Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research

https://ojs.bilpublishing.com/index.php/jmser

ARTICLE
An Ergonomics Study and Rapid Upper Limb Assessments (RULA)
for a Car Interior to Support Limb Disabled Drivers
Salami Bahariah Suliano* Siti Azfanizam Binti Ahmad* Azizan As’arry Faieza Abdul Aziz
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, 43400,
Malaysia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history The demanding market shows that the need for the disabled vehicles have
Received: 19 April 2022 been increasing over the recent years. However, these factory setting cars
are pricey, and its buy-sell process is time-consuming. These cars also
Revised: 20 May 2022 are not meant as a universal design or inclusion design type of car, so that
Accepted: 26 May 2022 when it is designed for the disabled, it can be beneficial for all. With the
Published: 30 June 2022 motivation to include limbs disabled drivers in designing a universally
designed car, this study aims to determine the preferred ergonomics
Keywords: interior of the car which can improve features needed to meet the mobility
of impaired individuals in most scenarios. 5 simulations were carried
Limbs disabled out to simulate these conditions using the RULA analysis, in order to
Redesign simulate the ergonomics impact on the manikin. In the final analysis, the
Inclusive design simulations showed a virtuous score, which was between 1 and 2 for the
newly redesigned interior, compared to the score of 3 to 6 for current cars.
Ergonomics
Another verification made, post questionnaire delineates positive responses
RULA upon the redesigned parts scoring 70%~90% level of ergonomics rated.
Therefore, this research has set forth the necessity of redesigning a car
interior and improved its ergonomic features extensively, specifically for
lower limb and combined limb disabled drivers.

1. Introduction the exclusion of the disabled from product use by making

it much more accessible and easy to use [2]. Understanding
Today, inclusive designs have become a key approach the users and knowing their needs and requirements are
for reducing the impact on the disabled, who are impaired vitally important for the success of an inclusive design [3].
and have reduced functional capabilities [1]. It also reduces Having inclusive design touches in a product or environ-

*Corresponding Author:
Salami Bahariah Suliano,
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, 43400, Malaysia;
Email: [email protected]
Siti Azfanizam Binti Ahmad,
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, 43400, Malaysia;
Email: [email protected]

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/jmser.v5i2.4714
Copyright © 2022 by the author(s). Published by Bilingual Publishing Co. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

17
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

ment results in making it usable regardless of age, gender, tion and decision from a previous paper which covered
or disability [4]. review papers, questionnaires, TRIZ solution methods,
However, in spite of the need for more inclusive design and the necessary concept design processes to help pre-
practices, the industry is not that keen to adopt this meth- vent a trial and error approach in the design [14-16]. Figure 1
od. The main barriers in adopting inclusive designs in- (Red box indicated current step as presented in this paper)
clude technical complexities, time-cost effectiveness, lack showcases this. Each design considered the capability of
of knowledge, lack of guidelines, lack of awareness, lack the parts to be able to suit the variations in the size of the
of motivation, and a lack of appropriate design [5,6]. As a disabled. Therefore, it was designed to be extendable and
result, the more a product’s design evolves, the more time movable to cater for upper limbs, lower limbs, and both
and cost it will take to develop [7]. limbs of the disabled.
The cost and complexity of accommodating disabled Current designs are based on a complete retracing of
people can be substantial [8,9]. In general, the cost of ret- the original designed parts from the cockpit of the driver
rofitting (or vehicle modification) can reach 4 to 5 digits. for a compact cars which is available on the market. It
Only certain models of automobiles, for example, can involved 8 highlighted parts, namely the handle (headlin-
have their floor lowered to accommodate wheelchair us- er), handle (door), steering, seat (upholstery bottom), seat
ers. The vehicle must then be installed with equipment for (upholstery back), door, pedals, and gear knob. The rede-
specialist instruments, or driving controls by specialized signed parts involved parts that had undergone the process
vendor [8]. of conceptual design generation, development, and selec-
The ability to make vehicle modifications with greater tion.
flexibility is beneficial, but it comes at a cost [10]. It is also As discussed previously, with the generalization of the
costly to iterate that during the alteration procedure. Fur- anthropometry of a disabled driver is virtually impossible
thermore, getting the modification procedure right the first due to the unique sizing and measurement of the limbs of
time is crucial, especially for individuals who purchase the disabled. Consequently, this project adapted an aver-
a new vehicle. They may be stuck with the vehicle for a age standard anthropometry from across the Malaysian
long time, and repeating the process is costly [11]. population (Malays, Chinese, and Indians) in Malaysia [17].
Having modifications or adaptive equipment are said to Hence, the arithmetic mean or average of the male par-
be a proven step in maintaining the on-the-road freedom ticipant’s height and weight were 172.02 cm and 67.35 kg.
for the disabled [12]. With adaptations, it meets the needs For the female participants, the average height and weight
of the user in a different way as well, as well as allowing were 153.24 cm and 56.76 kg, respectively. Therefore,
the disabled who cannot drive before, to drive much more the final mean height and weight considered were 164.12
easily and independently [13]. A relevant and easily adapted cm and 64.71 kg. Figure 3 shows the assigned dimensions
technique is needed to transform a personal in-market car in the standing position. In Figure 2(a) for height, and in
to enable it to be accessible to mobility-impaired groups, Figure 2(b) for weight.
so as to ensure that their traveling experiences will be Figure 3 shows an example of the RULA analysis for
much more user-friendly and ergonomic. With the moti- a manikin in a driving position. A pop-up box on the right
vation to include limbs disabled drivers in designing a car side in the figure lists the results of the analysis (right side
with a universal design, this study is expected to deter- of the box named Details), based on the selection (left side
mine the preferred interior of the car which can improve of the box named Parameters) of the driver’s side, which
features needed to meet the mobility of impaired individu- lists the type of posture (static, intermittent, or repeated)
als in most scenarios, to benefit them in terms of reducing and the checkbox of the driver’s current posture, as well
cost, time, long processing times. as the load the driver holds. For this study, the parameter
analysis was set as an intermittent posture with a 0 kg
2. Materials and Methods
load. Color codes as indicated in Figure 3 were based on
Table 1 illustrates the current design and redesigned the color associated with the score as shown in Figure 4,
parts. This design has undergone few steps for the selec- and the explanations of the scoring in Table 2.

18
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

Table 1. Current design versus Redesigned

Parts Current Design Redesigned

Handle
i
(headliner)

Handle
ii
(door)

Door
iii
(Ingress/ Egress)
Manual opening door
Sliding door
(80degree opening)

Seat
iv
(upholstery back)

Seat
v Extra cushion attached on upholstery back and
(upholstery back)
bottom

vi Steering

Movable steering Movable steering

(up and down - 2cm only) (up and down, right and left, front and back)

vii Pedals

Combined brake & accelerator pedal, movable pedals

Fixed pedals.
(up and down, right and left, front and back)

viii Gear Knob

Movable gear plate

Fixed gear knob. (up and down, right and left)
Movable gear shaft (up and down)

19
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

Start

Survey

Solution Method

TRIZ

Morphological chart

Pugh Matrix

Modelling existing car

Modelling redesigned car

Simulation / Testing Post-Questionnaire

No

Ergonomic Improved?

Yes

Finish

Figure 1. Process Flow

(a) (b)
Figure 2. (a). Manikin dimension (height); (b). Manikin dimension (weight)

Figure 3. RULA analysis example Figure 4. RULA Score Range

20
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

The RULA analysis examined the following risk fac- As shown in Figure 4 of the RULA score sheet, the
tors: number of movements, static muscle work, force, scores and colors were used to determine the outcome of
working posture, and time worked without a break. All the RULA analysis. The color was auto-generated in the
these factors combined to provide a final score which RULA Analysis using CATIA, which was intertwined.
ranged from 1 to 7, as mapped in Table 2. There were seven different scores and four different
colors. Green, yellow, orange, and red were the primary
Table 2. RULA scoring details
colors. The green hue signified a healthy posture, where-
Score Color Risk level and details as the red color indicated a poor posture which had to be
No action required. Posture is corrected quickly. For example, score 3 for the upper arm
1,2 Negligible risk acceptable if it is not maintained or gave a yellow color, while score 3 for the arm gave a red
repeated for long periods of time. color.
Indicates that further investigation
Position 1 involved both hands of the manikin hold-
3, 4 Low risk is needed and changes may be ing the steering wheel. Table 3 presents the results of the
required. RULA analysis for the first position. This table clearly
shows that the manikin driving the current car design
Indicates that investigation and
5,6 Medium risk
changes are required soon
experienced high impact on its legs and medium impact
on its arms. The position recorded a final score of 5 for
Indicates that investigation and the right side, and 6 for the left side based on the RULA
7,8 High risk
changes are required immediately.
scoring recommendations. Thus, further investigation is
As pictured in Figure 1, besides the simulation, a si- needed, and changes need to be carried out. Despite the
multaneous post questionnaire was also carried out. The manikin being positioned at its best posture, it still expe-
post-questionnaire proved to be an effective assessment rienced impact on certain parts. Unlike the current design,
and feedback tool [18]. It also worked as a platform for the manikin in the redesigned car interior had a better
gathering and recording data on certain topics of interest environment as shown in the results (Final score =1, color
based on earlier works (questionnaire) [18]. In this study, score =green; for both sides), because the redesigned parts
post-questionnaires act as verification aid to strengthen were adjustable. Therefore, the seat, steering wheel, and
the verification made using CATiA. It was answered by pedals were adjusted accordingly to achieve the best posi-
disabled drivers with the same criteria from the question- tioning.
naire. A technical briefing will be made to demonstrate Position 2 depicts the right hand holding the steering
work done on the redesigned process. Figure 5 depicts the wheel, and the left hand holding the gear. The right hand
questionnaire’s focus area. maneuvering the steering wheel and the left hand handling
the gear is another common position for a driver. Similar to
Post-Questionnaire Table 3, Table 4 highlighted that the driver had a negative
Focus Area impact, as the driver tried hard to reach the gear knob, re-
sulting in the final score of 6. Positive scoring recorded in
the redesigned position 3 setup resulted in a final score =1
and 2, and a color score =green for both sides.
Respondent Interior Car Product Position 3 depicts the driver opening the door from
Demographics Modification Feedback the inside (egress). Table 5 indicates the results for the
egress positioning. The manikin is trying to exit the car by
opening the door manually. The wrist posture is twisted to
Figure 5. Post-Questionnaire focus area
the maximum degree, contributing to the final score of 6.
Thus, further changes need to be made. Nevertheless, for
3. Results and Discussions
the redesigned egress, the manikin only needs to press a
There were five positions for the RULA testing, as il- button at the steering wheel, as illustrated in Figure 6, to
lustrated in Table 3 to Table 7. The positions covered the automatically open the door (Final score =1, colour score =
involvement and usage of certain parts of the listed com- green; for both sides).
ponents. Each table consisted of two parts, namely the Position 4 depicts the manikin closing the door from
current design and redesigned part. All tests analyzed the the inside (ingress). The driver faces much more signif-
right and left body parts individually based on the selec- icant issues for the ingress, including reach, force, and
tion in the checkbox. pressure problems. Table 6 indicates a final score of 6 for

21
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

Table 3. RULA analysis scores for both hands holding the steering wheel
CURRENT DESIGN
Left body
Right body

1. Upper Arm 3 3
2. Forearm 2 2
3. Wrist 3 4
4. Wrist Twist 2 2
5. Posture A 4 5
6. Muscle 1 1
7. Force/Load 0 0
8. Wrist and Arm 5 6
9. Neck 1 1
10. Trunk 2 2
11. Leg 2 2
12. Posture B 3 3
13. Neck, Trunk, and Leg 4 4
14. Final Score 5 6
REDESIGNED
Right body Left body

Criteria

1. Upper Arm 1 1
2. Forearm 1 1
3. Wrist 1 1
4. Wrist Twist 1 1
5. Posture A 1 1
6. Muscle 0 0
7. Force/Load 0 0
8. Wrist and Arm 1 1
9. Neck 1 1
10. Trunk 1 1
11. Leg 1 1
12. Posture B 1 1
13. Neck, Trunk, and Leg 1 1
14. Final Score 1 1

22
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

Table 4. RULA analysis scores for the right hand holding the steering wheel and the left hand holding the gear

CURRENT DESIGN

Right body Left body

1. Upper Arm 4 4
2. Forearm 3 3
3. Wrist 3 2
4. Wrist Twist 2 2
5. Posture A 5 5
6. Muscle 1 1
7. Force/Load 0 0
8. Wrist and Arm 6 6
9. Neck 1 1
10. Trunk 3 3
11. Leg 2 2
12. Posture B 4 4
13. Neck, Trunk, and Leg 5 5
14. Final Score 6 6
REDESIGNED
Right body Left body

Criteria

1. Upper Arm 1 1
2. Forearm 1 2
3. Wrist 1 1
4. Wrist Twist 1 1
5. Posture A 1 2
6. Muscle 0 0
7. Force/Load 0 0
8. Wrist and Arm 1 2
9. Neck 1 1
10. Trunk 1 1
11. Leg 1 1
12. Posture B 1 1
13. Neck, Trunk, and Leg 1 1
14. Final Score 1 2

23
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

Figure 6. Automatic door button located at the steering wheel

Table 5. RULA analysis scores for opening the door from the inside (egress)
CURRENT DESIGN
Right body Left body

1. Upper Arm 3 3
2. Forearm 2 2
3. Wrist 3 4
4. Wrist Twist 2 2
5. Posture A 4 5
6. Muscle 1 1
7. Force/Load 0 0
8. Wrist and Arm 5 6
9. Neck 1 1
10. Trunk 2 2
11. Leg 2 2
12. Posture B 3 3
13. Neck, Trunk, and Leg 4 4
14. Final Score 6 6
REDESIGNED
Right body Left body

Criteria

1. Upper Arm 1 1
2. Forearm 1 2
3. Wrist 1 1
4. Wrist Twist 1 1
5. Posture A 1 2
6. Muscle 0 0
7. Force/Load 0 0
8. Wrist and Arm 1 2
9. Neck 1 1
10. Trunk 1 1
11. Leg 1 1
12. Posture B 1 1
13. Neck, Trunk, and Leg 1 1
14. Final Score 1 2

24
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

the left body, and 4 for the right body of the current de- Position 4, it resulted in the same score, as these two posi-
sign, and a final score of 1 for both left and right body of tions only allowed the manikin to use an automatic button
the redesigned model. For the redesigned Position 3 and (Final score =1, colour score =green for both sides).

Table 6. RULA analysis scores for closing the door from the inside (ingress)
CURRENT DESIGN
Right body Left body

1. Upper Arm 5 3
2. Forearm 3 2
3. Wrist 2 2
4. Wrist Twist 2 2
5. Posture A 7 4
6. Muscle 0 0
7. Force/Load 0 0
8. Wrist and Arm 7 4
9. Neck 1 1
10. Trunk 3 3
11. Leg 2 2
12. Posture B 4 4
13. Neck, Trunk, and Leg 4 4
14. Final Score 6 4
REDESIGNED
Right body Left body

Criteria

1. Upper Arm 1 1
2. Forearm 1 2
3. Wrist 1 1
4. Wrist Twist 1 2
5. Posture A 1 0
6. Muscle 0 0
7. Force/Load 0 0
8. Wrist and Arm 1 2
9. Neck 1 1
10. Trunk 1 1
11. Leg 1 1
12. Posture B 1 1
13. Neck, Trunk, and Leg 1 1
14. Final Score 1 1

25
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

Position 5 depicts the manikin standing with the sup- handle at the headliner. The final score after further inves-
port of the handle (headliner). The headliner handle is tigation only recorded one medium risk recommendation
essential as a support system for the disabled, especially for the left body of the current design. This was due to
for lifting their body to exit the car. Table 7 presents the the RULA rules, whereby if the manikin was forced to
results of using the current design versus the redesigned lift an arm from 45° to 60°, it would result in a +3 (colour

Table 7. RULA analysis scores for standing with the support of the handle (headliner)
CURRENT DESIGN
Right Left body

1. Upper Arm 2 5
2. Forearm 1 2
3. Wrist 1 3
4. Wrist Twist 1 2
5. Posture A 2 7
6. Muscle 0 0
7. Force/Load 0 0
8. Wrist and Arm 3 7
9. Neck 1 1
10. Trunk 1 1
11. Leg 1 1
12. Posture B 1 1
13. Neck, Trunk, and Leg 2 1
14. Final Score 3 5
REDESIGNED
Right body Left body

Criteria

1. Upper Arm 3 3
2. Forearm 1 1
3. Wrist 1 1
4. Wrist Twist 1 1
5. Posture A 3 3
6. Muscle 0 0
7. Force/Load 0 0
8. Wrist and Arm 3 3
9. Neck 1 1
10. Trunk 1 1
11. Leg 1 1
12. Posture B 1 1
13. Neck, Trunk, and Leg 1 1
14. Final Score 3 3

26
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

score =green for both sides) on the scoreboards. The Likert scale was used to cater for the level of the
A total of 10 respondents responded to the post ques- score in post questionnaire. However, the post question-
tionnaire. Technical presentations were given to the re- naire only compared responses on the ergonomics scoring
spondents on the study flow, solution methods used, and for the current interior versus redesigned interior. Table 8
redesigns made to comprehensively explain the studies shows the results for the level of ergonomics scoring form
before the questionnaire was answered. Figure 7 shows a key, in which it uses the top two box (T2B) method. The
balanced gender involvement, with men at 50% and wom- key combination indicator is listed below:
en also at 50% in terms of contributions. All respondents
were volunteers who were licensed independent disabled Ergonomic = (Very ergonomics + Ergonomics)
drivers with lower limbs and combined limbs disability. Not ergonomics = (Neutral+ Less ergonomics + Not ergonomics)
They were also working and driving to the workplace as
part of their primary daily routine. From Table 8, it is clearly shown that respondents
found that driving the current car without modification
was less ergonomic and not ergonomic for disabled driv-
ers with a 70%~90% score. A similar question was asked
to rate the level of ergonomics controls in the redesigned
car as shown in 9. In the top two box percentage analyses
as summarized in Table 9, it is shown that a 70%~90%
score fell under the ergonomics column. It showed a posi-
tive feedback toward newly redesigned features.
Additionally, positive feedback with a 100% ‘yes’
was recorded for all questions in the Product Feedback
section. It showed an acceptance and support towards the
Figure 7. Gender improvement introduced, as summarized in Table 10.

Table 8. How do you find level of ergonomics in follow- Table 9. How do you find level of ergonomics in follow-
ing controls in current vehicle? ing controls in redesigned vehicle?
Answer Option Ergonomics (%) Not ergonomics (%) Answer Option Ergonomics (%) Not ergonomics (%)
Pedals Most 30.0 70.0 Handle (door) Most 90.0 10.0
Gear knob 30.0 70.0 Handle (headliner) 90.0 10.0
Seat (upholstery back) 30.0 70.0 Seat (upholstery back) 90.0 10.0
Handle (headliner) 30.0 70.0 Seat (upholstery bottom) 80.0 20.0
Handle (door) 20.0 80.0 Steering 80.0 20.0
Seat (upholstery bottom) 20.0 80.0 Door 80.0 20.0
Door 10.0 90.0 Gear knob 70.0 30.0
Steering Least 10.0 90.0 Pedal Least 70.0 30.0

Table 10. Customer feedback section

Percentage (%)
Questions
Yes No
Do you think our product is easy to use? 100 0
Do you think features of our product are important to limbs disabled drivers? 100 0
Do you think features of our product are usable for normal driver? 100 0
Do you think features of our product could improve drivers’ ergonomics? 100 0
Are you happy if our product will be in market in future? 100 0
Do you think our product is good? 100 0
Would you recommend our product to a friend or colleague? 100 0

27
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

4. Discussion position 5, right body which carries the same score before
and after. This is due to similar RULA scores for both po-
Table 11 summarizes the verification results for RULA
sition in before and after redesign of interior.
by comparing the current design and the redesigned mod-
el. The final three columns indicate improved, same, or Also, Table 12 compared the space (in respective di-
worsen outcomes, allowing a clear comparison of the mensions or direction) of the current design and the re-
results. From all 5 positions sets for the human model, designed parts based on the extendibility, movability, and
all captured an improvements of RULA scores except of usability of the parts.

Table 11. Summary of the results for human analysis verification

Improved
Analysis Model Current Design Redesigned

Worsen
Same
Right Body Left Body Right Body Left Body
Position 1 5 6 1 1
Position 2 6 6 1 2
RULA
Position 3 6 6 1 1
Position 4 6 4 1 1
Position 5 3 5 3 3

Table 12. Space comparison

Improved

Worsen
Dimension/ Current Design Redesigned

Same
Part
Direction (mm) (mm)

50.00 (outer)
X 20.60 (holder)
Handle 47.63 (inner)
i
(headliner) 205.00 (outer) 410.00 (outer)
Y
115.00 (inner) 110.00 (inner)
Handle
ii Reach (min) 398.45 140.95
(door)

Door Y n/a 1254.73 (front/back)

iii
(Ingress/ Egress) Angle (º) 80.00 n/a
Seat
iv Y 150.00 (front/back) 400.00 (front/back)
(upholstery back)
Seat 30.00 (up) 50.00 (up)
v Z
(upholstery back) 30.00 (down) 50.00 (down)
X n/a 100.00 (right/left)
50.00 (front)
Y n/a
vi Steering 100.00 (back)
20.00 (up)
Z 80.00 (up/down)
20.00 (down)
X n/a 160.00 (right/left)
vii Pedals Y n/a 160.00 (front/back)
Z n/a 350.00 (up/down)
X n/a 100.00 (right/left)
viii Gear Knob Y n/a 100.00 (front/back)
Z n/a 70.00 (up/down)

28
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

5. Conclusions Society. 2(3), 215-225.

[2] Jokisuu, E., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P.J., 2011. Model-
Conclusively, the results from the questionnaire con- ling cognitive impairment to improve universal access.
ducted in the previous study among Malaysian limb dis- In International Conference on Universal Access in
abled drivers concluded that certain major changes were Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, Berlin, Heidel-
needed to redesign the interior part of the driver’s area in berg. pp. 42-50.
order to achieve an ergonomically friendly car for limb [3] Carlsson, G., Iwarsson, S., Stahl, A., 2002. The per-
disabled drivers, at the same time adaptable to be used by sonal component of accessibility at group level: ex-
other users without raising other ergonomic issues. This ploring the complexity of functional capacity. Scan-
included handles at the door and surrounding area, pedals, dinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 9(3), 100-
egress, upholstery (back), and upholstery (bottom). With 108.
that, the TRIZ, morphological chart, and Pugh matrix [4] Moreira, F., Almendra, R., 2007. Inclusive design: a
were used as conceptual design frames, solution methods, new approach to design project. In A portrait of state-
and decision making tools to resolve problems which of-the-art research at the Technical University of Lis-
arose. bon. Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 605-621.
In this paper, a redesign of an interior compact car for [5] Chimbuya, A., 2009. Barriers to adoption Inclusive
limbs disabled drivers was presented. By applying CAD Design. 31st Annual School of Industrial Design
in the design and verification of the study, it reduced Seminar.
the tendency of repetitive reworks and reengineered the [6] Clarkson, P.J., Dong, H., Keates, S., 2003. Visual-
future, as it showed valid calculations and imitated the ising design exclusion. International Conference on
design closely. Hence, this study showed that an improve- Engineering Design. pp. 1-10.
ment was made by comparing the ergonomics aspects of [7] Kirisci, P.T., Klein, P., Modzelewski, M., et al., 2011.
the current design, and the redesigned model based on Supporting inclusive design of user interfaces with
the compilation of both postures (position 1-5) using the a virtual user model. In International Conference on
RULA scores in CATIA. Another verification was made Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction.
(sequel verification of this study) via post questionnaires Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp,69-78.
which delineated the positive responses for the redesigned [8] Bayless, S. H., Davidson, S., 2019. Driverless cars
parts. Experts favoured five out of six proposed rede- and accessibility: designing the future of transporta-
signed parts for the improvement of the mobility of the tion for people with disabilities.
limbs of the disabled drivers. [9] Carroll, P., Witten, K., Duff, C., 2021. ‘How can we
make it work for you?’ Enabling sporting assemblag-
Acknowledgments
es for disabled young people. Social Science & Med-
The authors would like to acknowledge the Road icine. 288.
Transport Department Malaysia, Social Welfare Depart- [10] Berent, P.A., Fujiyama, T., Yoshida, N., 2021.
ment, FARESH MOTOR Sdn. Bhd., Industrial Training Evaluating delivery of cycling activity and training
and Rehabilitation Centre (PLPP), and ProcJaya associ- programmes for disabled people in the UK. IATSS
ation, who provided the necessary insight, expertise and Research. 45(3), 371-381.
documentation which greatly guided this research work. [11] Schneider, L.W., Manary, M.A., Orton, N.R., et al.,
2016. Wheelchair occupant studies: final report.
Conflict of Interest [12] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. 2015. Adapting Motor Vehicles For People With Dis-
abilities.
Funding [13] Field, M., Jette, A., 2007. The future of disability
in America. Washington: The National Academies
This research received no external funding. Press.
[14] Suliano, S.B., Ahmad, S.A., As’arry, A., et al., 2020.
References
Limbs disabled needs for an ergonomics assistive
[1] Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J.J., 2003. Countering design technologies and car modification. Advances in Ma-
exclusion: bridging the gap between usability and terial Sciences and Engineering. pp. 67-73.
accessibility. Universal Access in the Information [15] Suliano, S.B., Ahmad, S.A., As’arry, A., et al., 2020.

29
 Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research | Volume 05 | Issue 02 | September 2022

Review on ergonomics application on car modifica- Anthropometric study among adults of different eth-
tion for limbs disabled drivers. Advances in Manu- nicity in Malaysia. International Journal of Physical
facturing Engineering. pp. 575-589. Sciences. 6(4), 777-788.
[16] Suliano, S.B., Ahmad, S.A., As’arry, A., et al., 2020.
[18] Biswas, A., Sen, S., Ray, K., 2019. Reliability assess-
TRIZ application: An innovative approach in rede-
ment of pre -post test questionnaire on the impact of
signing an ergonomics car interior for limbs disabled.
International Conference on Mechanical, Manufac- a daylong clinical pharmacology workshop among
turing and Plant Engineering. medical professionals. Asian J. Med. Sci. 10(6),
[17] Karmegam, K., Sapuan, S.M., Ismail, N., et al., 2011. 93-97.

30