scieee AI-readable full text Open interactive document viewer

Ergonomics-Aware Task Allocation and Scheduling in Manufacturing

Peyman Yasari; El-Houssaine Aghezzaf; Dieter Claeys

Publisher
Zenodo
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.17435282
Repository
zenodo.org
Language
en

Abstract

Industry 5.0 emphasizes human-centricity, with worker well-being as a core pillar. Among the various aspects of well-being, physical ergonomics plays a critical role. In Europe, nearly 60% of workers experience ergonomic problems at least once during their careers, and 40% of them are ultimately compelled to leave the workforce due to permanent incapacity caused by such issues. In response, this research incorporates ergonomic considerations into task allocation and scheduling. We adopt the KIM method, a comprehensive ergonomic risk assessment tool, to quantify the ergonomic stress imposed on operators when assigned a set of tasks. A Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model is developed for the Dual-Resource-Constrained Flexible Job Shop Scheduling Problem (DRC-FJSP), incorporating a set of complex, ergonomics-related constraints. To demonstrate the flexibility and broader applicability of the approach, we also present a use case for workforce scheduling. Results from both cases demonstrate that the proposed solutions respect workers' resilience thresholds while still optimizing productivity KPI—avoiding the pitfall of purely well-being-focused, non-productive outcomes.

Full text

Workforce scheduling: Assignment of Operators to workstations and time slots Maximizing the Total Competency Matching Score (TCMS) Considering: Ergonomics-Aware Task Allocation and Scheduling in Manufacturing Peyman Yasari, El-Houssaine Aghezzaf, Dieter Claeys DRC-FJSP MILP model: Min 𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥 Considering: ✓Ergonomic loads ✓Classical scheduling constraints KIM method: •Comprehensive •Commonly used •Provides composite load score for several tasks Ergonomic Assessment Ergo-aware Ergo-NOTaware peyman.y[email protected] Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design ISyE@UGent Ergo-aware Ergo-NOTaware Operators 6:00 - 7:50 8:00 - 9:50 10:00 - 11:50 12:30 - 14:20 14:30 - 16:20 1WS 5 WS 4 2WS 1 WS 4 WS 4 WS 4 3WS 1 WS 3 WS 3 WS 5 4WS 1 WS 1 5WS 2 WS 2 WS 1 6WS 3 WS 3 WS 3 WS 3 7WS 1 WS 1 WS 3 WS 3 8WS 2 WS 1 WS 4 9WS 5 WS 5 WS 5 WS 5 10 WS 1 WS 1 WS 1 11 WS 4 WS 4 WS 1 WS 1 TCMS = 35,5 Operators 6:00 - 7:50 8:00 - 9:50 10:00 - 11:50 12:30 - 14:20 14:30 - 16:20 1WS 5 WS 5 WS 5 WS 5 2WS 1 WS 1 WS 1 WS 1 3WS 4 WS 1 WS 1 WS 1 4WS 1 WS 1 5WS 4 WS 4 WS 4 WS 4 6WS 3 WS 5 WS 3 7WS 3 WS 3 WS 1 8WS 5 WS 4 9WS 3 WS 2 WS 3 WS 3 10 WS 4 WS 1 WS 1 11 WS 1 WS 3 WS 2 WS 2 TCMS = 37 Read More! Contact Industry 5.0 Cognitive well-being Occupational well-being Social well-being, etc. Physical well-being Musculoskeletal disorder 3 out of 5 workers in the EU Well-being Incorporating human factors into operator-task allocation and scheduling Workload (Tasks) Workload (Tasks) Hard Hard Hard Hard Easy Moderate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Operator Ergonomic load score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Operator Ergonomic load score FEARS 2025 Required number of operators Operators’ availability Competency scores Ergonomics 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Permanent work incapacities Absences longer than 3 days Absences longer than two weeks All the costs related to health issues Impact of WRMSDs Scenario Ergo - NOTaware Standard ergo-aware Individual ergo-aware (1) Individual ergo-aware (2) TCMS 37 35,5 34,5 34,5 Threshold None (48) 48 for all Operator-specific Operator-specific Overloaded 3 0 0 0 WS P1 P2 P2 P2 P3 12 3 3 2 3 20 2 1 0 0 30 2 2 2 2 41 1 1 2 2 50 1 3 1 1 Operators WS 1 WS 2 WS 3 WS 4 WS 5 11 0,5 1 21 1 1 1 31 1 1 1 1 41 1 0,5 50,5 1 1 0,5 60,5 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 1 80,5 1 0,5 1 1 91 1 0,5 1 10 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 Operators 6:00 -7:50 8:00 - 9:50 10:00 - 11:50 12:30 - 14:20 14:30 - 16:20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 WS Intensity 17 23 35 46,5 57 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ergonomic load score Operator 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ergonomic load score Operator