validating a framework for participatory ergonomics_2010_49

8/12/2019 Validating a Framework for Participatory Ergonomics_2010_49

1/21

This article was downloaded by: [Aston University]On: 13 January 2014, At: 14:20Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

ErgonomicsPublication details, including instructions for

authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20

Validating a framework for

participatory ergonomics(the PEF)H. Haines

a, J.R. Wilson

a, P. Vink

b& E.

Koningsveldb

aInstitute for Occupational Ergonomics,

University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD,

UK

bTNO Work and Employment, Department ofErgonomics and Innovation, PO Box 718, 2130 AS

Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

Published online: 09 Nov 2010.

To cite this article:H. Haines , J.R. Wilson , P. Vink & E. Koningsveld (2002)Validating a framework for participatory ergonomics (the PEF), Ergonomics, 45:4,

309-327, DOI: 10.1080/00140130210123516

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130210123516

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the Content) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,

demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130210123516http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130210123516http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00140130210123516http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20


2/21

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Downloadedby[AstonUniversity]at14:2013January2014
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


3/21

Validating a framework for participatory ergonomics

(the PEF)

H. HAINES{*, J. R. WILSON{, P. VINK{ and E. KONINGSVELD{

{Institute for Occupational Ergonomics, University of Nottingham, NottinghamNG7 2RD, UK

{TNO Work and Employment, Department of Ergonomics and Innovation, POBox 718, 2130 AS Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

Keywords: Participatory ergonomics; Ergonomics management programme;Physical workload; Implementation of change.

Participatory ergonomics is reported in an increasing number of case studies, butthere is little evidence of emerging supportive theory and relatively little genericadvice or guidance. The paper describes an eVort to provide clarity andorganization to the eld of participatory ergonomics. A framework has beendeveloped to dene a range of diVerent participatory ergonomics initiatives,establishing a number of levels at which to operate. This participatory ergonomicsframework (the PEF) was validated through retrospective description of sevenindependently conducted case studies and through peer evaluation. The exercisesuggests that the PEF can be used as a rst basis to produce practical guidance onparticipatory ergonomics programmes.

1. Introduction

The growth in participatory ergonomics over the past 15 years has been

considerable. Much ergonomics practice will necessarily always have been

participative to some degree. However, ergonomics research and interventions,

especially concerned with work design and workplace improvements for health and

safety, have increasingly and explicitly cited a participatory ergonomics approachand methods. Such a `strong approach to participatory ergonomics has been dened

as `the involvement of people in planning and controlling a signicant amount of

their own work activities, with sucient knowledge and power to inuence both

processes and outcomes to achieve desirable goals (Wilson and Haines 1997).

Growth in participatory ergonomics has been fed by the recognition by

companies of there being room for improvement in working methods (e.g. Vink

and Peeters 1998) whilst not having resources to bring in ergonomics specialists for

every need (Wilson 1994), the increasingly participatory nature of approaches toindustrial health and safety generally, and the related processes of the total quality

movement (e.g. Eklund 2000).

Reasons to promote a participatory ergonomics (PE) approach include improved

design ideas and solutions, smoother implementation, and a number of systemic

outcomes of value to both organizations and individuals (Wilson and Haines 1997).

*Author for correspondence. e-mail: [email protected]

ERGONOMICS, 2002, VOL. 45, NO. 4, 309 327

Ergonomics ISSN 0014-013 9 print/ISSN 1366-584 7 online # 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080 /0014013021012351 6



4/21

Against this, diculties include the (perceived) time and cost involved, the eVort

required to turn interventions into continuous improvement programmes, the need

to motivate participants and know how to embrace those represented but not active

in the process, i.e. the non-participatory stakeholders.

Despite the vastly increased number of PE endeavours, there is still little in theway of an agreed theoretical structure for participatory ergonomics or a framework

for practical advice and guidance. It is also dicult to compare across diVerent PE

projects in terms of process and of outcomes. In fact, the literature highlights

participatory ergonomics as not being a unitary concept, but rather as an umbrella

term covering a fairly broad range of ideas and practices. Recognizing the diversity

of PE, and the need for better research and practice guidance, the Health and Safety

Executive in the UK commissioned a project that dened a series of dimensions

across which to describe PE initiatives, and presented a rst general framework forPE (Haines and Wilson 1998). The framework and dimensions were based on

previous work by the authors (e.g. Wilson 1991, Wilson and Haines 1997) and others

(e.g. Cohen 1996, Liker et al. 1989), and was informed by the views of a number of

European ergonomists who were interviewed during study visits. Importantly, the

framework also drew upon related work in management and business administration

(e.g. Dachler and Wilpert 1978, Cotton 1993).

Subsequently, an adapted set of dimensions was produced as a conceptual

framework forunderstanding PE the participatory ergonomics framework (PEF).

Although the primary aim has been to provide clarity and organization for the eldof participatory ergonomics, it is hoped that the approach could play a role in the

development of focused and practical guidance for the implementation of PE

initiatives.

Any such framework requires validation before becoming the basis for guidance,

but such multifactorial concepts as PE are not easy to validate. In the event, the PEF

was validated within a structured exercise, involving case studies previously carried

out by peers. The researchers on the case studies also retrospectively dened their

own projects across the dimensions of the framework. Thus the framework has been

produced in the UK by two of the authors (H. H., J. W.) and has been validated

using PE cases in The Netherlands, which were managed within a programme

directed by the other two authors (P. V., E. K.).

This paper begins by describing the framework to be tested and the methods

employed in the validation exercise. The results of the exercise are then presented

and discussed, and implications are drawn for the development of the framework.

2. Participatory ergonomics framework (PEF)

The PEF has nine diV

erent dimensions, each with two or more associated categoriesthat dene a feature of a PE initiative. Depending on their complexity, participatory

ergonomics projects may consist of more than one type of participatory group or

mechanism (e.g. task forces, department level teams, steering committees), so for

multilevel projects, the framework should be applied separately to each diVerent type

of participatory group within the project. The PEF is summarized in gure 1 and

each dimension is described as follows.

2.1. Dimension 1: Permanence of initiative

The rst dimension considers the permanence of participatory ergonomics within anorganization. Participatory ergonomics mechanisms may function on a temporary

310 H. Haines et al.



5/21

basis and may take place outside the normal organizational structures. Alternatively,

ongoing participatory mechanisms may be developed which may well be much more

integrated into the structure of the organization.

Categories for permanence: Temporary Ongoing

2.2. Dimension 2: Involvement

The second dimension of participatory ergonomics considers whether people

participate directly or indirectly (via representatives). Cotton (1993) refers to work

by Dachler and Wilpert (1978) in which direct involvement is seen as `immediate

personal involvement of organizational members (p. 12) Cotton goes on to describe

this as `typically face-to-face involvement where workers can have an immediate and

personal impact and contrasts this with indirect involvement which `incorporates

some type of employee representation in which, rather than the employee interacting,

his or her representative is involved (p. 28).Liker et al. (1989) used the distinction between direct and representative

participation coined by Coch and French (1948) `Direct participation means each

employee participates directly in decisions about their own work. Representative

participation means that employee representatives are selected to represent the

viewpoints of a large number of workers (Liker et al. 1989: 187).

Examples of both direct and representative participation may be found in the

participatory ergonomics literature. In developing this framework, it was important

to look more closely at how the term representative may be interpreted. There seems

to be two possible meanings. On the one hand, representatives may allow a widergroup to participate by proxy (as in the case of elected representatives).

Figure 1. Version of the participatory ergonomics framework (PEF) used in the validation

exercise.

311Validating a framework for participatory ergonomics (the PEF)



6/21

Alternatively, representative s may not set out to actively represent the views of

others, but instead participate because they represent a typical subset of a larger

group. To recognize this latter form of representation a category has been introduced

into this dimension, termed `partial direct participation.

Categories for involvement: Direct participation Partial direct participation Representative participation

2.3. Dimension 3: Level of inuence

A further dimension considers the organizationa l level at which participatory

ergonomics takes place. There are mechanisms that operate at the level of a

particular department or work group, and there are cross-organizatio n mechan-

isms.

Categories for level of inuence: Department/work group Entire organization

2.4. Dimension 4: Decision-making power

The fourth dimension of participatory ergonomics considers the question: who has

the power to make decisions? This is an important consideration as, although

employees are frequently asked to express their views, in many participatory

ergonomics initiatives the authority to make decisions still remains with someone

other than the participants. To clarify this, the framework makes the distinction

between consultative participation and delegative participation which has been used

by (amongst others) the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living andWorking Conditions, as follows:

consultative participation management encourages employees to make their

views known on work-related matters, but retains the right to take action or not.

Delegative participation management gives employees increased discretion

and responsibility to organize . . . their jobs without reference back. (EPOC

Research Group 1997: 16)

Categories for decision-making power: Individual consultation Group consultation

Group delegation

2.5. Dimension 5: Composition

The fth dimension considers the occupational groups involved in the participatory

process, and is self-explanatory.

Categories for composition: Operators Supervisors Middle management

Specialist/technical staV Senior management

2.6. Dimension 6: RequirementThe sixth dimension of participatory ergonomics concerns the requirement for

participation: is it voluntary or compulsory? Although, in some cases, participation

will be entirely voluntary, some participatory ergonomics mechanisms such as

quality circles or production groups require involvement in troubleshooting and

continuous improvement as a part of the job specications.

Categories for requirement: Compulsory Voluntary

2.7. Dimension 7: Focus

The next dimension identies the topics addressed by participants, and is self-explanatory.




7/21

Categories for focus: Designing or specifying èquipment or tasks Specifying work

organization issues Formulating policies and strategies

2.8. Dimension 8: RemitThe eighth dimension of participatory ergonomics describes the broad activities that

fall within participants remit, and by extension how extensive is their involvement in

the change process. Process development refers to being involved in setting up or

structuring the participatory process. Process maintenance refers to any involvement

in monitoring or overseeing the progress of the initiative. Involvement in problem

identication, solution generation and evaluation, if this is on-going, means being

part of a continuous improvement process.

Categories for remit: Process development Problem identication Solution

generation Solution evaluation Solution implementation Process maintenance

2.9. Dimension 9: Role of èrgonomics specialist

The nal dimension describes the nature of ergonomists involvement in a

participatory process. Many participatory ergonomics initiatives will involve an

èrgonomics specialist, although the roles they play in the process may diVer and can

evolve over time.

Categories for role of specialist: Initiates and guides process Acts as a team member

Trains participants Available for consultation

3. Validation exercise

Testing the PEF was undertaken during a 2-day workshop at TNOs headquarters.

TNO is a large research and consultancy organization with a substantial ergonomics

group. There were a number of reasons why this organization was a valuable test

site. First, they are enthusiastic about participatory ergonomics and are keen to

exchange ideas with other researchers (although importantly, the specic work of

individual staVmembers was not well known to the framework developers). Second,they have undertaken a large volume of participatory ergonomics work, much of

which remains unpublished in scientic literature, which could be used in the

validation exercise. Third, being based in The Netherlands (albeit with a very

international perspective) they oVered a good opportunity to examine the cross-

cultural validity of the PEF.

A number of specic aims were identied for the validation exercise:

(1) To obtain peer validation of the framework.(2) To examine how ergonomists and related professionals understand the

components of the framework and to identify how this compares with the

thoughts of the framework developers.

(3) To investigate the usefulness of this general approach to conceptualizing PE.

(4) To examine whether cases can easily be classied using this framework and

thus whether the framework could form the basis for a taxonomy of PE.

(5) To assess whether the framework could support discussion and structuring of

new projects by groups of experts.




8/21

(6) To investigate whether the framework would benet from further modica-

tion and if so, to identify the changes which should be considered.

The rst day of the validation exercise involved the framework developers (H. H., J.

W.) collecting data on a range of participatory projects undertaken by TNO. Theproject managers of seven separate PE projects, previously unpublished in English

(with one exception Project F; de Jong and Vink 2000), were interviewed for

about 45 min each, using a semistructured format (see appendix 1); not all the

interview data gathered are reported in this paper. None of the project managers had

previously seen the PEF, and the interviews were designed to question project

managers about their project on a general basis only, and not explicitly on the

specic features of the framework. All of the interviews were recorded on audiotape

and key responses were also noted on an interview proforma sheet. Once all theinterviews had been completed, the framework developer subsequently used the

information gathered to position each project on the nine dimensions of the

framework in preparation for the next stage of the validation exercise.

On the second day, the PEF was presented for the rst time to the group of

project managers who had been interviewed and to a number of their colleagues who

had worked on one or more of the projects facilitated by the project managers. Each

of the dimensions and its associated categories were dened and further claried in

response to questions. Small teams were then formed, including the project manager

and other relevant colleagues who may have either worked on the whole project in a`process role or solved specic ergonomics problems in a `content role. Each team

was asked to position at least one participatory group from their own project on the

framework using response sheets based around the structure shown in gure 1.

Participatory projects may consist of more than one type of participatory group (e.g.

task forces, department level teams, steering committees etc.). Although the

framework developers positioned allof the participatory groups within each project

on the framework, due to time limitations project managers were invited to choose at

least one of their participatory groups to locate on the framework. They were then

asked to identify to which group(s) their analysis referred.

The response sheets were used to examine consistency between project managers

(and their teams) and framework developers in applying the framework to each of

the projects tested. Then, the results from the classication of one of the projects

were presented to the entire group, to act as a stimulus to discussion of the

framework and its usefulness for conceptualizing PE. The validation exercise

concluded with all group members being asked to assign an `importance score to

each of the dimensions of the framework.

A summary of the projects examined during the validation exercise is provided intable 1 (and see gures 2 4). They encompass a range of diVerent industries, from

manufacturing and service sectors to construction and defence. The majority of the

projects had `reducing physical workload as one of their stated aims, however the

means by which this was to be achieved varied somewhat between them.

4. Results

4.1. First-level analysis

A rst level of analysis was undertaken to identify whether the project managers and

the framework developers were positioning each project in a roughly similar manner.The pattern of responses for each project are shown in table 2 along with percentage




9/21

disagreement scores (disagreement was noted when the project manager and

framework developer did not select any of the same categories for a particular

dimension). The aim of this rst level of analysis was to identify areas where there isno overlap between the thinking of the two parties. For example, table 2 shows that

Table 1. Brief summary of the seven projects examined.

Project Industry Project aims Groups involved

A armed services to undertake pilot

projects with the aimof reduceing heavyphysical workload inorder to increasenumbers of femalestaV

project team and pilot teams

involving: top and linemanagement; human resources;employees; purchasing; externalexperts

B community healthand domestic care

to develop andimplement aninstrument to reducephysical load amonghome-care workers

development groups andimplementation groups involving:sector organization; health andsafety experts; top and linemanagement; project leader; unionrepresentative; external advisors

C installation industry to reduce the heavywork of operatorsinstalling heating,electrical systems, etc.(see gures 2 and 3)

steering committee anddepartmental teams involving: linemanagement; employeerepresentatives; health and safetyexperts; internal and externaladvisors

D chassis assembly of trucks

to reduce lead time,increase productivityand improveergonomics (see gure4)

working group, steering group,assembly teams involving:production and engineeringmanagement, health and safetyexperts; line management,engineering; assembly workers andexternal advisors

E daycare for children to reduce physicalworkload for

employees workingwith children

overall steering group and daycaresteering group involving: regional

and local management, employees

F construction to develop andpublicize handling aidsand other approachesto reduce the physicalworkload of glaziers

sterring committee and workinggroup involving: sectororganization, glazing companymanagement; union/employeeorganization; employees; internaland external advisors

G tractor assembly to reduce the lead time,increase eciency andimprove ergonomics

task force involving: senior andline management; blue collarworkers; production planning; andexternal experts




10/21

Figure 2. Two improvements resulting from the participatory ergonomics process ininstallation work. (left) A foldable worktable mounted on the van resulted in improvedworking postures (previously work was done on the oor). (right) The seat wasmanufactured to reduce stress on the knees whilst working at oor level.

Figure 3. Two improvements resulting from the participatory ergonomics process ininstallation work. The special device made it possible to lift heavy panels of glass (50

200 kg) from the van to a transport car (something previously done manually). Thetransport car also eliminated manual carrying.




11/21

for Project A there was a very low level of disagreement between the framework

developer and project manager. The only area where there was no overlap at all

between the two views was for the dimension `decision-making.

4.2. Second-level analysis

The aim of the second level of analysis was to look more closely at the level of

agreement for each project across the framework as a whole and to provide a more

in-depth indication as to how closely the project managers view of the project

matched the framework developers. For this analysis, a percentage agreement scorewas calculated based on the number of categories selected by both the manager and

Figure 4. Diagram produced by workers in a participatory project at a truck-assembly plant.By illustrating workow on a layout diagram, bottlenecks and ineciencies werehighlighted enabling improvements to be made.




12/21


13/21

manager. Taking Project A for example, the rst percentage agreement score of 85%

was based on the fact that, of the 13 categories selected as reecting the project by

the framework developer, the project manager and their team agreed with 11 of

these. The second percentage agreement score of 73% shows that the framework

developer agreed with 11 of the 15 categories selected by the project manager andteam.

Finally, to look more closely at how each of the dimensions of the framework

was interpreted, results from the seven projects were combined (table 4). A `strict

agreement score was calculated for each dimension, with agreement only being

recorded where there was an exact match between the categories ticked by the

project manager and the framework developer. For example, taking the rst

dimension `permanence, where two possible categories could be selected, the

framework developer and project manager selected the same category in ve of theseven projects. However, for the dimension `remit where there were six possible

categories to choose from, there was an exact match for categories selected in only

one of the seven projects examined.

4.3. Importance rating for elements of the framework

To get a quantitativ e indication of how project managers and other researchers

viewed the relative importance of the diVerent elements of the framework, they were

Table 4. Strict agreement scores for each dimension.

DimensionNumber of possible

categories

Number of `strict agreements

between PM and FD(across all seven projects)

PermanenceInvolvementLevel of inuenceDecision-makingMix of participantsRequirementFocusRemit

Role of ergonomics specialist

23236236

4

5/74/76/73/70/74/73/71/7

1/7

Table 3. Agreement scores for the projects examined.

Project

Percentage agreement(no. of categories selected by PM/no. of categories selected by FD)

Percentage agreement(no. of categories selected by FD/no. of categories selected by PM)

ABCDEFG

85% (11/13)64% (7/11)50% (7/14)88% (14/16)86% (12/14)69% (11/16)86% (12/14)

73% (11/15)44% (7/16)58% (7/12)82% (14/17)86% (12/14)73% (11/15)63% (12/19)




14/21

asked assign a score to each dimension using the following scoring system: 0, not

important; 1, important; and 2, very important. The results are shown in table 5.

5. Discussion of results

The results tabulated above are discussed in the following sections. Results areexamined rstly by individual project and then for each dimension of the framework.

5.1. Results by project

The rst level of analysis (table 2) identied that, for the majority of the projects (ve

of seven), the views of the project managers and the framework developer showed

some degree of overlap in at least eight of the nine dimensions of the framework. The

remaining two projects (projects B and C) showed more disagreement with no

overlap in views recorded for three of the nine dimensions.The second level of analysis looked at the match between the project manager

and framework developers view of each project more closely, through the

calculation of a percentage agreement score for all categories across dimensions.

As has already been mentioned, the total number of categories selected will inuence

the percentage agreement calculation. For four of the projects, the total number of

categories selected by the project manager exceeded that of the framework

developer, for a further two projects the converse was true, and the remaining

project had equal numbers of categories selected by both the project manager and

the framework developer. The slight tendency for project managers to select morecategories may be related to the framework developers view that some of the

dimensions are composed of mutually exclusive categories or to the project

managers more in depth knowledge of the projects. This issue is expanded further

in the discussion section.

In general the level of agreement was quite high (table 3). It varied from 88 to

50% (project manager agreement with framework developer) and 86 44%

(framework developer agreement with project manager). Looking at the lower

scoring projects, one of these Project B was a complicated mixture of

instrument development and implementation and was less well understood by the

researcher than were some of the higher scoring projects. The other lower scoring

Table 5. Importance rating by dimension.

Dimension `Importance scores assigned by each project manager Total Rank

PermanenceInvolvementLevel of inuenceDecision-makingMix of

participantsRequirementFocusRemitRole of

ergonomics

specialist

1222

2122

2

0212

1222

2

1202

2122

2

0112

1022

2

0112

2121

2

0222

2112

2

2201

1122

2

1212

2122

2

2022

1012

2

1212

2112

2

1112

2212

2

1222

2111

2

1112

2112

2

0212

2102

1

222

2

1112

2102

0

12251931

28152028

27

9571

=286

=2

4




15/21

project, Project C, was a complex initiative at a company of 7000 employees. Some

staV, middle management and supervisors were involved, but senior management

carried through most of the project. Unambiguous classication of this project was

very dicult and again may account for the lower project manager framework

development agreement.Although these results give a general indication as to how uniformly the project

manager and framework developer applied the framework, to look for systematic

diVerences in how the framework was understood, it is necessary to consider the

results across each dimension.

5.2. Results by dimension

The combined strict agreement results of the seven projects shown in table 4 make a

stringent test of manager developer consistency, and highlighted areas ofparticular disagreement between the response of the project managers and

framework developers. Five of the nine dimensions failed to reach a 50% `strict

agreement level but, not surprisingly, three of these (mix of participants, remit and

role of ergonomics specialist) are also the dimensions with the greatest number of

possible categories. There is no accepted way of deciding on acceptable levels of

agreement (although see St Vincent et al. 1998 who also used 50% although in a

diVerent context of identifying risk factors). However, we believe the cut-oVof 50%

to be supportable since it appears to distinguish projects where there is reasonable

consistency, albeit masked by extra categories chosen by manager or developer, fromthose where there is less consistency.

It is more important to understand where and why there is lack of agreement;

examining the pattern of results (table 2) provides further insight into areas of

(mis)understanding. In most cases the interpretations below are supplemented either

by notes made by project managers on their response sheets or by points raised

during the subsequent group discussion session.

5.2.1. Permanence: In the majority of cases there appeared to be relatively few

problems with identifying whether a project was ongoing or temporary. However, in

two of the cases the managers felt incapable of drawing a distinction since they felt

the projects could be temporary at the outset but with an emerging aim to make

them into continuing initiatives.

5.2.2. Involvement: There was agreement between the researcher and project

manager for four of the seven projects. For the remaining projects, disagreement

arose over the distinction made between partial direct and representative

participation. It may be that these particular terms were not suciently clear;through discussion, project managers agreed that there was a need to distinguish

between participants who represent themselves as a typical member of the workforce

and those whose role is to actively represent the views of a group of their colleagues.

5.2.3. Level of inuence: This dimension achieved the greatest number of strict

agreements (six out of a possible seven). However, one project manager pointed out

that this dimension did not accommodat e projects that had inuence beyond a

particular organization (Project F was applied across a whole industry sector).




16/21

5.2.4. Decision-making : There were some diculties with the dimension of

decision-making, with strict agreement being reached for only three of the projects.

Disagreements seemed to arise largely because the framework developers had

intended this dimension to refer to the decision-making power of the group as an

entity whereas some of the project managers made a distinction between thedecision-making power of diVerent group members. Some project managers also

highlighted the fact that the power to make decisions might be related to the remit of

the group. For example, the responsibility to identify problems may be delegated to a

group although the decision to implement changes may well be retained by higher

management.

5.2.5. Mix of participants: This dimension achieved the lowest number of strict

agreements (none across the seven projects examined), seeming to stem largelyfrom diVerences in terminology used within UK and Dutch industry. In

particular, the distinctions between the categories `supervisor, `middle manage-

ment and `senior management may have cultural diVerences. In addition, the

categories available within this dimension were identied as being too limited

to accommodate the range of people who participated in some of the

projects.

5.2.6. Requirement: There was agreement between the framework developers and

project managers for four of the seven projects, but some diculties with thisdimension did arise. In particular both the framework developers and project

managers recognized that in some cases the requirement to participate may be

related to the participants job or function, and therefore will not necessarily be the

same for all members of the group.

5.2.7. Focus: It is not clear why this dimension did not achieve a greater number of

strict agreements (only three out of a possible seven). It could be that the implied

distinction between a physical category (`designing/specifying equipment or tasks)

and a work organizational category (`designing jobs, teams or work organization)

was not always appreciated by the project managers; there is considerable overlap

between the notions of tasks and job.

5.2.8. Remit: The term `remit itself was not generally understood by the Dutch

project managers. Beyond this, the low number of agreements across this dimension

(one out of a possible seven) seemed to be related to the distinction made between the

categories `solution generation, `solution evaluation and `solution implementation.

Some project managers felt that the category `project evaluation should have beenincluded for this dimension.

5.2.9. Role of ergonomics specialist: The dimension `role of the ergonomics

specialist threw up some problems, with strict agreement being reached for only

one of the projects. For the project managers, the role of change agent and

ergonomics specialist may well be undertaken by diVerent people and this seemed

to inuence how they understood this part of the framework. In addition,

feedback indicated that one of the categories for this dimension should clearly

identify those instances where the specialists role is to act as an expert in his/hereld.




17/21

Table 5 shows that project managers rated ve dimensions of the PEF as particularly

important in dening a project: `decision-making, `mix of participants, `remit, `role

of ergonomics specialist and `involvement. Some of the project managers argued, in

line with the developers, that the entire framework should be viewed as a whole

package and that these ratings should not be used as the basis for discarding any ofthe dimensions.

6. Implications for the PEF

The results of the validation exercise indicate that the PEF provides an acceptable

and successful approach to capturing the diversity of a range of PE projects. The

framework was generally received positively by the project managers who felt, in

particular, that it could form a useful tool at an early stage of project negotiation.

Through discussion, it was agreed that there are a series of choices to be made in anyproject and that the organizational context is the key to these. However, it was felt

that these choices are not always made suciently explicit, and that the PEF may act

as a form of a checklist to ensure that the issues and options are made clear to all

parties at the outset.

For any framework to be useable in practise, it must be easily understood and

widely applicable. It is acknowledged that there were potential limitations with the

validation exercise, most notably because it required the framework developers to

understand quickly a range of non-UK projects through relatively short, intensive

interviews. However, the exercise did enable the framework developers to identify anumber of ways in which the frameworks usefulness and generalizability might be

enhanced. The modications that have now been made and the revised PEF are

described in table 6.

7. Conclusions

This paper describes a rst eVort to provide structure to the increasingly prevalent

participatory ergonomics (PE) initiatives. Since many reports of PE projects extol

the virtues of the approach and suggest relative success, it may seem that no

structure or fundamental understanding is required. However, the authors believe

that reported successes are often only partial reports which may be dicult to

transfer to other settings, that one-oV cases are not usually translated into the

potentially more powerful company-wide programmes, and that better guidance on

PE process and methods is required to motivate and support companies and even

ergonomics practitioners. It was for these reasons that the original version of a PE

framework was developed for the UK Health and Safety Executive (Haines and

Wilson 1998).

The validation of a modied version of this framework, the PEF, is a rareexample of formal peer review of such developments in ergonomics. The exercise had

a series of six aims related to evaluation of the framework itself and its potential

usefulness and to its modication and improvement, which were identied earlier in

this paper. Our conclusions with respect to these aims are as follows:

(1) The level of agreement amongst those using the PEF to classify PE cases

lends support to its appropriacy and validity (at least for such classicatory

purposes).

(2) The project managers and their colleagues, primarily ergonomists or thosewith a strong interest in ergonomics, were able to understand and generally




18/21

Table 6. Summary of modications to the PEF identied by the validation exercise.

Dimension1 Modication Categories in the modied PEF

Permanence2 Ongoing Temporary

Involvement Replace the categories `partial direct and`representative participation with the categories`direct representative participation (i.e. asubgroup of possible participants) and `delegatedparticipation

Full direct participation Direct representativeparticipation Delegatedparticipation

Level ofinuence

Divide the categories `department/work groupinto `department and `work group/team. Addcategory `group of organizations

Group of organizations Entire organization Department Work group/

team

Decision-making1

Identify that decision-making power may belinked to the groups brief and that decision-making power may not be equal among groupmembers (link to mix of participants)

Group delegation Groupconsultation Individualconsultation

Mix ofparticipants1

Simplify management categories into `linemanagement; and `senior management. Addcategories èxternal advisor `supplier/purchaserìndustry organization and ìnternal specialist/technical staV. Include link to decision-making

(see above)

Operators Line management Senior management Internal specialist/technical staV

Union External advisor Supplier/purchaser Cross-

industry organization

Requirementto participate

Identify that requirement to participate may berelated to job function and therefore may varybetween group members

Compulsory Voluntary

Focus rename astopicsaddressed

Relabel category `designing equipment or tasksas `physical design/specication of equipment/workplaces/work tasks

Physical design/specication ofequipment/workplaces/worktasks Design of job teams orwork organization Formulation of policies or

strategies

Remit rename asbrief1

Collapse categories, solution generation andsolution evaluation into `solution development.Replace category `solution implementation withìmplementation of change. Relabel `processdevelopment as `set-up/structure process and`process maintenance as `monitor/overseeprocess. Include link to decision-making (seeabove)

Problems identication Solution development Implementation of change Set/up structure process Monitor/oversee process

Role of

ergonomicsspecialist3

Replace category àcts as team member with

àcts as expert. Add category `not involved

Initiates and guides process

Acts as expert Trainsparticipants Available forconsultation Not involved

Possibleadditions toframework

Refer to embedded participatory structure (not adimension) as having. one layer (e.g. working group);. two layers (e.g. working group and steering

group); or. three or more layersRefer to the boundary of the project (possible

categories: none loose/exible tight/dened)

(Continued)




19/21

agree the components of the PEF and were happy that a variety of diVerent

PE projects can be covered. Some suggestions were made (with varying

degrees of force) for modications and improvements.

(3) One of the strongest outcomes of this study was the acceptance amongst a

number of PE managers and researchers of the potential usefulness of thePEF to conceptualize PE (see also point 5 below).

(4) The exercise has led to the conclusion that, in a modied form, the PEF could

become the basis for a PE taxonomy.

(5) The framework was thought to be a particularly valuable tool to establish

and agree an agenda amongst stakeholders at the outset of a PE initiative,

and to make structured comparisons across such projects.

(6) A number of valuable modications to the PEF emerged from the validation

exercise, and a revised version is reported in table 6. A number of possibleadditions to the PEF were suggested and these will now be examined closely

in terms of their fundamental and practical impact.

The authors conclude that the PEF has an applied role, for setting up and helping

support participatory ergonomics initiatives and programmes. The PEF also makes

a contribution to the better fundamental understanding of what is involved in

participative processes for ergonomics change. On the basis of modications

suggested by the exercise reported in this paper and the further corroboration of the

PEF in future case studies, it is hoped that the framework can support focusedpractical guidance for the implementation of participatory ergonomics.

Acknowledgements

The original work on the participatory ergonomics framework was funded by the

Economic and Social Research Council and the UK Health Safety Executive, under

Grant No. 3563/R49.007, with much support (moral and practical) from Trevor

Shaw. All views are the authors, however. The authors acknowledge the support of

their colleagues at both the University of Nottingham and the TNO in helping them

to develop their ideas of participatory ergonomics over the years, and they are

especially grateful for the enthusiastic eVorts of those who took part in the validation

exercise. Finally, the authors are grateful for the insightful comments of the referees

on an original version of the paper; their careful reading and suggestions have

improved it considerably.

Table 6 (continued).1It is now recognized that in some cases (e.g. decision-making, mix of participants and brief)the dimensions of the framework may be linked. It will be useful in the future to add tools tosupport the framework that identify how these linkages may operate.2The permanence dimension will be re-examined in the light of high impact ergonomicsprogrammes which might include a pervasive but discontinuous intervention at all levels.3This dimension specically looks at the role of ergonomics specialists within the participatoryprocess. It is recognized that in some cases a change agent (who is not necessarily anergonomics specialist) will be involved in the process something which might be identiedusing the earlier dimension `mix of participants.




20/21

ReferencesCOCH, L. and FRENCH, J. R. P. 1948, Overcoming resistance to change, Human Relations, 1,

512 532.COHEN, A. L. 1996, Worker participation, in A. Battacharya and J. McGlothlin (eds),

Occupational Ergonomics: Theory and Applications (New York: Marcel Dekker), 235 258.

COTTON, J. L. 1993, Employee Involvement: Methods for Improving Performance and WorkAttitudes (Newbury Park: Sage).

DACHLER, H. P. and WILPERT, B. 1978, Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participationin organizations: a critical evaluation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 139.

DE JONG, A. M. and VINK, P. 2000, The adoption of technological innovations for glaziers:evaluation of a participatory ergonomics approach, International Journal of IndustrialErgonomics, 26, 39 46.

EKLUND, J. 2000, Development work for quality and ergonomics, Applied Ergonomics, 31,641 648.

EPOC RESEARCH GROUP 1997, New Forms of Work Organisation. Can Europe Realise itsPotential?(Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and WorkingConditions).

HAINES, H . M . a n d WILSON, J. R. 1998, Development of a Framework for ParticipatoryErgonomics (Sudbury: HSE Books).

LIKER, J. K., NAGAMACHI, M. and LIFSHITZ, Y. R. 1989, A comparative analysis of participatoryergonomics programs in US and Japan manufacturing plants, International Journal ofIndustrial Ergonomics, 3, 185 189.

ST-VINCENT, M., CHICOLNE, D. and BEAUGRAND, S. 1998, Validation of a participatoryergonomics process in two plants in the electrical sector, International Journal of

Industrial Ergonomics, 21, 11 21.VINK, P. and PEETERS, M. 1998, Balancing organizational, technological and human factors:the vision of production management, in P. Vink, E. Koningsveld and S. Dondt (eds),Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management VI (Amsterdam: Elsevier),711.

WILSON, J. R. 1991, A framework and a foundation for ergonomics?, Journal of OccupationalPsychology , 64, 67 80.

WILSON, J. R. 1994, Devolving ergonomics: the key to ergonomics management programmes,Ergonomics, 37, 579 594.

WILSON, J. R. and HAINES, H. M. 1997, Participatory ergonomics, in G. Salvendy (ed.),Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd edn (New York: Wiley), 490 513.

Appendix 1: Semistructured interview schedule

First of all, some background information.

. Can you give a brief description of the project.

. What was the aim of the project?

. What factors were important in the decision to implement PE?

. How was participation arranged?

. How did the initiative t within existing organizational structures?. What factors were important in deciding how the initiative would be

arranged/designed?

. How was support from within the organization established?

. Did you encounter any obstacles to gaining support?

Next, some more questions about how the project was structured.

. Who participated how many people which occupational groups were

they internal/external to organization?

. Did all people likely to be aVected by the project participate or were someparticipants acting as representatives of others?




21/21

. How did people become participants?

. Was all participation through groups how many groups how did they

diVer?

. What role did ergonomists play in the process?

The next set of questions is about the tasks undertaken by participants.

. What issues did the participatory initiative address? Did these change over

time?

. What were participants asked to do?

. Did participants have inuence over things beyond their own immediate

working environment?

. What methods were used by participants to full their remit?

. What factors inuenced the methods chosen?. Who had the power to make decisions?

Finally, some general questions about the project.

. How long did the project last?

. What were the outcomes from the project?

. Did you encounter any obstacles to progress at any stage of the project?

. What factors were important in inuencing the success of the project?

. What did you learn from the experience?



validating a framework for participatory ergonomics_2010_49

Documents