Implementing a participatory ergonomics process

1
Implementing a participatory ergonomics process
2
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

3
Traditional ergonomic practices

• Traditional Intervention Approaches
• Fit a task/workspace to a worker
• Recognition of risk (WRMSDS)
• 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?

4
Failure of traditional approach

• NOT poor science
• Ergonomic information (KNOWLEDGE) is not being
  properly adapted and applied
• Carrivick, Lee, Yau, Stevenson (2005)

5

• How do we adapt apply this ergonomics knowledge?

6

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

7
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 1980s

8
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

9
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)

10
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)

11
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)

12
Participatory Ergonomics
Antle (2008)
13
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

14

• Who is involved in PE programs?

15
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)

16
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)
• \\

17
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

18

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

19
Participatory Ergonomics Who is involved?

• Vink et al. (2008)
• Top Management
• Middle Management
• Employee
• Ergonomist
• Designer
• Internal Staff

20
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
21
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

22

• 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

23
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

24
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

25
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

26

• Success Factors for Organizational Change

27
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 companys or plants
  culture
• Zink et al. (2008)

28
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)

29
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

30
Common Framework Success Factors

• Identifying the involvement of key personnel
  developing a steering committee
• Having a PE trained ergonomic facilitator
• Having participation of employees from all levels
  of the organization in as direct a manner as
  possible
• Having strong management commitment
• Focusing on employees satisfaction, production
  factors and other such outcomes, not just health
  implications
• Using a step-wise strategy for the project
• Ensure proper tools and equipment are available

31

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

32
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

33
Kogi (2008)
34
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

35

• 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

36
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

37
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

38
Kogi (2008)
39
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

40
Kogi (2008)

• Concluding remarks
• A trainers facilitative role is more effective
  when these support functions are followed
• Building local initiative for action
• Focus on practical options
• Conformation of benefits of the improvements
  achieved through feedback

41

• Barriers to the PE process

42
Key Barriers to PE Process

• Three issues in PE process noted by Institute for
  Work and Health (2009)
• Having support for PE program from the
  organization
• Having resource commitment from the organization
• Having open communication about the PE program

43
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

44

• What happens when PE interventions are not
  considered successful?

45
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

46
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?

47
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

48
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

49
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

50
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

51
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

52

• PE Blueprint

53
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

54
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

55
Wells, Frazer, Norman, Laing, 2001
56
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

57
PE Blueprint

• Ergonomic Process
• These processes are complementary and required
• Both of these processes use a common solution
  building, evaluation, and adoption approach

58
PE Blueprint Startup
59
Reactive Process
60
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

61
Reactive Process

• Phase 2
• Assess Ergonomic risk factors and prioritize jobs
  for improvement
• Prioritize ergonomic interventions for the jobs
  identified in previous step

62
Reactive Process

• Phase 3
• Build Solutions
• Develop a prototype/trial solution to address the
  risks identified in the previous step

63
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

64
Reactive Process

• Phase 5
• Prototype evaluation
• Estimate the ergonomic quality of the prototype
  solution

65
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

66
Proactive Approach
67
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

68
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