- Tytuł:
-
Analiza obciążenia pracą metodą OWAS
Workload analysis with the OWAS method - Autorzy:
- Lasota, A.
- Powiązania:
- https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/339706.pdf
- Data publikacji:
- 2013
- Wydawca:
- Polskie Towarzystwo Zarządzania Produkcją
- Tematy:
-
OWAS
ergonomia
ryzyko
MSD
workload
ergonomics
risk
MSDs - Opis:
- Production systems are a combination of physical elements such as machinery, equipment, tools and (most importantly) people. Furthermore, systems dependent on human’ operators are particularly vulnerable to problems associated with discomfort. This affects production quality and causes an increase in training costs and absenteeism. In addition, work performed by people is accompanied by physical effort, which can lead to the appearance of musculoskeletal discomfort (MSDs) among employees in the form of health problems. Factors influencing the risk of MSDs include employee posture at work, range of motion, strength, repetition and duration. The posture of a worker is affected by factors such as the job performed, workstation, work tools, their design and the anthropometric characteristics of employees. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the workload of employees and analyse risk factors using the OWAS method. Research sample: 122 postures of employees at work in manufacturing companies in selected workplaces were evaluated. Among the evaluated employees were machine operators (lathes, milling machines, bending machines) - which represented 48 postures (39% of all postures); packers - 30 postures (25%); fitters engaged in manual assembly - 27 postures (22%), and other workers who do manual work - postures 17 (14%). Method: The observation technique used was the OWAS method (Ovako Working Posture Analysis System) to allow assessment of the level of exposure to the risk of MSDs and the level of ergonomic interventions in the form of action categories (AC). Results: AC 1: 35% of all respondent postures, of which: 38% of the postures belonged to operators, 27% packers, 41% assemblers and 35% other employees. AC 2: 45% of all respondents postures (48%, 47%, 48%, 29%; of operators, packers, assemblers and other employees, respectively). AC 3: 12% of all respondents. postures, in which: 10% of the postures were of operators, 13% packers, 11% assemblers and 18% of the postures were of other employees. AC 4: 7% of all respondents. postures, of which: 13% were operators' postures, 0% packers' postures' 18% assemblers' postures and 7% of the postures were of other employees. Conclusions: 35% of the evaluated postures do not require ergonomic intervention. However, 19% of postures are associated with a significant risk of MSDs and need ergonomic attention soon/immediately. Improperly maintained back position (71% postures), shoulder (20% postures), legs (30% postures) and excessive external load (6% postures). Ergonomic intervention is necessary, related to the redesign of jobs, methods of work, workplace and the organizational positions.
- Źródło:
-
Zarządzanie Przedsiębiorstwem; 2013, 16, 3; 35-39
1643-4773 - Pojawia się w:
- Zarządzanie Przedsiębiorstwem
- Dostawca treści:
- Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł