Neumann, W.P. & Village, J. (2012). Ergonomics action research II: a framework for integrating HF into work system design. Ergonomics, 55(10), 1140-1156. D.O.I.: 10.1080/00140139.2012.706714
A framework supporting the integration of HF into work system design W.P. Neumann1, J. Village1 1 - Human Factors Engineering Lab, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Dept., Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
Abstract This paper presents a conceptual framework that can support efforts to integrate human factors (HF) into the work system design process where improved and cost-effective application of HF is possible. The framework advocates strategies of broad stakeholder participation, linking of performance and health goals, and process focussed change tools that can help practitioners engage in improvements to embed HF into a firm's work system design process. Recommended tools include business process mapping of the design process, implementing design criteria, using cognitive mapping to connect to managers’ strategic goals, tactical use of training, and adopting virtual HF tools to support the integration effort. Consistent with organisational change research, the framework provides guidance but does not suggest a strict set of steps. This allows more adaptability for the practitioner who must navigate within a particular organisational context to secure support for embedding HF into the design process for improved operator wellbeing and system performance. Relevance There has been little scientific literature about how a practitioner might integrate HF into a company's work system design process. This paper proposes a framework for this effort by presenting a coherent conceptual framework, process tools, design tools, and procedural advice that can be adapted for a target organisation.
Keywords: Organisational Development, Work System Design, Ergonomics Intervention, Proactive Ergonomics, Participatory Macroergonomics, Meta-ergonomics Corresponding Author: Dr. W.P. Neumann, LEL, Eur.Erg. Ryerson University – Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Dept, Human Factors Engineering Lab 350 Victoria st., Toronto, ON M5B 2K3
[email protected] +1.416.979.5000 x7738 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION The aim of this paper is to outline a conceptual framework and practical basis for an approach to integrating human factors (HF) considerations into the process of designing work systems. The initial context for this discussion will be manufacturing industries. The current proposition is to take a 'design' perspective towards identifying specific design process improvement initiatives - a re-designing of the design system to eliminate health hazards at source. 1.1. The Challenge of Applying Human Factors Despite decades of ergonomics research on the causes of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) (e.g. de Beeck and Hermans, 2000; Buckle and Deveraux, 2002; Hoogendoorn et al., 2000; National Research Council, 2001), MSDs remain the single most expensive category of workrelated ill health (WIH) problems (Leigh et al., 1997; Wells, 2009), continuing to pose difficulties for afflicted individuals (Pransky et al., 2000), their employers (Oxenburgh et al., 2004), and society in general (Leigh et al., 1997; Leigh, 2011; WHO, 1999). Recent experiences with ‘participatory ergonomics’ interventions (PE) in industrialised nations have shown rather limited success (Cole et al., 2009; Rivilis et al., 2008). The problem of mixed results from studies of the application of HF principles in workplaces has been noted in several reviews (Karsh et al., 2001; Neumann et al., 2010; Volinn, 1999). Cole et al. (2009) in reviewing mixed results from a series of PE interventions discussed two possible contributors as being: ‘program deficits’ (flaws in the execution of an intervention); and ‘theory deficits’ (flaws in the intervention concept). One theory deficit identified included the inability of PE teams to make substantial changes to the design of already implemented, capital-intensive production system.
--------------------------------------------------INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE ------------------------------------------------------
1.2 WIH problems come from the development processes In order to discuss the proposed integration approach the authors draw on a model of work systems development, shown in Figure 1 for the example case of manufacturing. This model illustrates how work-related ill health (WIH) problems are the consequence of a chain of decisions made at each development level, including corporate strategies, choice of new services or products, product/process design , the design of the work system itself and related work organisation choices, and finally the ‘realised’ implementation of these designs in which employees work. In this production example, the work system (or operations system) includes all aspects of the manufacturing process including division of labour, material supply and logistics systems, in-plant conveyance system and buffering capacities, processes and 2
procedures for assembly, equipment, management policies and layout of the physical system (Carayon, 2009; Heizer and Render, 2007; Neumann et al., 2006). If this development process is flawed, then poor working conditions may result, contributing to MSD risk for employees. Problems in production can have their roots in product design as shown,, for example by Sundin et al. (2004) where awkward bending and reaches in assembly may be created by the design of the frame of a bus chassis (Sundin et al., 2004). Further issues may emerge in production system design due, for example, to materials supply, such as the choice of large crates that increase spinal loading for operators (Neumann and Medbo, 2010). Similarly, the psychosocial conditions for operators may be affected by the layout of the system, permitting (or not) interactions between workers, and the division of labour into highly (or not) repetitive work (Kihlberg et al., 2005). Outcomes of concern may include skill, competency and WIH for operators and performance and quality results for the system (Neumann and Dul, 2010). These outcomes will, in turn, determine if a company's strategic goals (at the top of the model in Figure 1) are met (Dul and Neumann, 2009). Viewed dynamically there is an ongoing interaction between the design of the work system, the physical and psychological working conditions for operators, and the subsequent system performance. This model has been illustratively validated in case studies demonstrating how the cascading chain of decisions in work system design can lead to WIH in employees in the electronics (Neumann et al., 2002) and automotive sectors (Neumann et al., 2006; Neumann and Winkel, 2006; Palmerud et al., in press). For further analysis of the linkage between strategic level choices regarding a rationalization approach and distal WIH outcomes see the systematic review of Westgaard and Winkel (2011) and the example case of Jonker et al. (2011). This model of work systems development poses the 'frame' of the conceptual framework of this paper. The intent is to help practitioners find ways to integrate HF into each stage of development so that proactive ergonomics is part of the regular routines for the organisation. This would effectively move the organisation from a reactive situation shown on the left hand situation in Figure 1 to a more integrated development process as illustrated on the right hand side. 1.3 There is a need to integrate HF into design Design science (e.g. Hubka and Eder, 1996) informs us that the most cost-effective controls are those applied early in the development process, while the design is malleable, ‘exposure latitude’ (c.f. Mathiassen and Winkel, 1997) is highest, and costs of change are lowest (Alexander, 1998; Buur and Andreasen, 1989; Miles and Swift, 1998). Neumann et al. (2010), reviewing the effectiveness of ‘work environment’ interventions (WEIs) concluded that there is a need for “multifactorial WEIs that: a) are owned by and aimed at the whole organisation; and b) include intervention in early design stages where potential impact is highest.” (from abstract). Most ergonomics intervention research, however, appears to aim at retrofitting processes and making changes to existing work systems (Denis et al., 2008; Westgaard and Winkel, 1996). Furthermore interview studies of ergonomists’ practice reveal a focus on issues at the level of the workstation (Whysall et al., 2004), and not at the system level where issues relating to critical time patterns of work are made (Wells et al., 2007). Many researchers have called for the integration of human factors considerations into the work system design process (Gervais, 2003; Graves, 1992; Haslegrave and Holmes, 1994; Imai et al., 2002; Jensen, 2002; Kragt, 1995; 3
de Looze et al., 2003; Neumann et al., 2002), and this was a central theme of the ‘sociotechnical’ movement which provided principles (Cherns, 1976) and many examples of work system re-design that improved both working conditions and system performance (Eijnatten et al., 1993; Griffith and Dougherty, 2002; Ryan et al., 2011). Despite the work of the sociotechnical movement, this approach remains uncommon in practice. Similarly in the research domain the observed gap between human focussed and engineering-managerial focussed research and development remains, arguably, the norm (Boudreau et al., 2003; Jensen, 2002; Neumann and Dul, 2010). Special efforts are therefore required if we are to understand how knowledge on human considerations are to be successfully integrated into work system design (Buckle, 2010; Chung and Shorrock, 2011) which has led to calls for new alternative investigation techniques such as 'Action Research' (Neumann et al., accepted). Applying HF late in the development process, makes meaningful change difficult since budgets have already been allocated and most decisions are already locked in (Baines and Kay, 2002; Broberg, 2007; Burns and Vicente, 2000; Helander, 1999; Imai et al., 2002; Imbeau et al., 2001; Jensen, 2002; Neumann et al., 2002 ; Perrow, 1983; Sinclair, 2007; Skepper et al., 2000). From an organisational perspective, there is a tradition of positioning ergonomists within the occupational health and safety (OHS) function in the organisation. This has been referred to by some as the 'OHS side-car' because of its effect of isolating ergonomics considerations from the main line of the organisation (per Figure 1 left side). This can result in a 'too little, too late' application of ergonomics (e.g. Frick, 1994; Hasle and Jensen, 2006; Helander, 1999; Jensen, 2001; Jensen, 2002). Intervention at the final stage of existing systems will be slow and costly. We suggest that better results can be achieved if HF principles are applied throughout the design process. This implies a need for organisations to make changes in their development processes to apply HF proactively. 1.4 Intervention Needed at the Organisational Level Integrating HF into the development process will require engagement at the organisational level. This is similar to a “macro-ergonomics” approach that recognises the need to address organisational issues to solve ergonomics problems (Hendrick and Kleiner, 2001; Imada and Carayon, 2008; Kleiner, 1999; Kleiner, 2006). At the risk of posing a straw man argument, the authors suggest that the difference in the current proposed approach and the ‘macroergonomic’ (ME) school is one of perspective. While both recognize a need for organisational level attention, the ME writings appear to be aimed at a particular designer with authority to steer the process of a particular system design following, for example, application of the macroergonomic analysis of structure (MAS) and macroergonomic analysis and design (MEAD) methods (Hendrick and Kleiner, 2001; Kleiner, 2006). In contrast, the current proposal aims at improving the entire development process (per Figure 1) - which ultimately leads to improvements in the final work system design. In this approach multiple levels of the organisation develop a sustainable capability to exploit the benefits available from early application of HF principles – the aim is at organisational design capability by many, not just an individual based design solution. The proposed approach is consistent with calls for multifactorial, organisational level interventions (Neumann et al., 2010), which avoid the limits of 4
simple 'point changes'. Bateman and Rich (2003) have stated: “ ’Point Changes’ without sufficient infrastructure to support improvements, at the business level, are unlikely to yield real and sustainable change.”, a position echoed by management scientists (Bamford and Forrester, 2003). Achieving such changes in the context of ergonomics, however, requires the participation of a wide range of stakeholders in the organisation (Ekman Philips, 2002; Neumann et al., 1999; Neumann et al., 2009; Vink et al., 2008). 1.5 The Challenge: engaging stakeholders One tactic for engaging stakeholders in the effort to integrate HF into a companys’ development processes is the linking of the human and performance objectives in a tactic referred to as ‘goal hooking’ (Poggi, 2005). The argument is that it will be easier to engage others in attending to HF issues if they understand it can contribute to their own agenda and strategic objectives (Dul and Neumann, 2009). Despite the IEA's definition of 'ergonomics' (and synonymously HF) as serving both human and system objectives (IEA Council, 2000), it has been suggested that ergonomics “is still often viewed by management as a means to prevent injuries, while providing no return on investment. This mentality serves to hide the potential for ergonomics… to improve labour efficiency and reduce the cost of production” (Jenkins and Rickards, 2001)(p243). A systematic review of ergonomics applications with both human and system effects found that, at the operational level, HF application is associated with improvements in quality, productivity, implementation performance of new technologies, and also more ‘intangible’ affects in terms of improved flexibility, communication and co-operation (Neumann and Dul, 2010). This is consistent with studies demonstrating economic benefits from the application of HF (Goggins et al., 2008; Oxenburgh and Marlow, 2005; Tompa et al., 2008), the ‘macroergonomic’ movement (Hendrick, 1996; Hendrick, 2008; Kleiner, 2006), studies of large scale change projects such as the massive Swedish National Working Life Fund Program (Gustavsen et al., 1996) and broad reviews examining the ‘convergence of working life and competitiveness’ (Huzzard, 2003). Baiting the Hook - the HF20-20 Challenge: In order to engage stakeholders in applying HF in their stages of design we propose to 'hook' their performance goals to the HF agenda (Poggi, 2005). To do this we suggest to 'bait the hook' by explicitly posing the following challenge: The ‘HF-20 20’ challenge is to integrate HF into the regular production system design process with the aim of improving both human and system outcomes by 20%. The magnitude of this improvement is in-line with gains observed in other studies (Goggins et al., 2008; Gustavsen et al., 1996; Hendrick, 2008; Van Rhijn et al., 2005; Vink et al., 2006) and poses a challenging yet realistic objective that is of interest to a broad range of stakeholders in the organisation. The framing of this challenge also subtly shifts HF from being a goal, to being a tool by which a number of goals might be achieved, a strategy suggested by Dul & Neumann (2009). 1.6 Customise New Processes
5
While a number of ‘HF process’ models from large companies have been published (Hägg, 2003), it is not clear how these models might be customized and implemented in a particular company. If we look to the quality field for examples we find that the mere adoption of an ISO9000 process has little correlation with quality performance until the ideas behind these programs are ‘fit’ to the company (van der Wiele et al., 2000) over a period of time (Taylor and Wright, 2003). This is consistent with the published reports on ‘model’ corporate ergonomics processes that appear to be the result of years of effort by the company (Joseph, 2003; Kilduff, 1998; Moreau, 2003; Munck-Ulfsfält et al., 2003; Smyth, 2003; Törnström et al., 2008). There is a need to anchor HF processes into the organisation so that underlying principles can be incorporated fully, rather than superficially with just the forms filled out as suggested by Taylor & Wright (2003) for quality processes. With this rationale, we pursue the development of HF capability inside the organisation that is meaningful for the individuals involved, is applied in daily practice, and is integrated with organisational structures or creates new structures if necessary (Gustavsen et al., 1996; Toulmin and Gustavsen, 1996). Rather than dictate a particular process ‘blueprint’, we offer instead a framework for change and an array, or smorgasbord, of methodological options that can support the emerging processes. The company personnel, who must live with the results, will need to make the critical choices with regards to how the change process will proceed in ways that make sense to them. Thus this model for an initiative to integrate HF into design draws on the disciplines of organisational learning (Hasle and Jensen, 2006; Senge, 1990; Siemieniuch and Sinclair, 2002), and organisational change management (Holden et al., 2008; Mitki et al., 1997; Pettigrew et al., 2001; Urlings et al., 1990; Zink et al., 2008), both of which provide specific advice on how the proposed initiative model should be implemented. This paper will focus more on the ‘targets’ of action in the initiative than specific change and project management issues, such as ‘maintaining active top management support’ that must also be attended to if the initiative is to be realised (for this see Holden et al., 2008; Zink et al., 2008).
2.0
PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO INTEGRATION INITIATIVES
Shifting to the more pragmatic aspects of the HF integration approach we propose potential initiatives aimed at each level of the development model (Figure 2). We avoid presenting a simple, deterministic N-Step process approach as these have been shown to work poorly due to variability in social contexts (Collins, 1998). Instead, we recommend a 'design' stance in which the practitioner begins pragmatically with elements that have company support, while working to gain support for other elements as they proceed. Thus, top-down, bottom up, or middle-out approaches are all possible depending on circumstances. The following conceptual approaches are presented in a top-down sequence, and are intended to provide ideas and possibilities to inspire action without proposing to be a definitive guide or set of sequential steps. The authors welcome methodological diversity and creative approaches to addressing the needs of the particular organisation. In this sense the current framework is intended to be 'open' to a diverse set of approaches based on the underlying systems needs that the frame helps identify. The aim is to eventually reach all elements of the development process in Figure 2 in order to secure meaningful attention to HF issues throughout for improved well-being and performance. 6
---------------------------------------------------------INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE -----------------------------------------------------------
2.1 Cognitive Mapping of HF and Management Strategy Theoretical work has established extensive connections between HF and business strategies (Dul and Neumann, 2009). Similarly, research on organisational change strongly suggests that to be successful and accepted, initiatives must be seen as aligned with overall strategic objectives and goals (Zink et al., 2008). Few studies provide tools or techniques for obtaining and sustaining senior management commitment to HF change. One potential method currently being developed for helping senior management understand the link between HF and their strategic goals is cognitive mapping (Village et al., 2012). Cognitive mapping is a tool used in operations research and business management to determine strategic goals, facilitate decision making, and solve complex problems, such as software development overruns (Swan, 1997). In this approach individual interviews are conducted with senior management using an openended question, such as “How does integrating human factors into your design processes help achieve your companies’ strategic goals?”. Responses are written on a large paper as concept nodes, and nodes are linked by directional arrows (for example, “reduce worker fatigue” may have a directional arrow that leads to another concept such as “reduced errors”). Strategic goals are placed at the top of the page, sub-goals in the middle, and action items that lead to sub-goals at the bottom. A one-hour interview can yield 60-120 concepts in a single map, which would represent the equivalent of a 20 page interview (Daley, 2004). The process of seeing the concepts helps individuals make links they otherwise may not have described in an interview. Individual maps can be merged into group maps which then reveal the management “thinking” or “cognition” (Eden, 1988). Using a workshop approach can allow individuals to see their concepts linked to those of others, which leads to seeing and talking about HF issues in new and different ways. This leads to learning about how HF can link to the managers' strategies. The outcome of the mapping tool is threefold: i) Management gain an increased understanding of the alignment of HF with their strategies; ii) The ergonomist or practitioner will gain an understanding of how to support their managers' objectives, and iii) Group maps help management teams negotiate a consensus and commitment to a portfolio of actions (Village et al., 2012; Village et al., working paper). 2.1 Process Mapping Since the developmental objective is to integrate HF into the design process, then it would be useful to understand how the design process is organised in the target organisation. While HF researchers have mapped the design process onto systems-theoretical frameworks (Burns and Vicente, 2000), these theory based approaches can be difficult for company stakeholders to understand and act on. Similarly, examination of how HF logically connects to design processes (Jensen, 2002), does not necessarily reflect the current state of the process in ways that are 7
understood by design team members. Applying ‘business process mapping’ (Hunt and Hunt, 1996) to the design process provides one means to make the design process explicit (Lim et al., 2009). In this process, information from different stakeholders is gathered and integrated into a “map” to illustrate the various design stages and critical decisions throughout the design process. Such maps are typically created as graphical representations based on information gathered from interviews with key personnel in the process. While the optimal approach for design process mapping remains a research issue, it could include information such as critical decisions, formal and informal check points, feedback loops and information input, as well as zones of stakeholder involvement (Lim et al., 2009; Neumann et al., 2009). For ergonomists who are frequently excluded from the design process, this mapping approach can help them understand the people and processes involved during design, aiding in navigation of the organisation during their efforts at change (Broberg and Hermund, 2004). Similarly to the cognitive map, the resulting design process map constitutes a 'boundary' object that can help foster a focussed discussion, among the cross functional design team, of where critical HF decisions are being made and how HF might be better integrated in the process (Balogun et al., 2005; Broberg et al., 2011). This approach can help improve the teams’ thinking about HF aspects in two stages: first from the discussions during the creation of the DP map, and second during the ‘application’ of the map in a workshop. At the workshop, the aim would be to identify specific initiatives in a participative context. This ensures that those involved in implementing new ideas are involved in formulating the initiative in ways that they can understand and act on. Those applying this technique should be prepared to follow-up on the 'action items' that can emerge from the workshop (Lim et al., submitted; Lim, 2011). 2.3 Workshops In this framework, workshops are used to foster decision making based on the knowledge gained in any one initiative. Depending on the local context these could be framed as 'workshops', 'planning meetings’, 'management kaizen events' or other similar events as are most suitable for the particular audience. Workshops serve as learning opportunities for both employees and managers, and can stimulate a range of HF development efforts within the firm (Neumann et al., 2009). Workshops and dialogue conferences that allow parties to speak across conventional organisational boundaries are seen to be a powerful stimulus of organisational change (Ekman Philips, 1990; Ekman Philips, 2002; Ekman Philips and Huzzard, 2007; Jensen, 2002; Wilhelmsson, 1998). These events allow the sharing of new information, and can provide learning opportunities about HF. They also provide a forum in which stakeholders can voice their views and together determine new avenues or goals for further development. This approach is consistent with ‘participatory’ ergonomics (Brown, 1986; Haines et al., 2002; Kogi, 1995; Kuorinka and Patry, 1995; Noro and Imada, 1991; Vink et al., 2006), but instead of the creation of specific ‘ergonomics committees’ involving workers in design processes, it involves the designers and management stakeholders directly (Zink et al., 2008). Since isolated ‘ergonomics committee’ structures have been observed to collapse in the face of normal organisational dynamics (Neumann et al., 2009), we suggest this approach may be more sustainable. The workshop event should be structured to generate specific actionable plans for improvement. Those who are to act on these decisions should be included in the event. 8
Previous studies have found that delays in action can occur if senior managers do not participate in such events (Lim, 2011; Neumann et al., 2009). Delays can also occur if the team is not prepared to act on the range of improvement items that can emerge from such events (Neumann et al., 2009) suggesting it is important to set the stage for implementing improvement ideas before the workshop event. 2.4 Design Criteria that Integrates HF Considerations Criteria form the start point for any design project and establish the requirements which the final design must meet (Pahl and Beitz, 1988). This applies to both the design of a product and of the operations system where front-line employees work. It can also be considered to start with Human Resource policies around employees and the plan for employee development in the organisation - what, for example, are the companies long term plans for employee development? If HF considerations are not part of the initial design criteria then it is less likely that designers will attend specifically to HF in any formal way. Similarly, HF considerations are unlikely to spontaneously become part of the criteria by which designers evaluate their design options. While the ergonomics literature has not addressed this issue extensively, Helander and Nagamichi (1992; see also Helander, 2006) incorporated HF principles into 'Design for Manufacturability' guidelines and they have been shown to greatly reduce both the time required to assemble products as well as the physical demands of the assembly. This dual win from attention to product design will help further the goals set by the 'HF 20-20' objective. In general, designers find their work difficult enough without new constraints to fulfil. Wulff et al. (1999a,b) conducted a qualitative study of the use of criteria in the design of off-shore oil platforms and found that the formulation of criteria in ways that are easily understood and applied was a critical feature in determining if designers would prioritise and apply HF criteria. Information overload was a problem for these designers (Wulff et al., 1999a; Wulff et al., 1999b). Criteria that were phrased in quantitative ways, which could be unambiguously evaluated, were preferred to more qualitative and principle based criteria. Case study research in the auto sector revealed that the presence of 'corporate standards' for HF was insufficient to have these necessarily applied in design processes (Neumann et al., 2006). Therefore, design criteria or standards need to have a routine for their application, be reinforced with technical support as needed, and have regular follow-up to ensure that the process and criteria have been appropriately met. One application may be to create a checklist based on the design criteria and use a routine process indicator (eg. sign-off) to identify any design flaws before new work systems are made operational.
2.5 Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) 'Failure mode effects analysis' (FMEA) is an industry standard technique for identifying potential quality issues in product design or assembly process design. FMEA is a systematic approach to examining each product or assembly component (or sub-system) to determine the severity, probability and detectability of a failure of that component. Once causes of failures are determined, actions for improving detection, or reducing the severity or occurrence can be developed. Human factors FMEAs have been applied to system failures, such as the shuttle 9
dome (Rong et al., 2008) and health care applications where operator error is concerned (for example, in providing medication in hospitals) (Fletcher, 2002). However, few examples have been found where FMEAs have been applied to physical risk factors and prevention of musculoskeletal injuries (Barsky and Dutta, 1997; Munck-Ulfsfält, 2004). Current work is underway to develop an approach to incorporating a HF-FMEA into quality FMEAs that achieve both improved product/process design, as well as optimal employee health in the stage of product and process design (per Figure 2) (Village et al., 2011).
2.6 Virtual HF Tools in Design 'Virtual' HF tools (VHF) can be useful throughout the design process – especially when there is no human or system to observe (Perez, 2011). When the product is particularly large, such as buses or automobiles, then digital human models (Chaffin, 2005) (DHMs) can be used to anticipate postural issues for operators or assembly line workers - particularly when reach-fit and vision issues are a concern (Sundin, 2001; Sundin et al., 2004). DHMs with connections to CAD permit virtual assessment of workstations before the station is built. DHMs have been widely discussed in the ergonomics literature and will not be further reviewed here (Chaffin, 2008; Honglun et al., 2007). There are, however, a number of other VHF tools which might be usefully applied in system design (Perez, 2011). HF extensions to pre-determined time and motion systems (PMTS) such as MTM allow the consideration of workload aspects during the process of allocating tasks to workstations as occurs frequently for line balancing purposes (Laring et al., 2002; Laring et al., 2005). Discrete event simulation (DES) is a time-based simulation approach which aims to track the dynamic changes in flow of materials within a system (Banks, 2001). DES allows convenient examination of the relative performance of alternative system configurations. While developed as a purely technical analysis tool, recent efforts have begun to integrate human aspects into DES (Baines et al., 2004; Dode, 2012; Kazmierczak et al., 2007; Neumann and Medbo, 2009; Perez, 2011). This would allow the examination of the effects of the system on the operators and vice versa. New simulation technologies, such as virtual reality testing for example (de Looze et al., 2003), also carry potential to incorporate HF in the early stages of system planning. While some of these technologies have been available for many years, their uptake and application by industry appears to be relatively slow and often excludes HF considerations. Relevant research questions here surround how such technology could be implemented in ways that are useful for the design team to help them manage HF aspects in their design concepts. 2.7 Training and Education Training and education (T&E) have been suggested as important aspects of any HF initiative (GAO, 1997). T&E can be done at the beginning of new initiatives, but may more usefully be built in to multiple aspects of the initiative so that the new knowledge can be brought to use as the integration efforts proceed. There is a need to consider the timing, content and participants that should be involved in training for the specific HF integration initiative at hand. Training alone does not appear to provide much change for engineers (Broberg, 2007) without supporting changes to routines that help bring the new knowledge into practice. It may, therefore be desirable to tailor HF training to the new methods or process needs that are 10
currently under development within the integration initiative. As new initiatives are launched, supplemental training could also be provided. For example, as a new HF-FMEA is developed and incorporated into a company, training for engineers specific to features of the HF-FMEA would be important for successful use of the new method. 2.8 Shop Floor Development Work While the emphasis in this framework is on integrating HF into development and design processes, the more conventional human factors retrofitting improvements should also continue to be pursued. Indeed since mistakes or missed opportunities in design are likely to occur, some kind of retrofitting process is warranted. Efforts here might include kaizen-like or gemba-like efforts incorporating participatory ergonomics, or a programmatic improvement approach using an ergonomics team, or a more expert-driven approach (Caccamise, 1995; De Jong and Vink, 2002; Sundin and Medbo, 2003). For this, a wide range of tools are available to help quantify hazard levels and demonstrate improvements (David, 2005; Dempsey et al., 2005; Neumann, 2007; Takala et al., 2010). The choice of approach should be made based on the organisational context and the nature of risk factors at hand (e.g. office vs. heavy industry). This paper will not discuss the relative merits of these more conventional ergonomics improvement efforts. More germane to the current discussion on proactive ergonomics in the development process, is the potential for lessons learned in shop floor improvements to be used as feedback to the rest of the development process. This might take the form of “lessons learned” for product designers, revisions to design criteria, changes to processes and procedures, or the adoption of new assessment techniques to prevent a reoccurrence of the identified design flaw. Employees might also be included in 'workspace design' workshops to explore scenarios and alternatives for the system using, for example, diagrams or models of the proposed system (Seim and Broberg, 2010). The engagement of employees in development is also consistent with modern management techniques such as six sigma, which seek to systematically apply defined measures to provide feedback to help drive process improvement efforts (Cronemyr, 2007).
3.0 INDICATORS & METRICS While many of the tools mentioned here provide metrics or indicators, a special discussion of this topic is warranted. The use of 'metrics' or indicators is often seen as a powerful tool to manage business improvement processes, such as quality. We have observed, however, that few companies have leading indicators of HF aspects as illustrated in Figure 3 (e.g. Neumann et al., 2002). Furthermore if existing data, such as quality or injury data, are gathered in ways that cannot be re-connected to the various design stage decisions, then it is difficult to make the HF connection required for improvements. Cybernetic systems control theory (Skyttner, 2001; Smith, 1999), organisational change theory (Bateman and Rich, 2003), and organisational learning theorists (Senge, 1990) all emphasise the importance of feedback for reaching goals. As Figure 1 illustrates, feedback on HF tends to be limited for designers and strategic decision makers who: i) are increasingly isolated from their system’s ‘HF’ consequences (Perrow, 1983), and ii) may also lack knowledge and procedures for handling the HF implications of their work 11
(Broberg, 2007; Imbeau et al., 2001). It is little wonder therefore that these important stakeholders often doubt the utility of HF to improve system performance (Baird et al., 2001; Helander, 1999). This poses a developmental need if companies are to actually succeed in the 'HF 20-20' challenge - how do you know success if you have no measure? There is a need for leading indicators that predict outcomes, process indicators that confirm procedures are followed, and the more conventional shop floor health outcomes data (Figure 3).
---------------------------------------------------------INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE ----------------------------------------------------------The utility of feedback is further inhibited by the use of trailing indicators such as sickness absence, which are unspecific and suffer from both lag and delay compared to productivity data or available leading indicators of risk (Cole et al., 2003), as illustrated in Figure 1. This delay and attenuation of feedback to designers tends to inhibit organisational learning (Hatch, 1997; Senge, 1990). Feedback is a central feature of the current approach which aims to establish leading risk indicators that can both support design teams’ innovation efforts and managers’ evaluation of system performance. While there has been large amounts of research on ergonomics evaluation tools and hazard quantification (Burdorf and Laan, 1991; Deeney and O'Sullivan, 2009; Mathiassen and Winkel, 2000; Neumann, 2007; Takala et al., 2010; Wells et al., 1997), less work has been done on how these tools should fit into a company's design and management processes. Audit tools for OHS management systems, such as the CSA Z-1000, may be of assistance but these currently tend to focus on return to work and retrofitting processes more than to the scope of the development process as illustrated in Figure 3. In the absence of a clear model, there is little specific advice to give the practitioner at this stage excepting standard Six-sigma techniques like DMAIC (Define-Measure-Analyse-ImproveControl) or DMADV (Define-Measure-Analyse-Design-Verify) (Cronemyr, 2007). Similarly, Deming’s continuous improvement approach using Shewhart's cycle of PDSA (Plan-Do-StudyAct) may help provide a useful starting point (Deming, 2000). It may be possible to use the output from tools, such as the FMEA and criteria documents, to link HF indicators alongside other design indicators in the existing metrics system. Connecting to existing systems, as illustrated in Figure 1 (right side), is likely more sustainable than creating exclusive 'HF' systems that are readily dropped with the first change of personnel (Neumann et al., 2009). Recent interview studies with professional ergonomists has found that some practitioners in larger firms are successfully applying 'score-board' and audit tool type indicators that help anchor attention to HF into organisational routines (Theberge and Neumann, 2010; Wells et al., working paper). Understanding how best to create and maintain indicator systems that integrate leading, lagging and process indicators (per Figure 3) to support sustained change in the development process, is another research priority emerging from this framework.
12
4.0 DISCUSSION & LIMITATIONS Several researchers have spelled out models of what a work system design process with integrated HF might look like (e.g. Jensen, 2002). These studies however do not deal with the issue of how such a desirable state might be reached. The framework presented here attempts to provide tools and a theoretical model that can be used to help move a company towards such an idealised state. Examinations of ergonomists’ practice find that they spend considerable energy engaged in 'organisational work' - trying to negotiate with workplace stakeholders to achieve meaningful improvements in the work system (Theberge and Neumann, 2010). Manoeuvring within the organisation to achieve their objectives is what Broberg and Hermund have dubbed 'political reflective navigation' (Broberg and Hermund, 2004). This process involves identifying key stakeholders and working with them in ways that further their objectives and are consistent with their current work routines - a process we advocate in this framework. We have not provided details here of approaches supporting 'navigation' , such as qualitative stakeholder analysis (Neumann et al., 1999), mapping of organisational groups' influence on the development model (Neumann et al., 2009), applying organisational development tools like 'force-field analysis' (Cummings, 2008) , or the application of other 'context assessment' tools that are beginning to emerge in the ergonomics research literature (Baril-Gingras et al., 2010). More research is needed in the area of stakeholder analysis for ergonomics applications. We resist the temptation to provide a stepwise process as these have been shown to be ineffectual (Collins, 1998). Instead we urge practitioners, regardless of their organisational role, to begin to gather support for initiatives at each level in the model and to pursue those areas where opportunities emerge. In this sense we draw on the systems-theoretic concept of equifinality - different routes can be used to reach the same ends. The intent therefore is not to provide a strict ‘blueprint’ of exactly how such an initiative must operate, but instead to provide an adaptable framework for achieving helpful change that builds on critical system elements of: i) the organisations’ development process; ii) the organisations’ evaluation (metrics) system; and iii) the organisations’ design process, as means of achieving better application of HF. As a further motivator to the various actors in the organisation we also draw on the potential for improved performance and strategic advantage available from HF, in order to help move HF out of the OHS side-car and into mainstream design processes (Dul and Neumann, 2009). The extent to which this approach may apply to a company will likely vary with context. Companies that have very stable workplaces, for example, may not even have a design process or dedicated personnel, since work system design problems occur so infrequently. In such cases a participatory system design approach such as that presented by Seim & Broberg (2010) may be more appropriate, possibly combined with some of the elements of the framework presented here. While the current framework was designed with manufacturing in mind, it may also apply to multi-site service or hospitality industry sectors where new locations are being established as the company expands operations. This framework should be considered a 13
starting point, or model, that could itself be adapted to suit the specific context of the given organisation. The authors admit that there are other ways in which HF integration might be achieved and welcome a broader discussion of these issues in the literature. An unexplored example might be the altering of manager and employee reward schemes within the organisation which could act as a further motivator for positive development. These are complex approaches and instead of a simplistic research question, such as: ‘does intervention X work?’, we suggest there is a need for a broader discussion of: ‘how can HF be better applied in work system design?’ Since it is unlikely that there will be a single ‘universal’ approach to integrating human factors into the development of new workplaces (Gustavsen, 1996), it is likely that a range of hybrid approaches will be needed. Adapting, combining, inventing and testing new approaches to integration are required to further broaden the bandwidth on how to support HF initiatives in modern organisations. Furthermore the transferability of these methods between organisations also warrants examination. Finally the relative merits and drawbacks of these approaches in furthering the agenda to integrate HF into work system design processes remains a critical research issue. 4.1 Design Processes While we present the main stages of a development process as a linear series, the development process in organisations is not entirely linear-rational. Instead it can be bounded by corporate politics, time constraints, and access to information, among other factors (Engström et al., 2004). Nevertheless, there is a consistent dominant flow of constraints that runs downwards (as illustrated in the figures) with each stage setting critical constraints and demands on the next stage of development. The tight time-lines of development can also inhibit process improvements and be a barrier to organisational change (Neumann et al., 2009; Neumann, 2004; Smith, 2003). We suggest to counter this problem by focussing on the company's processes and focussing on future systems, rather than on the immediate scheduled demands to launch production. Design also contains elements of iterativeness as interactions between design elements under consideration are discovered (Pahl and Beitz, 1988). Concurrency in the engineering design process, in which product and production are designed simultaneously (Stahl et al., 1997; Zha et al., 1999), pose potential for including HF as product related assembly problems can be addressed at the pre-production stage (Pope-Ford et al., 1995). Conversely development management strategies such as 'stage gate' systems (e.g. Cooper, 1990) may tend to increase the linearity of work in the development process. It remains a task for the practitioner to navigate the particular development process of the organisation (c.f. Broberg and Hermund, 2004).
4.2 Research Approach This paper has outlined an ambitious approach to integrating HF into work system design. There are many unknowns and much research is required. The approach as formulated is not amenable to traditional experimental evaluation as it is intended for the development process to be heavily adapted to suit the local and time-point circumstances of the particular organisation. At this stage of development research, more qualitatively-oriented case studies seem warranted. An Action Research (AR) (Reason and Bradbury, 2001) approach may be 14
helpful for studying this kind of issue (Huxam and Vangen, 2003; Neumann et al., accepted; Ottosson, 2003; Rosencrance and Cook, 2010). Action research, with its many variations (Raelin, 2009), is a research form in which knowledge is gained while solving practical realworld problems in close collaboration with the problem ‘owners’, in this case the organisation and its personnel. It has been considered part of a 'Mode 2' form of knowledge generation which complements more traditional theory testing experimental science with a more problem based approach. The aim is to gain understanding of the solution building process in vivo with real stakeholders (Gibbons, 1994) . Working collaboratively with the stakeholders, it becomes possible to understand, from a close and embedded position, the factors influencing the success of the change effort. Data collection within the AR project can include techniques of applied ethnography (Sørensen et al., 1996; Zickar and Carter, 2010). Specific aspects of the project might use more traditional quantification of, for example, risk factors for different design options, but these would be structured as sub-studies dealing with the more technical aspects of the proposed design. While there is considerable literature on AR, it has not been widely adopted in the ergonomics community (Neumann et al., accepted), possibly due to training of ergonomists which is heavily based in the experimental paradigm (Greenwood, 2002; Ottosson, 2003; Pålshaugen, 1996). There are, nevertheless, some excellent examples of how a ‘participant observer’ approach, such as AR, can provide useful insights into design processes (Burns and Vicente, 2000). The AR approach is also amenable to the changing and dynamic context of many organisations. If an initiative is ineffective, a new route can be planned to bring it back on track, or a new initiative tackled in another area. Embedding new techniques and processes within the organisation offers the possibility of sustainable HF efforts, and organisational learning (Patton, 2011; Senge, 1990). For a more detailed justification of the use of action research in ergonomics research see the position paper of Neumann et al. (Neumann et al., accepted).
5.0 CONCLUSIONARY COMMENTS The authors have argued that the need to integrate HF into the early stages of the design of work systems requires a new approach. Such an approach must engage a broad range of stakeholders. One way to gain the support of these individuals is to focus on the multiple benefits of HF that can include reduced risks for health and quality deficits as well as other forms of improved system performance. The use of a ‘HF 20-20 challenge’ aimed at achieving a 20 percent improvement in both human and performance domains poses a specific target that can be used to engage company personnel. A second way to gain support is to help senior management align HF with their strategic goals. Cognitive mapping techniques may be a helpful tool for this. In the context of organisations where workplaces are continually redeveloped, such as manufacturing or multi-site service operations, it is necessary to make changes to the processes by which systems are developed. For this reason it is suggested to begin with a process evaluation which can be facilitated by the creation of a process ‘map’ which can support the discussion of how and where to integrate HF considerations into the workplace design process. Given a specific quantifiable improvement target of 20%, and the observation that few companies have established HF metrics that support design, it will likely be necessary 15
to develop leading indicators of HF in order to support design decision making. Having established buy-in with a set target, aligned HF with strategic goals, identified where in the design process key decisions are being made, and set indicators that can demonstrate improvements, the stage is set for developing improved designs to the work system itself that can pose a new model for future systems. This approach goes further than current descriptions of participatory ergonomics which focus on improvements to the existing system. It also differs from descriptions of ‘macroergonomics’ in that it does not assume the power of a system designer. Instead, this approach, which might be called 'participatory macroergonomics', advocates efforts to activate the existing actor network in the company to include HF considerations in their regular work routines and processes. The authors consider this more of a framework for improvement than a definitive step-wise plan. Many variations are possible and the authors welcome discussions of alternatives. The sequence of initiatives and level of interventions within the organisation might be changed to suit the preferences and context of the organisation. The framework presented here may be seen therefore as more of a conceptual starting point for integrating HF into workplace design, rather than a finished prescription. There is a need to understand what techniques and approaches work under which conditions in order to establish a flexible approach to helping organisations apply and benefit from the application of HF in their work systems. This poses a challenge to HF researchers and an innovation opportunity for HF practitioners.
Acknowledgements This work has been made possible through financial assistance of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) of Ontario, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada(NSERC).
REFERENCES Alexander, D.C., 1998. Strategies for cost justifying ergonomic improvements. IIE Solutions, 30(3): 3035. Baines, T., Mason, S., Siebers, P.-O. and Ladbrook, J., 2004. Humans: the missing link in manufacturing simulations? Simulation Practice and Theory, 12(7-8): 515-526. Baines, T.S. and Kay, J.M., 2002. Human performance modelling as an aid in the process of manufacturing. International journal of production research, 40(10): 2321-2334. Baird, A., Malyon, V. and Trigg, M., 2001. Practical problems inthe implementation of management strategies to deal with musculoskeletal disorders, PREMUS2001, Amsterdam Balogun, J.B., Gleadle, P., Hailey, V.H. and Wilmott, H., 2005. Managing Change Across Boundaries: Boundary Shaking Practices. British Journal of Management, 16: 261-278. Bamford, D.R. and Forrester, P.L., 2003. Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(5): 546-564. Banks, J., 2001. Discrete-event simulation. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
16
Baril-Gingras, G., Bellmare, M., Poulin, P. and Ross, J., 2010. Conditions et processus de changement lors d’interventions externes en SST - Élaboration d’outils pour les praticiens. RAPPORT R-647, Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), Montreal Barsky, I. and Dutta, S.P., 1997. Cost assessment for ergonomic risk (CAFER). International journal of industrial ergonomics, 20(4): 307-315. Bateman, N. and Rich, N., 2003. Companies' perceptions of inhibitors and enablers for process improvement activities. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(2): 185-199. de Beeck, R.O. and Hermans, V., 2000. Research on work-related low back disorders. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels, 71 pp.92-95007-02-6 Boudreau, J., Hopp, W., McLain, J.O. and Thomas, L.J., 2003. On the interface between operations management and human resources management. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 5(3): 179-202. Broberg, O. and Hermund, I., 2004. The OHS consultant as a 'political reflective navigator' in technological change processes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 33(4): 315-326. Broberg, O., 2007. Integrating ergonomics into engineering: empirical evidence and implications for ergonomists. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 17(4): 353-366. Broberg, O., Andersen, V. and Seim, R., 2011. Participatory ergonomics in design processes: The role of boundary objects. Applied Ergonomics, 42(3): 464-472. Brown, O., 1986. Participatory Ergonomics: Historical Perspectives, Trends and Effectiveness of QWL Programs. Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management - II, Edited by O. Brown and H.W. Hendrick. North-Holland, Amsterdam: 433 - 437. Buckle, P., 2010. ‘The perfect is the enemy of the good’ – ergonomics research and practice.Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors Annual Lecture 2010. Ergonomics, 54(1): 1-11. Buckle, P.W. and Deveraux, J.J., 2002. The nature of work-related neck and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 33(3): 207-217. Burdorf, A. and Laan, J., 1991. Comparision of methods for the assessment of postural load on the back. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment Health, 17: 425-429. Burns, C.M. and Vicente, K.J., 2000. A participant-observer study of ergonomics in engineering design: how constraints drive the design process. Applied Ergonomics, 31(1): 73-82. Buur, J. and Andreasen, M.M., 1989. Design models in mechatronic product development. Design Studies, 10(3): 155-162. Caccamise, D.J., 1995. Implementation of a team approach to nuclear criticality safety: The use of participatory methods in macroergonomics. International journal of industrial ergonomics, 15(5): 397-409. Carayon, P., 2009. The Balance Theory and the Work System Model … Twenty Years Later. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25(5): 313-327. Chaffin, D.B., 2005. Improving digital human modelling for proactive ergonomics in design. Ergonomics, 48(5): 478-491. Chaffin, D.B., 2008. Digital Human Modelling for Workspace Design. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 4(1): 41-74. Cherns, A., 1976. The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29(9): 783-792. Chung, A.Z.Q. and Shorrock, S.T., 2011. The research-practice relationship in ergonomics and human factors – surveying and bridging the gap. Ergonomics, 54(5): 413-429. Cole, D.C., Wells, R.P., Frazer, M.B., Kerr, M.S., Neumann, W.P. and Laing, A.C., 2003. Methodological issues in evaluating workplace interventions to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders
17
through mechanical exposure reduction. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 29(5): 396-405. Cole, D.C., Theberge, N., Dixon, S.M., Rivilis, I., Neumann, W.P. and Wells, R., 2009. Reflecting on a program of participatory ergonomics interventions: a multiple case study. Work, 34(2): 161/178. Collins, D., 1998. Organizational Change: sociological perspectives. Routledge, New York Cooper, R.G., 1990. Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3): 44-56. Cronemyr, P., 2007. DMAIC and DMADV - differences, similarities and synergies. International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 3(2): 193-209. Cummings, T., 2008. Organization Development and Change, Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp. 25-42. Daley, B.J., 2004. Using Concept Maps in Qualitative Research. In: J.D.N. A. J. Cañas, F. M. González (Editor), First Int. Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain 2004 David, G.C., 2005. Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational Medicine, 55(3): 190-199. Deeney, C. and O'Sullivan, L., 2009. Work related psychosocial risks and musculoskeletal disorders: Potential risk factors, causation and evaluation methods. Work, 34(2): 239-248. Deming, W.E., 2000. Out of the Crisis. MIT Press, Boston, 507 pp.9780262541152 Dempsey, G.D., McGorry, R.W. and Maynard, W.S., 2005. A survey of tools and methods used by certified professional ergonomists. Applied Ergonomics, 36(4): 489-503. Denis, D., St Vincent, M., Imbeau, D., Jetté, C. and Nastasia, I., 2008. Intervention Practices in musculoskeletal disorder prevention: A critical literature review. Applied Ergonomics, 39(1): 114. van der Wiele, A., Dale, B.G. and Williams, A.R.T., 2000. ISO9000 Series and Ecellence Models: Fad to Fashion to Fit. Journal of General Management, 25(3): 50-67. Dode, P., 2012. The Integration of Human Factors into Discrete Event Simulation and Technology Acceptance in Engineering Design, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON.http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/dissertations/619 Dul, J. and Neumann, W.P., 2009. Ergonomics Contributions to Company Strategies. Applied Ergonomics, 40(4): 745-752. Eden, C., 1988. Cognitive mapping. European Journal of Operational Research, 36: 1-13. Eijnatten, F.M.v., Sitter, U.d., Gustavsen, B., Emery, F. and Beinum, H.v., 1993. The paradigm that changed the work place. Social science for social action, 4. Van Gorcum; Arbetslivscentrum, Stockholm, 316 s. pp.90-232-2805-7 Ekman Philips, M., 1990. Dialog och uppslutning: arbetsorganisatorisk förnyelse i industriarbete. Arbetsmiljöfonden, Stockholm, 239 s. (239, [1] s.) pp.91-87460-40-8 (in Swedish, English summary) Ekman Philips, M., 2002. Dialog över etablerade gränser: om organisationsutveckling i sjukvården. Arbetsliv i omvandling, 2002:9. Arbetslivsinstitutet, Stockholm, 139 s. pp.91-7045-647-X Ekman Philips, M. and Huzzard, T., 2007. Developmental magic? two takes on a dialogue conference. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 20(1): 8-25. Engström, T., Blomquist, B. and Holmström, O., 2004. Reconstructing the history of the main Volvo Tuve plant: some general trends, reasons and consequences for different assembly system designs. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24(8): 820-839. Fletcher, C.E., 2002. The Need to Address Hospital Politics in Order to Reduce Medication Errors: A Case Study. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 3(1): 66-72.
18
Frick, K., 1994. Från sidovagn till integrerat arbetsmiljöarbete: arbetsmiljöstyrning som ett ledningsproblem i svensk industri. Research report series / Arbetslivscentrum. Arbetslivscentrum, Stockholm, 229 pp.91-86576-25-9 GAO, 1997. Private Sector Ergonomics Programs Yield Positive Results. GAO/HEHS #97-163, US General Accounting Office - Health Eductation and Human Services Division, Washington Gervais, M., 2003. Good management practice as a means of preventing back disorders in the construction sector. Safety Science, 41(1): 77-88. Gibbons, M., 1994. The new production of knowledge : the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London, ix, 179 s. pp.0-8039-7794-8 Goggins, R.W., Spielholz, P. and Nothstein, G.L., 2008. Estimating the effectiveness of ergonomics interventions through case studies: Implications for predictive cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 39(3): 339-344. Graves, R.J., 1992. Using Ergonomics in Engineering Design to Improve Health and Safety. Safety Science, 15(4-6): 327-349. Greenwood, D., 2002. Action research: Unfulfilled promises and unmet challenges. Concepts and transformation, 7(2): 117-139. Griffith, T.L. and Dougherty, D.J., 2002. Beyond socio-technical systems: introduction to the special issue. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19: 205-216. Gustavsen, B., Ekman Philips, M., Wikman, A. and Hofmaier, B., 1996. Concept-driven development and the organization of the process of change : an evaluation of the Swedish working life fund. Dialogues on work and innovation, 3. Benjamins, Amsterdam, 199 s. pp.90-272-1773-4 Gustavsen, B., 1996. Development and the social sciences - an uneasy relationship. In: S.E. Toulmin and B. Gustavsen (Editors), Beyond Theory - Changing organizations through participation. Dialogues on work and innovation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Hägg, G.M., 2003. Corporate initiatives in ergonomics - an introduction. Applied Ergonomics, 34(1): 3-15. Haines, H., Wilson, J.R., Vink, P. and Kongingsveld, E., 2002. Validating a framework for participatory ergonomics (the PEF). Ergonomics, 45(4): 309-327. Hasle, P. and Jensen, P.L., 2006. Changing the Internal Health and Safety Organization Through Organizational Learning and Change Management. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 16(3): 269-284. Haslegrave, C.M. and Holmes, K., 1994. Integrating Ergonomics and Engineering in the Technical Design Process. Applied Ergonomics, 25(4): 211-220. Hatch, M.J., 1997. Organisational Theory - Modern symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford Press, Oxford.0-19-877490-7 Heizer, J. and Render, B., 2007. Operations Management. Prentice Hall, London.978-0138128784 Helander, M. and Nagamachi, M., 1992. Design for Manufacturability: A systems approach to concurrent engineering and ergonomics. Taylor & Francis.0-7484-0009-5 Helander, M., 2006. A Guide to Human Factors and Ergonomics 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis, Toronto.0-41528248-9 Helander, M.G., 1999. Seven common reasons to not implement ergonomics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25(1): 97-101. Hendrick, H., 1996. Good ergonomics is good economics, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA.http://hfes.org Hendrick, H.W. and Kleiner, B.M., 2001. Macroergonomics - an introduction to work system design. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA.0-945289-14-6 Hendrick, H.W., 2008. Applying ergonomics to systems: Some documented "lessons learned". Applied Ergonomics, 39(4): 418-426.
19
Holden, J.H., Or, C.K.L., Alper, S.J., Rivera, S.J. and Karsh, B.T., 2008. A change management framework for macroergonomics field research. Applied Ergonomics, 39(4): 459-474. Honglun, H., Shouqian, S. and Yunhe, P., 2007. Research on virtual human in ergonomic simulation. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 53: 350-356. Hoogendoorn, W.E., van Poppel, M.N., Bongers, P.M., Koes, B.W. and Bouter, L.M., 2000. Systematic review of psychosocial factors at work and private life as risk factors for back pain. Spine, 25(16): 2114-25. Hubka, V. and Eder, W.E., 1996. Design Science: Introduction to the Needs, Scope and Organization of Engineering Design Knowledge. Springer-Verlag, London Hunt, V. and Hunt, D., 1996. Process mapping: how to reengineer your business processes. Wiley Huxam, C. and Vangen, S., 2003. Researching orgnasational practice through action research: case studies and design choices. Organisational Research Methods, 6(3): 383-403. Huzzard, T., 2003. The convergence of the quality of working life and competitiveness - A current Swedish literature review, National Insitute for Working Life, Stockholm IEA Council, 2000. The Discipline of Ergonomics. International Ergonomics Society, pp. 1.http://www.iea.cc/01_what/What is Ergonomics.html Imada, A.S. and Carayon, P., 2008. Editors' comments on this special issue devoted to macroergonomics. Applied Ergonomics, 39(4): 415-417. Imai, S., Tomii, T. and Arisawa, H., 2002. Motion simulation of the human workers for the integrated computer-aided manufacturing process simulation based on info-ergonomics concept. In: H. Arisawa, Y. Kambayashi, V. Kumar, H.C. Mayr and I. Hunt (Editors), Conceptual Modeling for New Information Systems Technologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp. 105-114. Imbeau, D., Bellemare, M., Courville, J., Bergeron, S. and Desjardins, L., 2001. Ergonomics in a design environment. In: W. Karwowski (Editor), in International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors. Taylor & Francis, London. Jenkins, S. and Rickards, J., 2001. The economics of ergonomics: three workplace design case studies. In: D.C. Alexander and R. Rabourn (Editors), Applied Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 336. Jensen, P.L., 2001. Risk assessment: a regulatory strategy for stimulating working environment activities? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 11(2): 101-116. Jensen, P.L., 2002. Human factors and ergonomics in the planning of production. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29(3): 121-131. De Jong, A.M. and Vink, P., 2002. Participatory ergonomics applied in installation work. Applied Ergonomics, 33(5): 439-448. Jonker, D., Rolander, B., Balogh, I., Sandsjö, L., Ekberg, K. and Winkel, J., 2011. Mechanical exposure among general practice dentists in Sweden and possible implications of rationalisation. Ergonomics, 54(10): 953-960. Joseph, B.S., 2003. Corporate ergonomics programme at Ford Motor Company. Applied Ergonomics, 34(1): 23-28. Karsh, B.-T., Moro, F.B.P. and Smith, M., 2001. The efficacy of workplace ergonomic interventions to control musculoskeletal disorders: a critical analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2(1): 23-96. Kazmierczak, K., Neumann, W.P. and Winkel, J., 2007. A case study of serial-flow car disassembly: ergonomics, productivity, and potential system performance. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 17(4): 331-351. Kihlberg, S., Franzon, H., Fröberg, J., Hägg, G.M., Johansson Hansen, J., Kjellberg, A., Mathiassen, S.E., Medbo, P., Neumann, W.P. and Winkel, J., 2005. Ett produktionssystem under förändring ergonomisk och teknisk utvärdering, Arbetslivsintitutet, Stockholm 20
Kilduff, H.R., 1998. Design for Ergonomics - Case Study of Moving Ergonomics Upstream in Large Car Programs. Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety 2, Edited by S. Kumar. IOS Press, Amsterdam: 665 - 668. Kleiner, B.M., 1999. Macroergonomic Analysis and Design for Improved Safety and Quality Performance. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 5(2): 217 - 245. Kleiner, B.M., 2006. Macroergonomics: Analysis and design of work systems. Applied Ergonomics, 37(1): 81-89. Kogi, K., 1995. Participatory ergonomics that builds on local solutions. Journal of Human Ergology, 24(1): 37-45. Kragt, H., 1995. Enhancing Industrial-Performance - Experiences of Integrating the Human Factor. Ergonomics, 38(8): 1674-1685. Kuorinka, I. and Patry, L., 1995. Participation as a Means of Promoting Occupational-Health. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15(5): 365-370. Laring, J., Forsman, M., Kadefors, R. and Örtengren, R., 2002. MTM-Based Ergonomic Workload Analysis. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 30(3): 135-148. Laring, J., Christmansson, M., Kadefors, R. and Örtengren, R., 2005. ErgoSAM: A preproduction risk identification tool. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 15(3): 309-325. Leigh, J.P., Markowitz, S.B., Fahs, M., Shin, C. and Landrigan, P.J., 1997. Occupational injury and illness in the United States. Estimates of costs, morbidity, and mortality. Arch Intern Med, 157(14): 155768. Leigh, J.P., 2011. Economic Burden of Occupational Injury and Illness in the United States. Milbank Quarterly, 89(4): 728-772. Lim, A.J., Neumann, W.P. and Salustri, F., 2009. Process Mapping to Understand the Role of Human Factors in Design, Sixth CDEN/RCCI International Design Conference on Education, Innovation, and Practice in Engineering Design, Hamilton, pp. 392398.http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/ie/9 Lim, A.J., Village, J., Salustri, F. and Neumann, W.P., submitted. Process Mapping as a Tool for Participative Integration of Human Factors into Work System Design. Lim, A.J., 2011. Process mapping as a tool for integrating human factors into work system design, Ryerson University, Toronto, 92 pp.http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/dissertations/476/ de Looze, M.P., van Rhin, J.W., van Deursen, J., Tuinzaad, G.H. and Reijneveld, C.N., 2003. A participatory and integrative approach to improve productivity and ergonomics in assembly. Production Planning & Control, 14(2): 174-181. Mathiassen, S.E. and Winkel, J., 1997. Ergonomic exposure assessment adapted to production system design, 13th triennial congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Tampere Mathiassen, S.E. and Winkel, J., 2000. Methods for collecting and analysing data on mechanical exposure in developing production systems. A COPE workshop, National Institute for Working Life, Stockholm.www.niwl.se/ah Miles, B.L. and Swift, K., 1998. Design for manufacture and assembly. Manufacturing Engineer, 77(5): 221-224. Mitki, Y., Shani, A.B.R. and Meiri, Z., 1997. Organizational learning mechanisms and continuous improvement. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10(5): 426-446. Moreau, M., 2003. Corporate ergonomics programme at automobiles Peugeot-Sochaux. Applied Ergonomics, 34: 29-34. Munck-Ulfsfält, U., Falck, A., Forsberg, A., Dahlin, C. and Eriksson, A., 2003. Corporate ergonomics program at Volvo Car Corporation. Applied Ergonomics, 34: 17-22.
21
Munck-Ulfsfält, U., 2004. Requirement specification for load-ergonomic risk assessment with FMEAChecklists: A model for risk assessment from design to production. In: K. Olsen and O.J. Teller (Editors), Nordic Ergonomics Society 36th Annual Conference, Kolding, Denmark, pp. 149-152 National Research Council, 2001. Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Workplace - Low Back and Upper Extremities. National Academy Press, Washington DC.0-309-07284-0 Neumann, W.P., Wells, R., Norman, R., Jeans, D., Dubblestyne, D., Harvey, H. and Peter, O., 1999. Roles and relationships for making ergonomics change. Results of a 2-day focus session with industry personnel, 31st Annual Conference of the Association of Canadian Ergonomists, Hull, Canada.http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/ie/3/ Neumann, W.P., Kihlberg, S., Medbo, P., Mathiassen, S.E. and Winkel, J., 2002. A case study evaluating the ergonomic and productivity impacts of partial automation strategies in the electronics industry. International Journal of Production Research, 40(16): 4059-4075. Neumann, W.P., Winkel, J., Medbo, L., Magneberg, R. and Mathiassen, S.E., 2006. Production system design elements influencing productivity and ergonomics - A case study of parallel and serial flow strategies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(8): 904-923. Neumann, W.P., Ekman, M. and Winkel, J., 2009. Integrating ergonomics into system development - The Volvo Powertrain Case. Applied Ergonomics, 40(3): 527-537. Neumann, W.P. and Medbo, P., 2009. Integrating human factors into discrete event simulations of parallel and serial flow strategies. Production Planning & Control, 20(1): 3-16. Neumann, W.P. and Dul, J., 2010. Human Factors: Spanning the Gap between OM & HRM. International journal of operations & production management, 30(9): 923-950. Neumann, W.P., Eklund, J., Hansson, B. and Lindbeck, L., 2010. Effect Assessment in Work Environment Interventions: A Methodological Reflection. Ergonomics, 53(1): 130-137. Neumann, W.P. and Medbo, L., 2010. Ergonomics and Productivity in Two Material Supply Concepts: Big Box vs. Narrow Bins. International journal of industrial ergonomics, 40(5): 541-548. Neumann, W.P., Dixon, S.M. and Ekman, M., accepted. Action Research in Ergonomics Intervention Research – Shifting from Hypothesis Testing to Experiential Learning? Ergonomics. Neumann, W.P., 2004. Production Ergonomics: Identifying and managing risk in the design of high performance work systems. Design Sciences, PhD Thesis. Lund Technical University, Lund, 159 pp.ISBN 91-628-6287-1 Neumann, W.P. and Winkel, J., 2006. Who is responsible for human factors in engineering design? The Case of Volvo Powertrain. In: P. Gauvreau, J. Foster and S. McCahan (Editors), 3rd CDEN/RCCI International Design Conference on Education, Innovation, and Practice in Engineering Design. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, pp. 82-88.http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/ie/22/ Neumann, W.P., 2007. Inventory of Human Factors Tools and Methods - A Work-System Design Perspective, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON.www.ryerson.ca/hfe Noro, K. and Imada, A.S., 1991. Participatory Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, London.0-85066-382-2 Ottosson, S., 2003. Participatory action research - A key to improved knowledge of management. Technovation, 23: 87-94. Oxenburgh, M., Marlow, P. and Oxenburgh, A., 2004. Increasing productivity and profit through health & safety : the financial returns from a safe working environment. CRC Press, Bocka Raton, Fla., 192 s. pp.0-415-24331-9 Oxenburgh, M. and Marlow, P., 2005. The Productivity Assessment Tool: Computer-based cost benefit analysis model for the economic assessment of occupational health and safety interventions in the workplace. Journal of Safety Research, 36(3): 209-214. Pahl, G. and Beitz, W., 1988. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Springer-Verlag Telos Palmerud, G., Forsman, M., Neumann, W.P. and Winkel, J., in press. Mechanical Exposure in parallel and serial flow production. Applied Ergonomics, x(xx): xx-xx. 22
Pålshaugen, Ø., 1996. 'This is not the whole story...' on the demand for scientific reports of action research. In: S.E. Toulmin and B. Gustavsen (Editors), Beyond Theory - Changing organisations through participation. Dialogues on work and innovation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Patton, M.Q., 2011. Developmental Evaluation; Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. The Guildford Press, New York, 375 pp Perez, J., 2011. Virtual Human Factors Tools for Proactive Ergonomics - Qualitative Exploration and Method Development, Ryerson University, Toronto 68 pp.http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/dissertations/475/ Perrow, C., 1983. The organizational context of human factors engineering. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4): 521-541. Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W. and Cameron, K.S., 2001. Studying organisational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 697-713. Poggi, I., 2005. The goals of persuasion. Pragmatics & Cognition, 13(2): 297-335. Pope-Ford, R.D., R., P.G. and E., F.J., 1995. The Role of an Ergonomist in Concurrent Engineering: An Analysis of Case Studies. Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety VII, Edited by A.C. Bittner and P.C. Champney. Taylor & Francis, London: 331 - 337. Pransky, G., Benjamin, K., Hill-Fotouhi, C., Himmelstein, J., Fletcher, K.E., Katz, J.N. and Johnson, W.G., 2000. Outcomes in work-related upper extremity and low back injuries: results of a retrospective study. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 37(4): 400-409. Raelin, J., 2009. Seeking conceptual clarity in the action modalities. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 6(1): 17-24. Reason, P. and Bradbury, H., 2001. Handbook of Action Research. Sage, London.0-7619-6645-5 Rivilis, I., Van Eerd, D., Cullen, K., Cole, D., Irvin, E., Tyson, J. and Mahood, Q., 2008. Effectiveness of participatory ergonomics interventions on health outcomes: A systematic review. Applied Ergonomcis, 39(3): 342-358. Rong, M., Zhao, T. and Yu, Y., 2008. Advanced human factors Process Failure Modes and Effects analysis, Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 2008. RAMS 2008. Annual, pp. 365-370 Rosencrance, J.C. and Cook, T.M., 2010. The Use of Participatory Action Research and Ergonomics in the Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Newspaper Industry. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 15(3): 255-262. Ryan, B., Qu, R., Schock, A. and Parry, T., 2011. Integrating human factors and operational research in a multidisciplinary investigation of road maintenance. Ergonomics, 54(5): 436-452. Seim, R. and Broberg, O., 2010. Participatory workspace design: A new approach for ergonomists? International journal of industrial ergonomics, 40(1): 25-33. Senge, P.M., 1990. The Fifth Discipline - The Art & Practice of the Learning Organisation. Century Business, London.0-7126-5687-1 Siemieniuch, C.E. and Sinclair, M.A., 2002. On complexity, process ownership and organisational learning in manufacturing organisations, from an ergonomics perspective. Applied Ergonomics, 33(5): 449-462. Sinclair, M.A., 2007. Ergonomics Issues in Future Systems. Ergonomics, 50(12): 1957-1986. Skepper, N., Straker, L. and Pollock, C., 2000. A case study of the use of ergonomics information in a heavy engineering design process. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26(3): 425435. Skyttner, L., 2001. General Systems Theory - Ideas and Applications. World Scientific, London, 459 pp.981-02-4176-3 Smith, M., 2003. Changing an organisation's culture: correlates of success and failure. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5): 249-261.
23
Smith, T.J., 1999. Synergism of Ergonomics, Safety, and Quality - a Behavioral Cybernetic Analysis. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 5(2): 247 - 278. Smyth, J., 2003. Corporate ergonomics programme at BCM Airdrie. Applied Ergonomics, 34(1): 39-43. Sørensen, O., Grande, B., Koch, C. and Jørgensen, U., 1996. Ethnography and the study of management and knowledge - reflections on a workshop, Danish Technical University, Lyngby Stahl, J., Luczak, H., Langen, R., Weck, M., Klonaris, P. and Pfeifer, T., 1997. Concurrent engineering of work and production systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 100(2): 379-398. Sundin, A., 2001. Participatory ergonomics in product development and workplace design - supported by computerised visualisation and human modelling. PhD Thesis Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Sundin, A. and Medbo, L., 2003. Computer visualization and participatory ergonomics as methods in workplace design. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 13(1): 1-17. Sundin, A., Christmansson, M. and Larsson, M., 2004. A different perspective in participatory ergonomics in product development improves assembly work in the automotive industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 33(1): 1-14. Swan, J., 1997. Using cognitive mapping in management research: Decisions about technical innovation. British Journal of Management, 8: 183-198. Takala, E.P., Pehkonen, I., Forsman, M., Hansson, G.-Å., Mathiassen, S.E., Neumann, W.P., Sjøgaard, G., Veiersted, B., Westgaard, R. and Winkel, J., 2010. Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 36(1): 3-24. Taylor, W.A. and Wright, G.H., 2003. A longitudinal study of TQM implementation: factors influencing success and failure. Omega, 31: 97-111. Theberge, N. and Neumann, W.P., 2010. Doing ‘organizational work’: Expanding the conception of professional practice in ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics, 42(1): 76-84. Tompa, E., Culyer, A. and Dolinschi, R. (Editors), 2008. Economic evaluation of interventions for occupational health and safety - developing good practice. Oxford Press, Oxford. Törnström, L., Amprazis, J., Christmansson, M. and Eklund, J., 2008. A corporate workplace model for ergonomic assessments and improvements. Applied Ergonomics, 39(2): 219-228. Toulmin, S.E. and Gustavsen, B., 1996. Beyond Theory : Changing organizations through participation. Dialogues on work and innovation, 2. John Benjamins Publ., Philadelphia, Penn. ; Amsterdam, 233 s. pp.90-272-1772-6 Urlings, I.J.M., Nijboer, I.D. and Dul, J., 1990. A Method for Changing the Attitudes and Behaviour of Management and Employees to Stimulate the Implementation of Ergonomic Improvements. Ergonomics, 33(5): 629-637. Van Rhijn, J.W., De Looze, M.P., Tuinzaad, G.H., Groenesteijn, L., De Groot, M.D. and Vink, P., 2005. Changing from batch to flow assembly in the production of emergency lighting devices. International Journal of Production Research, 43(17): 3687-3701. Village, J., Annette, T., Lin, E., Greig, M. and Neumann, W.P., 2011. Adapting the failure modes effect analysis (FMEA) for early detection of human factors concerns, 42nd Annual Conference of the Association of Canadian Ergonomists, London, ON Village, J., Greig, M., Salustri, F.A. and Patrick Neumann, W., 2012. Linking human factors to corporate strategy with cognitive mapping techniques. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41(0): 2776-2780. Village, J., Salustri, F. and Neumann, W.P., working paper. Cognitive mapping as a tool to align human factors with strategic goals in organizations. Vink, P., Koningsveld, E.A.P. and Molenbroek, J.F., 2006. Positive outcomes of participatory ergonomics in terms of greater comfort and higher productivity. Applied Ergonomics, 37: 537-546. 24
Vink, P., Imada, A.S. and Zink, K.J., 2008. Defining stakeholder involvement in participatory design processes. Applied Ergonomics, 39(4): 519-5126. Volinn, E., 1999. Do workplace interventions prevent low-back disorders? If so, why?: a methodologic commentary. Ergonomics, 42(1): 258-72. Wells, R., Norman, R., Neumann, W.P., Andrews, D., Frank, J., Shannon, H. and Kerr, M., 1997. Assessment of physical work load in epidemiologic studies: common measurement metrics for exposure assessment. Ergonomics, 40(1): 51-61. Wells, R., Mathiassen, S.E., Medbo, L. and Winkel, J., 2007. Time - a key issue for musculoskeletal health and manufacturing. Applied Ergonomics, 38(6): 733-744. Wells, R.P., 2009. Why have we not solved the MSD problem? Work, 34(1): 117-121. Wells, R.P., Theberge, N. and Neumann, W.P., working paper. Solution Building vs Problem Convincing Ergonomists Reports on Conducting Workplace Assessments Westgaard, R.H. and Winkel, J., 1996. Ergonomic intervention research for improved musculoskeletal health : overview and appraisal, Norwegian Research Council Westgaard, R.H. and Winkel, J., 2011. Occupational musculoskeletal and mental health: Significance of rationalization and opportunities to create sustainable production systems - A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 42(2): 261-296. WHO, 1999. Fact Sheet #84: Occupational Health - ethically correct, economically sound, World Health Organisation, Geneva.http://www.who.int/en/ Whysall, Z.J., Haslam, R.A. and Haslam, C., 2004. Processes, barriers, and outcomes described by ergonomics consultants in peventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 36: 343-351. Wilhelmsson, L., 1998. Lärande dialog: Samtalsmönster, perspektivförändring och lärande i gruppsamtal (In Swedish: Learning Dialogue: Discourse patterns perspective change and learning in small group conversations), Swedish National Institute for Working Life, Stockholm Wulff, I.A., Westgaard, R.H. and Rasmussen, B., 1999a. Ergonomics criteria in large-scale engineering design - II Evaluating and applying requirements in the real world of design. Applied Ergonomics, 30(3): 207-221. Wulff, I.A., Westgaard, R.H. and Rasmussen, B., 1999b. Ergonomic criteria in large-scale engineering design - I Management by documentation only? Formal organization vs. designers' perceptions. Applied Ergonomics, 30(3): 191-205. Zha, X.F., Lim, S.Y.E. and Fok, S.C., 1999. Development of Expert System for Concurrent Product Desigen and Planning for Assembly. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 15: 153-162. Zickar, M. and Carter, N., 2010. Reconnecting With the Spirit of Workplace Ethnography: A Historical Review. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2): 304-319. Zink, K.J., Steimle, U. and Schröder, D., 2008. Comprehensive change management concepts: Development of a participatory approach. Applied Ergonomics, 39(4): 527-538.
25
Strategies
Product Design
Product Design
System Design
Production System
H&S Service
(time lag, delay)
Risk
Disorders,
Factors
Productivity, Quality…
Technical Performance Feedback
?
Strategies
System Design
Production System
H&S Service
(time lag, delay)
Risk
Factors
Technical & Human Performance Feedback
FIGURES
Disorders, Productivity, Quality…
Figure 1: Typical situation (left side) illustrates how ergonomics and OHS information, in red, does not reach system designers. In the desired configuration (right side), ergonomics information is combined with other performance indicators to help designers identify opportunities for better design solutions (adapted from Neumann et al., 2002; Neumann et al., 2009).
26
Figure 2: Position of possible program elements with respect to the model of the development process. The aim is to establish routine attention to HF throughout the process. Other tools and approaches may be applied according to local conditions.
27
Figure 3: Indicators should be used throughout the development process. Leading indicators of HF should be used to inform design decisions, while process indicators can be used to ensure the desired procedures are actually being followed.
28
