FMEA and consideration of real work situations for safer design of production systems

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 557-564

  Lux, Aurélien ^a   Mawo De Bikond, Johann ^b   Etienne, Alain ^b   Quillerou Grivot, Edwige ^a  

^a INSTITUT NATIONAL DE RECHERCHE ET DE SÉCURITÉ   (France)

^b ARTS ET MÉTIERS PARISTECH   (France)

Author keywords

design; ergonomics; FMEA; margins for manoeuvre; work situations

Indexed keywords

ERGONOMICS; SAFETY; BIOENGINEERING; CAR; DEVICE FAILURE; DEVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMAN; INDUSTRY; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; PROCEDURES;

AUTOMOBILES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; HUMAN ENGINEERING; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH;

EID: 84973154491     PISSN: 10803548     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2016.1180856     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery. OJ. 2006;L157:24–86
2. P.Neuman. Production ergonomics, identifying and managing risk in the design of high performance work systems [doctoral dissertation] Lund:Lund University; 2004.
3. A.Hale, B.Kirwan, U.Kjellén. Safe by design:where are we now? Saf Sci. 2007;45:305–327. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2006.08.007
4. R.Ghemraoui, L.Mathieu, N.Tricot. Design method for systematic safety integration. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol. 2009;58(1):161–164. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2009.03.073
5. Eurofound. Fifth European working conditions survey. Luxembourg:Publications Office of the European Union; 2012 [cited 2014 January 6]. Available from:http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2011/82/en/1/EF1182EN.pdf.
6. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Safety of machinery – human physical performance – part 3:recommended force limits for machinery operation. Brussels:CEN; 2008. Standard No. EN 1005-3:2002+A1:2008.
7. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Ergonomic principles related to mental workload – part 2:design principles. Brussels:CEN; 2000. Standard No. EN ISO 10075-2:2000.
8. F.Hubault, F.Bourgeois. Disputes sur l’ergonomie de la tâche et de l’activité, ou la finalité de l’ergonomie en question [Disputes involving task and activity ergonomics or purpose of ergonomics concerned]. Activités. 2004;1(1):34–53. doi:10.4000/activites.1149
9. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Ergonomic principles in the design of work systems. Brussels:CEN; 2004. Standard No. EN ISO 6385:2004.
10. A.S.P.Moraes, P.M.Arezes, R.Vasconcelos. From ergonomics to design specifications:contributions to the design of a processing machine in a tire company. Work. 2012;41:552–559.
11. J.C.Sagot, V.Gouin, S.Gomes. Ergonomics in product design:safety factor. Saf Sci. 2003;41:137–154. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00038-3
12. J.Theureau, L.Pinsky. Paradoxe de l’ergonomie de conception et logiciel informatique [Paradox of ergonomics in design and computer software]. Revue des conditions de travail. 1947;9:25–31.
13. F.Daniellou. Les modalités d’une ergonomie de conception, son introduction dans la conduite des projets industriels [Rules for design-based ergonomics and its introduction into industrial project management]. Québec:INRS; 1987 (Note documentaire ND1647-129-87).
14. J.Maline. Simuler le travail [Simulating work]. Lyons:Editions de l’ANACT; 1994.
15. A.Garrigou, F.Daniellou, G.Garballeda, Activity analysis in participatory design and analysis of participatory design activity. Int J Ind Ergon. 1995;15:311–327. doi:10.1016/0169-8141(94)00079-I
16. P.Douillet, J.M.Schweitzer. TMS, stress:gagner des marges de manoeuvre [Stress:increasing margins for manoeuvre]. BTS Newsletter, 2002;19:64–66.
17. Y.Roquelaure, J.Malchaire, N.Cock, Quantification de l'activité gestuelle au cours des tâches répétitives de production de masse [Quantifying gestural activity during repetitive mass production tasks]. Documents pour le médecin du travail:DMT. 2001;85:167–176.
18. M.Brunet, J.Riff. Analyse et exploitation de la variabilité gestuelle dans la prevention des TMS [Analysis and use of gestural variability in preventing MSDs]. Pistes. 2009;11(1). Available from:http://pistes.revues.org/2270.
19. F.Coutarel, F.Daniellou, B.Dugué. Interroger l'organisation du travail au regard des marges de manoeuvre en conception et en fonctionnement. La rotation est-t-elle une solution aux TMS? [Questioning work organization in relation to margins for manoeuvre in design and operation. Is task rotation a solution to MSD?]. Pistes. 2003;5(2). Available from:http://pistes.revues.org/3328.
20. P.Béguin, M.Cerf. Formes et enjeux de l’analyse de l’activité pour la conception des systèmes de travail [Forms and challenges of activity analysis for designing work systems]. Activité. 2004;1(1):54–71. doi:10.4000/activites.1156
21. F.Lamonde, J.G.Richard, L.Langlois, La prise en compte des situations de travail dans les projets de conception [Consideration of work situations in design projects]. Montréal:Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST); 2010. Rapport R-636.
22. A.Morais, A.Aubineau. Articulation entre l’ergonomie et le lean manufacturing chez PSA [Interplay between ergonomics and lean manufacturing at PSA]. Activités. 2012;9(2):179–197. doi:10.4000/activites.468
23. F.Bourgeois, O.Gonon. Le lean et l’activité humaine. Quel positionnement de l’ergonomie, convoquée par cette nouvelle doctrine de l’efficacité? [Lean manufacturing and human activity:what position for ergonomics under this new doctrine of efficiency?]. Activités. 2010;7(1):136–142.
24. A.Falk, M.Rosenkvist. What are obstacles and needs of proactive ergonomics measures at early product development stages? – An interview study in five Swedish companies. Int J Ind Ergon. 2012;42:406–415. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2012.05.002
25. US Department of Defense. Military standard. Procedures for performing a failure mode, effects and criticality analysis (Mil-Std-1629A). Washington (DC):Department of Defense; 1980.
26. B.S.Neagoe. Recent researches in manufacturing engineering. 3rd WSEAS international conference on manufacturing engineering, quality and production systems (MEQAPS’11), Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania, 2011.
27. FMEA info centre [cited 2014 January 6]. Available from:http://fmeainfocentre.com.
28. H.-C.Liu, L.Liu, N.Liu. Risk evaluation approach in failure mode and effects analysis:a literature review. Expert Syst Appl. 2013;40:828–838. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.010
29. S.-J.Rhee, K.Ishii. Using cost based FMEA to enhance reliability and serviceability. Adv Eng Inform. 2003;17:179–188. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2004.07.002
30. K.Subburaman. A modified FMEA approach to enhance reliability of lean systems [master’s thesis]. Knoxville (TN):University of Tennessee; 2010.
31. I.Barsky, S.P.Dutta. Cost assessment for ergonomic risk (CAFER). Int J Ind Ergon. 1997;20:307–315. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(96)00063-7
32. J.Village, T.Annett, E.Lin, Adapting the failure modes effect analysis (FMEA) for early detection of human factors concerns. Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference, Association of Canadian Ergonomists, October 18-20, 2011.
33. F.Berthe, J.Vimeux. AMDEC Sécurité, 56è fiche, Favi. 1997 [cited 2014 January 6]. Available from:http://www.favi.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Fiche-56.pdf.
34. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Safety of machinery – general principles for design – risk assessment and risk reduction. Brussels:CEN; 2010. Standard No. EN ISO 12100:2010.
35. A.Lux, E.Quillerou-Grivot. Production activity analyzed by an engineer and a psychologist:what contributions for taking health into account when designing production systems? Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Modeling, Optimization et Simulation (MOSIM); Nancy, France; 2014 Nov 5-7.
36. J.Rasmussen. Risk Management in a dynamic society:A modeling problem. Saf Sci. 1997;27(2-3):183–213. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0
37. P.Polet, F.Vanderhaegen, P.A.Wieringa. Theory of safety-related violations of system barriers. Cogn Technol Work. 2002;4:171–179. doi:10.1007/s101110200016
38. F.Vanderhaegen, S.Zieba, S.Enjalbert, A benefit/cost/deficit (BCD) model for learning from human errors. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2011;96:757–766. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2011.02.002
39. F.Bourgeois. Que fait l’ergonomie que le lean ne sait/ne veut pas voir? [What does ergonomics do that lean manufacturing cannot/will not see?]. Activités. 2012;9(2):138–147. doi:10.4000/activites.444
40. E.Hollnagel. Accidents and barriers. Proceedings of the 7th European conference on cognitive science approaches to process control (CSAPC). 1999, France:Villeneuve d’Ascq; 175–180.
41. A.Genaidy, S.Salem, W.Karwowski, The work compatibility improvement framework:An integrated perspective of the human-at-work system. Ergonomics. 2007;50(1):3–25. doi:10.1080/00140130600900431