Content uploaded by Edson Sidnei Maciel Teixeira
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Edson Sidnei Maciel Teixeira on May 28, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Industrial Manufacturing Workstations Suitability
for People with Disabilities: The Perception of Workers
Edson S.M. Teixeira
(✉)
and Maria Lucia L.R. Okimoto
Post Graduate Program in Design, Federal University of Paraná (UFPR),
General Carneiro St., 460, Curitiba, Brazil
edson.teixeira@ifsc.edu.br, lucia.demec@ufpr.br
Abstract. The inclusion processes of people with disabilities in industrial
production lines are being carried out. Thereby, getting to know the current
workstations is important for planning, designing and developing new assistive
technology products. Thus, this paper presents an analysis study of industrial
manufacturing workstations based on the perception of workers without disabil‐
ities. For this, it relies on a survey with a questionnaire given to 222 workers from
different processing industries. Analyzes are presented and interpreted in sets. It
establishes that the inclusion processes are happening, but still in a superficial
way. There is an inclusion gap directly related to the needs for modification and,
in reality, favoring the inclusion of workers with milder disabilities.
Keywords: Industrial manufacturing · Inclusion process · Workstations ·
Assistive products · Workers perceptions
1 Introduction
When talking about industrial manufacturing processes one must understand the
complexity that surrounds this condition. A manufacturing line is developed to meet the
manufacturing of products with quality and efficiency. Thereby, its steps are organized
so that the sequence follows production patterns that must be guaranteed by the workers
who work there. The entry of professionals into the work of these processes requires the
ability to develop a set of skills in an appropriate way. When a person with disabilities is
included in these processes, it is not always possible to organize the work in order to
reconcile existing activities with personal abilities. Thus, adaptation and inclusion
processes are necessary, which makes way for the development of new assistive products.
Assuming that the inclusion process is a reality, it is relevant to bring up the percep‐
tion of suitability of the current industrial workstations and to verify how the companies’
experience can contribute to this complex process. However, the verification of suita‐
bility from the s point of view of the disabled worker could lead to a restricted one, since
each person with disability could explain their difficulties. In order to understand in a
general way the current adequacy for disabled people, it is understood that the perception
of workers without disabilities would be more adequate. Moreover, product development
processes usually start from the overview of the current situation to the understanding of
the context and planning of a new product to be developed [1–5]. This stage is important
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
F. Rebelo and M. Soares (eds.), Advances in Ergonomics in Design,
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 588, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60582-1_49
for opening up possibilities for new assistive technology products aimed at improving the
quality of work of people with disabilities in industrial manufacturing.
Thus, the objective of this paper is to present the analysis of a survey aimed at the
pursuit of the perception of the suitability in the current industrial workstations, from
the point of view of workers without disabilities, taking as reference two cities in the
South of Brazil. This type of analysis contributes to the understanding of the current
conditions of inclusion and the methods used in practice by the manufacturing sector of
processing industries.
2 Theorical Framework
2.1 Industrial Manufacturing Workstations
New ways of organizing work emerged from increased deployment of flexible produc‐
tion systems around the world. This work philosophy generated a series of transforma‐
tions in the production strategies of the industries, which came against the current
common model of mass production, centered on hierarchy, standardization, routiniza‐
tion and exclusion of workers from the decision process. Thus, flexible production has
brought new premises, regarding a more flexible way of organizing workers, a partici‐
patory management, a greater decision-making power of the employees in relation to
production process, continuous training, demanding proactive, multipurpose employees
who solve problems and learn from their mistakes, in addition to equipment and factories
more flexible, in order to meet the greater variability of manufactured products [6–8].
In order to increase the possibilities of taking advantage of the technical and inter‐
personal skills of employees, employers have been using mechanisms to obtain func‐
tional flexibility. Among these mechanisms, some have been focused on the production
process itself, such as the technological innovations just-in-time, based on the zero
inventory premise, aiming at minimizing materials and inventories and, on cellular
production lines where workers have a series of functions in a set of operations or
machines, which characterizes his or her workstation. These mechanisms represent
advantages for organizations, as employees are involved in a participatory model in
order to plan, respond to production needs and collaborate on product quality [6]. Such
demands also require more flexible professionals with the ability to take on roles on
workstations, as well as participate in quality control circles and continuous improve‐
ment processes, previously restricted to specialists.
The type of production line adopted by the industry also affects the characteristics
of the new production premises. In accordance with [9], production lines are usually
subsets of production systems. Since there are several types of production systems, their
characteristics generate production lines specific to each product or process. In this
analysis, one must consider several characteristics, such as manual or automatic lines,
product flow, dedicated or flexible workstations, high or low production rate and others.
Production lines are complex systems. Understanding the production characteristics
requires a qualified analysis in order to facilitate the development of a specific design.
Thus, [10] suggest the classification of production lines into four different types: by
process, by product, fixed position and cellular. They also cite that each type of
Industrial Manufacturing Workstations Suitability 489
production line generates a specific layout, allowing them to be analyzed separately. In
this way, the production lines can be:
• By process, also called job shop or by function. It is the one where the machines and
stations with similar functions are grouped and the products transit through several
groups, without direct relation with a specific productive flow. Operators of this type
of line can become specialists in a particular machinery set.
• By product or by flow. It is one in which the workstations or the equipment are
arranged according to progressive stages through which the product transits, in the
direction of the specific productive flow of the product. In this type of production
line, the operators must have the flexibility to make different sets of operations in
several workstations.
• Fixed position is the type of production line that the equipment and the workstations
move to the product that is being processed, which usually remains fixed until its
complete transformation. Operators require flexibility and wide mobility to perform
multi-shift processes.
• Cellular is the line where different machines and workstations are sequenced
according to the path of the product, but in formats that allow one worker to operate
several at the same time. In order for this structure to be assembled, the products must
have similar procedures, known as families. In this way, the manufacturing cells can
be considered as a hybrid model, capable of absorbing characteristics of each types
of existing production lines.
It must then be considered that the definition of a work position is not restricted to
a single place where the worker carries out his or her activities. The wide variety of
operations is usually associated with displacement, mobility, and the ability to switch
between jobs, making decisions, and interfering with the productive process in an
organized fashion. Thus, in order to meet such functions, assistive devices must be
developed, enabling workers with different characteristics to meet the requirements of
the job in a harmonious manner and to obtain similar productive results on different
production lines.
2.2 Workers with Disabilities in Manufacturing
According [11], one in seven people has some kind of disability. This represents approx‐
imately 14% of the world’s population. However, this situation varies for each country
due to social, cultural, ethnic and other differences. In Brazil, [12] indicates that 23.9%
of Brazilians have some type of disability. When it comes to work, 57.3% of men with
disabilities and 37.8% of women with disabilities are employed. This number is still low,
which shows a difficulty in dealing with this public, since people with disabilities are
not grouped homogeneously. Disability is only one more factor of human diversity.
In agreement with [13], depending on classification, disabilities can be grouped into
some types such as sensory deficiencies, associated with visual and auditory deficien‐
cies; physical disabilities, related to mobility and orthopedic deficiencies; intellectual
disability related to learning, comprehension and concentration deficiencies; and
490 E.S.M. Teixeira and M.L.L.R. Okimoto
psychosocial disabilities including mental illness, maladaptive behaviors and mood
disorders, as well as multiple disabilities that fall into several categories.
What makes the inclusion process complex is the broad range of specific needs of
each individual. [13] also explains that the way to make a disabled person productive
for a workstation depends on the inclusion approach and the addressing of specific needs.
The complexity of disability analysis is significant and the development of universal
inclusion models are still a major challenge. In this way, a high variability requires the
attendance of a great range of specificities. A deaf person may require colleagues and
supervisors to communicate through sign language. However, a person with mobility
difficulties has the need of a layout adjusted to optimal accessibility. People with intel‐
lectual disabilities may need to work in stages and with an easy-to-understand sequence.
Thus, issues related to the productivity of people with disabilities should consider the
diversity of needs and the impact on individuals.
In this context of relations of complexity, it is necessary to understand how the
current process of inclusion is being treated, being it the basis for future development
of specific assistive products for the inclusion of workers with disabilities in the indus‐
trial production field.
3 Methodology
This research is classified as exploratory [14] for it provides greater familiarity with a
problem, in this case, the adequacy of workstations, as well as the discovery of the
perceptions of a target public. The research method is a survey with data collection by
means of a Likert-type scale questionnaire with 6 levels, where the respondent indicates
the level of agreement for a set of statements. The analysis of the data was made on the
average of the answers, defined as Average Ranking (AR), which indicates the average
level of agreement for each statement. The neutrality threshold is close to 3.50 AR and
average rankings above the neutrality limit are considered positive (agreement) and
below, negative (disagreement).
The target audience was composed of professionals from the manufacturing/produc‐
tion area employed in several large industries in the cities of Joinville and Curitiba,
southern region of Brazil. There was no selection of companies or types of workstations,
with the basic prerequisite being that the worker did not have any type of disability.
The questionnaires were answered by 222 workers from the processing industry,
whose profile identified in the initial questions showed that 78% of the respondents had
finished high school and 41% had technical vocational training. The average age was 26
and they had a more stable working condition, being the average time of employment
5 years and 3 months. In addition, 31% said that they had already worked or monitored
the activities of people with disabilities, even if for a short period. Only 11% said that
they performed their activities predominantly in a seated position and the remaining
performed tasks with workstation flexibility or moving around the factory.
Industrial Manufacturing Workstations Suitability 491
4 Results and Discussion
Based on the survey developed for the research, the results are presented from four sets
of answers: Company Adequacy, People Management Methods and Actions, Work of
People with Disabilities and Workplace Suitability.
4.1 Company Adequacy
This part of the research aimed to identify how the workers’ perceptions are in relation
to the companies’ efforts to adapt the general conditions of access and work in manu‐
facturing. Thus, it focused on six statement to verify their agreements.
Analyzing the data from the compilation of answers, one can observe a positive
average ranking (AR 4.10), which meets the greater agreement with the statements of
the set. All the statements of this set had an average ranking higher than 3.5.
The greater agreement of the set was based on the statement that the company needs
to modify its working conditions to receive a person with disability (AR 4.55). This
shows that workers are aware of the need for inclusion in enterprises in general, where
the means must be adapted to the characteristics of the people. It is then perceived a
demand for new assisted technologies. In addition, it is also understood that the need to
adapt workstations can already be seen as an obligation of the company to adapt its
conditions to disabled professionals.
Although change of working conditions for disabled is understood as a necessity,
when it comes to the industry that the professional is working on, the average ranking
values fall. The statement about adaptations of facilities in the respondent’s company
(AR 4.19) was below the need for adaptations for any company. It can be understood
that the workers’ industries still do not reach the expectation of adaptation necessary for
the inclusion of people with disabilities. The companies’ specific conditions also had
positive average rankings, such as the perception of existence of accessible information
on health and safety at work (AR 4.25) and the provision of Fire Brigade training for
the evacuation of people with disabilities (AR 4.00).
However, the lowest values of the statements set are in accordance and associated
with the perception of modification of signaling and equipment. In relation to workplace
signaling (AR 3.91), it can be understood that the average ranking value was perceived
from the workplaces of the respondents, that is, from their workstation. This situation
is also understood in relation to the statement of acquisitions or modifications of work
equipment (AR 3.67), such as assistive technologies. Thus, it can be understood that,
from the point of view of the worker, the perception of adequacy for people with disa‐
bilities decreases as they tap into the workplace. A company’s need for adequacy (AR
4.55) had a higher index than the adequacy achieved in the respondent’s industry (AR
4.19) and higher than in the workstation (AR 3.67).
In general, the result of grouping these statements indicates that the worker perceives
modifications and adaptations for people with disabilities performed by his or her
company. This is positive, for it demonstrates that activities associated to work adequacy
and inclusion of people with disabilities have emerged in the midst of the routine of the
manufacturing workers and are thus perceived. However, this view of adequacy is
492 E.S.M. Teixeira and M.L.L.R. Okimoto
reduced when approaching his or her workstation, where the professionals spend most
of their effort. When talking about work equipment regarding assistive devices and
means, this index is very close to a range of disagreement (AR below 3.5).
4.2 People Management Methods and Actions
People management decisions are very important to the success of the inclusion process
of people with disabilities. It is expected, within the industry, leaders prepared to direct
the adaptation activities, qualification and development of people. Thus, it is understood
that areas with Human Resources/People Management have to have inclusion strategies
aligned with direct manufacturing management, such as Leaders, Supervisors or Produc‐
tion Coordinators. In this way, actions related to these two sets of professionals may
have their perceptions evaluation by production workers. It should also be taken into
account that several professionals occupying leading positions in the manufacturing area
have their origin as production operators. It is important to know how the vision of some
leadership actions towards the current production workers is.
From this perspective, the aim was to understand the perception of methods and
actions from a set of nine statements.
At first, according to analyzed data, it is verified that the average ranking of the
statements set regarding methods and actions of people management (AR 3.52), is at
the limit of neutrality. It is also noticed that some statements had their index very close
to this limit, which indicates that the respondents had doubts in relation to some questions
of the set. Even though the use of the six-level Likert item forces respondents to
somehow agree, or disagree, average ranking too close to the neutrality limit cannot be
measured and interpreted.
Perhaps the most striking index has been the highest average ranking. The statement
that non-disabled employees need to be trained to work with people with disabilities
(AR 4.48) exalts a perception of qualification not very common in the manufacturing
area. In general, inclusion methods focus on the needs and characteristics of the indi‐
vidual with disabilities, organizing means, processes, tasks, etc., so this professional can
work properly. However, inclusion is not always a success, since it can still be an isolated
work, displaced from the context of people already working in production. Thus, inclu‐
sion itself is agreed and embraced by colleagues, but these understand that they need to
learn to work with this new professional, still unfamiliar to them.
Regarding the ability of immediate superiors to work with people with disabilities,
two statements indicated agreement. The first one, on the preparation of managers to
supervise the work of people with disabilities (AR 3.87) and the second on the aware‐
ness-raising of managers regarding inclusion (AR 3.82) had similar average rankings.
Even with values close to the neutrality limit, such values can be considered positive.
Regarding the training and qualification of all employees, including professionals with
disabilities (AR 3.97), agreement indicates that there is no discrimination or segregation
for training and general information.
The strategies of guiding workplaces towards people with disabilities were evaluated
through three statement. The lowest average ranking, with a high degree of disagree‐
ment, indicates that people with disabilities must work in sectors separated from people
Industrial Manufacturing Workstations Suitability 493
without disabilities (AR 1.77). This view of inclusion by manufacturing workers, which
had already appeared in the set regarding company adequacy, meets the understanding
of the inclusion process as real and necessary. It demonstrates that manufacturing
workers view the entry of people with disabilities into industrial workstations without
the need to segregate them in separate, isolated locations. Neither direct them to repet‐
itive tasks (AR 2.70), shown by disagreement with the statement on this subject.
Thereby, the high acceptance for the sharing of workstations between disabled and non-
disabled people by workers without disabilities can also be understood. On the other
hand, the compliance with the statement that only a few sectors are suitable for people
with disabilities to work (AR 3.98) may indicate that not all workstations are ready to
absorb professionals with disabilities with the appropriate adaptations and assistive
technologies. In a broader view of both statements and respondents’ perspective, it can
be interpreted that there should be no distinction between workplaces, but not all sectors
are in a position to include a worker with disability.
Two statements had an average raking close to the limit of neutrality. One on changes
and adaptations of working hours for people with disabilities (AR 3.34) and another on
the sensitization of working groups for inclusion (AR 3.71). It is understood that there
is no clear agreement or disagreement on the statements, which loses the value of inter‐
pretation.
4.3 Work of People with Disabilities
The perceptions about the work of disabled people from the point of view of workers
without disabilities were verified through eight statements. These express possible
differences between the performance of the two groups of workers. With a total average
ranking (AR 3.16) of disagreement for the statement set, the respondents indicated their
agreement with few statements regarding the differences in work performance for any
worker. Thus, there is little perception of difference between the labor of a person with
or without a disability, considering the factors of the statement set.
The highest average ranking of agreement obtained by the statement set regards the
possibility of people with disabilities to take up managerial positions of groups of people
without disabilities (AR 4.39). This value indicates an acceptance, albeit theoretically,
of the presence of the disabled worker at many points in the hierarchy of the production
area, including group leadership. As well as in the answers to the set of methods and
actions of people management, there is indication of comprehension of the process of
inclusion as something natural for the manufacturing worker, without distinction of
characteristics and career development.
Supporting the indication obtained, some statements indicate disagreement precisely
by forcing a position on possible differences in performance. The statements about the
quality of inferior work (AR 2.04) and low productivity (AR 2.33) of people with disa‐
bilities have obtained high disagreement, suggesting that these workers are not below the
average of the rest of the workers. In fact, not even above average, for the statements
regarding the greater commitment (AR 3.16) also indicated disagreement. In relation to a
greater accident propensity (AR 2.80), there was also significant disagreement. Thus, one
notices the perception of equality of work and results, like any manufacturing worker.
494 E.S.M. Teixeira and M.L.L.R. Okimoto
Three statements have not been evaluated nor interpreted, for they are very close to
the limit of neutrality. The statements regarding sitting position (AR 3.41), being more
stable in employment (AR 3.51) and presenting greater difficulties to work in flexible
workstation (AR 3.66) were considered neutral, without an agreement or disagreement
perception.
4.4 Workstation Suitability
One of the key points for the inclusion process of disabled people in industrial manu‐
facturing is precisely the preparation and adequacy of workstations, as well as the
development of appropriate assistive technologies. The worker must have broad execu‐
tion conditions of his or her activities, which can be verified by the current workstations.
Thus, through eleven statements, the perception of the workers was sought considering
the categories of disability and the verification of the existing adequacies, where the
total average ranking obtained for the statements set (AR 2.23) was of high disagree‐
ment.
The set of answers on workstation suitability had the lowest average ranking values.
However, the statement that people with disabilities can adequately perform any type
of work provide modified workstation structures (AR 3.80) had a slight agreement. This
question brings to light that inclusion is directly associated with the adequacy of the
means, devices, machines and processes of workstations, according to the respondents.
By associating the perceptions from the company adequacy statement set, which indicate
there should be no distinction between workstations, however not all sectors are in a
position to include a disabled worker, it is understood that, with the appropriate adap‐
tations, and assistive technologies, it is possible for a person with disabilities to work at
any station.
Specifically on the respondent’s workstation, the statements regarding the adequacy
of his or her station for people with disabilities (AR 2.23), if anyone with disability can
perform their activities (AR 2.18) and if the worker was already asked to provide
suggestions for the adequacy of their station for people with disabilities (AR 1.80) had
a high level of disagreement. These answers agree with the perceptions from the previous
sets, which already indicated that, from the point of view of manufacturing workers,
their stations are not suitable for inclusion.
As a final and complementary step, was sought to understand which categories could
be included to work in the current respondents’ stations. In this way, they were divided
into seven statements for analysis of the average ranking. The statements with high
disagreement was related to the adequacy of the station for blind people (AR 1.18), with
monocular vision (AR 2.40), wheelchair users (AR 1.80), with compromised arm move‐
ments (AR 1.55), with mild mental disability (AR 2.20) and with severe mental disability
(AR 1.31). It should be considered that respondents’ perceptions regarding the catego‐
ries and types of disability and the characteristics that impact the work performance may
be scattered or even null, but the results indicate a rejection of the idea that current
workstations are fit to receive most of people with disabilities.
Industrial Manufacturing Workstations Suitability 495
On the other hand, the statement that deaf people can work adequately in current
workstation (AR 4.11) had a high agreement index, probably because they needed fewer
assistive developments and modifications.
5Conclusion
From the set of responses of the survey, one can have an overview of the conclusions
drawn for the research. Initially, it appears that, in general, industries have made changes
and adjustments for the inclusion of workers with disabilities. However, from the view‐
point of workers without disabilities, such necessary adaptations are not reaching the
workstation through assistive devices and technologies. Just as respondents indicate that
their workstations are not adequate for inclusion, they do not indicate that workers with
disabilities should work in isolation or apart from the rest. Thus, there is still difficulty
in allocating these workers in the current conditions. On the other hand, there is a broad
acceptance of inclusion of professionals with disabilities, with the only restriction being
the training to understand a better the way to do it.
While respondents point out that inclusion should happen naturally, they also point
that few people with disabilities are already able to work at their current workstation.
This gap raised by the research shows that the process of inclusion is taking place in a
more superficial way, without real opportunity for all people. It must be considered that,
when it is necessary to include people with different abilities, it is necessary to make the
adaptations that would enable the work of both disabled and non-disabled people. Such
modifications include assistive products and structural adjustments, without which
inclusion is limited to workers with minor limitations.
Considering the purpose of this paper, to present and analyze a survey for the search
of the perception of workers without disabilities on the current industrial manufacturing
workstations, a research with data collection by means of a questionnaire was developed.
The process of analysis of the research was presented, emphasizing the highlights that
represent the perceptions regarding the current workstations. Thus, it was possible to
interpret the answers in a qualitative way and to understand how current production
workers view the moment of inclusion in industrial workstations, its difficulties and
conditions to carry out this process.
Finally, it is recommended for further studies to be carried out directly with current
production managers, in order to compare with the resulting perception of this work.
From a similar study, one can verify the reasons for this lack of inclusion and how
assistive products and modifications for people with disabilities are developed in prac‐
tice. This understanding may increase the database and find appropriate ways to guide
this complex inclusion process, generating references for the development of assistive
technologies for industrial manufacturing.
References
1. Baxter, M.R.: Product Design. Chapman & Hall, London (1995)
2. Pahl, G., Beitz, W.: Engineering Design—A Systematic Approach. Springer, London (1996)
496 E.S.M. Teixeira and M.L.L.R. Okimoto
3. Lobach, B.: Design Industrial. Editora Edgard Blücher, São Paulo (2001)
4. Rozenfeld, H., et al.: Gestão de desenvolvimento de produtos: uma referência para melhoria
do processo. Editora Saraiva, São Paulo (2006)
5. Merino, G.S.A.D.: Metodologia para a prática projetual do design: com base no projeto
centrado no usuário e com ênfase no design universal. Tese de doutorado. Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis (2014)
6. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D.: The Machine that Changed the World. Free Press, New
York (1990)
7. Liker, J.K.: The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest
Manufacturer. McGraw Hill, New York (2004)
8. Mann, D.: Creating a Lean Culture: Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions. CRC Press, Boca
Raton (2014)
9. Papadopoulos, C.T., O’Kelly, M.E.J., Vidalis, M.J., Spinellis, D.: Analysis and design of
discrete part production lines. In: Springer Optimization and Its Applications, vol. 31, p. 279.
Springer, New York (2009). doi:10.1007/978-0-387-89494-2_1
10. Davis, M.M., Chase, R.B., Auilano, N.J.: Fundamentos da administração da produção, 3rd
edn. Bookman, Porto Alegre (2001)
11. ILO – International Labour Organization: Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities (2014). http://
www.ilo.int/skills/areas/inclusion-of-persons-with-disabilities/lang–en/index.htm
12. Oliveira, L.M.B.: Cartilha do Censo 2010: pessoas com deficiência. Secretaria Nacional de
Promoção dos Direitos da Pessoa com Deficiência, Brasília (2012)
13. Powers, T.: Recognizing Ability: The Skills and Productivity of Persons with Disabilities—
Literature Review. International Labour Organization (2008)
14. Gil, A.C.: Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. Atlas, São Paulo (2002)
Industrial Manufacturing Workstations Suitability 497
