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 (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?
Traditional practices typically just focused on a single workstation or production problem 3

4. Failure of traditional approach:
NOT poor science
Ergonomic information (KNOWLEDGE) is not being properly adapted and applied
Carrivick, Lee, Yau, & Stevenson (2005)
Example:What can I tell 30 year veterans at a fish processing plant about how to cut fish!
It can be tough to tell people that they should change what they have been doing for so long. Workers or management may not understand or are not interested in change. May believe that it is too costly 4

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 1980’s

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) 10

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)
Contexts!

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) \\ 16

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
Need to understand that occupational risk exist on many levels

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
Company differences

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. multi-dimensional model with implications for participatory ergonomics
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 company’s or plant’s 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 29

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 30

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
Organized partners in Asian Intercounty

33. Kogi (2008)
Trainers role as facilitator focused on local practical improvements that had real impacts in the workplace

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 trainer’s 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
Intensity=critical

52. PE Blueprint
Wells, Frazer & Laing
(2000)

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
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
This part of the process addresses the immediate ill-health and other concerns due to poor ergonomics

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