Reading 1 - Ergonomics Design Philosophy ERGONOMICS AND...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–18. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 16
Background image of page 17

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 18
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Ergonomics Design Philosophy ERGONOMICS AND HUMAN FACTORS The Scope and Purpose of This Book Since the first edition of this hook, health and safety profeSsionals and the public have become much more familiar with the term ergonomics. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the increasing availability of information on ergonom- ics and its impact, there is still a demand for guidelines that recognize. the capabilities of people in manufacturing systems across the world. In this revised edition of Kodak’s Ergonomic Design for People at Work, we have recognized the increased sophisrication of the book’s users. There is not much basic science, and there is more emphasis on the practical guidelines that are useful to the ergonomist practicing in industry. We have also answered the needs of students by condensng the two volumes of the previous edition into one. This book is intended for use by practitioners of ergonomics in the design of jobs, workplaces, equipment, and the physical environment in the industrial setting. The guidelines in this volume are not specifically relevant to product design but may be applicable in many instances. Although physiological and psychological data have been used to develop the guidelines, results are expressed in terms that engineering, safety, or medical personnel can easily transfer to the plant. Terms such as tench, height, and (tn-nforr Jewel are used throughout the hook wherever possible. The art of applying ergonomics principles to the workplace depends on understanding the limitations of the data available. The information in this hook is suitable for the design of new workplaces, equipment, and processes and for the modification of existing equipment, workplaces, and processes. The guidelines must be interpreted before being used to evaluate. injury risk in existing conditions. The first section in this chapter discusses the scope and focus of applied industrial ergonomics with regard to the fields of human factors engineering and ergonomics, and briefly reviews ergonomics at Eastman Kodak Company. Ergonomics programs in general and two specific examples of programs in other companies are presented in the second section. A problem—solving l i I.- N... 2 Kodak’s Ergonomic Design for People at Work approach to ergonomics follows next. The fourth section of this chapter addresses the questions of whom we design for and how to apply human capacity data to the design of workplaces, environments, equipment, and jobs. Tables of capacity data are included that are hased on studies in many coun— tries, where available. Examples of how the data can be used to determine working height, push force, and acceptable workload are also given. We wrap up with a brief discussion of standards relating to ergonomics and human fac— tors that were in place as of June 2002. The rest of the book provides guidelines for design and methods for ana- lyzing jobs and identifying the level of risk for injury or illness {where available data can be applied). Some case study problems are included to illustrate how the information on capabilities can he applied in the occupational setting to solve problems on the shop floor or in the office. Definitions Ergonomics is a multidisciplinary activity striving to assemble information on people’s capacities and capabilities and to use that information in designing jobs, products, workplaces, and equipment. In the United States, the military and aerospace industries were among the first to accept human factors princi- ples; however, over the past couple of decades other industries have seen the benefits of doing so and have begun to incorporate them into their activities. The terms ergonomics and human factors are sometimes used synony— mously. Both describe the interaction between the operator and the demands of the task being performed, and both are concerned with trying to reduce unnecessary stress in these interactions. ErgonomiCs, however, has tradition— ally focused on how work affects people. This focus includes studies of, among other things, physiological responses to physically demanding work; environmental stressots such as heat, noise, and illumination; complex psy- chomotor assembly tasks; and visual—monitoring tasks. The emphasis has been on methods to reduce fatigue by designing tasks so that they fall within people’s work capacities. In contrast, the field of human factors, practiced in the United States, has traditionally been more interested in the human- machine interface, or human engineering. It has focused on people’s behavior as they interact with equipment and their environment, as well as on human size and strength capabilities relative to product and equipment design. The emphasis of human factors is often on designs that reduce the potential for human error. The Benefits of Ergonomics and Human Factors The benefits of well-designed jobs, equipment, and workplaces are improved productivity, safety, and health, and increased satisfaction for the employ- I. Ergonomics Design Philosophy 3 ees. This is ac by reducing mental demands e.g., K tion is transferred between people, or hetwe -. inspection}. This allows for greater productivity ' ability. As concerns about produciy hieved by ten-roving unnecessary physical effort from jobs or by improving the way in which informa— en product and people, as in and, ultimately, higher prof— 'lt : ity, employee job satisfaction, and health and safety in the workplace have increased, interest in ergonomics has increased as well. Many schools include courses in human factors, often within industrial ogy deyartments, and industrial hygienists are expected les for certification. Medical professionals lyses of jobs to assist them in engineerng or psychol to know some ergonomics p:incip are also recognizing the value of ergonomic ana the rehabilitatitm of people renrning to work after illness. Ergonomics at Eastman Kodak Company Although people have been applying human factors and ergonomics principles in the workplace for many sears, it has only been over the last couple of decades that many industries lave formally recognized the field by establishing internal groups to study ant. address such issues. At Eastman Kodak Com- pany, there has been a grotap investigating and applying the principles of ergonomics and human facrc- 's for almost half a century. In early 195?, Dr. Charles 1. Miller and Harry L. Davis met with Dr. ien the head of Haskell Laboratory at El. duPont had conducted a number of stud- acities of people doing hard began work physiology data as and plans for a broad—spec— y. By 1960, a small laboratory unction formed. it was a joint ng Division of i Lucien Bronha, who was tl de Nemours 5c Co. The Has (ell laboratory ies related to heat stress problems and the cap physical work. Having learned from him, they Collection on jobs at Kodak and formulated ide trum human factors function within the compan had been developed and a human factors group l effort of the Medical Depar' ‘:"1t:l'll" and the Industrial anineeri the Kodak Park Division in Rochester, New York. The group specialized in '3. Workplace and job analysis, tad design within a very large industrial complex I; that manufactures a divers: :y of photographic products, papers, chemicals, and hardware products. Expansion of the group sponding increase in its Rochester to a worldwide :' rena {in 1972) also developed, and the. group eventually split into two sectors, tan factors principles to product design {Human aluating work situ— ate a variety of disciplines resulted in a corre- "-'ivity and a broadening of its scope beyond . The area of product design was one that Li. applies ergonomics and l‘lLll Factors) and another that applies the same principles to ev ations {Ergonomics}. The crgonomists at Eastman Kod and interact closely with manufacturing personnel Safety, industrial f—Iygiene, Epidemiology, industrial Re. ak Company serve the entire corporation as well as with the Medical, lations, Design Engi— 4 Kodak's Ergonomic Design for People at Work neering, Industrial Design, and Industrial Engineering staff groups to identify and resolve potential problems. In 1992, Eastman Kodak formalised its commitment to applying ergo- nomic principles in the workplace by establishing a corporate performance standard that requires all company facilities and processes (worldwide) to be “designed, constructed, operated and maintained to accommodate human capabilities and limitations in order to enhance employee safety, health, and performance.” Around the same time, formal expectations were established about the programs and processes that would be used to focus on proactively improving the workplace environment and concomitantly reducing the risk of musculoskeletal disorders. Each facility and organization is expected to evaluate its performance arguins_t__t;h§_perfmgnaiice standard. Conformance is also forn'iaily evaluated through periodic corpoi‘iiiETfu‘t i‘t‘s. Every few years, the associated programs and processes are revisited and modified based on the company’s experience with them. Currently, the programs and processes used to meet the company‘s performance standard encompass the following basic tenets: 0 Employees should receive training on basic ergonomics principles. The aspects covered in the training depend on the work environment they have. 0 Employees whose activities impact the work environment (e.g., engi— neers, supervisors, maintenance groups, and health and safety profes- sionals) should receive in—depth training commensurate with their activ- ities. o Newly designed or modified workplaces, processes, and equipment should meet established ergonomics or human factors guidelines. 0 A continuous improvement process should be used to reduce fatigue and human error, as well as the risk of injury associated with existing work— places, processes, or equipment. 9 Affected employees should be involved in the planning and implementa— tion of changes to workplaces, equipment, or proCesses. 0 Reports of work—related injuries or illnesses should be followed up with root cause analyses, and the. workplace, process, or equipment should be modified accordingly. Eastman Kodak Company encompasses a wide spectrum of businesses, manufacturing environments, and service organizations. As a result, the manner in which the above tenets are implemented vary from organization to organization, according to their needs and their organizational structure and systems. The information provided here is the basis for much of the training and for the principles used when designing or evaluating workplaces, equip-- ment, or processes. I'ify 'go— nce he ran .nd led cl}: of ICC l. Ergonomics Design Philosophy ERGONOMICS PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS IN OTHER COMPANIES Influences on Ergonomics Programs The evolution of :J'gonomics efforts, programs, and analysis techniques in ii'tdtlstt'}r has been .. ifected by a number of factors: 0 Application of increased knowledge and awareness gained from research anti experience in both academia and business 0 Integration t i" business initiatives such productivity, quality, and sta- tistically dri‘. en process efforts in order to meet the challenge of compet- itiveness and changes in resource allocation 0 Changes in r.ianagemenn’leadership that may result in changed emphasis or direction 3:? the ergonomics program 0 'l'echnology .'::_l\-'a1'1ces incorporating new or evolved ergonomic solu~ tions, as well as analvses methods within the ergonomics program oSociaI and population changes and diversification (Schwerha and McMullin l'fililll} 9 Globalization of companies and businesses, requirng them to address varied cultur a: differences as well as communication, training, and stan- dardization issues [Joseph 2000} 9 Local, natior :11, and international reguiatory efforts in ergonomics There. are addi zional considerations that are not listed. Some may he. spe- cific to the busines:-- or company, what they produce, and other factors. Regulatory Influe ices Regulatory efforts 2‘. ergonomics have contributed a great deal to ergonomics programming and . {forts being initiated in the United States. hianv companies would not have st: rted an ergonomics effort, let alone go to the extent some programs have, wi ixout the motivation of a regulation. In the United States, the Occupational iafety and Health Administration {05} {A} implemented guidelines and reg: izll'Ol‘}-' efforts Start:_ng in the late 1970s that have affecretl ergonomics programming. Most of these regulations and guidelines were written to be broadly appli- cable across genert-i industry, regardless of the size, nature, or complexity of Operations {thougl‘ at times particular industries have been excluded). The most specific one is the. “Ergonomics Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking Plants [the (i1.1idelines),"’ published in '1990. Multiyear agree— 6 Kodak’s Ergonomic Design for People at Work ments signed between OSHA and various companies, as well as numerous company—specific orations, have used the meatpacking guidelines. These guidelines and regulatory efforts advocate that an ergonomics program should have the following L ore elements: 0 Management leadership and employee participation c Hazard awariness and identification 9 Training and Education 9 Medical management 0 Job hazard in .ilvsis 4 I-iaxard prevention and controls 0 Program eval ration For more information on regulations and standards in other parts of the world, refer to “.Jnited States and International Standards Related to Ergonomics,” later in this chapter. Level of Responsiveness The continuous dtvelopmcnt and maturation of an ergonomics process is depicted in Figure .i, which considers the level of responsiveness and focus of the ergonomics program and the level of ergonomics assessment tools applied. The level of desired ergtmomics resp(iiisiv'eness_i'eactive, proactive, or strategic—will aid in determining the structure and level of programming required. 'ivpicall}. the initial level of responsiveness toward ergonomics efforts is reactive iii nature. Reactive ergonomics applies intervention efforts after an issue is reci s;-;t‘1ized—-f()r example, to address musculoskeletal disorders {MSDsl or other problems {see Figure 1.2). This application of ergonomics to the individual or group of workers anti their work, workstation, or work area is also known as gr.icroergononiics [Hendrick 198?}. The reactive perspective can be usefully intzmmroacrive and strategic levels of ergonomics responsiveness, with microergonomics serving to determine design and pos- sible system issues tom a historical perspective. The next level oi responsiveness in ergonomics is proactive designed to preempt any MM) 1- vent or problem {see Figure 1.3]. This is accomplished by having the appropriate person or system appiv ergonomics principles in designing products workstations, work areas, plants, programs, and systems For manufacturab‘slitv and to enhance work [Rodgers 'l984i. Proactive ergonomics should he established much as possible at the product and pro— cess deveiopinenr --jvstems level [Wesrgaard and Winkel 199?, 2000; joseph 200i}; Hagg 2000i. Specific svstematic processes should be implemented so that designers, engineers, and support personnel can better work together and communicate both c.rganizarionallv and geographically [joseph 2000}. Gener— i. Ergonomics Design Philosoph; ANALYSIS TOOLS Sociotech nical and Environmental Assessment Potential Ergonomics Problem-Solving Techniques and Engineer Checklists Ergonomics Problem- Solving Techniques Specific Ergonomics Intervention Assessment FIGURE 1.1. The Continuous Er ally, proactive ergonomics e neers, engineers, planners, : solving teams are allowed tr: well (Day 1.998). Proactive ergonomics m: but the two should be intcg efforts in order to gain a his direcrlv interface with partici {see Figure 1.4). The next level of respo efforts, incorporates analysis tal systems of work. This eff} and management (GUAM: g sometimes ()VFTYT-Ell‘iifi dirt macroergonomics, which i sociotechnical systems to tlt drick 2001}. Macroergonon or fixing just the work or we l‘liZEIi'iOI‘I, the socioteel‘rnical were the root causes for the may well arise again or not s Ergonomic Design for People at Wort 1' companies, as well as numerou; e meatpacking guidelines. These hat an ergonomics program shouh e participation standards in other parts of the :rnational Standards Related to ton of an ergonomics process is level oi responsiveness and focus of ergonomics assessment tools isiveness-——reactive, proactive, or :tureland level of programming popstveness toward ergonomics nnics applies intervention efforts address musculoskeletal disorders his application ofergonomics to work, workstation, or work area a 198?}. The reactive perspective 5d strategic levels of ergonomics lg to determine design and pos— re. iomics is proactive—tiesigned to are 1.3}. This is accomplished hv apply ergonomics principles in 3', plants. programs, and svstcms irk (Rodgers '1984). Proactive possible at the product and pro— nd Winkel 199?, 2000; l oscph asses should l 1 ' 3e implemented so IL. ]can better work together and apaicallv ijoseph 2000}. Gener— I. Ergonomics Design Philosophy 7 AMLYSIS TOOLS Sociotechnical and Environmental Assessment Maturation Level Potential Ergonomics Problem-Solving Techniques and Engineer Checklists Parlicipative individual Ergonomics Ergonomics Problem- Investigator Solving Techniques Specific Ergonomics Intervention Assessment roar: IVE ra eglc Microergonomics Macroergonomics WorkM'ork Area Desiganrocessi'System Focused Focused EHGONOMICS RESPONSIVENE5§ FIGURE 1.1. The Continuous Evolvement and Maturation of an Ergonomics Process ally, proactive ergonomics efforts are undertaken by designers, design engi— neers, engineers, planners, and schedulers. However, ergonomics problem-- solving teams are allowed to participate as much as possible in this effort as well (Dav 1.998}. Proactive ergonomics may he seen as separate from reactive ergonomics, but the two should he integrated with past reactive ergonomic. studies and efforts in order to gain a historical perspective. Proactive ergonomics should directlyr interface with participatory ergonomics problem-solving teams as well (see Figure 1.4]. The next level of responsiveness in ergonomics programming, strategic efforts, incorporates analysis of management, sociotechnical, and environmen— tal systems of work. This effort is known as the study of orpauj'éatiggpgi {is-sign and maria 'cmcnt ODA I ' ‘ macroer onomics Hendrick 193? . Com .anies salmfifimiflflmvm e; f j p macroergonomics, which begins with an analysis of the ITClilinIWf sociotechnical systems to the design of work systems, including a systematic analysis oWeWmnvimnmental systems {Hen- drick 200i). Macroetgonomics studies have shown that if microergom'imics. or fixing just the work or work area, is the only approach used Within an orga— nization, the sociotechnical or environmental systems that contributed to or were the root causes for the risk may not be fixed, and therefore the prohlem may well arise again or not he fixed in the first plaCe [Gilmore and Millard 3 Kodak’s Ergonomic Design for People at Work Characteristics of a Reactive Ergonomics Program Program Structure 0 intervention studies aimed at a specific problem, usually at a particular workstation or work area. This effort may be seen as short-lived in that it identifies the problem, solves it, and moves on. 0 Associated programs will be aimed at specific work issues or work areas being studied. => Back schools, awareness training, behavioral safety, work hardening 2:» Productivity enhancements as well as quality management efforts 0 Utilization of participatory ergonomics efforts will be the preferred structure. Analysis Models 9 Individual investigators, outside experts or from within the company, may be used in analysis of. specific work or work areas in the initial phases of an ergonomics effort. 0 Individual investigators may still he used even in participatory efforts; however, they must work very closely with the ergonomics coordinator, ergonomics team, engineer, and steering committee. 9 Structured ergonomics problem—solving techniques are used to arrive at technically and economically feasible solutions. 0 Specific investigative ergonomics analysis tools are integrated with the problem-solving technique. 0 Participatory ergonomics efforts are incorporated using the operating employee members. FIGURE 1.2. Characteristics of a Reactive Ergonomics Program 19.98; Kleiner 1999; Kleiner and Drury 1.999; Kink 2000; Hendrick 2001}. Hendrick {2001) concludes that if effecrive macroergonoinics is applied, then ttiicroergonomics would automatically be included in the system’s overall structure. A critical factor to be considered is that an ergonomics expert, whether outside or inside the organization, must possess :1 high degree. of organiza- tional design background and experience as well as the traditional ergonomics background and experience. On the other hand, an outside or inside organiza— tional design and management expert needs to have a high level of ergonomics background and experience. Also, the organization must be prepared to make the additional effort to begin and implement macroergtmomics. Mature Ergonomics Efforts: Programs to Processes Many companies are labeling their ergonomics program as an “ergonomics process.” This change in name supports the change in program direction and 1. Ergonomics Design il‘nilosophy Characteristics of a Proactive Ergonomics Program Program Structure 0 Intervention studies using internal or external experts may still he used; however, they work very closely with the ergonomics coordinator, ergonomics tram, steering committee, and engineersfdesigners. 0 Associated p! ograms are usually integrated with the ergonomics program i and are aime 5 at specific work issues or work areas, but they look at the process and i- egin to look at work systems, aligning efforts with , scheduled ch urges and potential concerns. I :9 Back schc als, awareness training, behavioral safety, work hardening --..> I-‘i‘oduetiy'ty enhancements as well as quaiiry management efforts specificall“ used and integrated with er§.,_ronoinics1 including,I Six Sigma, flow tecln ology, action workouts, cell technology, and others 0 Safety or hu: -::in resources personnel can initiate these efforts, but many times production, engineering and leadership will initiate the need for a study of con-'crns that are heing anticipated. 9 Emphasis is {men to the training and assimilation of ergonomics design principles to designers, engineers, and planners. 9 Knowledge 1: extended through training or awareness, and criteria are set for supp] ers1 vendors, and outside contractors. I 9 Utilization oi participatory ergonomics efforts will be the preferred SII'UL‘I'UI‘C. Analysis Model 9 Participatth ergonomics efforts are incorporated with design team members at tpecific points in design processes. 9 A structui'ec. systematic ergonomics analysis process is available to and used by desf roots and engineers for proactive identification and “potential” nsoblem—solving using-g speciiic ergonomics analysis tools and checklists. 0 Specific invi i needs. 0 .-'\dditiona|_ fools, e.g., Six Sigma and continuous improvement processes, will integrate- crgonomics principles and analysis and be used to look at stigative ergonomic analysis tools will be used for specific processes a] ti work systems. u... FIGURE 1.3. Charach-istics of a Proactive Ergonomics Program Scope to that of a process that addresses a series of systematically planned actions that produc: change or develt'mecnt directed toward ergonomic design or redesign of work and work systems (Day and Rodgers “1992;,loseph 2000}. As ergonomics prt.:c-:sses mature, they adopt participatory ergtmomics pro— cesses and use erg-woman problem—solving techniques. They will inherently consider work systrm design issues at the reactive and proacrive levels, though not to the degree to which macroergontnnics would review the additional lO Kodak’s Ergonomic Design for People at Work Ergonomics Steering Ergonomics Coordinator Committee - Designers, Planners I Layout, MSD Medical Product Research Management Ergonomics Ergonomics Expert Problem-Solving Teams (Consultant or Academic) FIGURE 1.4. Participatory Ergonomics Process Model sociotechnical and environmental systems {Rodgers 1992; Day and Rodgers 1992; Moore and Garg 1.996; l-laims and Carayon 19.98; Robertson 2000}. Participatory Ergonomics A company or business will typically start with an individual investigator who does ergonomics assessments. The individual investigator will generally be used for specific issues or studies in the reactive or proactive levels. In contrast, macroergonomics generaiiy employs multiievel and multifunctional teams to assess and address systems. The individual investigator is still used in a mature ergonomics process, but to a much smaller degree, and he. or she is usually required to work with the ergonomics problem—solving teams or design teams. Participatory ergonomics efforts, on the other hand. can he used across all levels of ergonomics responsiveness and can be directly involved with all levels of ergonomics assessment tools {Rodgers 1.992; Day and Rodgers 19.92; Day 1998; Hendrick 2000]. Benefits from using general participatory programs have been well esta- blished (Sherwood 1988; Allen 1991; Proctor 1.986; Auguston 1989; Pasmore 1.990). There is evidence that shows participatory ergonomics programs result in some of those same benefits {Rodgers 1984; Hendrick 198?, 2001; [mada and Nagamachi 1995; Wilson 1995; Moore and Garg 1996; Rosecrance and Cook 2000}. Participatory ergonomics, a hybrid of other organizational design and management efforts, is more than just “doing ergonomics” or “involving the employee in ergonomics.” Rather, employees from all levels and from all functions and organizations work and communicate collectively, in functional or natural groups or teams, using ergonomics as a forum. Through the participatory ergonomics process, a commitment is made to agree upon for People at Work ics Coordinator VISD Medical Vianagement es Expert at or Academic) l_)-.1y and Rodgers hertson 2000}. l investigator who will generally he ievels. In contrast, nctional teams to 1 used in a mature or she is usually s or design teams. )c used across all ved with all levels :Jdgers '1992; Day we heen well esta— 1in 1989; Pasmore :5. programs result 987, 2001; Imada i; Rosecrance and er organizatitmal 1 ergonomics" or from all levels and are collectively, in a forum. Through .dc to agree upon Ergonomics Design Philosophy 1 l : rd attain desirath outcomes for inicroergonomics as well as macroergonom— Ess problems (Day 1998}. Participatory ergonomics can he used effectively across reactive. proactive, i ii-d strategic {macroergonomicsl levels of ergonomics responsiveness. It is rec— ugnizcd as a very important aspect of macroergonomics (Hendrick 2001; St. 1incent, lahergeJ and Lottie 2000). The initial phases of participatory i. rgonolnics are led by an outside expert who trains and guides the ergonomics team through initial analyses and Well into the learning curve. There is a pro— tess of transferring the guidance and control from the outside expert to the internal participatory structure. Another variation of participatory ergonomics is the participatory action research model, which requires the investigators to work collaboratively with the study population {Moore and (iiarg 1996; J iaims and Carayon 1998; Rosecrance and Cook 2000). An external expert must have some plan to eventually transfer the guid— -.. :‘ice and control of the participatory process to the participants and not over— ride the participants” growth {liaims and Carayon 1998). Care must he taken 2:: monitor the effectiveness of the participatory structure. as it begins to take L‘."l-1trle and to ensure that the ergonomics problem-solvil‘ig teams will he effec- tive in the analysis process and not hecome extensions of the outside expert Fit. Vincent, Lahergc, and Lottie 2000). One model for the structure of the participatory ergonomics process is rl‘ItJW'l'i in Figure 1.4. The structure should he flexible, allowing for continuous imprmrci‘nent of :he ergonomics process over the long term. If there. is no structure, these initia— '.i\'es will not he long—lasting (Day 1998). The structure of the. ergonomics pro-- Less should include all specialized functional groups in the organization and ensure that they are linked either geographically or by regular communica— tions. Both of these concerns will he critical for designers3 planners> and prod— uct designers (Joseph 2000}. Specific Ergonomics Process Issues Globalization .tlany companies that have facilities in other cmmtries have found that the ia'ansfcr and standardization of knowledge and processes1 outcomes1 and com— ::iunication hecome critical areas for introducing ergonomics outside of the iiome country. Joseph {2000) details the following tasks to implement an -. :‘gonon'iics effort in a new region: 9 Secure and establish a local ergonomics steering committee that devel— ops, manages, and owns the ergonomics process. Adjust the process to meet local requirements. 0 Train using the established company etgomnnics training course. 12 Kodak’s Ergonomic Design for People at Work 9 Establish and implement a single system to document the ergonomics process, ergonomics analysis process, and results to he used For best prac- tices and lessons learned for all sites worldwide. The goal is eventually to have an automated system for recording and storing this information. + listahlish a continuous improven'ient process that integrates the ergonomn ics process and can be centrally located and globally implemented. 1 Establish a global rollout partnership to assist smaller sites that have fewer resources. -9 Roll out a country-based ergonomics process with site representatives selected to implement the. rollout specific to their sit= and country. ~> Develop a specific audit process to measure the success of the ergonon ics process. «.9 Global and local :-.‘egulatory issues may differ and need to be specifically addressed. Finally-3 cultural and social issues must he considered and integrated into the plants” local ergonomics process (Joseph 2000). Integrating Productivity Enhancements Mar. r ergonomic analysis models have begun to integrate qualit'}-'—driven analysis process such as continuous improvement models (Joseph 2000; Axels- son 1.000; Rosecrance and Cook 2000; Moore and Garg 1.9.96}, as well as sta— tistic 1ily driven processes such as Six Sigma {Harry 1994}. Often, quality anal} ses processes are selected that are comparable to the cotnpany"s internal quality analysis model, because consistency is critical to success. The model in l‘igLL-e LS, hased on ergonomics problem-solving techniques (Rodgers 1988, 'l .992), is one road map For the ergonomics problem—solving team. 513p _; DEFINE identify concern, lx'ey playerst’stakeholder gene MEASURE Review data systems and survey work” Step \: .-'\Nr\l.YZE: Apply specific ergonomics analysis tools, if appropriate: :nanual handling, repetitive work, others Apply the ergonomic prohlem—solxdng technique” Validate solutions and ensure that they agree with employees’ perceptions" Review proposed solutions for effectiveness and added L'UI'ICCI'IWS IMPROVE Perform justification, select the best alternative, report our Ltep .‘_: CONTROL l.)evelop implementation plan and implement Step__t-: liVALUA'l'l-I Reevaluate, interview employee-sf complete documentation ii: VALIDATE interview employees after iinpleinentation,“' monitor, follow up =Elimi‘i .'_-'ee involvement and irput FIGURE I.5. General Ergonomics Problem-Solving Flow Process (adapted from Rodgers I987, 1988, 199.2; Day 1998) l . Ergonomic Other in other p rod uc Typically, tln system {Rodi not consider: program sho programs r ergonomics t assess the. ris ation after tl' ments and e sound. Program E OSHA Ergc Manufactur and Assemt Although er; Record—Keep end in 199?. mended ahai ticular work Chronologic 9 An Er operat repress onnne o The E'- recom 9 An on total r cific it terms leader ics pr: analys See “I o The l". coord nician ergonr I. Ergonomics Design Philosophy 13 Other business initiatives s.1ch as flow technology, action workouts, and other productivity enhancemen: tools should he integrated with ergonomics. 'l‘ypically, these enhancement tools are focused on the product or process or system {Rodgers 1.98.9; Day ar-d Rodgers 1992}. .Vlany times the worker is not considered from an ergononics viewpoint. 'l‘herefore, any enhancements program should ha ye an ergont mics principles training module as part of the program‘s rollout. Ergonomic s problem—solving techniques and specific ergonomics tools should he available and used hy' the enhancement team to assess the risk associated with we present situation and with the desired situ— ation after the enhancement tot 3 is applied. The integration of these enhance- ments and ergonomics will make the efficiency effort more ergonomically sound. Program Examples OSHA Ergonomics and Record-Keeping Agreement in 3 Manufacturing Facility (~ 60-3 employees) with injection Molding and Assembly Operations (Day 1998) Although ergonomics activities hegan in 1992, the OSHA Ergonomics and Record-Keeping Agreement was formally implemented in 1993 and was to end in 19.97. This OSHA citation included 2,710 documented OSHA—recom— mended ahatements for 189 cit..tions. Each citation corresponded with a par— ticular workstation. The numl'er of operations per citation varied as well. Chronological efforts for the erg.;onomics program included the following: 9 An Ergonomics Council IliC), whose members included leadership, operations, industrial rel: tions, medical, safety, union, and engineering representatives, was estahlished to respond to complaints and make rec— om mendations to he carried out by the engineeringfoperations group. O The EC identified an enigi leer whose role was to coordinate ergonomics recomn'iendations and eff .‘rI‘lfS. 0 An outside ergonomics e {pert was hired in late 1992. Subsequently, a total review of the ()Sl'lr". ergonomics agreement was made and a spe- cific formalized structure was implemented that would both satisfy the terms of the OSHA agreement and be compatible with the company’s leadership style, union regn'esentation, and culture. A specific ergonom— ics. problem—solving analfsis process that would include repetitive task analysis was designed and implemented as well (Rodgers 1988, 'l992). See “An Ergonomics Pro ilem-Solving Technique” later in this chapter. ¢ The EC role was changed so that of an overseeing effort. An ergonomics coordinatorlengineer was appointed and three additional engineer/tech— nicians were hired and as-iggned to specific assemth lines to perform the ergonomics prohlein-solv cg analysis process and implement solutions. 11155133311 11313131133111“) 1111 1511[ 1011 “111311311 1: 81: 5311110110313 311113311 01 311111113 5111115111113 3111 111 33111111:- 11 1131331131 51111 3311110110313 1911! 01 11351011111) 512 911.1311 1:531:an 11111.11 p311313u3‘3 313111 113111 5111111111103 1111 ‘111331311 1; 01 1111 ‘11131111 sum 111110-1112 11111512313111 1113 3113111331111: 3111 11) 3111 11131-31111 3111 1310 '1113115 mam 81113111311511 : 11311113111[110331-3150 .101 {1101111111 gg 01 1101111111 5113;) 1803 pQJULIIEJSD 3111 :10 ILISDJQCI {101338.11 1‘. £11.10 191.11 31111813181103 3111311! -1z.1p 113.1 812111 51661 1.11 3661 111011 331121 1u3p13u1 (11:) 111 1111113111331 3111 ‘11009 111111 ‘513111121 3311113111 '31001 111311 81111111131111 C11331113113 31111331113113 1111 51211.1 11.33.1311 01? (“amuuxoflgldn pun ‘1101113111011113 .1111 31m 1113313d 113‘ 11101111 311111113 11'101111 101 1113111 11133111 5‘ 1311101112 ‘31111111211 101 512m 111331311 5‘ 11131121111110.111111: “91.9113 11131111531111 1331.111 111 00011033 8111110 13311110110313 01 113111131 111331111 11111 sum (101111111111) 3131101? 11131111531111 133111111 111 510111103 3111111110313 1113111 —31111111 111 1113116; 512m 0111111033 s11131111531111 133[01d 101 1113119 1101111111 913 3111 :10 '1113111311‘111112111 1123111311: .101 (100‘317151; p111: 511011121131u1111p13 101 {mummg 531111111211 131 000391; 11113111111311; 13310111 112111111111 12 pm: “51503 11331113111 p111: “3111121131 1111111112 ‘31111111111 .101 U _j:,_}‘ggz$ 11) 3661 111 1503 101.111 13 113111113111 31111 3110113 55533 —01d 111313113 3111 101 m1 111 3661 111011 1101111111 99-35 11131111 1111121111103 3111 ‘8111110111 JAIDAY. ‘il'lOEACJJd 3111 U? S:§BP}IJON\ 13383111} 11! [IOFDIIPDJ JLIODJGd 13 111111 ‘531121 3311311111311 p111,13d—.&t?p—113A3S 111 110113111331 111331311 65‘ 13 “831111 331131 42113111 11011311-1111111111—111131111 111 1111113111331 111331311 0g 111213110 1111 :3111911 311111 $1111 811111111 9111311111113 11) 11111111035111 111 5110113111131 11131-014331 1u3.151su03 1331110115; 51111931 31111“ ‘966 1 111 g [361 111011 8331101111113 3111 011111123113011311 p313131u1111p1! 913111 13111 13.11.1115; 1:10 31111931 3111 111 1133:; 313.111 1111131110111 113131313111113311111 1(po11—13dd11 33111131 01 21331131111331 .1 11112130111 111 31011131111111 111121111111111 131110 '[g'[ 111 5"9} 9661 111 17661 1110,11 1.3.1:; 0311' 31-31“ 31121 31133 111110-ssau111 (ll-KI 3111 111 1111113111131 111331311 EL \1 -(1{13.111‘=.1d531 ‘51 01 5:171} 9561 01 1,661 11111.11 1133s; 512m 3111 35123 (flax-“1] 11331111111-1111111—31-{1211 11mm 1501 3111 111 110113111131 1113:113d L17 V '333 __.{1'11d1.113 311111 11111 0m 13d 511131113111 10 1311111111 31: 11311211131133 11112131133 3.11% 931111 11131113111 '{1661 111 1; =31 3661-3111 3 x 111,} 3112.1 11131113111 3323 ((111)) 1311139111 [TIIII'IUJJ f).-‘\1Il'L’-1EHUI’D 3:.{3 L1! [1011311173.] JUGDJQLI UP. PEDAAOLIS g‘illleIlIOD '135111 11113 533111111111 3111 10111315311 111111 111112 9111'11113311dd13 111111135312 01111 111311 1113111 1131 111111103111 111112 13311113111111 11311110110313 111 1131111211 313m 1113113153“ '331151-1 .{11111138513111819311 111111131011 .10; >1001 p111: 53111133111 111311111013131) 131111011 111131111 1111111111 1113131111p31j1133111fiu3 53111131101113 111: ‘1111231dA’__L 13111131103213 3112101110311] 01 111255311 31311110111 M31110 1131111131 3111 0 31119131333111 35311111 111112 1.1111111 3111331111 101 11119 1113111113311 1111 1111131113111 131; 131111 5111112193 11111: 1135123 1131111 10 8013131111 3111 1111 8111111011 31311 131111031311 311311;: “111112111111 3113311 11131113311113111 11231113111 11311110110313 1111101111 133111 111 11312311de 3211,1135; 111113311 11.110111211113311 31111410 1113 111 111113 --1s.-'1'11d 131133131113 111: 111311 11331112113 512m 11011331111 5331-1139 11331133111 3111 9 '533311111 315111-111: 8111:1103-111311111111 53111111110313 311.1 111 311315- 111113 9:13:11311 111131133 111 1131311131111211 5135121 3111 3111111101 -.13d 1111111131111 3111 31113111119 3111 1u10_113d 111 313.11 513311121113 3111 1131111111111 1110111119 31111035 101 ufigseq 111110uo§13 5,112p051 : Work onlics prac- llly to an. )nUIll— have atives anom- iically .i and iriven \xels— {-5 Sic-El- uality ternal del in was, d t o Lit ration Typically. these enhancement tools are focused on the product or process or i. Ergonomiis Design Philosophy 1 5 Other. h isiness initiatives such as flow technologyJ action workouts, anc other produ..‘ti\»'it}-' enhancement tools should he integrated with ergonomics. system ([{ot'gers 1989; Day and Rodgers 1992}. Many times the worker is not considered from an ergonomics viewpoint. 'I‘herefore, any enhancements program Slit-L1lLl have an ergonomics principles training module as part of the program’s |I"ll()llt. Ergonomics problem—solving techniques and specific ergonomics tools should be available and used by the enhancement team to assess the ri: it associated with the present situation and with the desired situ- ation after tiie enhancement tool is applied. The integration of these enhance- ments and ergonomics will make the efficiency effort more ergonomically sound. Program Examples OSHA Ergonomics and Record-Keeping Agreement in 3 Manufacturing Facility (~6OO employees) with Injection Molding and Assemjiy Operations (Day 1998) Although ergonomics activities began in 1992, the OSHA Ergonomics and Record—Keeping Agreement was formally implemented in 1993 and was to end in E99? This OSHA citation included 2,710 documented OSHA—recom- mended Eli);1.'£‘1Tlt:l‘ltS for 189 citations. Each citation corresponded with a par— ticular won-station. The number of operations per citation varied as well. Chroi'ioltntital efforts for the ergonomics program included the. following: 0 An 1“. ‘gonomics Council (EC), whose members included leadership, opera ions, industrial relations, medical, safety. union, and engineering representatives, was estahlished to respond to complaints and make rec» ommtndations to he carried out hy- the engineeringoperations group. o The lit identified an engineer whose role was to coordinate ergonomics recon' mendations and efforts. 0 An in tside ergonomics expert was hired in late 1992. Subsequently. a total IUVlCW’ of the OSHA ergonomics agreement was made and :1 spe— cific formalized structure was implemented that would both satisfy the terms of the OSHA agreement and he Compatible with the company’s leadership style, union representation, and culture. A specific ergonom~ ics problem-solving analysis process that would include repetitive task analysis was designed and implemented as well {Rodgers 1.988, 'I 992). See “.\:1 Ergonomics Prchlem—Solving Technique” later in this chapter. 9 The 14.; role was changec. to that of an overseeing effort. An ergonomics coord :..atorfengineer was appointed and three additional engineen’tech— nicians were hired and assigned to specific assemth lines to perform the ergonomics prohlem-solving analysis process and implement solutions. Io Kodak’s Ergonomic Design for People at Work 9 Safety—specific employee—based teams were developed to mirror the ergonomics team success. About 60 percent of the employees in this facility participate in some aspect of the EHS efforts. 0 The ergonomics problem—solving analysis process was further formal-- izecl (see Figure 1.5}. 0 At one point the safety coordinators requested a shortened ergonomics analysis tool, which was subsequently developed and implemented. However, later it was found that this shortened analysis did not ade- quately arrive at alternative solutions that were economically and tech- nologically feasible. investigation shtiwed that this happened because there was no link between the. identified risk and a root cause that could serve to lead the teams toward usahle solutions. Therefore, the formal— ized ergonomics problem—solvng analysis process was reinstated as a requirement to keep the. ergonomics teams focused and assure a high— quality analysis. 0 Continuous improvement was incorporated from the very beginning and kept the ergonomics process and all of the other liHS efforts and the participants focused on reaching enhanced reactive and proactive solu— tions. These included the following: 0 Engineers and planners were included in the ergonomics trainng ses- sions. ' Specific ergonomics training was provided for designers and drafters and Center of Excellence (COB) business operations. 0 Specific efforts were made to incorporate the ergonomics process into the Six Sigmafquality efforts of this facility. As a result of all these activities, the. highest status {Star} was achieved in OSHA‘S Voluntary Protection Program {VPP} in 1.999. In addition, the safety coordinator efforts worked so well that additional coordinator positions were implemented. Currently, this facility is leadng an effort to develop an elec- tronic version of the analysis process for the entire corporation. The company‘s ergonomics process has been very effective in reducing the injury and illness rate from 20 in 21.9.92 to 4 in 2000. The overall plant popula— tion did not vary to a large degree over the twelve—year period. At its peak, output of units increased by 460 percent. This was accomplished hy many business and quality initiatives, and ergonomics certainly added to this out— come. Even though this ergonomics process could be labeled a mature ergonomics effort, it continues to evolve toward a participatory-proactive pro— cess that incorporates the work systems of the company. Some Program] Process Traps to Avoid 6 Assuming that training or empowerng e1'1'1ployees will make them effec- tive Work r the l this 'mal- Iniics :itetl. ode-- tech— ause ould mal- as a ugh, ning i the oh:— 588- Tt'I'S' into ;l in tety :ere lec- the .1la— ale .1 uy rut— ure ro- L‘C- 1. Ergonomics Design PhiIOSOphy 1 7 o Relying upon a few individuals or a single department to address CrgmiOZEIiCS issues 4 Not giving support, with a formalized structure as well as resources; to Kill: Crg: 'TIUInlCS team 9 Assumi 1;; that, if the problem is obvious, applying a typical ergonomics fix to ti :2 problem or concern will be effective 9 Ignoring the elliecr on the ergonomics process when a company or orga— nization reorganize-.5 Summary To gain suppt rt and commitment from both the leadership and employees1 the structure and analysis process must be carefully explored and selected {Day 1998}. A great deal of variability in the analysis processes is present in differ— ent companits and organizations, and the effectiveness of the results also varies (St. Vincent, Laberge, and Lorrie 2000}. Characteristics of a mature ergonomics process include the following: 9 Careful planning and involvement of all stakeholders across all func- tions is done prior to actually beginning to implement an ergonomics proerru‘= {Day 1998). 9 While the basic core elements of an ergonomics program are present, most t’f"<."rts are moving tmyard a structure based on ergonomics process [Day a: ti Rodgers 1992; Day 1999; Rodgers 1.999}. o Participatory ergonomics principles are typically practiced [Day and Rodger: '1 992; Moore and Garg 1.996; Haims and Carayoni998; lien- drick 2.100; Rosecranee and Cook 2000]. 9 Ergonomics efforts are integrated with other business initiatives {Kleiner I999; ls leiner and Drury 1999; Hendrick 2000; Rodgers 2000). o lirgono uics problem-solving techniques are more widely accepted and used [Fudgers 1992 and 2000; Moore and Gare; 19.96; Day 1998; ‘Iosepb 2000; Rosecrance and (.Iook 2000). o Proacti-t ergonomics efforts are more common lRodgers 1984; Joseph 2000). o Soitwar.) technology; either developed internally within the organization or from ar outside source, prtwides more accurate and timely data tracking. This is : lso true for specialized computerized ergonomics analysis tools. 9 l’lexibil 'ty and responsiveness are built into the process structure and analysis process to allow for changing business and organizational cul— tural acids. 0 Auditln ; of the ergonomics: program occurs at least yearly, but mtmitoiu ing occurs more frequently. 18 Kodak’s Ergonomic Design for People at Work 9 Programs are revisited or retooled every two to three years to remove any barriers and address additional or changed influences. This is needed to keep the ergonomics process fresh and state—of—the—art. While all of these characteristics are present to varying degrees in a mature ergonomics process. they may vary in importance at different times. AN ERGONOMICS PROBLEM-SOLVING TECHNIQUE Background A sampling of many job analysis methods is presented in Chapter 2. Most of these methods identify risk for injury or illness or for musculoskeletal fatigue and quantify the level of risk by using data on human capabilities. The quail-- tification helps to set priorities for which ergonomics issues should be addressed first in a plant. Knowing how serious a problem is can be useful, but the generation of solutions that will significantly reduce the risk for injury is necessary if effective improvements are to be made. A technique to generate solutions via participative root cause analysis problem solving is described in this section. This technique has been used in ergonomics team training in man— ufacturing, service, and public sector jobs and has been successful in finding simpler and less expensive solutions to job problems by defining the iob char— acteristics that must be improved. Sources Contributing to This Problem-Solving Technique The technique described below is loosely based on Socratic principles, wherein a trainer or leader facilitates the studentsr'attci‘idees in the discovery of new ideas and solutions through the use of questions and logic (Wilson, Dell, and Anderson 1993}. Two pt‘t‘)hlem—solving and decision—making techniques were adapted to assist the Socratic. approach with more structure. The problem analysis and decision-making methods of Kepner and Tregoe (1965} have an action sequence that starts with problem recognition, that is, what is really happening compared to what should be happening. If the problem is serious, an interim action should be implemented. This is often chosen after a problem analysis or decision-making analysis is made. The third step of the Kepner—Tregoe process is to find the root cause of the prol — lem, usually through problem analysis. The fourth step is to determine the best corrective action by using decision analysis, and the last step is to imple— ment the solution after checking to be sure that it has no adverse Consequences or only minor ones. The second problem analysis method borrowed from is the Functional Analysis Systems Technique {FAST}, which has been used to analyze social sys— tems and manufacturing processes (Bytheway '197'1; Czlplfll‘l, Rodgers. and ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/02/2010 for the course IE 592 taught by Professor Staff during the Winter '08 term at Oregon State.

Page1 / 18

Reading 1 - Ergonomics Design Philosophy ERGONOMICS AND...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 18. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online