44 ISE Magazine | www.iise.org/ISEmagazine

When productive resources are arranged into

a small cluster dedicated to a narrow family of

products, services or customers, we call it a cell.

The concept, originating as cellular manufac-

turing, may also be called cellular production,

cellular operations, cellular organization, cel-

lular layout or cellular management. Whatever the name, if

done reasonably well it is beneﬁcial in most ways in which we

measure effective operational performance, including:

• Flow time, ﬂow distance, ﬂoor space, quality, ﬂexibility and

cost.

• Use of/requirements for containers, handling equipment

and tools.

• Simplicity in scheduling, operational transactions and cost

determination.

• Employee skills and capabilities, engagement and work life.

• Ergonomics, an aspect seldom recognized but foremost in

this article.

Cellular conﬁgurations are often seen in layout terms –

groupings into small product-focused clusters rather than by

its commonplace but problematic “opposites”: (a) geographi-

cally separable processes/shops, each doing only a segment or

component of a whole product or service; or (b) processes ar-

ranged along a complex multiproduct production line or as-

sembly line. Cellular conﬁgurations may be largely or wholly

manual; partly manual and partly automated (human opera-

tion of equipment); or entirely automated, in which ergonom-

ics issues are not relevant.

Among those workaday conﬁgurations of people, work-

space and equipment, some of the ergo/human factor impacts

are in the nature of bodily and physical avoidance. Other

impacts are bodily and physically enhancing. Still others are

cognitive, such as mental and work-life factors, displeasure vs.

enjoyment. Speciﬁc to the theme of this article, well designed

and functioning cells provide the following:

The ergonomic

dividends of cellular

production

Properly designed work clusters

can ease physical, mental strains

By Richard J. Schonberger

July 2020 | ISE Magazine 45

46 ISE Magazine | www.iise.org/ISEmagazine

The ergonomic dividends of cellular production

The avoidance of – lifting; heavy lifting; long reaches;

repetitive motions; long standing or sitting in place; and long

standing or sitting in place with repetitive motions, long

reaches or heavy lifting.

The enhancement of – task variety in place; task variety

in association with multibody movements; task variety in as-

sociation with low-strain multibody movements; task variety

including steps between adjacent workstations; task variety

encompassing steps among multiple workstations in a single

cell; and task variety among multiple workstations extending

to adjacent cells

Cognitive, work life and mental factors – feelings

of comfort and safety; closely linked work teams with com-

mensurate social-interaction beneﬁts; all cell team members

recording job frustrations and safety issues – primary data

for process improvement efforts; cell members tracking their

team performance, for key improvement criteria, on visually

prominent trend charts; cell stations and job rotations geared

to expertise, experience, interests, aspirations of each member,

captured and visually displayed as versatility charts.

All these are characteristics of best practices in cellular man-

agement. Moreover, they are neatly encompassed in a single

sentence from leading ergonomics literature: “Ergonomics

promotes a holistic approach to work systems design and man-

agement that considers the physical, cognitive, social, organi-

zational, environmental and other relevant factors” (Interna-

tional Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, Waldemar

Karwowski editor, 2001). The following discussion brings out

ways in which cells encompass those factors.

Cell design and interlaced ergonomics

Ergonomic issues are plentiful in connection with the batch-

and-queue system, assembly lines and one-off production for

an operator of a lone process. Those issues tend to be singular

in form, generally meaning applicable to a sole operator and

a limited set of motions. In contrast, the cellular mode is less

about attenuated ergo issues and more about intertwined ergo

solutions. The following explications apply to cells operating

in a large range of modes, from high-mix job-order to low-

mix repetitive operations.

Mobility. Much of the ergo beneﬁts of cells has to do with

avoiding the numbing effects of being stuck in limited-motion

jobs. Being brought together in a cell makes it easy for team

members to learn each other’s jobs and rotate among them, ne-

cessitating that the cell population is not overly large (e.g., sin-

gle-digit numbers). Done right, cross-training with frequent

job rotation becomes the norm, through natural inclinations

of the cell team and/or management policies. A versatility ma-

trix, prominently displayed at the cell, lists each member across

the horizontal and the various tasks or responsibilities each is

qualiﬁed for along the vertical.

Cross-training with job rotation is, in itself, ergonomically

valued in that it avoids spatial rigidity. The mode often entails

standup work and the elimination of chairs. Further ergonom-

ic beneﬁts accrue in the common cell conﬁguration in which

a member tends two, sometimes more, adjacent stations, thus

requiring a step or two forward and back in each cycle. In

special cases where sitting is required – such as intensive work

looking down through a microscope – extended job rotation

becomes an ergonomic necessity; for example, a daily cycle of

two hours on task and two hours off (that “off ” time entailing

rotation preferably into a standup operation).

Owed to short ﬂow distances, the cellular conﬁguration

forestalls potential bodily aches and strains attendant to lifting

and moving materials. Gravity-feed devices, perhaps as simple

as wooden ramps seen in one plant, send the product to the

next stations. Where lifting and carrying is required, good

cell/ergo design calls for small containers and weight-limited

carry-loads.

Coordination and aspiration. Aside from physical ergo

aspects, the cross-trained, job-rotating cell member gains

whole-process experience, including broadened awareness of

which jobs and operations are difﬁcult, tiring and body-strain-

ing. In such an environment cell associates are likely to recog-

nize and become favorable to process improvement, especially

aimed at worst jobs and prominently including ergonomic is-

sues. Among better ways to tap such engagement proclivities

is for the cell team to establish its own “rule” of every member

recording at least one frustration every day. Those frustrations

accumulate into a targeted improvement agenda that gets at

deep-seated work/life aggravations as well as issues that get in

the way of doing the job humanely, safely and right ( “Frus-

tration-Driven Process Improvement,” Schonberger, Business

Horizons, 2018).

In a high state of maturity, cell members come to know

each other’s likes and dislikes, stronger and weaker capabilities

and career aspirations. The members act together to distrib-

ute tasks, jobs, responsibilities and job rotation accordingly.

For example, one member with lofty career ambitions might

pursue mastery of enough of the cells’ skills and responsibili-

ties to be designated as cell leader or lead-person and be so

recognized on the versatility matrix. The same or a different

member may be designated on the matrix as qualiﬁed trainer

of other members in certain jobs or tasks.

Cells, plural. In general practice, the term is not cell, sin-

gular, but cells, plural. A single cell is beneﬁcial, but the pre-

ferred cellular conﬁguration is that of a building or ﬂoor or-

ganized into two or more cells, each with its own equipment

and dedicated to its own product or customer family, as if each

were a company unto itself. With two or more cells in a facil-

ity, cell teammates become cross-trained within their cells and

before long with associates in other nearby cells.

In advanced cases, cell teams may include certain of their

own support staff, such as a process engineer, a buyer-planner,

July 2020 | ISE Magazine 47

an accountant, and/or a customer service rep. Each support

person may be shared with two or more nearby cells. For ex-

ample an engineer, a buyer-planner or other professional may

have a desk located astride two cells and could even ﬁll in

occasionally as a production operative. In such cases, every

member, operative or professional acquires whole-process

knowledge and competitive awareness, a high form of cogni-

tive ergonomic beneﬁts.

Simplicity and control. The cellular mode simpliﬁes

systems of planning, scheduling and control. Planning and

scheduling are straightforward, involving use of equipment

and materials within the cell, plus externally supplied materi-

als (perhaps by kanban). Simple ﬂows from station to station

minimize or obviate needs for a planner or scheduler and re-

lated transactions, a system of high visuality easily managed by

the cell team.

As for control, cells have little use for conventional “aggre-

gated and monetized (accounting system) indicators,” calling

instead for measuring performance in “natural units,” such as

throughput time, setup and changeover time, various qual-

ity/rework indicators and stoppages and their causes. These

indicators may be on display, visually and graphically within

the cell, and updated by cell members and/or the professionals

(engineers, accountants) assigned to the cell. All of this adds to

feelings by cell members of having control of key elements of

their work lives.

The disuse of a monetized control system is accompanied

by reduced and simpliﬁed activities for determining costs of

produced items and costs of the many ﬂows within, to and

from the cells. That is because a cell acts as a cost-containment

center: The cell “owns” the ﬂoor space upon which it rests, the

equipment and tools within, the cell’s direct labor and direct

supervision (if any) and staffers assigned to the cell. The costs

of all those resources are contained within the cell and rather

easily totaled up as needs for costs arise.

However, by advanced thinking in management account-

ing, those costs no longer need be determined on a regular and

frequent basis. Cost accounting activities may instead be re-

served for special, infrequent decision-making purposes such

as when the cell team needs to consider costly new equipment

or equipment overhaul, costly expansion or re-layout of the

area and the like. These days, an accountant (maybe locat-

ed with the cell) may make use of the activity-based costing

(ABC) methodology, which greatly improves the validity of

costing. Thus, the primary indicators visually posted within

the cell are readily understood and related to by cell members,

further improving cognitive ergonomics.

Use in the ﬁeld

These points about the connectivity between cellular man-

agement and ergonomics offer two concluding comments in

regard to ﬁeld implementations. First, designers of cells should

be fully aware of the multiple, closely related ergonomic ben-

eﬁts of the cellular form. That includes weighing the merits of

the various aspects of cells to include their ergonomic beneﬁts,

as well as giving weight to the ergonomic penalties of omitting

certain features of good cell design.

Second, those in the practice of ergonomic engineering

should treat the subject expansively, to include fostering the

cellular form as another approach to gaining ergonomic ben-

eﬁts. For researchers in industrial and systems engineering, this

article suggests building linkages between cells and ergonom-

ics into their theoretical works and pursuing cellular-ergo re-

search in special contexts such as health care, and in special

conditions such as virtual cells. 

Richard J. Schonberger is a Bellevue, Washington-based independent

researcher/author and member of the IISE Industry Advisory Board.

Formerly a practicing IE, he later joined the faculty of the University of

Nebraska, becoming George Cook Professor in operations management

and infosystems, and later afﬁliate professor in management science at

the University of Washington. He has published 16 books and 200-

plus articles, with honors including the 1995 Shingo Institute Acad-

emy, 1990 British Institution of Production Engineers’ International

Award in Manufacturing Management and 1998 IIE Production and

Inventory Control Award.

Virtual ergo conference

set for Aug. 4-6

The 2020 Applied Ergonomics Conference will be held as a

virtual event Aug. 4-6 after the originally scheduled event March

16-19 in Louisville, Kentucky, was postponed by the coronavirus

pandemic.

In addition to participation in the virtual event, other services

will also be provided to those who registered for the March

event, including full registration for the 2021 AEC. Registrants

of the March 2020 conference will be given access to the AEC

2020 virtual conference at no extra cost and will be automatically

registered for AEC 2021, allowing attendance at next year’s

conference at this year’s costs.

Attendees will earn CEUs for professional development and

have access to presentations and exhibitors. Details on the

virtual conference schedule are available at www.iise.org/AEC.