دانلود ترجمه مقاله تاثیر پذیری مهندسی انعطاف پذیری از عوامل ارگونومی کلان طراحی سازمان و مدیریت

• فهرست مطالب:

چکیده
۱ مقدمه و مرور ادبیات
۱ ۱ ماکروارگونومی
۲ ۱ مهندسی انعطاف پذیری
۳ ۱ تعریف مسئله
۲ رابطه بین ماکروارگونومی و مهندسی انعطاف پذیری
۳ روش
۱ ۳ طراحی پرسشنامه
۱ ۱ ۳ پرسشنامه مهندسی انعطاف پذیری
۲ ۱ ۳ پرسشنامه ماکروارگونومی
۲ ۳ تحلیل پوششی داده ها (DEA)
۳ ۳ مدل کاربردی
۴ آزمایش
۱ ۴ متغیرهای ورودی و خروجی
۵ نتایج و بحث
۱ ۵ مقایسه نتایج با تست LSD
۶ نتیجه گیری

• بخشی از ترجمه:

هدف اصلی مطالعه حاضر پی بردن به تاثیر ماکروارگونومی بر آیتم های RE با روش DEA در مورد پالایشگاه گاز بود. اولاً، مفهوم ماکروارگونومی و RE مطرح گردید؛ سپس دو پرسشنامه براساس ماکروارگونومی ( عوامل ODAM) و آیتم های RE تهیه گردید. آلفا کرونباخ محاسبه و مقدارش ۹۰ درصد بود. در بخش بعدی، مدلهای مناسب برای این سیستم مطرح گردید و در ادامه تاثیر متغیرهای ODAM بر هر یک از آیتم های RE یک به یک با روش DEA موردارزیابی قرار گرفت. این اولین مطالعه ای است که تاثیرات ماکروارگونومی بر مهندسی انعطاف پذیری را با رویکرد DEA مورد بررسی قرار می دهد. نتایج مدل DEA (1) نشان داد ماکروارگونومی بیشترین تاثیر را بر متغیرهای تعهد و خودسازمانی داشت. مقایسه های جفتی بین تاثیر ماکروارگونومی بر هر یک از آیتم های RE توسط نرم افزار SPSS ( با استفاده از آزمون LSD) انجام و نشان داده شده است که عامل ODAM بیشترین تاثیر را بر تعهد و خودسازمانی داشته و یادگیری، انعطاف پذیری، افزونگی، و آگاهی در رتبه های بعدی جای دارند.

• بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Introduction and literature view 1.1. Macroergonomics In the 1950s, the ergonomics field began in response to human–machine mismatches, especially in aviation (Chapanis, 1965). The 21st century is evidenced by unprecedented technology and complexity and in part this has produced renewed work system design challenges. For example, in healthcare, nurses and other staff are routinely working 12 h shifts. Healthcare organizational structures have changed, mismatches exist between human staff and medical technology and the drive to reduce cost has created efficiencies at the expense of effectiveness and human personnel wellbeing. Thus, medical errors and the associated human and financial costs are of great concern in this industry. In the military, ‘‘friendly fire’’ incidents are making the headlines. Manufacturing has been rapidly migrating to such countries as China. Aviation is also challenged by reduced demand and the need to reduce costs. In the US construction industry, workers are experiencing safety and health incidents at an alarming rate. It is not yet clear why other countries have lower incidence rates, nor why in the US certain ethnic sub-groups experience more incidents than others. However, as recognized in Europe, it is suspected that a combination of managerial, design and cultural factors will be implicated (Haslam et al., 2005). The service sector is plagued by work design issues and human–computer interaction needs are extensive. Virtually, every industry is challenged and these needs go beyond the human–machine interface level of solution. These examples and others suggest the need for a large system approach as offered by macro ergonomics (Kleiner, 2005). Macro- ergonomics is concerned with the analysis, design, and evaluation of work systems. The term work is used herein to refer to any form of 3 human effort or activity, including recreation and leisure pursuits. As used herein, system refers to sociotechnical systems. These systems may be as simple as a single individual using a hand tool or as complex as a multinational organization. A work system consists of two or more persons interacting with some form of (1) job design, (2) hardware and/or software, (3) internal environment, (4) external environment, and (5) an organizational design (i.e., the work system’s structure and processes). Job design includes work modules, tasks, knowledge and skill requirements, and such factors as the degree of autonomy, identity, variety, meaningfulness, feedback, and opportunity for social interaction. The hardware typically consists of machines or tools (Hendrick & Kleiner, 2001). Coupled with the need to attend to the larger system is the need to yield significant results. In this context, it appears that ergonomists like others need to cost-justify their interventions (Beevis and Slade, 2005). Macro ergonomics may be a way to aid this pursuit Macro ergonomics is concerned with the analysis, design, and evaluation of work systems. The term work is used herein to refer to any form of human effort or activity, including recreation and leisure pursuits (Hendrick & Kleiner, 2002). A macro-ergonomics strategy, aiming at optimizing the sociotechnical system and studying the effect of organizational structures on human behavior and on safety. Macroergonomics are derived from the Total Quality Management principles (Carayon, 2003), which focus on the conditions required to improve a system as a whole, by acting mainly on (i) the number, training and satisfaction of staff members, (ii) equipment quality and equipment maintenance, (iii) improvement of the physical environment, (iv) quality of work processes, and (v) economic production that is sufficient in quantity and quality. This is not only an analysis method, but also an approach of the design of socio-technical systems 4 (Carayon, 2006; Clegg, 2000), presenting the characteristic of being systemic (treating jointly the technical and organizational aspects), participative, and ongoing. In macro ergonomics technology that is named “interface technology of humanorganization – environment-machine”, all four components of technical-social systems is considered, however the main focus is relationship between organizational design with technology used in the system in order to optimizing system – human function. Macro ergonomics is a top-down sociotechnical system approach to the design of work systems and the application of the overall work-system design of the human-job, human-machine, and human-software interfaces (Hendrick & Kliener, 2001). Although various ergonomists had written about the importance of a true systems approach and considering organizational and management factors in ergonomics, the formal beginning of macroergonomics as an identifiable subdiscipline had its roots in the work of the Human Factors Society’s Select Committee on Human Factors Futures, 1980- 2000(Hendrick& Kliener, 2001). For the human factors/ergonomic discipline to be truly effective, and responsive to the foreseeable requirements of the next two decades and beyond, there was a strong need to integrate organizational design and management (ODAM) factors into research and practice.