R. Seva et al HFESA 47th Annual Conference 2011. Ergonomics Australia - Special Edition

Case study Workplace Efficiency Improvement for Jeepney Drivers in Metro Rosemary R. Seva, Jeric Daniel M. Axalan and Anne Rhea P. Landicho Human Factors and Ergonomics Center, Industrial Engineering Department, De La Salle University, Manila,

Abstract Background: The jeepney is the most popular means of transportation in the Philippines. A jeepney is a long utility vehicle, like a mini-, manufactured by local companies, that can accommodate from 13 to 23 passengers. The current design of jeepneys, however, exposes its drivers to musculoskeletal discomfort and unnecessary motion. Aims: The study aims to identify any physical ergonomic hazards in the jeepney driver’s workspace and to develop an analytical model of the workspace that will address any identified hazards and improve driver comfort. The re-design aims to improve the awkward postures and eliminate the unnecessary tasks that are currently performed by jeepney drivers. Method: The dimensions of the jeepney were evaluated against anthropometric measurements previously collected from 100 drivers. Postures assumed by the drivers were evaluated using Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). An analytical prototype of the driver’s workspace was developed using Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application (CATIA) software. A number of design considerations were included in two alternative options for the workspace re- design for the collection component of the driver’s tasks and two alternative options were identified for the design of the money holder in the analytical prototype. Results: Based on the analysis conducted, the dimensions of the driver’s workspace were not fitted to 95th percentile of the population. The workstation resulted in awkward driving postures which were identified using the RULA with scores of 3 and 4 for hands on steering wheel and hand on shifting gear, respectively. The action of reaching backward to provide passengers with change, as evaluated from the task analysis, was proven to be unnecessary. The proposed re-design of the jeepney driver’s workspace was able to incorporate appropriate dimensions that enabled the proper location of vehicle controls, considering anthropometric constraints of reach, height, strength, and posture. RULA scores obtained from an analytical simulation showed a decrease in awkward postures. Responses by jeepney drivers were also favourable for the re-design of the fare collection system. Conclusion: The proposed re-design of the jeepney driver’s workspace was able to address the problems encountered by drivers. However, there is a need to make a full-scale prototype in order to test its overall acceptability. This study may be used by future researchers to further improve the design of the jeepney. Manufacturers could also tackle issues of vibration and force exerted on the steering wheel, pedals, and while shifting gear, which can also influence driver discomfort.

©Seva et al: Licensee HFESA Inc.

Background arrangements, drivers may extend their driving hours to 18 and then rest the next day. One reason for the popularity The jeepney is the second most popular means of of the jeepney is its low acquisition cost, durability, and transportation in the Philippines, comprising 30% of all large passenger capacity. The jeepney was designed for short registered vehicles in 2007 (1). The jeepney is a utility vehicle distance travelling of about 1 to 1.5 hours. The passenger seats that is manufactured by local companies and is uniquely are not very comfortable, and the vehicle is usually cramped, Filipino in its aesthetic design. Some jeepneys are bought when at full passenger capacity. Drivers have a tendency to newly manufactured, but approximately half of those plying overload the vehicle, especially during rush hours, in order to the streets are reconditioned old units or manufactured earn more. Within the jeepney, the driver’s workspace was not from scrap materials and surplus parts. The design is usually designed with comfort in mind, so drivers can assume various customized by the owner in terms of body design and positions in order to ease discomfort from static postures. capacity. As such, jeepneys can accommodate from 13 to 23 Since passengers often only spend a few minutes inside a passengers, depending on the length of the body. Jeepney jeepney, the focus of this study was on the comfort of the drivers often work long shifts that can extend up to 18 hours, driver in the context of the tasks performed and their working if the need arises. The length of the working hours is usually environment. In , where there are many dictated by the owner of the unit and the earnings of the jeepneys, the driver also performs the task of a conductor. driver. Some drivers share the jeepney with other drivers, so The driver collects the fare from each passenger, calculates may only work every other day. Often with shared jeepney the change required, if there is any, gets the correct change

Corresponding author: Rosemary R. Seva. Email – [email protected]

[ 1 ] R. Seva et al HFESA 47th Annual Conference 2011. Ergonomics Australia - Special Edition

from the money holder, and then reaches behind his head Method and hands any change to the passenger. The driver performs these activities countless times throughout the day, which is Postural analysis both physically and mentally exhausting. In a related study, The first phase of the study involved understanding Barayuga et al. (2) designed a seat for the jeepney driver the problems encountered by drivers while driving and aimed at easing the pain from the awkward postures they collecting . Postures of the drivers were observed and experience throughout the day. The authors attributed these documented for further analysis using the Rapid Upper pains to the poor design of the seat, which lacks adjustability, Limb Assessment (RULA). RULA is a survey method that seatedhas no headrest, workers and (3). is not The often method fitted to assesses the driver’s biomechanical body is applicable and in postural investigating loading seated workers on the (3). body,The method with dimensions. The current study, however, only focused on assesses biomechanical and postural loading on the body, particularthe driver’s attention immediate to workspace, the neck, seat trunk design, and andupper their limbs with. It particularconsiders attention the angles to the formedneck, trunk by and the upper limbs limbs. and ratesphysical them comfort. according The mental to a codingworkload system. in collecting The fares final scoreIt considers obtained the anglesfrom formedusing bythe the method limbs and determines rates them and returning change was not considered. Some ergonomics according to a coding system. The final score obtained from theissues kind immediately of intervention apparent that from needs the driver’s to be workconducted. tasks Fourusing likelythe method postures determines of the the drivers kind of wereintervention analysed: that (i)were both non-conformance arms on the steeringof the workspace wheel; design (ii) right to Filipino arm to theneeds gear; to (iii) be conducted.taking payment Four likely from postures a passenger; of the drivers and (iv)anthropometric taking money dimensions; from the arm extensionmoney holder.brought about Thes bye postureswere analysed: were (i)chosen both arms because on the steeringthey were wheel; awkward (ii) right taking and giving change towards the back of the vehicle; and arm to the gear; (iii) taking payment from a passenger; and (iv) andawkward could driving potentially postures, be due improved to the location by changingof the controls the designtaking of money the workspace. from the money Each holder. posture These was postures analysed were using(Figure RULA 1). Thisand studythe average aims to identify scores physical are shown ergonomic in Table 1.chosen because they were awkward and could potentially be hazards in the jeepney driver’s workspace and to develop an improved by changing the design of the workspace. Each posture was analysed using RULA and the average scores are analytical model of the workspace that would addressTable any1 Posture Scores identified hazards and improve driver comfort. The final shown in Table 1. design should be able to reduce the impact Postureof any ergonomic Average RULA Score hazards brought by the workspace, in terms of driving Table 1. Posture scores posture, reaching for and changingDriving gears, reaching backwards Posture 3 Average RULA Score to provide change, and reaching Reachingthe money holder.gear Driving 4 3 Reaching backward Reaching gear6 4 Reaching backward 6 Reaching money holder Reaching money5 holder 5

Figure 1. Driving Postures Figure 1 Driving Postures

[ 2 ] Table 3 Comparison of the Jeepney Driver's Workplace Dimensions to Anthropometric Data

Actual Required dimension dimension Gap Workstation (inches) Body Part Percentile (inches) (inches) Distance from floor to steering wheel 29.0 Knee height 95th 23.5 5.5 Vertical distance from pedal to steering wheel 20.0 Knee height 95th 23.5 3.5 Minimum distance from backrest to steering wheel 15.7 Arm reach 5th 27.1 11.4 Seat breadth 17.5 Hip breadth 95th 18.0 0.5 R. Seva et al Upper backrest width 17.0 Shoulder breadth 95th 18.0 1.0 HFESA 47th Annual Conference 2011. Ergonomics Australia - Special Edition Table 3 Comparison of the Jeepney Driver's Workplace Dimensions to Anthropometric Data Anthropometric analysis TheThe clearance clearance between between thethe knee knee and and the the steering steering wheel wheel was was 5.5 inches. This amount of knee clearance 5.5 inches. This amount of knee clearance is relatively small, The workspace dimensions of the drivers wereActual compared is relatively small, wherein easeRequired of access and exit of the jeepney driver is minimal because of the wherein ease of access and exit of the jeepney driver is minimal to anthropometric data of jeepney driversdimension gathered by dimension Gap junctionbecause of of thethe junction steering of wheel. the steering The wheel. minimum The minimum distance from the backrest to the steering wheel was Barayuga et al. (2).Workstation In their study, the authors(inches) gathered the Body Part Percentile (inches) (inches) takendistance from from the lowest the backrest edge to of the the steering steering wheel wheel. was The taken lowest edge of the steering wheel may not have anthropometric data shown in Table 2 from 100 jeepney Distance from floor to steering from the lowest edge of the steering wheel. The lowest edge drivers, who were all Filipino males aged 31 to 40 years old, touched the knee by 2.1 inches, but the clearance between the chest and waist to the steering wheel wheel 29.0 Knee heightof the steering wheel 95th may not have 23.5 touched the 5.5knee by 2.1 and withVertical 5 to 10 distance years of from driving pedal experience. to wasinches, obstructed but the theclearance jeepney between driver. the The chest reach and ofwaist the to steering the wheel was attainable, but the distance was steering wheel 20.0 Kneeidentified heightsteering wheel as too was 95th close obstructed to the the 23.5 driver. jeepney This driver. distance 3.5 The reach was about the same as the knee clearance that Table 2. Anthropometric Data of 100 Jeepney Drivers Minimum distance from tendedof the the steering driver wheel to bend was his attainable, forearms but and the to distance be supported was by the whole steering wheel (Figure 2). The Body backrestDimension to steering wheel Mean 15.7 SD Arm reachidentified as too 5thclose to the driver. 27.1 This distance 11.4 was about (inches) (inches) lackthe of same adjustability as the knee clearance of driver’s that tended seat made the driver the to closeness bend of the steering wheel to the driver an Seat breadth 17.5 Hip breadth 95th 18.0 0.5 Arm reach 30.7 2.1 obstructionhis forearms in and body to clearancebe supported upon by the entering whole steering or leaving wheel the vehicle. Head circumferenceUpper backrest width 22.317.0 1.8 Shoulder(Figure breadth 2). The lack 95th of adjustability 18.0 of driver’s seat 1.0 made the closeness of the steering wheel to the driver an obstruction in Foot length 10.1 1.1 body clearance upon entering or leaving the vehicle. Foot width 4.1 0.7 HeadThe to clearance seat height between the knee and34.0 the steering1.4 wheel was 5.5 inches. This amount of knee clearance Eyeis height, relatively sitting small, wherein ease of30.1 access and1.8 exit of the jeepney driver is minimal because of the Shoulderjunction breadth of the steering wheel. The16.3 minimum1.3 distance from the backrest to the steering wheel was Hip breadth 16.1 1.1 taken from the lowest edge of the steering wheel. The lowest edge of the steering wheel may not have Hand length 7.4 0.6 Handtouched width the knee by 2.1 inches, but4.3 the clearance0.5 between the chest and waist to the steering wheel Kneewas height obstructed the jeepney driver. 20.8The reach1.5 of the steering wheel was attainable, but the distance was Poplitealidentified height as too close to the driver.18.7 This 2.2 distance was about the same as the knee clearance that Buttocktended to popliteal the driver length to bend his forearms18.6 and to1.9 be supported by the whole steering wheel (Figure 2). The Buttock to knee length 21.9 1.6 lack of adjustability of driver’s seat made the closeness of the steering wheel to the driver an Elbow to wrist length 10.8 1.0 Thighobstruction clearance in body clearance upon entering6.1 1.3or leaving the vehicle.

Shoulder to elbow distance 12.6 1.2

Elbow rest height 9.7 1.7 Figure 2. Jeepney Driver’s Posture Shoulder to seat height 22.4 1.7 Figure 2 Jeepney Driver’s Posture Figure 3 Jeepney Driver Modeled Using CATIA

Source: Barayuga EB, Castillo MA, Martinez MT. A Study on an Ergonomically Designed Jeepney Driver Seat. Manila: De La Salle University; 1997. The anthropometric data from Barayuga et al. (2) was then evaluated with respect to the measurements of the current jeepney driver’s workspace, according to static and dynamic dimensions. This was done because both static and dynamic dimensions required different analyses, such as placement of components and clearances for static dimensions, and the driver’s fit during operations in the workspace. Eleven workspace dimensions were compared to the anthropometric data, but only five dimensions did not conform to either the 5th or 95th percentile dimensions as shown in Table 3. The 5th and 95th percentiles were used as a reference as these percentiles are commonly used in designing products for the Figure 3. Jeepney Driver Modeled Using CATIA majority of the population. Figure 2 Jeepney Driver’s Posture Figure 3 Jeepney Driver Modeled Using CATIA Table 3. Comparison of the Jeepney Driver’s Workplace Dimensions to Anthropometric Data Workstation Actual Body Part Percentile Required Gap dimension dimension (inches) (inches) (inches) Distance from floor to steering wheel 29.0 Knee height 95th 23.5 5.5 Vertical distance from pedal to steering wheel 20.0 Knee height 95th 23.5 3.5 Minimum distance from backrest to steering wheel 15.7 Arm reach 5th 27.1 11.4 Seat breadth 17.5 Hip breadth 95th 18.0 0.5 Upper backrest width 17.0 Shoulder breadth 95th 18.0 1.0

[ 3 ] R. Seva et al HFESA 47th Annual Conference 2011. Ergonomics Australia - Special Edition

The seat breadth was less than the hip breadth of the 95th suggestions obtained from observations and interviews percentile by half an inch. The seat breadth should be with users. Each design was shown to a sample of greater than the hip breadth in order to accommodate the drivers to determine its acceptability and practicality. driver’s sitting comfort. The minimum seat breadth should All the necessary anthropometric data cannot substitute accommodate the 95th percentile; this would allow the 5th for a full-scale mock-up. However, in the early design percentile to also be considered. phase, it is often the practice to use small-scale, virtual or physical models, such as an articulated model. The Dynamic dimensions included functional arm reach and CATIA modelling software that assesses the adequacy of clearance. The dynamic dimensions were difficult to obtain, preliminary workspace designs, in terms of anthropometric due to changes in body position, so the Computer Aided considerations, was used to test the jeepney driver’s Three-dimensional Interactive Application (CATIA) software workspace design for the intended user. was used to simulate the movement of the driver in a modelled workspace. The 95th and 5th percentile measurements were Various information sources were used to guide the factors used for the anthropometric measurements of the virtual, that went into the final workspace re-design for jeepney manikin driver. To analyse the functional arm reach of the drivers. These sources contained information on clearance, jeepney driver, the 95th and 5th percentile were inserted reach, vision, and posture. Functional requirements of the into the modelled workspace with their corresponding reach work tasks were also considered in the re-design, such as envelope. The manikin driver was presented as sitting erect, the ability to manipulate the gear shift, steering wheel, and looking straight ahead, and with both knees and ankles pedals, which are the basic actions of the driver. Drivers must forming right angles as in Figure 3. This allowed a neutral be able to manipulate these components, without exerting sitting posture for the driver, without considering the much effort or creating stress on their body parts. The visual inclination of the backrest. All reach zones were taken from workspace of the driver was also considered, as it is essential the right hand as the minimum reach and middle finger for to driver and passenger safety. Aside from looking at the road maximum reach. (as their primary viewing direction), drivers need to look at the side view mirrors, rear view mirror, and at the money Design process holder. The design process proposed by Hitchcock et al. (4) was followed in creating the analytical model of the jeepney using Results the CATIA software. This process involved seven stages: Jeepney workspace design 1. Determine the body dimensions important in the design. Several alternatives were evaluated before arriving at the final These dimensions served as the basis for designing the analytical prototype of the driver’s workspace, including the layout of the workspace. fare collection system. The final design is shown in Figure 4 2. Define the population who will use the equipment or which features a seat that conforms to the anthropometric facilities. The users were the Filipino jeepney drivers in dimensions of the Filipino drivers as computed in Table Metro Manila, who were male and of working age. 4. The seat used for the model was designed in accordance to seat standards common in the automotive industry. The 3. Determine what principle should be applied: design for ergonomics of the seat for jeepney drivers has already been extreme individuals and design for an adjustable range. studied previously [2]. The seat design provides the driver The design for extreme individuals was deemed important with a comfortable driving position, and is able to be adjusted both, in the placement of the components, as well as the for comfort and to reach the controls with ease. measurement in height from floor to roof. Adjustable ranges were taken into account for the driver’s seat Table 4. Seat Dimensions of the Jeepney when adjusting away from the steering wheel, and in the inclination of the back rest. Driver’s Seat Percentile to Body Value Dimension Consider Dimension to (inches) 4. When relevant, select the percentage of the population Consider to be accommodated. One of the objectives of the study Seat height 5th percentile Popliteal height 14.90 was to provide a workspace that would fit for the 5th Seat length 5th percentile Popliteal length 16.25 and 95th percentile of the Filipino drivers. Hence, these proportions were added in the design process. Seat Width 95th percentile Hip breadth 18.00 Backrest height 95th percentile Shoulder height 25.00 5. Locate anthropometric tables appropriate for the population Backrest width 95th percentile Shoulder breadth 18.00 and extract relevant values. The anthropometric table used for jeepney drivers was obtained from Barayuga et al. (2). The gear shift was designed as a component of the workspace that must be readily distinguishable by sight, or touch, and 6. If special clothing is to be worn, add appropriate allowances. that would allow drivers to keep their control movements The clothing or apparel worn by the drivers was negligible, as short as possible. To determine the ideal location of the hence clothing was assumed to be a non-hindrance to the gear shift, the forward distance was measured horizontally driver in the workspace. from the seat reference point (SRP), where the back of the 7. Build a full-scale mock-up of the equipment, or facility, seat surface intersects the backrest in the midline. Since the being designed and have it tested by the intended users. backrest angle and the amount of permitted body movement Several analytical prototypes were generated based on both influence reach distance, Damon et al. (5) recommended

[ 4 ] R. Seva et al HFESA 47th Annual Conference 2011. Ergonomics Australia - Special Edition

driver to the centre point of the wheel. The distance measured from the tip of the steering wheel to the floor was 27.76 inches, which was based on a knee clearance of the 95th percentile, modelled in the CATIA software. However, it should be noted that the diameter and inclination of the wheel would depend on the vehicle type and force exerted on the steering wheel.

For the design of the vehicle foot pedals, Damon et al. (6) indicated that fore-and-aft SRP-pedal distance bears a definite relationship to leg length and consequently to stature. If maximum pressure is desired, then the distance should be about 47.5% of stature, when the pedal is 2.5 inches above the SRP. However, when greater force is not needed, the distance should be 55% of stature for comfort. In the design of the jeepney, it was assumed that maximum force was needed. This assumption was made due to the fact that the pedals of the jeepney are more difficult to press than those of automobiles. The dimensions of pedals are shown in Figure 5. Final analytical prototypeFigure of4 Final the jeepney analytical workstation prototype of the jeepney workstation Figure 4. that measurements should be taken from the plane of the backrest, immediately behind the shoulder.Table Using4 Seat theseDimensions of the Jeepney measurement reference points, the 5th percentile for arm reachDriver's for fore-and-aftSeat Dimension locations was Percentile conducted, to resultingConsider in Body Dimension to Consider Value (inches) the gear shiftSeat location height being ideally placed5th atpercentile no more than Popliteal height 14.90 27.10 inchesSeat from length the SRP. Considering5th the percentile 5th percentile Popliteal length 16.25 hand breadthSeat atWidth thumb and based on95th the percentile anthropometric Hip breadth 18.00 data gatheredBackrest by Barayugaheight et al. (2), the 95th length percentile of the hand Shoulder height 25.00 grip should be at least 3.40 inches. However, Damon et al. (5) Backrest width 95th percentile Shoulder breadthFigure 5 Pedal Design 18.00 recommended that the minimum diameter should depend Figure 5. Pedal Design on the force exerted. Since users do not have to exert much For the money holder, the design concept was to have a dashboard shaped like an ‘L’, so that the money force in the hand grip, the minimum diameter of 1.75 inches holderassumed was both easierthat tothe reach driver and was would more visible not to to the lean driver. forward, It was assumed but that would the driver would not to lean forward, but would maintain his driving posture when he was required to access the was used as recommended by Woodson et al. (6). maintain his driving posture when he was required to access The gear shift was designed as a component of the moneyworkspace holder. Figure 4that shows the must ‘L’ shape bemodification readily of the dashboarddistinguishable and the money holder, by placed For the location of the steering wheel, the maximum reach to thethe right money of the steering holder. wheel. Figure 4 shows the ‘L’ shape modification sight,of the or5th touch,percentile and functional that would arm reachallow was drivers used, whichto keep Fare theirof collection the control dashboard design movements and the money as shortholder, as placed possible. to the rightTo was 27.10 inches. This was the location of the steering wheel Afterof considering the steering several wheel. alternatives for re-designing the fare collection and change provision determine the ideal location of the gear shift, the forwardcomponent distance of the driver’s tasks,was a backmeasured slide design was horizontally chosen to provide any from required the change to from the shoulder of the driver to the centre point of the passengers, due to its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and safety. In this design, the driver was provided seatwheel. reference The distance point measured (SRP), from where the tipthe of back the steeringof the seatwithFare a changesurface collection box, where intersects passengers design could the place backrest their fare, and thein driverthe could midline. retrieve money, wheel to the floor was 27.76 inches, which was based on a without extending his arm. Since the change box was placed within the direct visual field of the driver, Since the backrest angle and the amount of permittedhis peripheralAfter body considering view movement was still able several to be bothfocused alternatives on influence the road. Thefor change re-designingreach box was distance, elevated the to fare a height knee clearance of the 95th percentile, modelled in the CATIA collection and change provision component of the driver’s Damonsoftware. et However, al. (5) itrecommended should be noted thatthat the measurements diameter and should be taken from the plane of the backrest, tasks, a back slide design was chosenth to provide any required immediatelyinclination of thebehind wheel the would shoulder. depend onUsing the vehiclethese measurementtype change toreference passengers, points, due to itsthe simplicity, 5 percentile cost-effectiveness, for arm reachand force for exerted fore-and-aft on the steering locations wheel. was conducted, resultinandg in safety.the gear In this shift design, location the driverbeing wasideally provided placed with at a noFor morethe design than of 27.10the vehicle inches foot from pedals, the Damon SRP. et Considering al. (6) change the 5box,th percentile where passengers hand could breadth place theirat thumb fare, and and the indicated that fore-and-aft SRP-pedal distance bears a definite driver could retrieve money, without extending his arm. Since basedrelationship on the to anthropometric leg length and consequently data gathered to stature. by Barayuga If the et change al. (2), box the was lengthplaced within of the the hand direct grip visual should field ofbe the atmaximum least 3.40 pressure inches. is desired, However, then the Damon distance et should al. (5) be recommendeddriver, his peripheral that theview miwasnimum still able diameterto be focused should on the road. The change box was elevated to a height that would dependabout 47.5% on of thestature, force when exerted. the pedal is Since 2.5 inches users above do the not have to exert much force in the hand grip, the SRP. However, when greater force is not needed, the distance be easily reached by the driver. The change box attachment minimumshould be 55% diameter of stature of 1.75for comfort. inches In was the used design as of recommended the could be by clamped Woodson to the et divider al. (6). of the jeepney, as shown in jeepney, it was assumed that maximum force was needed. This Figure 6. assumption was made due to the fact that the pedals of the jeepney are more difficult to press than those of automobiles. Design evaluation The dimensions of pedals are shown in Figure 5. For the location of the steering wheel, the maximum reachDriver of manikins the 5th were percentile simulated functional while they arm rested reach on a wasFor theused, money which holder, was the27.10 design inches. concept This was was to the have locatio a backrest,n of the which steering was inclinedwheel from at 103 the degrees. shoulder Since of the the re- dashboard shaped like an ‘L’, so that the money holder was designed workspace components had already been fitted with both easier to reach and was more visible to the driver. It was the body dimensions of the 5th and 95th percentile manikin,

[ 5 ] R. Seva et al HFESA 47th Annual Conference 2011. Ergonomics Australia - Special Edition

the static fit was achieved. Final workspace design was Conclusions differentiated with the current workplace through calculating Jeepney drivers in Metro Manila were likely to suffer from thatthe would workspace be easily dimensions reached by inthe relation driver. Theto the change anthropometric box attachment could be clamped to the divider musculoskeletal discomfort, due to the poor design of their of thedata. jeepney, With as the shown objective in Figure of 6. closing the gap between the workspace and the system used for fare collection. Their workspace dimensions and the different body measurements, current workspace did not conform to Filipino drivers’ Designthe analytical evaluation prototype has attained the accommodation of anthropometric measurements and the drivers were subjected Driverthe manikins driver manikin were simulated in any body while dimensions. they rested Compared on a backrest, to the which was inclined at 103 degrees. to awkward driving postures, due to location of the controls Sincecurrent the re-designed workplace, workspace the functional components reach tohad all already of the beendriver’s fitted with the body dimensions of the and the task of collecting fares. The proposed re-design of the th task componentsth was achieved, especially the placement of 5 and 95 percentile manikin, the static fit was achieved. Final workspacejeepney design driver’s was workspacedifferentiated presented in this study was able to the money holder. Although all components were located with the current workplace through calculating the workspace dimensionsincorporate in appropriate relation to dimensions the that enabled the proper closer to driver, this does not mean clearance was severely anthropometric data. With the objective of closing the gap between the workspacelocation of dimensions controls considering and the anthropometric constraints affected, because the components do not obstruct the different body measurements, the analytical prototype has attained theof accommodation reach, height, strength, of the driver and posture. RULA scores obtained functional movements of the driver in the workplace. manikin in any body dimensions. Compared to the current workplace, thefrom functional analytical reach simulation to all of the showed a decrease in awkward that would be easily reached by the driver. The change box attachment could be clamped to the divider driver’sThe task postures components of the virtual was achieved, driver manikins especially were the placement evaluated of thepostures. money holder.The re-designed Although all fare collection component also of the jeepney, as shown in Figure 6. using RULA and the scores ranged from 2 to 3, depending components were located closer to driver, this does not mean clearance wasearned severely positive affected, feedback because from drivers. on which part of the steering wheel was grasped. The RULA The results of this study may be used by future researchers to Design evaluation the componentsscore of reaching do not for obstruct the gear the shift functional improved, movements reducing of thefrom driver in the workplace. further improve the design of the jeepney. Other ergonomic- Driver manikins were simulated while they rested on 4 a to backrest, 2. Initial which comments was inclined and at suggestions 103 degrees. from both the The postures of the virtual driver manikins were evaluated using RULA andrelated the scores issues ranged still to from be tackled2 to are the vibration and force jeepney drivers and passengers were solicited to evaluate Since the re-designed workspace components had 3,already depending been onfitted which with part the of body the dimensionssteering wheel of the was grasped. The RULAexerted score of on reaching the steering for the wheel, gear pedals, and gear shift, which can th th the fare collection component re-design. Drivers reported 5 and 95 percentile manikin, the static fit was achieved. Final workspace design was differentiated also influence driver discomfort. Vibration is directly felt not shiftdifficulty improved, in reducing adjusting from the 4 componentto 2. Initial toco mmentsfit their andseat suggestions height. from both the jeepney drivers with the current workplace through calculating the workspace dimensions in relation to the only by the jeepney drivers, but also by the passengers. The and However,passengers upon were accomplishment solicited to evaluate of set-up, the faredrivers collection report that component re-design. Drivers reported jeepney drivers exert more effort in controlling the steering anthropometric data. With the objective of closing difficultythe thegap taskbetween in adjusting of receiving the theworkspace componentpayment dimensions from to fit the their andpassengers seat the height. was However,more upon accomplishment of set-up, wheel, pedals, and in shifting gear, not only because of the different body measurements, the analytical prototypedriversconvenient, has report attained that since thethe theyaccommodationtask didof receiving not have ofpayment to the extend driver from their the arm passengers reach was more convenient, since they materials used, but also because of their location inside the manikin in any body dimensions. Compared to the currentall the workplace, way back. the On functional the other reach hand, to all passengers of the had some did not have to extend their arm reach all the way back. On the otherworkspace. hand, passengers In relation had to some the fare collection re-design, further driver’s task components was achieved, especially thedifficulty placement in ofreceiving the money their holder. change. Although This can all be attributed to difficulty in receiving their change. This can be attributed to the fact thatimprovement the surface of can the be prototype made by improving the design of the the fact that the surface of the prototype was flat and closed, components were located closer to driver, this doeswas not flat mean and clearance closed, which was severely may require affected, more because effort when retrieving coins.exchange There wascase, also so thatevidence passengers of would find it easier to take which may require more effort when retrieving coins. There the components do not obstruct the functional movementsadjustment of the from driver the driversin the workplace. in utilising the model. Two out of the five driverstheir tended change. to Jeepneystill wait manufacturersfor the could use the results of was also evidence of adjustment from the drivers in utilising passengers to retrieve their money, thus causing some delay, though onlythis minimal. study to enhance the design of the jeepney or may use The postures of the virtual driver manikins were evaluatedthe model.using RULA Two and out the of scores the five ranged drivers from 2 tendedto to still wait the current findings to build life-size prototypes that could be for the passengers to retrieve their money, thus causing some 3, depending on which part of the steering wheel was grasped. The RULA score of reaching for the gear tested further. It is expected that a life-size prototype would delay, though only minimal. shift improved, reducing from 4 to 2. Initial comments and suggestions from both the jeepney drivers reveal unique findings that were possibly not obtained using and passengers were solicited to evaluate the fare collection component re-design. Drivers reported the manikin simulation. difficulty in adjusting the component to fit their seat height. However, upon accomplishment of set-up, drivers report that the task of receiving payment from the passengers was more convenient, since they References did not have to extend their arm reach all the way back. On the other hand, passengers had some 1. National Statistical Coordination Board. and difficulty in receiving their change. This can be attributed to the fact that the surface of the prototype communication. 2009 [cited 2010 June 15]; Available was flat and closed, which may require more effort when retrieving coins. There was also evidence of from: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_trans.asp. adjustment from the drivers in utilising the model. Two out of the five drivers tended to still wait for the 2. Barayuga EB, Castillo MA, Martinez MT. A Study on an passengers to retrieve their money, thus causing some delay, though only minimal. Ergonomically Designed Jeepney Driver Seat. Manila: De La Salle University; 1997.

3. McAttamney L, Corlett EN. RULA: a survey method for Figure 6 Final prototype of the proposed fare collection systemthe investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Applied Ergonomics. 1993;24(2):91-9. 4. Hitchcock D, Haines V, Elton E. Integrating ergonomics: a practical case study. Design Journal. 2004;7(3):32-40. 5. Damon A, Stoudt H, Mc Farland R. The Human Body In Equipment Design. Cambridge Massachusets: Harvard University Press; 1966. 6. Woodson W, Tillman B, Tillman P. Human Factors Design Handbook. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc; 1992.

Figure 6 Final prototype of the proposedFigure fare 6.collection Final systemprototype of the proposed fare collection system

Cite this article as: Seva et al. Workplace Efficiency Improvement for Jeepney Drivers in Metro Manila. Ergonomics Australia – HFESA 2011 Conference Edition 2011 11:9.

[ 6 ]