Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0003-6870/$ - se
doi:10.1016/j.ap
�CorrespondDesign Enginee
Tel.: +3123 55
E-mail addr
Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 537–546
www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo
Positive outcomes of participatory ergonomics in terms ofgreater comfort and higher productivity
Peter Vinka,b,�, Ernst A.P. Koningsveldb, Johan F. Molenbroeka
aDelft University of Technology, Industrial Design Engineering, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The NetherlandsbTNO Quality of Life, P.O. Box 718, 2130 AS Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
Abstract
Ergonomics sometimes has a negative connotation, as it is seen to be connected to illness or guidelines that limit innovations. This
paper is focused on the positive aspects of ergonomics in improvement of the working environment. It consists of a part that studies the
literature on success factors in the process towards higher productivity and greater comfort, the formulation of a model and a hypothesis,
which is illustrated by four cases. The model distinguishes the success factors in ‘goal’, ‘involvement’ and ‘process’. Goals: evidence is
found in the literature that a positive approach has benefits in terms of shareholder value and productivity, and for comfort.
Involvement: the literature shows that participation of end-users and management contributes to success. Process: in the process it is
essential to have a good inventory of the problems, a structured approach, a steering group responsible for the guidance, and end-users
involvement in testing of ideas and prototypes. It is hypothesized that the chance of success increases by empowerment (making the
end-user responsible for deciding on the next step in the process) and positive experiences of end-users with the potential improvement
(end-users feel or see the benefits). The four cases illustrate that the hypothesis can be used in evaluating cases.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Comfort; Productivity; Participatory ergonomics; Experiencing alternatives
1. Good ergonomics is good economics
In the view of part of the public, ergonomics is coupledto illness, complaints or guidelines, which could have anegative connotation. One example is the introduction of aguideline for office chairs in the Netherlands. This guide-line (NPR1813) prescribes exactly the adjustability rangesof the different parts of a chair on the basis of the variationin anthropometrics in the Netherlands. Several designers,manufacturers and dealers complain that innovation isnow restricted, because there is so much prescribed in detail(Office Forum, 2005). Another example is the discussionamong 20 experts on future themes in manufacturingergonomics (Vink and Stahre, 2005). One of the conclu-
e front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
ergo.2006.04.012
ing author. Delft University of Technology, Industrial
ring, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands.
49590; fax: +31 23 5549305.
ess: [email protected] (P. Vink).
sions of this forum was that it is better to focus on healththan on illness. Of course, sometimes studies of risks can behelpful as well as ergonomic guidelines (e.g. ISO 9241-5,1998). However, stressing what is not allowed or prescrib-ing certain formats is not motivating and limits innovation.Another approach is to stress that system performance
and health could be improved by applying ergonomics. Thisfocus on health and overall system performance can befound in the definition of the International ErgonomicsAssociation (see http://www.iea.cc/ergonomics): Ergonomics
(or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with
the understanding of interactions among humans and other
elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory,
principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize
human well-being and overall system performance.
The goal of this paper is to support ergonomists inapplying a more positive approach to improve overallsystem performance. Hendrick (2001) described severalexamples of positive effects of ergonomics and states good
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Vink et al. / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 537–546538
ergonomics is good economics. Among a great diversity ofpositive effects of applying ergonomics, productivity andcomfort are described in the literature. Positive effects ofergonomics are described in terms of higher productivity inmanufacturing (e.g. Looze et al., 2005; Rosecrance et al.,2005) and in office work (Brauer et al., 2003; Hedge andSakr, 2005). Productivity in this case is defined as describedin the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2005):‘It is the rate at which a company or country makes goods,
judged in connection with the number of people and the
amount of materials necessary to produce the goods.’ Otherpositive effects, such as increasing comfort and therebywell-being for the end-users and sales for the manufacturerare described (Eikhout et al., 2005; Vink, 2005). Comfort isdefined as: The convenience experienced by the end user
during or just after working with the product (Vink, 2005).In all of the six studies mentioned (Brauer et al., 2003;Eikhout et al., 2005; Hedge and Sakr, 2005; Looze et al.,2005; Rosecrance et al., 2005; Vink, 2005), it was possibleto increase sales or productivity in combination with betterwell-being or comfort. This should be of interest to moreergonomists and the society. However, it is not easy toachieve these goals; it is important to define the factors ofimportance to achieve these successes more often. How-ever, there is no universally agreed list of success factors.
2. Aim of this paper
The aim of this paper is to find changes to (?) processfactors that are important to achieve better comfort andhigher productivity. Various studies have been publishedon success factors, but there is no universally agreed list offactors.
Here, the knowledge available in the literature isdiscussed. Then four case studies are used as an illustra-tion, and studied in depth to find potential explanationsand additional success factors. This paper stresses theimportance of paying attention to the positive aspects ofergonomics during a process of design, with a focus on theend-result of a design process. It is recommended that thishypothesis is tested further, perhaps in a case control study.
3. Knowledge available in the literature
A large number of studies have been focused onproductivity and comfort (Vink, 2005). Mostly, productiv-ity and comfort are end-results of a process in which end-users, experts (e.g. ergonomists), management and otherstaff play a role. Regarding this role of participants, someinteresting visions (viewpoints?) from the literature regard-ing participation are described first. Secondly, the factorsthat are important for an ideal approach (success factors)are described, as this is the aim of this paper. Finally, ahypothesis is made on the basis of findings in the literatureregarding the positive approach (focused on productivityand comfort) and one or more of the success factors.
3.1. Participation in the process towards better comfort and
productivity
The positive effects of participation have been demon-strated before and are a reason to pay attention to thistopic. The European Foundation for the Improvement ofLiving and Working Conditions (1999) reports that directparticipation in production organizations most often leadsto quality improvements (90% of the cases), to reduction ofthroughput times (60% of the cases), and to reduction ofcosts (60% of the cases), and effects on comfort have beendescribed (Vink, 2005). However, these facts are merelyestimations by experts. Apart from these estimations, somemore quantitative effects have been reported (Beevis andSlade, 2003; Koningsveld et al., 2005). The relationshipsbetween participation and productivity or comfort aredescribed.
3.1.1. Participation and productivity
The term productivity entails many aspects. Recently,Rhijn et al. (2005a, b) described four effects of aparticipatory approach related to productivity. The num-ber of products per person per day was increased by 44%,the order lead-time was reduced by 46%, the direct time(time of added-value activities) was increased by 18% andthe required workspace was reduced by 44%. These specificeffects are not new, but the general philosophy has provenits effect in a study in 1999, in which higher returns oninvestments than their industry peers were produced bycompanies that place workers at the core of their strategies.A study among 702 firms showed that better humanresource attention is associated with an increase in share-holder wealth of 40,000 Euro per employee (Pfeffer andVeiga, 1999). The involvement of employees in a partici-patory process is thus also essential from a businessperspective.
3.1.2. Participation and comfort
There is debate in the literature about the concept ofcomfort (Vink, 2005). However, the majority of authorsagree that comfort is of a subjective nature (Looze et al.,2003). The comfort or discomfort in a working environ-ment can therefore be evaluated only by the user. Anartifact in itself can never be comfortable. That is whymuch attention should be paid to how a user should beinvolved in the design process. The end-user should beinvolved, because he has unique insight into his task, workor activity. This involvement of stakeholders like the end-users is addressed in participatory ergonomics (Wilson andHaines, 1997).Participatory ergonomics is the discipline that studies
how different parties should be involved in a designprocess. Participatory ergonomics is the adaptation of theenvironment to the human (that is ergonomics) togetherwith the proper persons in question (participants) (Vink,2005). When it is defined in this way, participatoryergonomics is more an umbrella term under which different
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Health
+
Productivity
Direct
worker
participation
Strong
management
support
Participation
of …
-good inventory
-step-by-step approach
-check the effects
-steering group guides
the process
Involvement Process Goal
Fig. 1. Model to summarize the success factors described in the literature.
P. Vink et al. / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 537–546 539
approaches are found. Kuorinka (1997) describes partici-patory ergonomics as ‘practical ergonomics with necessaryactors in problem solving’, which is close to the previousdefinition. Wilson (1995) puts it into another perspective:‘It is the involvement of people in planning and controllinga significant amount of their own work activities, withsufficient knowledge and power to influence both processesand outcomes in order to achieve desirable goals.’ Thus,Wilson stresses the fact that the employee should havecontrol over his task, emphasizing also that participatoryergonomics is an umbrella concept. The common char-acteristic is that during the design process attention is paidexplicitly to the role of employees, management, ergono-mists and others involved. The difference in view is whetheremployees should be empowered or consulted in aparticipatory process. Some authors see the ideal partici-patory ergonomics approach as an approach whereby theemployees are empowered to design and change theirworkstation (e.g. Eklof et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 1995).Others stress the consultation of end-users in a designprocess (e.g. Bronkhorst and Krause, 2005; Kuorinka,1997). Simplified, we could state that one process is guidedby the employees (they decide what will change) and thealternative approach is that the ergonomists or manage-ment leads the project and decides on the changes to beimplemented. Well-documented successes and failures canbe found in the literature for both participatory ergo-nomics approaches.
3.2. Success factors in the process towards better comfort
and productivity
Participatory ergonomics includes a large variety ofapproaches, and an interesting framework to classify theapproaches has been developed by Haines et al. (2002).Apart from the classification, it is interesting to know whatfactors influence the chance of being successful. Successfactors have been described in various studies (e.g.Koningsveld et al., 2005; Looze et al. 2001; Vink et al.,2005). These are
�
arrange direct workers’ participation, � arrange strong management support, � carry out a good inventory, � use a step-by-step approach, � arrange that a steering group is established withresponsibilities,
� check the effects, including side-effects, at an early stage, � do not focus only on health issues, � describe the cost: benefit ratio in monetary terms andwith non-quantitative measures.
Fig. 1 shows a summary of the success factors. The firsttwo factors concern the involvement of the groups, the nextfour concern the approach or process and the last twofocus on the content or goal. The last two (not only healthissues and include cost: benefit ratios) are connected to the
topic of this paper: comfort and productivity. A commenthas to be made regarding the first two. In several studies(e.g. Haines et al., 2002; Jong and Vink, 2000; Vink andKompier, 1997; Vink et al., 2005) it is mentioned that for aproject to be successful, attention has to be paid to theparticipation of other stakeholders, like ergonomists,facility management, occupational health representatives,suppliers, designers and engineers. Therefore, in the modelshown in Fig. 1 a box is added ‘participation of y’indicating that which additional participant should beinvolved depends on the context and the goal.Regarding the process, four success factors are men-
tioned. The inventory at the beginning is important to takeinto account the needs of the target groups and to find outwhether improvements are possible. The step-by-stepapproach gives a lucid holdfast(?) and structure to allparticipants. The structure makes it possible to monitor theprocess with regard to the end-result (a more productiveand comfortable working environment). A formal steeringgroup, which is known by all participants, is needed tohave responsibility for the progress, and the ability todecide on how to proceed. Checking the effects at an earlystage is useful to test feasibility of the innovations, to keepthe motivation for the project and, if needed, to adjust theprocess or goal at an early phase.Having said that involvement is important, it is
interesting to know what kind of experiences end-usershave that make them positive about the process, and thechance of gaining the increase in productivity and comfort.
3.3. A hypothesis on the process towards better comfort and
productivity
As is stated above, productivity and comfort are end-results of a process. So, a part of its success is determinedby the way in which the process is organized. However,another part is determined by the artifact that is designedand by the experiences of the parties involved. Uotilla et al.(2005) made a schema on how positive emotions could
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Focus: Focus:Product Activity
Passive ActivePerception participation
Wow! Flow!
Fig. 2. The model described by Uotilla et al. (2005). The wow-experience
is more related to a passive product perception and a flow experience is
more related to active participation.
P. Vink et al. / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 537–546540
be connected to the physical environment and activities(see Fig. 2). On the basis of an analysis of semi-structuredfocus group interviews, they made a model for interpretingthe relationship between wow and flow and interaction.They distinguish between active participation in anactivity and passive experiences with a product. The wowexperience is more related to a passive product perception,and a flow experience is more related to active participa-tion. Wow could be described as a positive experiencerelated to desire, surprise and fascination (Desmet et al.,2005). Some studies even mention that this positiveexperience increases sales (Gutman, 1982). Flow is anoptimal experience or a positive arousal level reached bybeing occupied by achieving your goal (Csikszentmihalyi,1997).
If it is agreed that positive experiences play a role indesign, positive passive perceptions could be measured bymaking potential end-users looking at or using prototypes.Positive emotions (like saying wow) elicited by a prototypecould increase the chance that the end product is moreappreciated. In designing working environments, theprocess of design could be of more importance. Followingthe model described by Uotilla et al. (2005), this means thatend-users that are closer to a flow during the process ofdesign, would better appreciate the final working environ-ment. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1997), a conditionthat increases the chance of flow is having the possibility ofbeing in control. On the basis of this philosophy, ahypothesis could be formulated: end-users are moreenthusiastic about the new work environment if they areempowered and have a positive experience during (thusincreasing the chance of flow) the design process.
The hypothesis is formulated on the basis that there is adesign process with participation of workers and manage-ment. The goal of the process is to achieve a morecomfortable and productive working environment.
In this case the chance of success increases by empower-ment (making the end-user responsible for deciding on thenext step in the process) and positive experiences with thepotential improvement of end-users (end-users feel or seethe benefits).
4. Method
To check whether this hypothesis is useful in evaluatingcases, four well-described participatory ergonomics cases
were evaluated with special attention to the empowermentand positive experiences with potential improvements.From approximately 100 participatory ergonomics casesavailable at TNO, four were selected on the basis of thefollowing selection criteria:
�
The project should be documented regarding theapproach and the results in such a way that a distinctioncan be made in the role of the employees (empowermentor consultation) and the effects. � In all cases, information should be available to showthat the management supported the process.
� At an early stage, an inventory had to be made ofbottlenecks in production and health or comfortproblems.
� A stepwise approach should be used. � A steering group or other group leading the processshould be defined.
� The effects should be studied in more than one stage ofthe project.
� The project should concern an improvement of workenvironment and an ergonomist should be involved.
� Data should be available on how end-users experiencedideas and prototypes of the product.
� The project should be focused on comfort andproductivity.
� The project should be published in the internationalliterature.
� Two cases should be successful and two should not besuccessful.
The cases are described first, followed by a comparisonand evaluation. It is expected that both cases withempowerment should increase the chance of flow, shouldbe the more successful cases and the cases with consulta-tion should be the less successful ones. Another expecta-tion is that the cases with more positive experienceswith precursors of the new environment should be moresuccessful.
5. Results and discussion
The selection of the cases appeared to be arbitrarybecause, for instance, a distinction could be made in therole of employees and information was available regardingmanagement support in many cases. Nevertheless, fourcases were chosen that were documented as ‘best’ regardingthe selection criteria, because illustration of the hypothesisis an essential part of this paper. The four cases chosendiffer with regard to success rate, and with regard to thedependency of other employees in the group. In two cases,individual employees could alter their workstation inde-pendently of other workers, and in two cases it was a groupdecision.
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Vink et al. / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 537–546 541
5.1. Case 1. Success case with individual decision
possibilities at the office
In a study by Vink and Kompier (1997), a step-by-stepapproach to better work was applied, aimed at reducingmental and physical workload in office work. Thisapproach was evaluated. The approach consisted of sixsteps, including the definition of the problem, selection ofsolutions and testing the solutions. After every step theworkers proposed how to continue and a steering group ledby the management decided whether to accept theproposal. The workers identified the problems, developedideas for improvement, tested improvements and chose
Table 1
Percentage of employees having adjusted the work (n ¼ 29), and
percentage of those employees with back or neck complaints (n ¼ 18)
that report a positive effect of these adjustments on back and neck
complaints (Vink and Kompier, 1997)
Workers with
adjustments (%)
Workers reporting
positive effects on
neck/back (%)
Chair height adjustment 73 67
Table height adjustment 83 67
VDU screen position
adjustment
69 50
Keyboard position
adjustment
34 11
Addition of document
holder
14 17
Addition of inclined desk 31 11
Agreements with other
departments
48 28
Addition of telephone days 24 11
A new planning of activities 59 28
More varying work tasks 48 28
Setting priorities in work 100 28
Fig. 3. Examples of improvements published in a book developed by end-users.
better view of the work. Right: a transport system for cupboards with electron
workers.
them. Height-adjustable furniture was bought and organi-zational measures were taken to reduce the mental load.Examples of organizational measures were better appoint-ments on earlier delivering information and distinctionbetween work that has to be done before a certain date andwork that can be postponed (prioritizing). Finally, someworkers were trained to encourage the continuation ofadjustments and train new employees on the ergonomicallyideal workstation and work organization. As a result, mostworkplaces were adjusted and more than half of thesubjects took organizational measures (see Table 1). Theapproach took about 1 year to achieve better workingconditions but was considered worthwhile, despite the factthat it was time consuming. Physical discomfort wasreduced, especially in the neck and shoulder region, andproductivity was improved, especially by a more transpar-ent and efficient process.
5.2. Case 2. Failure case with individual decision possibilities
in installation work
In this case (Jong and Vink, 2000), an installationcompany aimed at reducing musculoskeletal discomfortand improving the efficiency of the work. Employees werestimulated to improve their workstation. The designprocess consisted of six steps, from analysis of theproblems to evaluation of the improvements. Brainstormsessions were organized with employees and experts.Employees, staff or external experts built the mostpromising ideas. These were tested and implemented ifsuccessful. A group led by the communications departmentwas responsible for the process. A book was made withexamples of the solutions developed (see Fig. 3), describingthe effect on productivity and musculoskeletal loading.This book was made available on all sites of the company(�30) and employees were encouraged to develop newsolutions. Employees received freedom to make their
Left: a height-adjustable mobile workbench reducing bending and giving a
ics, preventing lifting and carrying, and making work possible with fewer
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Vink et al. / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 537–546542
improvements and were encouraged to develop more.Prizes were given to the best innovations. After the project,a total of 198 devices were in use for 7000 workers (3%).All devices contributed to a reduction in discomfort and anincrease in productivity. The company considered theproject successful, because the return of investment wasseen within a year. According to Rogers (1995), 2.5% of agroup are innovators and adopt an improvement anyway.Therefore, from a scientific point of view this case can beseen as a failure.
5.3. Case 3. Success case with group decision in assembly
work
In a company that produces electric razors in very largevolumes (see Fig. 4), an experiment was performed to studythe effect of workplace adjustment on the productivity andthe comfort of the workers (Rhijn et al., 2005a, b). In manyworkstations in this company, just as in many othercompanies, the location of supply containers from whichcomponents have to be picked was designed by software.However, experts agreed that there was room for furtherimprovement. One problem was that large numbers ofdifferent components needed to be at hand simultaneously.This leads to frequent, extended reaching and much armelevation. Consequently, risks for shoulder discomfort andpain could increase. It was decided to do an experiment tosee if it was possible to lower the picking heights tocomfortable levels. The approach was participatory, asexperts together with management and employees definedthe problem and the improvement. The effects weremeasured and on the basis of the results a decision wasmade on whether to change the workstations and if so, inwhat way. The management decided to improve, to do thetest and on the method of implementation.
Table 2 shows a significant effect of workplace condi-tions. In the low workplace condition, the maximumacceptable work pace was significantly higher than in thehigh workplace condition. The difference between the high
Fig. 4. A workstation that was improved in case 3: assembly work.
and the low condition was 1.0 product per minute. Thisimplies a difference in work pace of 10.6%. This wasaccompanied by a reduction in discomfort. The project isdefined as a success, as the management, engineers andemployees decided to alter the workstations.
5.4. Case 4. Failure case with group decision possibilities in
construction work
Molen et al. (2005) used a randomized control trial tostudy the effect of a participatory approach in whichbricklayers and assistant bricklayers are involved inchanging their workstation. Ten bricklaying companieswere assigned randomly either to an intervention group,which was subjected to the participatory approach (n ¼ 5)or to a control group (n ¼ 5). The approach consisted of aconsultant-supported six-step approach in which differentstakeholders from the company participated. In the steps,which took 6 months, the bricklayers and assistants wereinformed about the risks of the old way of working and ofpossibilities of improving the work and where to buyproducts. The end-users were encouraged to test theproducts. Bricklayers and assistants in the interventiongroup (n ¼ 65) and the control group (n ¼ 53) werefollowed for 6 months and their use of four ergonomicmeasures was compared. These measures consistedof adjusting working height when picking up bricks(see Fig. 5) and mortar, adjusting working height forbricklaying at the wall side, mechanizing the transportof bricks (see Fig. 6) and mechanizing the transportof mortar. The use of ergonomic measures was assessedby means of worksite observations and questionnairesat the start and after 6 months. A work group in thecompany was responsible for the process and managementdecisions.The participatory ergonomics approach had no statisti-
cally significant effect on the use of any of the fourergonomic measures at either the group or individual level.No company in the intervention group passed through allsix steps.
5.5. Comparison of the four cases
Table 3 shows a summary of some characteristics of thecases. In all situations, a stepwise approach was chosen,
Table 2
Maximum acceptable work pace (MAWP) expressed in number of
products per minute and as the average across subjects localized
musculoskeletal discomfort (LMD) in the neck and shoulders as measured
at the end of the test (after 50min)
Condition Average MAWP
(range)
Average discomfort
(sd)
Workplace high 9.4 (6.7–13.0) 1.1 (1.0)
Workplace low 10.4 (7.2–14.6) 0.4 (0.6)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 5. Working with the bricks on a shore scaffold reduces bending.
Fig. 6. A system developed to mechanize the manual transport of bricks.
P. Vink et al. / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 537–546 543
and management and ergonomists supported the projects.In cases 1 and 2 the employee participation could betypified as close to empowerment, and in cases 3 and 4 itwas closer to consultation.
The main difference between the cases is the way inwhich employees are involved: i.e. empowerment orconsultation and the way in which employees experiencethe potential new work environment. It was expected thatboth cases with empowerment and positive experience withthe end-product would give the best results. The employeescould become enthusiastic about the improvement, becausethey are in control and experience the positive effectsbefore the end-result is implemented.This positive effect is shown for the first case in
which employees were allowed to choose their ownworkstation layout and to influence the organizationof work (empowerment). Employees have learned toevaluate the improvements and are able to chooseand evaluate the consequence of changes in the work-station and organization. The work and environment limitsome possibilities, but the employees have enough controlto change the work. They tested various new ways ofworking and workstations, and could experience how itworks. This positive experience could have played a role inthe success.The effect of empowerment is less obvious in the second
case. The employees were empowered to change their work.They could buy or make new equipment, but they had tobe very creative to think of new solutions applicable totheir specific tasks. Of course, they have examples ofothers, who developed improvements in other situations,but transferring this to their own work environment is noteasy. Probably because of the lack of support fromergonomists or designers, ideas seen in one work area(e.g. transporting cupboards, see Fig. 3) could not betransferred to another work area (e.g. transporting centralheating elements). Only 3% implemented the improve-ments. As a result, the end-users did not experience positiveeffects of prototypes.In the third case, the workers were not empowered, but
were asked to test various improvements in the assemblyline. In this case, employees were interdependent, because agroup works on one assembly line. Some employees wereinvolved in the process of gathering the first ideas and theyexperienced effects at an early phase of the process. Theyexperienced the effects of reducing reaching distances inmixed reality environments. All employees were involved incomparing the new design of the line compared with theold situation. They were asked to complete a questionnaireon local postural discomfort. In this way, they were madeaware of the differences between the old and the possiblenew situation. They experienced the difference. The case issuccessful too. So, probably some forms of consultingemployees in combination with positive experience havepositive effects.In the fourth case, which was described recently (Molen
et al., 2005), employees were not empowered. The manage-ment of the company had to find possibilities to testimprovements. Even the management was onlypartly empowered, because it was the contractor whodecided whether to use mechanical transport systems or
ARTICLE IN PRESS
risks physical underloadboredom
physical overloadstress
current situationin production lines
load
Fig. 7. To increase performance of the company, employees should work
at the optimum between overload and underload (Vink and Stahre, 2005).
Table 3
Some characteristics of the four cases: + means that the factor could be distinguished; ++ means that there was much explicit attention for this factor
Light gray is involvement of stakeholders, dark gray concerns the process characteristics (see Fig. 1).
P. Vink et al. / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 537–546544
scaffoldings that reduce bending of the back. Improve-ments could be tested in only a very few situations andemployees could hardly distinguish between old and newpractices. For instance, sometimes a crane could not beused, because the main contractor had no crane or neededthe crane himself. The project was not successful in termsof productivity and increased comfort.
These four examples show that the theory can typifydifferences between projects and explain differences insuccess. The four cases show that empowerment is not thekey to success in all situations. Sometimes, employees donot have enough knowledge (case 2) and sometimesemployees do not have enough influence to change theirwork situation (cases 3 and 4).
The consequence of experiencing the effects is thatemployees feel that they are in control. The fact thatsuccess is achieved more easily if employees experiencecontrol and are actively involved has been describedbefore. Norberg (2005) states that ‘It’s not just the moneythat makes high-earners happier than low-earners—moreimportant is their way of life—being active, being creative,and experiencing control of your life.’ Other research tellsus that optimism works: ‘People who think that they are incontrol of their lives go on to be more successful thanothers’ (Fredrickson, 1998). So, if employees experiencecontrol and are optimistic about the feasibility, this couldbe an important factor in why a participatory ergonomicsproject is successful.
Another explanation could be that experiencing differ-ences between alternatives is important. In this way,participants can understand why the improvement ispreferable and do not needed to be conviced by others. Itis not simply that employees experience the difference andlearn why one situation is better than the other. In manyergonomic design projects, an optimum has to be found. In
designing a workstation along an assembly line underloadand overload could be hazardous. Underload is notbeneficial for the company (unproductive) or the worker(no challenge). Overload could have the consequence ofstress and musculoskeletal injuries (worker), which leads tomistakes in the production work and drop-out of workers(see Fig. 7). The challenge for the future is to get the‘situation in production lines’ into the lowest part of thecurve (Vink and Stahre, 2005).This can be applied to working height as well. There is
an optimum working height at which the work can beperformed best with regard to comfort and productivity. Infact, in most ergonomic situations an optimum has to befound. In most situations, the theory is not developed wellenough to predict the ideal working height and experimentsare needed to find the optimum. Ideally, these experiments
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Vink et al. / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 537–546 545
are performed at the workplace with the employees.Thereby, the employees will experience control, perceive/experience the differences and understand the reason forchange.
5.6. Reflection
There is no doubt that a selection of four cases is toosmall to draw firm conclusions. However, the factorsstrong management support, making a good inventory,using a stepwise approach, having a group steering theprocess, study the effects and ergonomists support aredescribed in various other studies (e.g. Haines et al., 2002;Koningsveld et al., 2005; Looze et al., 2001). Theconclusion could be drawn that experiencing the effectsof the improvement and empowerment of employees aretwo important additional factors. However, the importanceis still unknown. Furthermore, the factors are notexclusive. It could be that in a project where employeesare empowered, they have more possibilities to experiencethe effects and experience control as well.
6. Conclusion
It was the aim of this paper to convince ergonomists tofocus more on the positive side of ergonomics. The positiveaspects of increasing comfort and productivity are high-lighted. Many success factors are described in the literaturefor leading to better comfort and higher productivity, butthere is no universally agreed list of factors. A model ismade (see Fig. 1) that classifies the success factors ininvolvement, process and goal of the ergonomics project.Regarding involvement, many studies agree that activeparticipation of end-users and management contributes tosuccess. Regarding process, a good inventory of theproblems, a structured step-by-step approach, a steeringgroup and good checks of the effects are success factors.
On the basis of the above-mentioned findings andtheories put forward by Uotilla et al. (2005) andCsikszentmihalyi (1997), it is hypothesized that the chanceof success increases by empowerment (making the end-userresponsible for deciding on the next step in the process) andif end-users have positive experiences with the potentialimprovement (end-users feel or see the benefits). Especially,the last part of the hypothesis is supported by a selection offour cases.
On the basis of the evaluation of four cases and sometheory, it can be concluded that the hypothesis is useful forevaluating cases. The hypothesis stimulates awarenessregarding end-users experiencing control, optimism aboutthe feasibility and experiencing differences between alter-natives. Studying the optimum between alternatives isneeded, because ergonomics often strives for the optimumsituation. If these alternatives are studied in an experimentwhere end-users or employees experience the differences,this could be favorable and the chance of higher comfortand better productivity increases. This is closely related to
the feeling of having control. ‘People who think that theyare in control go on to be more successful than others’.Another advantage of studying the optimum before
introducing the improvement is that knowledge is in-creased. If ergonomists share the findings of these projectsregarding optimal work environments, it would contributeto the knowledge increase in the field of ergonomics.
References
Beevis, D., Slade, I.M., 2003. Ergonomics—costs and benefits. Applied
Ergnomics 34 (5), 413–418.
Brauer, W., Lozano-Ehlers, I., Greisle, A., Hube, G., Keiter, J., Rieck, A.,
2003. Office 21—Push for the Future Better Performance in Innovative
Working Environments. Fraunhofer, Cologne/Stuttgart.
Bronkhorst, R.E., Krause, F., 2005. Designing comfortable passengers
seats. In: Vink, P. (Ed.), Comfort and Design: Principles and Good
Practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 155–168.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1997. Finding Flow. The Psychology of Engage-
ment of Everyday Life. HarperCollins Publishers, London.
Desmet, P.M.A., Porcelijn, R., Dijk, M.B.van, 2005. How to design wow.
Introducing a layered-emotional approach. In: Wensveen, S. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Conference Designing Pleasurable Products and
Interfaces. TU Eindhoven, Eindhoven, pp. 71–89.
Eikhout, S.M., Vink, P., Grinten, M.P.van der, 2005. Comfort effects of
participatory design of screwdrivers. In: Vink, P. (Ed.), Comfort and
Design: Principles and Good Practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
pp. 207–217.
Eklof, M., Ingelgard, A., Hagberg, M., 2004. Is participative ergonomics
associated with better working environment and health? A study
among Swedish white-collar VDU users. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 34 (5), 355–366.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions, 1999. Communique July/August, 1999, EFILWC 2,
Dublin.
Fredrickson, B.L., 1998. What good are positive emotions? Reviews of
General Psychology 2, 300–319.
Gutman, J., 1982. A means-end chain model based on consumer
categorization process. Journal of Marketing 46, 60–72.
Haines, H., Wilson, J.R., Vink, P., Koningsveld, E.A.P., 2002. Validating
a framework for participatory ergonomics. Ergonomics 45 (4),
309–327.
Hedge, A., Sakr, W., 2005. Workplace effects on office productivity:
a macroergonomic framework. In: Carayon, P., Robertson,
M., Kleiner, B., Hoonakker, P.L.T. (Eds.), Human Factors in
Organizational Design and Management—VIII. IEA Press, Santa
Monica, pp. 75–80.
Hendrick, H., 2001. Good Ergonomics is Good Economics. HFES press,
Santa Monica.
ISO 9241-5, 1998. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual
display terminals (VDTs) Part 5: Workstation layout and postural
requirements.
Jong, A.M.de, Vink, P., 2000. The adoption of technological innovations
for glaziers; evaluation of a participatory ergonomics approach.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26, 939–946.
Koningsveld, E.A.P., Dul, J., Rhijn, G.W.van, Vink, P., 2005. Enhancing
the impact of ergonomics interventions. Ergonomics 48 (5), 559–580.
Kuorinka, I., 1997. Tools and means of implementing participatory
ergonomics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 15,
365–370.
Looze, M.P.de, Urlings, I.J.M., Vink, P., Rhijn, J.W.van, Miedema, M.C.,
Bronkhorst, R.E., Grinten, M.P.van der, 2001. Towards successful
physical stress reducing products: an evaluation of seven cases.
Applied Ergnomics 32, 525–534.
Looze, M.P.de, Rhijn, J.W.van, Schoenmaker, N., Grinten, M.P.van der,
Deursen, J.van, 2005. Productivity and discomfort in assembly work:
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Vink et al. / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 537–546546
the effects of an ergonomic workplace adjustment at Philips DAP. In:
Vink, P. (Ed.), Comfort and Design: Principles and Good Practice.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 129–136.
Molen, H.F.van der, Sluiter, J.K., Hulshof, C.T.J., Vink, P., Duivenboo-
den, C.van, Holman, R., Frings-Dresen, M.H.W., 2005. Implementa-
tion of participatory ergonomics intervention in construction
companies. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health
31 (3), 191–203.
Norberg, J., 2005. In Defense of Global Capitalism. Cato Institute,
Washington.
Pfeffer, J., Veiga, J.F., 1999. Putting people first for organizational
success. Academy of Management Executive 13 (2), 37–48.
Rhijn, J.W.van, Looze, M.P.de, Groenesteijn, L., Hagedoorn-de Groot,
M.D., Vink, P., Tuinzaad, G.H., 2005a. Productivity and discomfort
in manual assembly operations. In: Vink, P. (Ed.), Comfort and
Design: Principles and Good Practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
pp. 111–128.
Rhijn, J.W.van, Looze, M.P.de, Tuinzaad, G., Groenesteijn, L., Groot,
M.D.de, Vink, P., 2005b. Changing from batch to flow assembly in the
production of emergency lighting devices. International Journal of
Production Research 43 (17), 3687–3701.
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovation. Free Press, New York.
Rosecrance, J., Dpuphrate, D., Cross, S., 2005. Integration of participa-
tory ergonomics and lean manufacturing: a model and case study.
In: Carayon, P., Robertson, M., Kleiner, B., Hoonakker, P.L.T.
(Eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management—
VIII. IEA Press, Santa Monica, pp. 437–442.
Uotilla, M., Falin, P., Aula, P., 2005. Experience of luxury and pelasure
with products. In: Wensveen, S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference
on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces. TU Eindhoven,
Eindhoven, pp. 91–103.
Vink, P. (Ed.), 2005. Comfort and Design: Principles and Good Practice.
CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Vink, P., Kompier, M.A.J., 1997. Improving office work: a participatory
ergonomic experiment in a naturalistic setting. Ergonomics 40 (4),
435–449.
Vink, P., Stahre, J., 2005. The future of human factors in manufacturing.
In: Carayon, P., Robertson, M., Kleiner, B., Hoonakker, P.L.T.
(Eds.), Human Ffactors in Organizational Design and Management—
VIII. IEA Press, Santa Monica, pp. 211–216.
Vink, P., Jong, A.de, Koningsveld, E., 2005. Making money with
participatory ergonomics. In: Carayon, P., Robertson, M., Kleiner,
B., Hoonakker, P.L.T. (Eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Design
and Management—VIII. IEA Press, Santa Monica, pp. 443–448.
Wilson, J.R., 1995. Solution ownership in participative work redesign: the
case of a crane control room. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 15, 329–344.
Wilson, J.R., Haines, H.M., 1997. Participatory ergonomics. In: Salvendy,
G. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, second ed.
Wiley, Chichester, pp. 490–513.
