implementing an ergonomics program - the honda experience

An Ergonomics Program – The Honda Experience

2

Mr. Honda – the man behind the company that bears his name

3

Honda Global Operations

4

Honda in North America

5

Honda in North America

6

Honda in North America Honda has steadily expanded its capabilities to create products in

North America, from product concept and design, to full development and production.

7

Honda Manufacturing in NA

8

Honda R&D in NA

9

History of Ergonomics at Hondalate 1980’s

– ergonomics awareness programs– focus was on back problems

early to mid- 1990’s– “reactive” approach– framework of ergonomics program

10

History of Ergonomics at Honda

mid- to late 1990’s

– developed a company ergonomics policy– used Auburn Engineers to assist with the

strategic plan

75%

25%

ergonomic non-ergo1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

fiscal year

inju

ry c

oun

t

1995-1999

11

Honda’s Ergonomics Needs

Honda recognized the need to establish the following:

– structured program

– metrics

– engagement of all associates

12

Overall Objectives of the Program

Minimize introduction of risk in the manufacturing operations.

Focus on issues related to parts specifications and process set-up.

Enhance long-term relationships between design, manufacturing/production, engineering and other technical/support groups.

13

Ergonomics Program Requirements

1. Medical Management

2. Associate Development

3. Process Assessments

4. Ergonomics Controls

5. Management Leadership and Commitment

6. Associate Involvement

14

Ergonomics Successes

1 – Medical Management

– provide opportunities for recovery• Early Intervention Program• Modified Work Program• Work Recovery Program• Transitional Work Assignment

15

Ergonomics Successes

2 - Associate Development– more than just training

• increase awareness• enhance skills

– needs to be appropriate to job function• production associates• supervisors• technical staff• management team

– use outside experts (Auburn Engineers) then develop in-house expertise

16

Ergonomics Successes3 - Process Assessments

– determine what is “acceptable” or not• level of exposure• duration/frequency of exposure

– common “criteria”• based on associate performance characteristics• set up for continuous improvement

conditions to avoid – high risk

marginal – moderate risk

design target – low risk

17

Honda Ergonomics Guidelines Development

study tasksgather information

– benchmarking– literature search (Auburn Engineers, etc.)– internal research studies (VTU, OSU, etc.)

develop specifications

Honda Ergonomics Clearance Guidelines

> 4.1" 4.0" < 3.9"> 102mm 100 mm < 98 mm

> 2.1" 2.05" < 2"> 52mm 50.5 mm < 49 mm

> 5.9" 5.8" < 5.7"> 149mm 146.5 mm < 144 mm

> 6.5" 6.45" < 6.4"> 164mm 162.5 mm < 161mm

> 5.35" + X" 5.25" + X" 5.16" + X"> 136mm + Xmm 133.5mm + Xmm < 131mm + Xmm

where where whereX = diameter of part X = diameter of part X = diameter of part

> 3.23" + X" 3.17" + X" 3.11" + X"> 82mm + Xmm 80.5 mm + Xmm < 79mm + Xmm

where where whereX = diameter of part X = diameter of part X = diameter of part

< 2.36" 2.46" > 2.56" < 60mm 62.5 mm > 65mm

< 10.59" 10.87" > 11.14"< 269 mm 276 mm > 283 mm

Reach from Wrist

Maximum reach distance for a hand into an access hole

up to the w rist

Reach from

Elbow

Maximum reach distance for a hand into an access hole

up to the elbow

Hand Clearance

+ Part

Required space to f it a part being gripped

w ith the hand

Finger Clearance

+ Part

Required space to f it a part held betw een

the f ingers and thumb

Wrist Access

Required diameter of an access hole to f it the hand up to the

w rist

Elbow Access

Required diameter of an access hole to f it the hand up to the

elbow

Hand Clearance

Required space for a f lat hand to f it

betw een tw o parts

Finger Clearance

Required space for a f inger to f it betw een

tw o parts

RedYellow

(Midpoint)Green

Accommodates 99th %ile male or 1st %ile female

Accommodates 95th %ile male or 5th %ile female

Does not accommodate

X

X

Honda Ergonomics Clearance Guidelines

> 4.1" 4.0" < 3.9"> 102mm 100 mm < 98 mm

> 2.1" 2.05" < 2"> 52mm 50.5 mm < 49 mm

> 5.9" 5.8" < 5.7"> 149mm 146.5 mm < 144 mm

> 6.5" 6.45" < 6.4"> 164mm 162.5 mm < 161mm

> 5.35" + X" 5.25" + X" 5.16" + X"> 136mm + Xmm 133.5mm + Xmm < 131mm + Xmm

where where whereX = diameter of part X = diameter of part X = diameter of part

> 3.23" + X" 3.17" + X" 3.11" + X"> 82mm + Xmm 80.5 mm + Xmm < 79mm + Xmm

where where whereX = diameter of part X = diameter of part X = diameter of part

< 2.36" 2.46" > 2.56" < 60mm 62.5 mm > 65mm

< 10.59" 10.87" > 11.14"< 269 mm 276 mm > 283 mm

Reach from Wrist

Maximum reach distance for a hand into an access hole

up to the w rist

Reach from

Elbow

Maximum reach distance for a hand into an access hole

up to the elbow

Hand Clearance

+ Part

Required space to f it a part being gripped

w ith the hand

Finger Clearance

+ Part

Required space to f it a part held betw een

the f ingers and thumb

Wrist Access

Required diameter of an access hole to f it the hand up to the

w rist

Elbow Access

Required diameter of an access hole to f it the hand up to the

elbow

Hand Clearance

Required space for a f lat hand to f it

betw een tw o parts

Finger Clearance

Required space for a f inger to f it betw een

tw o parts

RedYellow

(Midpoint)Green

Accommodates 99th %ile male or 1st %ile female

Accommodates 95th %ile male or 5th %ile female

Does not accommodate

X

X

Honda Ergonomics Clearance Guidelines

> 4.1" 4.0" < 3.9"> 102mm 100 mm < 98 mm

> 2.1" 2.05" < 2"> 52mm 50.5 mm < 49 mm

> 5.9" 5.8" < 5.7"> 149mm 146.5 mm < 144 mm

> 6.5" 6.45" < 6.4"> 164mm 162.5 mm < 161mm

> 5.35" + X" 5.25" + X" 5.16" + X"> 136mm + Xmm 133.5mm + Xmm < 131mm + Xmm

where where whereX = diameter of part X = diameter of part X = diameter of part

> 3.23" + X" 3.17" + X" 3.11" + X"> 82mm + Xmm 80.5 mm + Xmm < 79mm + Xmm

where where whereX = diameter of part X = diameter of part X = diameter of part

< 2.36" 2.46" > 2.56" < 60mm 62.5 mm > 65mm

< 10.59" 10.87" > 11.14"< 269 mm 276 mm > 283 mm

Reach from Wrist

Maximum reach distance for a hand into an access hole

up to the w rist

Reach from

Elbow

Maximum reach distance for a hand into an access hole

up to the elbow

Hand Clearance

+ Part

Required space to f it a part being gripped

w ith the hand

Finger Clearance

+ Part

Required space to f it a part held betw een

the f ingers and thumb

Wrist Access

Required diameter of an access hole to f it the hand up to the

w rist

Elbow Access

Required diameter of an access hole to f it the hand up to the

elbow

Hand Clearance

Required space for a f lat hand to f it

betw een tw o parts

Finger Clearance

Required space for a f inger to f it betw een

tw o parts

RedYellow

(Midpoint)Green

Accommodates 99th %ile male or 1st %ile female

Accommodates 95th %ile male or 5th %ile female

Does not accommodate

X

X

18

Ergonomics Successes4 – Ergonomics Controls

– start with current concerns• use skills of production associates• work methods improvements

– process modifications• task allocation/line re-balancing• packaging changes• equipment acceptance

– anticipate future concerns• manufacturing innovation• new technologies

19

Ergonomics Controlsprocess and equipment set-up

tool to start lug nuts on wheels

reduced amount of twisting to

finger start lug nuts

Repetition Posture

added assist arm to help lift totes

into heating oven

minimized raising arms and bending

wrists

Force

assist device

provided significantly reduced manual exertion required

to push rack

20

Ergonomics Successes5 - Management Leadership/Commitment

– Company Principle• Maintaining a global viewpoint, Honda is dedicated to

supplying products of the highest quality, yet at a reasonable price, for worldwide customer satisfaction.

– view ergonomics as one aspect of the business

21

Management Leadership/Commitment

“There is no production without safety!”

Soichiro Hondafounder

22

Management Leadership/Commitment

correlate ergonomics with other priorities– example – trunk seal

23

Ergonomics Successes6 – Associate Involvement

– use existing incentive programs• Production Associates

– Suggestion System– NH Circles

• Technical Staff/Management Team– HAM Team Challenge / Technical Festival

– join annual Ergo Cup competition– move from an “ergonomics expert-based”

system to a system molded and sustained by the true “job experts”

24

Associate Involvement

25

Associate Involvement

26

Associate Involvement

27

Associate Involvement

28

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

fiscal year

inju

ry c

oun

t

2000-2002

Ergonomics Successeslate 1990’s to early 2000’s

– implemented several changes within the plant• 2000 to 2002: injuries started to decrease, but not

at a fast enough rateSo what else is missing?

65%35%

ergonomic non-ergo

75%

25%

ergonomic non-ergo

29

Ergonomics Successes

early to mid-2000’s– involved designers

• incorporate ergonomics into New Model development– design parts “right” the first time

30

Ergonomics with Honda R&D

ASSOCIATE

requires an optimalmanufacturing environment

SAFETY/PROCESS/TECH/NM/EQPT

which requires study and associate feedback

which requires detailed information forwarded to design side

DESIGNER

features

performance

structural integrity

weight

cost

which must then be balanced with other

business goals

an outstanding product

to come up with the best designs

for Honda

31

Ergonomics Successes - Design

32

Ergonomics Successes - Designvent ducts on instrument panelbefore: 22 fasteners to connect defrost ducts to mid-upper comp of instrument panel

vent ducts on instrument panelafter: In-House Vibration Welded Assembly(Instrument Panel combi, defrost and A/C ducts)- assembly of five separate pieces into one- reduction of more than 30 tapping screws- reduced weight- fewer opportunities for rattles (dropped

screws)

33

Ergonomics Successes - Design

established NA Top Ten– looked at issues where all Honda plants in

NA had common problems– correlated ergo issues with quality and

productivity problems as well

34

Ergonomics Successes - Designdesign now to be “commonized”

across various models2008 Accord

35

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

fiscal year

inju

ry c

ount

Ergonomics Successesmid- to late-2000’s

– continued changes in the plant PLUS design changes• 2003 to 2011

– all injuries reduced by ~70% compared to end of FY 2002 and by ~85% to ~90% compared to late 1990’s

65%35%

ergonomic non-ergo

75%

25%

ergonomic non-ergo

41%

59%

ergonomic non-ergo

36

Ergonomics Successesevaluating

effectiveness of control measures

Plant Dept. ID #Project Name Project Start Date

(title) Date Counter-Measure Verified Effective

Overall, how did the BEFORE condition rate using ergo Guidelines?Green Yellow Red

Which Ergo Guidelines did you use?

What injuries have occurred from this task in the last 12 months?

Q

CD

M

Was this project more Proactive or Reactive?

Was this project more related to Design or Mfg.?

Counter-Measure Description:

CM Cost Labor hrs Date of CM

Expense Implementation

Investment

How did you gather Associate Input? Overall, how did the AFTER condition rate using ergo Guidelines?

Comfort Survey Green Yellow Red

At the Spot

Formal Meeting What injuries have occurred since CM implementation?Other__________

Q

CWhat other types of info is available? D

Root cause analysis M

Detailed ergo risk factor analysis

Recommendations Contact Information (name)Other__________ Phone number (with area code)

Plan Before the Counter- MeasureBefore Snapshot

X

SAF ERG 10 and 14

What other BEFORE

data indicates that

this task needs

improvement?

Do

After Snapshot X

X

The Counter- Measure

FC associates developed a new inspection station, which eliminates part lifting. It has openings in the table to help flip the parts over, and includes conveyers to move the parts. It is also smaller, which reduces reaching. A set of power rollers now allows associates to inspect vents without excessive neck bending. Adjustable platforms accommodate both tall and short associates.

Check/ Action Verify the Counter- Measures Eff ectiveness

XX

X

What other After

data shows CM had

an impact on

Business Goals?

Any recommendations to others

facing the same issue?

ProblemStatement

Check all that apply

(Improved)

X

Xthat apply

Disc Inspect

AEP FC 17

8/15/01

none

Joe Associate

937-498-4545

7/15/00

10/15/01

2 shoulder strains

Ferrous Casting inspection workstation for brake discs resulted in high force exertions and awkward wrist postures to lift and turn the parts, long reaches to get and discharge parts.

Plant Dept. ID #Project Name Project Start Date

(title) Date Counter-Measure Verified Effective

Overall, how did the BEFORE condition rate using ergo Guidelines?Green Yellow Red

Which Ergo Guidelines did you use?

What injuries have occurred from this task in the last 12 months?

Q

CD

M

Was this project more Proactive or Reactive?

Was this project more related to Design or Mfg.?

Counter-Measure Description:

CM Cost Labor hrs Date of CM

Expense Implementation

Investment

How did you gather Associate Input? Overall, how did the AFTER condition rate using ergo Guidelines?

Comfort Survey Green Yellow Red

At the Spot

Formal Meeting What injuries have occurred since CM implementation?Other__________

Q

CWhat other types of info is available? D

Root cause analysis M

Detailed ergo risk factor analysis

Recommendations Contact Information (name)Other__________ Phone number (with area code)

Plan Before the Counter- MeasureBefore Snapshot

X

SAF ERG 10 and 14

What other BEFORE

data indicates that

this task needs

improvement?

Do

After Snapshot X

X

The Counter- Measure

FC associates developed a new inspection station, which eliminates part lifting. It has openings in the table to help flip the parts over, and includes conveyers to move the parts. It is also smaller, which reduces reaching. A set of power rollers now allows associates to inspect vents without excessive neck bending. Adjustable platforms accommodate both tall and short associates.

Check/ Action Verify the Counter- Measures Eff ectiveness

XX

X

What other After

data shows CM had

an impact on

Business Goals?

Any recommendations to others

facing the same issue?

ProblemStatement

Check all that apply

(Improved)

X

Xthat apply

Disc Inspect

AEP FC 17

8/15/01

none

Joe Associate

937-498-4545

7/15/00

10/15/01

2 shoulder strains

Ferrous Casting inspection workstation for brake discs resulted in high force exertions and awkward wrist postures to lift and turn the parts, long reaches to get and discharge parts.

37

Ergonomics Successescommunicate and share

38

Ergonomics Successesdiffusion of ideas

39

Ergonomics – Does It Work?overall injury count decreasedpercentage of ergo cases also reduced

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

fiscal year

inju

ry c

ou

nt

ergo non-ergo~70% to ~75% ergo ~50% to ~40% ergo

40

Pitfalls and Challenges getting and using complete and correct data

– example – carpet install• original condition

– one-piece– ~27.6 pounds– resulted in several back injuries

» presumably from lifting• countermeasure

– asked Design Team to split carpet into two pieces– front = ~14.1 pounds, rear = ~13.9 pounds

– continued to experienceback-related incidents• too focused on weight of the part• did not consider location of where part

was being installed (work height)

41

Pitfalls and Challenges getting and using complete and correct data

42

Pitfalls and Challenges more complex products

– market-driven features– vehicle safety requirements

more complicated operations– more sensitive parts/components– global, flexible manufacturing

associate factors– “aging” workforce– increased diversity

43

Pitfalls and Challenges more with less

– resource allocation issues– avoiding “complacency”

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

fiscal year

inju

ry c

ou

nt

ergo non-ergo~70% to ~75% ergo ~50% to ~40% ergo

44

Future of Ergonomics at Honda2010’s and beyond – the focus

– production associate behavior• train associates on good techniques/work methods

– management behavior• more “at-the-spot” reviews of working conditions

– countermeasure activity• continue implementing ergo program elements

– promote more associate involvement– enhance existing medical management programs– improve training and expand work hardening and physical

conditioning for new hires/transfers– sustain efforts in eliminating/reducing risk factors

45

Future of Ergonomics at Honda2010’s and beyond – the focus

Training

Administrative CM

E–Side CM

D–Side CM

Ergo Risk Reduction Effectiveness

D–Side CMEliminates

Hazard

E–Side CMEliminates Hazard for Specific Group

Administrative CM

Training – Attempts to Change Behaviors

Ergo CM Hierarchy of Controls

Reduces Exposure to

Hazard

46

Future of Ergonomics at Honda2010’s and beyond – the focus

– supplement (NOT replace) current activities with specialized training and countermeasure activities to prevent human error and enhance human performance

47

Future of Ergonomics at Honda2010’s and beyond – the focus

– explore use of new technologies

– collaborate with research institutions• The Ohio State University• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University• American International College

48

Questions? Comments?