implementing a participatory ergonomics process. overview traditional ergonomic practice pe...

Implementing a participatory ergonomics process

Overview

• Traditional Ergonomic Practice

• PE definition/background

• Who is involved in PE programs

• PE in small workplaces

• Success Factors for Organizational Change

• Barriers to the PE process

• PE Blueprint

Traditional ergonomic practices

• Traditional Intervention Approaches– Fit a task/workspace to a worker– Recognition of risk (WRMSD’S)– Employ guidelines, laboratory findings,

statistical modeling– Notion of “accidents” has changed – (Typically) not reiterative and often does

not consider how changes create problems upstream/downstream

• Effective in creating a problem solving culture?

Failure of traditional approach:

–NOT poor science

–Ergonomic information (KNOWLEDGE) is not being properly adapted and applied

Carrivick, Lee, Yau, & Stevenson (2005)

How do we adapt & apply this ergonomics knowledge?

• Participatory ergonomics represents an intervention style to work within a systemic approach to ergonomics – (Antle, 2008)

Background on PE

Rivilis et al., (2006):• PE interventions/programmes are used

to reduce work related musculoskeletal disorders in workplaces

• Grew out of quality circle experiences in Japan & participatory workplace design processes in Northern Europe and North America in the 1980’s

Background on PE

• Supported by unions, health and safety sectoral agencies, and health and safety associations – (Rivilis et al., 2006)

• PE programs can be implemented as part of an organizations constant improvement process and should be budgeted and evaluated

PE Programs

• Improved ergonomics can lead to increased productivity

• Reported outcomes from participatory ergonomics interventions include:

– decreased injury incidence and lower compensation costs (Laing et al., 2005)

PE Definitions

The involvement of people in planning and controlling a significant amount of their work activities, with sufficient knowledge and power to influence both processes and outcomes in order to achieve desirable goals.

Wilson & Haines (1997)

PE Definitions

• Participatory Ergonomics is the adaptation of the environment to the human (ergonomics) together with the proper persons in question (participants)– Vink (2005)

• Practical ergonomics is necessary with actors in problem solving– Kuorinka (1997)

Participatory Ergonomics

Antle (2008)

PE Definitions

• There is no common consensus on a definition of PE (Antle, 2008)

• But in all PE descriptions there is one common component- the involvement of stakeholders in the process. – Failure to involve these individuals may

lead to their negative interpretation of the need for an intervention

Who is involved in PE programs?

Participatory Ergonomics

• PE requires key company stakeholders to be involved in the intervention – at all stages of the process– They account for the traditional ergonomic

measures, as well as the organizational and employee/management factors

– Participation can either be direct or representative

• Antle (2008)

Participatory Ergonomics

• In implementing effective ergonomics, we cannot focus on technology alone. We must understand the context in using comprehensive management concepts.

Vink et al. (2008)

• Capturing knowledge must account for social and organizational factors

Kuorinka (1997); Laitinen et al. (1998)

\\

Participatory Ergonomics

• An effective PE program encourages workers to identify the hazards or risk factors in their workplace – Risk can be shaped by different

workplace components (multi-dimensional in nature)

• Those related to the individual job• Those related to worksite environment• Those related to organizational issues

– Cann et al. 2006

• In a 2008 study, Vink et al. theoretically proposed the different levels of involvement of participants in each step of a PE process.

Participatory Ergonomics: Who is involved?

Vink et al. (2008)

• Top Management

• Middle Management

• Employee

• Ergonomist

• Designer

• Internal Staff

Vink et al. 2008

Top Management: Step 1

Middle Management: Steps 1, 4

Employee: Steps 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9

Ergonomist: Steps 2, 3, 5

Designer: Steps 3, 5, 7

Participatory Ergonomics

Vink et al. (2008) results:

• Middle management also involved in implementation

• Employees also involved in adjustment

• Ergonomists role limited in later stages such as adjusting and implementation

Cann et al. (2006):

Lay versus expert understandings of workplace risk in the food service industry: A

multi-dimensional model with implications for participatory ergonomics

How do perceptions differ?

• Cann et al. (2006)– Explored the understandings of risk as

felt by food service workers and how these compare with an “expert” in risk assessment

• They note that the risk literature usually focuses on the evaluation of trained experts

Cann et al. (2006) findings:

• Ergonomists may be insufficient for successful workplace change and intervention

• Workers are knowledgeable and their knowledge is a result of experience

• Workers identified the same risks as the ergonomist just in more detail

How can we train those involved in PE programs?

• Can take several forms

• Be careful with media selection– Lectures vs. Video/computer based

learning– Hands on learning

• Employees should feel as though they are active part of the program

Success Factors for Organizational Change

Success Factors for Organizational Change

• The employment of long-term strategies for the company and the ability to make the necessary resources available

• Adequate participation of individuals and groups affected by the changes

• Consideration of impact of company’s or plant’s culture– Zink et al. (2008)

Success Factors for Organizational Change

• Coherence between different change initiatives

• Emphasis on structures and behaviours considering the interdependencies between them

• Change initiatives seen as evolutionary process but not as time-limited programs– Zink et al. (2008)

PE factors for success

• Literature identifies the several PE requirements – Koningsveld, Dul, Van Rhijn, & Vink, 2005; de Looze, Urlings, Vink, Van

Rhijn, & Miedema, 2001; Haines,Wilson, Vink, & Koningsveld, 2002; Saleem, Kleiner, & Nussbaum, 2003

• Existence or absence of these factors determine the success of the intervention and long-term improvement of ergonomics/OHS capacity at the company

Common Framework Success Factors

1. Identifying the involvement of key personnel; developing a steering committee

2. Having a PE trained ergonomic facilitator

3. Having participation of employees from all levels of the organization in as direct a manner as possible

4. Having strong management commitment

5. Focusing on employees satisfaction, production factors and other such outcomes, not just health implications

6. Using a step-wise strategy for the project

7. Ensure proper tools and equipment are available

PE in small workplaces-how can we successfully implement changes?

Participatory Ergonomics in Small Workplaces

• Kogi (2008) reviewed the use of trainers in helping local people in small work environments and the improvements they can help make in different work scenarios

Kogi (2008)

Kogi (2008)

• Programs dealing with work- related risks were organized according to the target groups – Risks addressed were

• Needle stick injuries• MSD• Mental stress situations• Irregular hours/overwork situations

• WISE training programs applied to small construction sites and home workplaces– Trainers played crucial role in facilitating

learning of local good practice, low cost ideas, and follow up activities

– Similar roles played in WIND programs

Kogi (2008)

• Trainers in these programs contributed to the adjustment of training materials to local conditions through the observation of local good practices and photographic examples

Kogi (2008)

• Second stage of facilitation was concerned with the planning of immediate improvements– Planning done by participating

managers, workers or farmers themselves

*CRUCIAL in each program*

Kogi (2008)

Kogi (2008)

Effects of Participatory steps:

• Practical improvements had been achieved in work and life conditions– Improvements in

• Reduced injury risks• Work environment

– Lighting, ventilation machine guarding, and chemicals handling

• Reduced physical and muscular loads

Kogi (2008)

Concluding remarks:• A trainer’s facilitative role is more

effective when these support functions are followed:

1)Building local initiative for action

2)Focus on practical options

3)Conformation of benefits of the improvements achieved through feedback

Barriers to the PE process

Key Barriers to PE Process

Three issues in PE process noted by Institute for Work and Health (2009):

1)Having support for PE program from the organization

2)Having resource commitment from the organization

3)Having open communication about the PE program

Barriers to PE Process

• Cann et al. (2006)

– A key barrier to shared knowledge is not due to expertise, but the inability or unwillingness to incorporate different types of knowledge and expertise to accomplish a common goal

What happens when PE interventions are not considered successful?

When PE Interventions Are Not Successful

• Laing et al. (2007) investigated the purpose of a PE programme in reducing WMSD– Wanted to assess whether an

intervention influenced pain severity based on aspects of the change process

– Used a sister plant in the corporation as a referent group

Laing et al. (2007)

– There was an increase reported in enhanced communication regarding ergonomic issues

– However, when the final assessment took place there was no real change in worker perception or pain severity.....

• What went wrong?

Laing et al. (2007)

• Possible Explanations:– Worker input– Limited intervention intensity – Context/Co-intervention differences

between the two plants– Lack of sensitivity/specificity in

psychosocial measures used

Laing et al. (2007)

• Worker input– Improved communication dynamics may

be a requirement for changes to occur in worker perception of workplace decision latitude and influence

• May not be sufficient enough- Why?

– Workers may perceive that their input is ignored

• This may lead to decrease in decision latitude

Laing et al. (2007)

• Limited intervention intensity – Intervention period may have been too

short (10 months) – Lack of commitment by ECT team

• Logo/participation in 1 minute survey

– Use of representative participation approach

• Employees may not have felt involved in process of change

Laing et al. (2007)

• Context/Co-intervention differences between the two plants

– A history of mistrust and non-participatory practices between labour and management existed at the intervention plant

• New management 4 months into intervention period

Laing et al. (2007)

• Lack of sensitivity/specificity in psychosocial measures used

– Psychosocial exposures measures may not have been sensitive enough for the specific changes involved with the particular intervention

• More thoughts need to be given to tool development used to measure outcomes affected by work

PE Blueprint

PE Blueprint

• A facilitators guide for implementing a successful PE program as part of an organizations health and safety program

• Establishes the groundwork to gain management support, set up a PE change team and initiate basic training in ergonomics

PE Blueprint

• Has an Ergonomic Process and a Health and Safety Process

• Health and Safety Process – Is the organizational structure that

supports the ergonomic process

Ergonomics ProcessErgonomics Process

Ergonomics ProgramErgonomics Program

UW Ergonomics Process and Program Blueprint

1: Identify Opportunitiesfor Improvement:

Health Outcome, Risk FactorIdentification and Integration

2: Assess ErgonomicRisk Factors andPriorize Jobs for

Improvement3: Build Solutions

4: ImplementPrototype

5: EvaluatePrototype

6: AdoptSolution

ReactiveReactive ProactiveProactive

7b: EmployErgonomic

DesignCriteria andPurchasingGuidelines

7a: UseFeed--backfrom

Previousdesigns

andplants

Training and Education

Management of the Ergonomics Program

Evaluation Process

0: Start Up:

a) Establish Support

b) Team Formation

c) Initial Training

(Medical Management)

Documentation

++(Compliance Assurance)

Participation and Consultation

Management Support of Ergonomics and Resources

Corporate Ergonomics Policy

Ergonomic Tools, Techniques and Skills

Wells, Frazer, Norman,

Laing, 2001

PE Blueprint

Ergonomic Process (2 Cycles)• Reactive Cycle:

– Facilitator identifies risk, evaluates priorities, proposes solutions, implements and evaluates a prototype in order to adopt solutions

• Proactive Cycle– Uses feedback from previous changes to

ensure that ergonomic principles are used in purchasing and design of new equipment

PE Blueprint

Ergonomic Process

• These processes are complementary and required

• Both of these processes use a common solution building, evaluation, and adoption approach

PE Blueprint: Startup

Reactive Process

Reactive Process

Phase 1:

• Opportunities for improvement– Identify jobs, tasks or processes where

workers experience greater rates of MSD or other indicators of poor ergonomic quality

– Then integrate this data to determine which jobs may need further ergonomic investigation and assessment

Reactive Process

Phase 2

• Assess Ergonomic risk factors and prioritize jobs for improvement – Prioritize ergonomic interventions for the

jobs identified in previous step

Reactive Process

Phase 3

• Build Solutions– Develop a prototype/trial solution to

address the risks identified in the previous step

Reactive Process

Phase 4

• Prototype Implementation– Implement solutions on a small scale or

proactively as a computer simulation where possible

• This can judge its ergonomic quality and interactions with other equipment and processes

Reactive Process

Phase 5

• Prototype evaluation– Estimate the ergonomic quality of the

prototype solution

Reactive Process

Phase 6

• Implement Solution– Allow for the smooth introduction of the

solution after prototype trials– Continue monitoring the effect of the

changes and still look for opportunities for improvement

Proactive Approach

Proactive Approach

• Proactive Approach– Develops guidelines in all relevant

departments • This aids to incorporate ergonomic

information into decision making

– Uses ergonomic tools • This allows prediction of the effects of design

decision on human health and performance

Proactive Approach

• Proactive Approach– Commits resources/time

• needed to incorporate ergonomic information into decision making

– Develops future programs• Builds in a continuous improvement cycle

based on improvement of existing design problems and feedback