Performance tracking through the work compatibility model

Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 133-153

  Salem, S ^a   Paez, O ^a   Holley, M ^a   Tuncel, S ^a   Genaidy, Ash ^a   Karwowski, W ^b  

^a University of Cincinnati   (United States)

^b University of Louisville   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; JOB ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PERSONNEL; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

GRAPHIC-BASED FRAMEWORK; HUMAN PERFORMANCE; MULTIDIMENSIONAL DIAGNOSTIC TOOL; PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT; QUANTITATIVE MODEL; WORK COMPATIBILITY MODEL;

HUMAN ENGINEERING;

EID: 33645732861     PISSN: 10908471     EISSN: 15206564     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20046     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Abdallah, S., Genaidy, A., Salem, O., Karwowski, W., & Shell, R. (2004). The concept of work compatibility: An integrated design criterion for improving workplace human performance in manufacturing systems. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 14, 379-402.
2. Anderson, N. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
3. Anderson, N. (1982). Methods of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
4. Ballé, M. (1998). Transforming decisions into action. Career Development International, 3, 227-232.
5. Bartezzaghi, E. (1999). The evolution of production models: Is a new paradigm emerging? International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19, 229-250.
6. Cherns, A. (1987). Principles of sociotechnical design revisited. Human Relations, 40, 153-162.
7. De Toni, A., & Tonchia, S. (2001). Performance measurement systems: Models, characteristics and measures. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21, 46-70.
8. Feng, L., Dillon, T., & Liu, J. (2001). Inter-transactional association rules for multi-dimensional contexts for prediction and their application to studying meteorological data. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 37, 85-115.
9. Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard - Linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 269-284.
10. Gandy, R. (1991). A comparison of the subjective workload assessment technique (SWAT) and the NASA-task load index (TLX) under immediate and delayed rating conditions. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Dayton, OH.
11. Gawron, V. (2000). Human performance measures handbook. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Genaidy, A., & Karwowski, W. (2003). Human performance in lean production environment: Critical assessment and research framework. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 13, 317-330.
13. Genaidy, A., Karwowski, W., & Christensen, D. (1999). Principles of work system performance optimization: A business ergonomics approach. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 9, 105-128.
14. Genaidy, A., Karwowski, W., & Shoaf, C. (2002). The fundamentals of work system compatibility theory: An integrated approach to optimization of human performance at work. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Sciences, 3, 346-368.
15. Harrison, E. (1996). A process perspective on strategic decision making. Management Decision, 34, 45-53.
16. Hart, S., & Staveland, L. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139-183). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
17. Herbst, P. (1974). Socio-technical design. London, UK: Tavistock Publications.
18. Jung, H., & Jung, H. (2001). Establishment of overall workload assessment technique for various tasks and workplaces. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 341-353.
19. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecard - Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.
20. Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.
21. Karwowski, W. (2000). Symvatology: The science of an artifact-human compatibility. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1, 76-91.
22. Karwowski, W. (2002). Achieving compatibility in human-computer interface design and evaluation. In J.A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 1126-1238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Keyserling, W. (1998). Methods for evaluating postural workload. In W. Karwowski & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Ergonomics in manufacturing. Norcross, GA: Institute of Industrial Engineers.
24. Monden, Y. (1993). Toyota production system: An integrated approach to just-in-time. Norcross, GA: Institute of Industrial Engineers.
25. Niepce, W., & Molleman, E. (1998). Work design issues in lean production from a sociotechnical systems perspective: Neo-Taylorism or the next step in sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 51, 259-287.
26. Partovi, F. (1994). Determining what to benchmark: An analytic hierarchy process approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14, 25-39.
27. Rangone, A. (1996). An analytical hierarchy process framework for comparing the overall performance of manufacturing departments. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 16, 104-119.
28. Reid, G., & Mygren, T. (1988). The subjective workload assessment technique: A scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. Human Mental Workload (pp. 185-218). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
29. Rogers, E., & Wright, P. (1998). Measuring organizational performance in strategic human resource management: Problems, prospects, and performance information markets. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 311-331.
30. Saaty, T. (1988). The analytical hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
31. Savić, S. (2001). Integration of management systems in terms of optimization of workplace human performance. Working and Living Environmental Protection, 2(1), 27-38.
32. Sheldrake, J. (1996). Management theory: From Taylorism to Japanization. London, UK: Thomson Business Press.
33. Singer, J., & Duvall, S. (2000). High-performance partnering by self-managed teams in manufacturing. Engineering Management Journal, 12(4), 9-15.
34. Spur, G., Specht, D., & Herter, J. (1994). Job design. In G. Salvendy & W. Karwowski (Eds.), Design of work and development of personnel in advanced manufacturing. New York: Wiley.
35. Strasser, H. (1995). Ergonomic efforts aiming at compatibility in the work design for realizing preventive occupational health and safety. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16, 211-235.
36. Van Der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control(-support) model and psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress, 12, 87-114.
37. Wallace, S., Shoaf, C., Genaidy, A., & Karwowski, W. (2003). Assessing the compatibility of work system factors through an integrative model. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 9, 27-35.
38. Wilson, J. (2003). Support of opportunities for shopfloor involvement through information and communication technologies. AI & Society, 17, 114-133.
39. Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Macmillan.
40. Yeung, A., & Berman, B. (1997). Adding value through human resources: Reorienting human resource measurement to drive business performance. Human Resource Management, 36, 321-325.
41. Yeung, S., Genaidy, A., Deddens, J., & Leung, P. (2003). Worker's assessment of manual lifting tasks: Cognitive strategies and validation with respect to objective indices and musculoskeletal symptoms. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 76, 505-516.