrating human factors with organisational
design. In: Human factors in organisational design and management – II, edited by Brown, Jr. and Hendrick,
H., Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V. (North-Holland), pp. 467-477.
Karwowski, W., Kantola, J., Rodrick, D., and Salvendy, G. (2002). Macroergonomic aspects of Manufacturing.
In: Macroergonomics: theory, methods, and applications, edited by: Hendrick, H. and Kleiner, M., Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers, New Jersey.
Kidd, P. (1990). Organisation, people and technology: advanced manufacturing in the 1990s. Computer-Aided
Engineering, pp. 149-153.
Liker, J. and Majchrzak, A. (1994). Designing the human infrastructure for technology. In: Organisation and
Management of Advanced Manufacturing, edited by: Karwowski, W. and Salvendy, G. John Wiley & Sons,
USA.
Majchrzak, A. (1997). What to do when you can’t have it all: Toward a theory of sociotechnical dependencies.
Human Relations, Vol. 50 (5), pp. 535-565.
Majchrzak, A. and Gasser, L. (1991). On using artificial intelligence to integrate the design of organizational
and process change in US manufacturing. AI & Society, Vol. 5, pp. 321-338.
Majchrzak, A. and Gasser, L. (2000). TOP-Modeler: supporting complex strategic and operational decision
making. Information Knowledge Systems Management, Vol. 2, pp. 95-110.
Majchrzak, A. and Roitman, D. (1989). A socio-technical framework for integrating social and technical
features of computer-automated manufacturing. In: Work with computers: Organisational, management, stress
and health aspects, edited by: Smith, M. and Salvendy, G. Proceeding of the 3rd conference on human computer
interaction, 18-22 September, Boston, M.A., Vol. 1, pp. 21-28.
Mital, A. and Pennathur, A. (2002). Getting the most of advanced manufacturing technology (ATM)-based
systems. Part II: recognizing and managing human limitations. International Journal Manufacturing Technology
and Management, Vol. 4 (1/2), pp. 119-133.
Mumford, E. (1987). Sociotechnical systems design: evolving theory and practice. In: Computers and
Democracy A Scandinavian Challenge, eddited by: Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., and Kyng, M., Gower Publishing,
USA.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), (1984). Computerised Manufacturing Automation, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Paez, O., Dewees, J., Genaidy, A., Tuncel, S., Karwowski, W., and Zurada, J. (2004). The lean manufacturing
enterprise: an emerging sociotechnological system integration. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing, Vol. 14 (3), pp. 258-306.
Pandya, K. and Satyre, F. (1996). Factors affecting decision making in the implementation of manufacturing
technology. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 12 (2), pp. 163-179.
Salvendy, G. (1997). Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. Second Edition. A Wiley-Interscience
Publication, New York.
Sheridan, T. (1995). Human centered automation: oxymoron or common sense? IEEE, pp. 823-828.
Strohm, O. and Ulich, E. (1997). Sociotechnical analysis according to the concept of people, technology,
organisation. In: Design of Computing Systems: Cognitive Considerations, edited by: Salvendy, S., Smith, M.,
and Koubek, R. Advances in Human Factors/Ergonomics, Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction, San Francisco, Vol. 1, August 24-29.
Uden, L. (1995). Design and evaluation of human centred CIM systems. Computer Integration Manufacturing
Systems, Vol. 8 (2), pp. 83-92.
Udo, G. and Ebiefung, A. (1999). Human factors affecting the success of advanced manufacturing systems.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 37, pp. 279-300.
Waterman, R. H. (1990). Adhocracy. W. W. Norton, New York.
Wood, M., Fleischer, M., and Majchrzak, A. (1991). HITOP: a tool for integrating technology with the
organisation. IEEE, 27-31 October, pp. 112.