Positive outcomes of participatory ergonomics in terms of higher comfort and productivity

Ergonomics sometimes has a negative connotation as it is seen to be connected to illness or guidelines that limit innovations. This paper is focused on the positive aspects of ergonomics in improvement of the working environment. It consists of a part that studies the literature on success factors in the process towards higher productivity and greater comfort, the formulation of a model and a hypothesis, which is illustrated by four cases. The model distinguishes the success factors in ‘goal’, ‘involvement’ and ‘process’. Goals: evidence is found in the literature that a positive approach has benefits in terms of shareholder value and productivity, and for comfort. Involvement: the literature shows that participation of end-users and management contributes to success. Process: in the process it is essential to have a good inventory of the problems, a structured approach, a steering group responsible for the guidance, and end-users involvement in testing of ideas and prototypes. It is hypothesized that the chance of success increases by empowerment (making the end-user responsible for deciding on the next step in the process) and positive experiences of end-users with the potential improvement (end-users feel or see the benefits). The four cases illustrate that the hypothesis can be used in evaluating cases.

[1]  D Beevis,et al.  Ergonomics--costs and benefits. , 1970, Applied ergonomics.

[2]  Mats Eklöf,et al.  Is participative ergonomics associated with better working environment and health? A study among Swedish white-collar VDU users , 2004 .

[3]  P Vink,et al.  Improving office work: a participatory ergonomic experiment in a naturalistic setting. , 1997, Ergonomics.

[4]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  Putting people first for organizational success , 1999 .

[5]  Ilkka Kuorinka,et al.  Tools and means of implementing participatory ergonomics , 1997 .

[6]  J. Gutman A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization Processes , 1982 .

[7]  J. W. van Rhijn,et al.  Productivity and Discomfort in Assembly Work: The Effects of an Ergonomic Workplace Adjustment at Philips DAP , 2004 .

[8]  E A P Koningsveld,et al.  Enhancing the impact of ergonomics interventions , 2005, Ergonomics.

[9]  P. Vink,et al.  Comfort Effects of Participatory Design of Screwdrivers , 2004 .

[10]  P Vink,et al.  The adoption of technological innovations for glaziers; evaluation of a participatory ergonomics approach , 2000 .

[11]  L. Groenesteijn,et al.  Changing from batch to flow assembly in the production of emergency lighting devices , 2005 .

[12]  J. Gutman A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization Processes , 1982 .

[13]  B. Fredrickson What Good Are Positive Emotions? , 1998, Review of general psychology : journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association.

[14]  H. Hendrick Good Ergonomics Is Good Economics , 1996 .

[15]  John R. Wilson,et al.  Solution ownership in participative work redesign: The case of a crane control room , 1995 .

[16]  J. Rosecrance,et al.  5. Integration of Participatory Ergonomics and Lean Manufacturing: A Model and Case Study , 2005 .

[17]  Peter Vink,et al.  Comfort and design : principles and good practice , 2004 .

[18]  Peter Vink,et al.  Productivity and Discomfort in Manual Assembly Operations , 2004 .

[19]  Hal W. Hendrick,et al.  Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management , 1984 .

[20]  J. Sluiter,et al.  Implementation of participatory ergonomics intervention in construction companies. , 2005, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[21]  Ernst A. P. Koningsveld,et al.  Validating a Framework for Participatory Ergonomics , 2000 .

[22]  P Vink,et al.  Towards successful physical stress reducing products: an evaluation of seven cases. , 2001, Applied ergonomics.