Quality, productivity, occupational health and safety and cost effectiveness of ergonomic improvements in the test workstations of an electronic factory

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(03)00051-9Get rights and content

Abstract

An ergonomic study was conducted to improve the workstations for electrical tests in a printed circuit assembly (PCA) factory in an industrially developing country (IDC). Subjective assessment and direct observation methods were used on the operators to discover the problems in their workstations. The problems found were: (i) poor workstation design, (ii) mix-up of tested and untested boards, (iii) missing or incorrect test steps, and (iv) unclear pass/fail colour inspection criteria. Ergonomic interventions implemented were: (i) an improved workstation with space for resting arms and the oscilloscope and computer keyboards within easy reach of the operators; (ii) clear segregation of tested and untested boards to prevent mix-up; (iii) retraining of operators by more qualified trainers; and (iv) reference colour samples for more effective recognition of different colours in the projection screen. The results were average savings in yearly rejection cost (of US$574,560), reduction in rejection rate, increase in monthly revenue, improvements in productivity, quality, operators’ working conditions and occupational health and safety (OHS) and enhancement in customers’ satisfaction. The cost of the interventions was less than US$1100. The interventions implemented were simple and inexpensive but resulted in many benefits.

Relevance to industry

The study will be beneficial, if repeated in other PCA or electronic factories in IDCs, in terms of improvements in quality, productivity and OHS of the workers, as most of them have similar manufacturing processes and equipment and poor awareness in ergonomics.

Introduction

Printed circuit assembly (PCA) factories are the backbone of the electronic industry, where motherboards for electronic products are manufactured. In some industrially developing countries (IDCs), e.g. Malaysia, the electronic industry is one of the largest revenue-generating industries. However, IDCs face much difficulty in attaining high quality and productivity in their manufacturing and having good working conditions for their workers at low cost so that they can compete in the global market (Sen (1984), Sen (1998)). Ergonomics is known to be the solution to these problems as many have done ergonomic studies in industrially advanced countries (IACs) and found improvements in quality, productivity and occupational health and safety (OHS) and cost reductions (Burri and Helander, 1991; Helander and Burri, 1995; Corlett, 1999; Abrahamsson, 2000). Nevertheless, to our knowledge, there were only a few ergonomic studies conducted in IDCs in the PCA factories (Sen and Yeow (1999), Sen and Yeow (2001), Sen and Yeow (2003a), Sen and Yeow (2003b), Sen and Yeow (2003c); Yeow and Sen (1999a), Yeow and Sen (1999b), Yeow and Sen (2000), Yeow and Sen (2002)) and none in the workstation for electrical tests (WETs). Therefore, this paper presents an ergonomic study of the WETs in a PCA factory in an IDC. Quality, productivity and rejection costs of the workstations and OHS of the workers were studied and improvements were made.

Burri and Helander (1991) and Helander and Burri (1995) did ergonomic studies of the printed circuit board (PCB) and copier machines factories but no ergonomic interventions in the WETs were included. However, there were some ergonomic studies related to workstation design. Quinn et al. (1991) researched into Ford's packaging workstations for automotive component parts and found there were risks in causing wrist and back injury. Similarly, Mossink (1990) researched into the packaging workstations in a tobacco factory and found operators complaining about low-back pain and pain in the arms and shoulders.

This study was conducted in a medium-sized factory in Malaysia that manufacture motherboards for computer projectors. The preliminary results of the study were presented in Yeow and Sen (2000) and Yeow and Sen (2002). The final results are presented in this paper.

For a better understanding of the ergonomic interventions, the manufacturing processes in the PCA factory are described as follows:

  • (i)

    Component preparation process: The raw materials such as the electronic components and the PCB are prepared. The leads of the components are cut to the right length and formed into the right shape.

  • (ii)

    Surface-mounted technology component placement process: The surface-mounted electronic components are placed and soldered to the PCB.

  • (iii)

    Manual component insertion process: The leaded electronic components are inserted and soldered to the board.

  • (iv)

    Manual visual inspection process: The board passes through a series of visual inspections to check for poor solder joints and error in component mountings or insertions.

  • (v)

    In-circuit electrical test (ICET) process: The components on the board are tested individually.

  • (vi)

    Functional electrical tests (FCT) process: The board is tested for its overall function.

  • (vii)

    Quality assurance process: The completed board is visually inspected again and packed.

Since this study is focused on the WETs, the ICET and FCT processes are elaborated.

In the ICET process, the operator at the WETs puts the PCA board one at a time into an ICET fixture which has many pins. The operator then presses a button which would lift up the pins to probe the various electrical points of the board. The pins are connected to a computerised tester, named Teradyne or HP3070, which is used to test any wrong component value and poor connection.

This process is done in different WETs from that of the ICET. PCA boards are loaded one at a time into the FCT fixture. Many different testing procedures are carried out for the various types of products. For example, in the power-up test, the current switch is turned on and the operator visually inspects the indicator light. The following are more complicated tests:

  • (i)

    Wave form test where a series of locations on the PCA board are probed and the operator checks the oscilloscope screen for the correct wave patterns (please see Fig. 1).

  • (ii)

    Code checking where a series of keys is punched on a keyboard, and in the end, the operator checks the display for a certain code number.

  • (iii)

    Projection test where the operator turns on the projector, projects an image to a screen and checks the image and colours of the projection.

  • (iv)

    Print test where a hardcopy is printed and the operator checks the image and lines of the hardcopy.

Section snippets

Problem identification

A general survey was conducted of the factory to ascertain the major problems in the WETs. This was done by conducting a plant walk-through of the ICET and FCT processes and unstructured interviews (please refer to direct observation (DO) method in Drury (1995)) of eight employees of different ranks (four managers, two engineers and two executives) from various departments (production, quality, engineering, training and customer service departments). Qualitative and quantitative data were

Factory's problems

From the general survey and the analysis of AORCFD (please refer to Section 2.1), it was found that there were four major problems, i.e. poor workstation design, mix-up of tested and untested boards, missing or incorrect test steps and unclear pass/fail criteria for projection colour inspection (PCI). The problems are listed in Table 1.

As a result of the problems, the factory was facing a high percentage of PCA board defects (5.2±0.5%). The defect percentage was not acceptable as most of the

Ergonomic studies on other PCA processes and their benefits

This ergonomic study focused on quality control functions (i.e. the electrical tests), thus the benefits and the cost savings were derived from the containment of quality problems internally and preventing them from going to customers’ sites. Other ergonomic studies had been carried out to eliminate the quality problems in the manufacturing process, thus building quality in the process rather than just containment. For example, an ergonomic study was conducted on the manual component insertion

Conclusion and recommendation

As shown in this study, ergonomic interventions in the WETs were good investments. These interventions were inexpensive. Nevertheless, they resulted in many benefits in terms of improvements in quality, productivity and OHS, reduction in rejection cost and increase in revenue.

The results of this study are useful for the electronic industry because most PCA factories have similar manufacturing equipment and processes. For example, most of their WETs use in-circuit testers, test fixtures and

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the factory management and employees who collaborated whole-heartedly in this study. The authors are indebted to the Multimedia University who sponsored this project.

References (32)

  • U. Bergqvist et al.

    Musculoskeletal disorders among visual display terminal workersindividual, ergonomic, and work organizational factors

    Ergonomics

    (1995)
  • S.J. Czaja et al.

    Training programs for inspection

    Human Factors

    (1981)
  • C.G. Drury

    Methods for direct observation of performance

  • C.G. Drury

    The use of archival data

  • B. Knave et al.

    Work with video display terminals among office employees. I. Subjective symptoms and discomfort

    Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health

    (1985)
  • J.C.M. Mossink

    Case historydesign of a packaging workstation

    Ergonomics

    (1990)
  • Cited by (81)

    • Assessment of the handcart pushing and pulling safety by using deep learning 3D pose estimation and IoT force sensors

      2021, Expert Systems with Applications
      Citation Excerpt :

      The analysis showed that most (80%) studies focused on injury prediction: 80% on classification, 11.6% regression-estimation and 7.8% on clustering-grouping of potentially vulnerable participants (the number of data subjects in these studies ranged from 4 to 2956, with a median of 40). Previous studies have shown that improvements in physical ergonomics also have a positive effect on work quality, especially in developing countries (Yeow & Nath Sen, 2003). However, the inability of timely and objective visual detection of non-ergonomic body postures during the P&P has been noted as a serious problem in various areas of the industry.

    • Design and evaluation of a modified drilling method

      2018, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text