Ergonomics is an important part of job design to consider when we automate the system

II. Ergonomics Defined

According to the International Ergonomics Association (http://www.iea.cc),

ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data, and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance. Ergonomists contribute to the design and evaluation of tasks, jobs, products, environments, and systems in order to make them compatible with the needs, abilities, and limitations of people.

Ergonomics as a discipline promotes a holistic approach to human work design that takes into account physical, cognitive, social, organizational, environmental, and other relevant factors. Physical ergonomics is concerned with human anatomical, anthropometric, physiological, and biomechanical characteristics as they relate to physical activity. Cognitive ergonomics is concerned with mental processes, such as perception, memory, reasoning, and motor response, as they affect interactions among humans and other elements of a system. Organizational ergonomics is concerned with the optimization of sociotechnical systems, including their organizational structures, policies, and processes. Relevant topics include communication, crew resource management, work design, design of working times, teamwork, participatory design, community ergonomics, cooperative work, new work paradigms, virtual organizations, telework, and quality management.

Abstract.

Ergonomics has evolved beyond its original intent of changing work. Finding solutions beyond better products, recreation, learning and living applications are challenging. We are confronted with the paradox of finding limitless applications, users and emergent technologies with finite tools and knowledge base. A macroergonomic approach that considers organizational and technological contexts is a way of meeting this challenge. Engaging people in implementing ergonomic change is one macroergonomic method. Successes in participatory ergonomics are attributed to several keys: focussing on local solutions; considering the organizational context; and addressing human needs. Finding ways to access the emotional context is an important component in the successful implementation of ergonomics. Participation may be a necessary condition for ergonomics to be applied in new arenas where behaviour patterns are already well established.

Ergonomic Coordinator Program

The Ergonomic Coordinator (EC) Program12 begins with an external expert in ergonomics coming to assist the organization with a PE program and ends with internal regulation of the program. The expert provides extensive ergonomic training to volunteer employees. These employees become the ECs. The ECs develop a mission and purpose statement, then proceed with an evaluation of work environments. The final stages of the pro-gram focus on improving working conditions and confirming the program's future. The EC members decide how the worksite will be evaluated and prioritize identified problems. It is during these last stages that the ECs begin moving away from the external agent.

CONCLUSION

Ergonomics as a discipline has a major role to play in the design process of hospital buildings; overlap or competition with traditional design professions is not an issue. Ergonomics provides useful, complementary expertise that improves end results. Participatory ergonomics seems to be a very effective method for improving the architectural design process. Before and after assessments in the field show that caregivers and top management are very pleased. In fact, there appear to be far fewer post-construction changes.

Ergonomic intervention in design projects is a relatively recent phenomenon. The public and building professionals, in general, are not very familiar with this discipline or its scope, and most have a very limited view of our profession. Advances are now being made and results are being achieved, but it is not easy to change building trade culture.

Intervention in architectural design projects challenges the scope of traditional ergonomic practice as limited to the workstation. The complexity of hospital architectural projects, the large number of parties involved and the financial and political stakes all require a much broader outlook and the development of new methods.

Relationships with hospital technical services and leading architectural firms must be productive; the added value of ergonomics is now starting to be recognized. Partnership with government agencies could lead to tangible results, but there is still a need for more marketing so that people can learn what ergonomics can do to improve the work environment.

The Effectiveness of Ergonomic Interventions

Ergonomic interventions do work. Systematic interventions that integrate all three areas of ergonomics (i.e., physical, cognitive, and organizational) appear to be the most effective. Many ergonomic products can be employed at a workplace, but often the introduction of the product or tool alone is ineffective. Training and usability of the tool is necessary for their successful integration. In addition, improvements are more frequently observed when the physical intervention is derived from a participatory ergonomics intervention. The largest component in a successful safety program for any workplace is management's commitment to allow for all three areas of ergonomics to improve the well-being of the worker.

As a result, reviews of workplace standards push for more of a process-based ergonomics standard to prevent workplace MSDs rather than setting specific thresholds or exposure limits. Practitioners prefer thresholds as they are easier to measure and hence provide more immediate benchmarks. However, as Fransblau et al. (2005) point out, there are many jobs that are below an acceptable hand activity level, but have a high incident rate of MSDs. In general process methods that focus on reducing the number of MSDs rather than setting specific exposure limits are more effective in reducing work-related MSDs.

From Ergonomics to Hedonomics: trends in human factors and technology

Ergonomics, or human factors (HF/E) has been defined as the application of scientific information concerning objects, systems, and environment for human use (International Ergonomics Association, 2016). HF/E is commonly conceived in terms of how companies design work arenas, tasks, interfaces and the like, to maximize the efficiency and quality of their employees’ work. However, HF/E comes into everything which involves people and technology; largely featuring the physical and cognitive interactions between people and these respective creations. A newer definition of Ergonomics by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) is: Ergonomics (or Human Factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance (International Ergonomics Association, 2016). What is notable here is the emphasis change in the newer definition from the application of scientific principles to the need to understand human–system interaction, and also the requirement to satisfy a dual optimization goal concerning human well-being as well as overall system performance. Indeed, the foundation of this had already been laid some two decades ago by Helander (1997) who specified three important targets for Ergonomics design activity. These were: (1) to improve safety, (2) to improve productivity, as well as (3) improving operator satisfaction. Notably then, the targets for ergonomic design appear to be constantly evolving. Yet, while Helander’s observations may now seem outdated to some, it remains an unattainable vision to many others.

To understand such changes that are rapidly occurring in this evolving area of science, it is important, first, to recapitulate at the unprecedented progress and change in focus that has occurred in work and work design over the past century, especially the most recent decade. In 2009, we provided a brief synopsis of the history of Ergonomics (Oron-Gilad and Hancock, 2009) and how the science of and the focus on Hedonomics emerged. In the current chapter we revisit Hedonomics and look to record what progress has occurred, especially in light of: (1) the vast change in use of personal devices, (2) the erasure of separation between work and nonwork (“leisure” time) tasks, and (3) where work is being conducted (at home, in public places, as opposed to designated companies, workplaces, factories, and offices).

Applications to Improve Position or Posture

Ergonomics is a scientific discipline which focuses on understanding the interaction among humans and other elements of a system. Proper ergonomic design is necessary to prevent muscle strain due to repetitive movements and musculoskeletal disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome (International Ergonomics Association, 2014). Behavioral safety has contributed to proper ergonomic design in a number of ways, one of which is by teaching employees to perform their jobs in a safe position. Sasson and Austin (2005) provided one-on-one training and feedback on safe ergonomic performance for 11 computer terminal operators. In addition, 6 of the 11 workers participated in observations of, and data collection on, the remaining five participants. The purpose of the observations was to determine if simply observing peers performing safely would increase safe ergonomic behavior on the part of the observers. The results showed that safe behavior increased during the intervention for all participants and maintained at high levels even at a 4-month follow-up. In addition, those participants who took part in observations of their peers performed more safely than those who did not.

Culig, Dickinson, Lindstrom-Hazel, and Austin (2008) evaluated two interventions to increase safe ergonomic behavior among seven office employees. The first intervention consisted of adjusting participant workstations. Specifically, the adjustments consisted of either moving the computer monitor, collapsing the keyboard legs, or adjusting the chair angle. The second intervention, which consisted of performance management, was only applied to postures that did not respond to the workstation adjustment intervention. Performance management consisted of ergonomic information, graphic feedback, and praise. The results showed that two of the seven participants increased five safe postures by at least 50% with the workstation adjustment intervention. All targeted postures by all participants increased between 50% and 80% when the performance management intervention was introduced. Results suggest that these two interventions, when implemented successively, can be effective in increasing safe ergonomic performance.

Fante, Gravina, and Austin (2007) conducted a preintervention assessment to determine variables that contributed to safe ergonomic postures in a pharmacy. The three pharmacy employees who participated had experienced over 30 lost days of work in the time period that preceded the intervention. The preintervention assessment determined that employees were most at-risk for poor ergonomic posture when they were on the telephone. The authors then implemented a behavioral safety package, which included training, feedback, and peer observations. The package was effective in that safe performance by all employees improved over baseline levels.

Similarly, Fante, Gravina, Betz, and Austin (2010) conducted a structural assessment on variables that contributed to wrist posture safety among three pharmacy technicians. Specifically, they collected data on employees’ wrist posture in the presence and absence of a wrist support device. Safe wrist position was higher when the wrist support device was used. An intervention consisting of the addition of a keyboard tray was then evaluated. The intervention produced large increases in safe wrist posture for all three employees.

Yu, Moon, Oah, and Lee (2013) developed an automated system to collect data on safe sitting postures among office workers. They also measured the system’s effectiveness to deliver two types of feedback to improve safe postures. The first type of feedback was delayed and infrequent. The second type was immediate and frequent. Both types of feedback improved postures, but the immediate and frequent feedback was more effective than the delayed and infrequent feedback.

Finally, in a follow-up study, Moon and Oah (2013) compared prompts to feedback to increase safe sitting postures among three office workers. They found that feedback was very effective in increasing safe sitting. However, prompts alone were ineffective. The authors suggest that a combination of antecedent- and consequence-based interventions are likely to be most effective.

What are human factors and ergonomics?

HFE is the multidisciplinary science in which knowledge around human behavior and capabilities are examined alongside engineering principles. HFE methods aim to explore systems and processes, and understand why errors occur, as well as how to reduce the likelihood of preventable harm to individuals; thus supporting both system performance and safety (Russ et al., 2013). HFE professionals aspire to obtain a deep understanding of the context, processes, and tasks within a system, as well as the communication of information and actions between humans and technology that the system entails, in order to systematically map and understand. The overall goal of HFE is to provide evidence to ensure resilience, intended as the ability of systems to deal with challenges before returning to usual operations (Nemeth and Cook, 2007). To achieve this goal it is important to recognize and evaluate patterns of human-technology and human-process interaction within a system, and to facilitate with appropriate solution human performance within the system. To build resilience at organizational level means to prepare the system and its components to anticipate, respond, and adapt to events (British Standards Institution, 2014) so that when a system component fails the overall system is able to cope with complexity (Hollnagel, 2016). Cases of resilience failure could include, for instance:

a service that was not delivered due to lack of operators available in a ward, or due to a technical problem with a piece of the equipment;

diagnostic errors due to mistaken calibration of a device or lack of maintenance, but also due to errors in the use or in reporting results.

In tune with these examples of resilience failure, it is important to design systems so that their components (processes, people, technologies) may collaborate with each other and supply in case of faults or lack of one component to ensure the delivery of the service. Although usability evaluation, safety and risk analysis, and human reliability analysis are a key component of HFE, yet HFE’s methodological aim encompasses more than just these aspects. In fact, HFE aims to estimate, assess, and support the redesign and interaction between different components of a system, including the essential aspects related to the variability of humans within such systems. Methods of HFE provide appropriate evidence to support the engineering of systems (Borsci et al., 2016, 2018; Carayon, 2006), i.e., design technology, as well as defining processes to effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily use devices within complex sociotechnical systems.

INTRODUCTION

The International Ergonomics Association (IEA) describes ergonomics (or human factors) as ‘the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance’ [1]. This implies that ergonomics contributes to the optimization of both human well-being (a social goal) and total system performance (an economic goal); that ergonomics is broader than just occupational health and safety; and that it includes issues like workplace design, job design, work organization design, etc.

However, most ergonomics research and advice primarily deals with the area concerned with human well-being; in particular, the prevention of musculo-skeletal disorders and other occupational health and safety goals. Furthermore, in several countries ergonomics is closely linked to occupational health and safety legislation. Under these circumstances companies may perceive ergonomics as an extrinsic element (lower part of Fig. 1), and not as part of the strategy, business goals and planning and control cycles (upper part of Fig. 1). The current trend in western governmental policies, namely, to reduce command-control legislation and to increase support for voluntary initiatives, is a threat to ergonomics as a health and safety perspective, because we do not believe that organizations will then spontaneously start ergonomic initiatives.

In our opinion and the opinions of others, the position of ergonomists in organizations is not very strong [2, 3], and ergonomics is not well integrated into companies' system design processes [4–7]. Perrow [3] argued that in the USA there are not many ergonomists working in companies, that they have no control over budgets and people, and that they are seen as protectors of workers; for example, not blaming human errors on the workers but on the designers and managers of the systems. There is no reason to believe that the situation in other countries is very different. Hendrick [8] added that ergonomists, wrongly, presume that others are convinced of the importance of ergonomics. Helander [9] listed seven common reasons that ergonomics is not implemented. He noted, among other things, that people think that ergonomics is to design chairs, ergonomics is common sense, and that organizations first design the technical system and then consider ergonomics. We suggest a new direction for ergonomics, using its full potential in organizations, without being exclusively dependent on health and safety considerations (see Fig. 2). We consider ‘strategy’ and ‘business goals' as useful connection points to internalize ergonomics in organizations, because strategy has top management priority and is normally intended to be broadly communicated and implemented in the organization. This raises the question: ‘how to link ergonomics to strategy?’

THE DIVERSITY IN ERGONOMICS

The previous section clearly shows the diversity in ergonomics. Diversity has been the basis for the 16th world congress on ergonomics of the IEA in 2006. The congress theme was Meeting Diversity in Ergonomics [14]. The combination of diversity and ergonomics expresses the broad scope of ergonomics and the global variety within the field.

•

Ergonomics in itself is diverse. It is an engineering activity, but also a product development cycle; for instance, to design for a population as diverse as possible, taking into consideration psychological, socio-technical and organizational matters.

Ergonomics is driven by the ambition to optimize the combination of prevention and performance, but can also be driven by legislation and standardisation, which are more corrective (or curative) by nature.

Within the group of ergonomists and human factors specialists, a large diversity can be found, as they are:

scientific researchers: mostly in-depth research in one or several topics;

professionals in applying scientific results in ergonomic design projects;

practitioners, who may be full-time and as such are educated ergonomists, or specialists from other disciplines, who apply ergonomics knowledge and principles.

There is a large diversity in the ergonomics fields of interest, in the areas of application, and, of course, in humans themselves:

humans with their anthropometrics, capacities and limitations;

scope, such as the physical workload, mental workload, environmental factors, organizational design and management;

areas of application, such as manufacturing, assembly, process industry, office work, rehabilitation, hospitals, schools, transport, agriculture, sports;

methodology: research methodology, engineering practices, ergonomic design projects;

worldwide cultural differences: for example, industrialised versus industrially developing countries.

The challenge for ergonomists' research and consultancy is to meet the diverse requirements in the target groups.