Business advantages of ergonomics in industry

BUSINESS A D V A N T A G E S

OF

ERGONOMICS I N INDUSTRY

t e r verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan deTechnisclie Universiteit Delft,

op gezag van de Rector Magnificus p r o f ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben,

voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,

in het openbaar t e verdedigen op

maandag 23 j u n i o m 12:30 uur Proefschrift

d o o r Nancy Lee LARSON

M a s t e r of Science in Industrial Engineering, N o r t h Carolina State University

Prof.dr. P. Vink

Prof. dr. M.S. Hallbeck

Samenstelling p r o m o t i e c o m m i s s i e :

Rector Magnificus, Voorzitter

Prof.dr. P. Vink, Technische Universiteit Delft, p r o m o t o r

Prof.dr. M.S. Hallbeck, M a y o Clinic Rochester, p r o m o t o r

Prof.dr. S.H. Dhondt, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Professor dr.ir. J.M.P. Geraedts, Technische Universiteit Delft

Prof.dr. M.P. de Looze, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

Prof.dr. K.J. Zink, Technische Universitat Kaiserslautern

Dr. M . M . Robertson, Liberty M u t u a l Research Institute for Safety, USA

Acknowledgements v

List of Abbreviations vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2, Part 1: An Office Ergonomics Case Study 27

Chapter 2, Part 2: Pilot Study t o Assess Strategies t o Reduce Work-Related

MSDs Associated w i t h Computer W o r k 35

Chapter 3: iVlacroergonomics in Corporations:

30 Years of Ergonomics at 3 M : A Case Study 45

Chapter 4: Industrial Ergonomics: The impact of a macroergonomics program w i t h a well-defined performance goal in reducing w o r k - r e l a t e d

musculoskeletal disorders 59

Chapter 5: Corporate Ergonomics Programs: Identifying value t h r o u g h a

company award process 83

Chapter 6: Business O p t i m i z a t i o n : It's not musculoskeletal disorder

management or system optimization — it's b o t h I l l

Epilog 123

Summary of this PhD 133

Samenvatting 137

Acknowledgements

This degree was realized t h r o u g h t h e support and encouragement of friends, colleagues, and family, and I w e l c o m e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o acknowledge and t h a n k t h e m here.

In 1982, a psychology professor at North Carolina State (NCSU), whose name I u n f o r t u n a t e l y no longer r e m e m b e r , during a conversation m e n t i o n e d t h e w o r d s " h u m a n factors and ergonomics". I asked " w h a t ' s t h a t " and five minutes later I began my career in t h e profession.

I was f o r t u n a t e t o and appreciate receiving a NIOSH Trainee Grant and s u p p o r t f r o m NCSU w h i c h allowed m e t o earn a iVIasters Degree in Industrial Engineering in Ergonomics. Today I am deeply appreciative t o Delft University of Technology f o r sponsoring this PhD p r o g r a m .

At NCSU Dr. Richard Pearson led t h e engineering ergonomics program and he encouraged (actually required) his students t o j o i n t h e Human Factors Society (HFES). I a t t e n d e d m y first Society M e e t i n g at Dayton Ohio in 1986 and have been a m e m b e r ever since. The HFES Meetings enabled me t o m e e t Susan Dray, Michelle Robertson, Sue Hallbeck, Andy Imada, Hal Hendrick, Klaus Zink, Connie Bazley, Sue Evans, Gary Orr, and so many others w h o inspired and m e n t o r e d m e over t h e past many years. I am so lucky t o have m e t each o f you as colleagues and even m o r e lucky t o have your friendship. There are many m o r e , t o o many m o r e , t o list - b u t we share t h e core belief t h a t w e really can make a difference in t h e w o r l d .

A very special, thanks t o T o m Albin, f r i e n d and colleague o f over 25 years and current " p a r t n e r in c r i m e " as w e each pursued PhDs at TU Delft. 1 a m eagerly looking f o r w a r d t o establishing t h e Minneapolis Chapter of t h e Delft University of Technology A l u m n i Association w i t h y o u .

A gigantic t h a n k you t o Dr. Peter Vink. Your patience and ever enthusiastic e n c o u r a g e m e n t and guidance resulted in (much t o m y surprise) my c o m p l e t i n g this degree - 1 a m most indebted t o y o u .

Express Financial Advisors) and 3 M Company. I appreciate t h e opportunities each provided and f o r allowing t h e research t o be published.

A big w e l l deserved t h a n k y o u t o Holly Wick: w i t h o u t your contributions t h e 3iVl program w o u l d not have been successful. Thanks f o r p u t t i n g up w i t h me f o r the past 14 years. The ergonomics staff in t h e SM locations deserve all t h e credit f o r t h e results of t h e ergonomics p r o g r a m . Their efforts i m p r o v e d t h e w o r k i n g conditions of thousands of employees around t h e w o r l d . Finally, a b o t t o m - o f - m y - h e a r t thanks t o M i r i a m Kowarski f o r making my w r i t i n g coherent and reminding me t o "take a deep b r e a t h . "

W h i c h brings me t o family. I am grateful f o r my parents w h o READ and stayed engaged w i t h learning their entire life. Especially f o r my m o m w h o until t h e day she died at t h e age of 96 read t h e newspaper every day and discussed current events w i t h a passion. I inherited her lifelong passion f o r learning f r o m her. To Todd and Macy, Neysa, Jason and Anya, and Bekka, my grounding and life balance comes f r o m y o u . It w o u l d be easy for you t o t h i n k y o u r m o m was crazy, but you never have; I promise t o r e t u r n t h e favor. If n o t h i n g else, I've t a u g h t y o u t h a t y o u are never t o o old t o learn something new.

Finally, t o Ross, you provided love, inspiration, and s u p p o r t over 38 years. W i t h o u t y o u , none of this w o u l d have happened.

List of Abbreviations

AEFA American Express Financial Advisors AEIA Applied Ergonomics Innovation A w a r d BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BCPE Board Certified Professional Ergonomics CDC Center f o r Disease Control and Prevention CWA Communication Workers of America CSO Customer Service Organization EDC Ergonomics Design Criteria Tool EJA Ergonomics Job Analysis Tool ERRP Ergonomics Risk Reduction Process GAO G o v e r n m e n t Accounting Office HFE Human Factors/Ergonomics

IR Incident Rate (WMSD cases * 200,000) / number o f w o r k hours) lEA International Ergonomics Association

IDS Investor Diversified Services

JAR Job Analysis Rate = Number o f target jobs completed * 2 0 0 0 0 0 ) /

number of w o r k hours

MSD Musculoskeletal Disorders

NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PHRJP Potential High Risk Job Pool

WIP Workplace I m p r o v e m e n t Process W M S D W o r k - r e l a t e d Musculoskeletal Disorders

W M S D IR Incident Rate = (WMSD Cases * 2 0 0 0 0 0 ) / n u m b e r of w o r k hours W M S D S R I R

Severity Incident Rate ((lost-time WMSD cases + restricted t i m e WMSD cases) * 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) / n u m b e r of w o r k hours

W M S D SR Days

Severity Days Incidence Rate ((lost-time WMSD days + WMSD restricted t i m e days) * 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) / n u m b e r of w o r k hours

W M S D LT IR

Lost Time Incident Rate (lost-time WMSD cases * 200,000) / n u m b e r of w o r k hours

Chapter 1 is partly based on

Larson N. Macroergonomics in Global Corporations: " H o w t o get it d o n e " . In: Carayon P, Robertson M, Kleiner B, Hoonakker PLT, eds. Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management - VIII. Proceedings of t h e Eighth international Symposium on Human Factors in Organizational Design and M a n a g e m e n t held in M a u i , Hawaii, USA, June 22-25, 2005. Santa M o n i c a , Ca: lEA Press, 2005:87-92.

Chapter 2 includes

Larson, N., 2008 Participatory Ergonomics: An Office Ergonomics Case Study, In: Sznelwar Ll, Mascia FL, M o n t e d o UB, Eds. Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management - IX. Santa M o n i c a , Ca.: lEA Press, 2008.

Larson N., Miezio, K., Shear, K., Ault, G., Tepper, D., Gottleib, M.K. Pilot Study t o Assess Strategies t o Reduce Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Associated w i t h Computer W o r k . Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management - V1996 Elsevier Science. 1996. p. 267-272.

Chapter 3 is

Larson N., Wick H. 30 Years of Ergonomics at 3 M : A Case Study. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, Vol. 4 1 , 5091-5098, 2012.

Chapter 4 is

Larson N., Wick H, Albin T, Vink P. Industrial Ergonomics: The impact of a comprehensive program w i t h a w e l l - d e f i n e d performance goal in reducing w o r k - r e l a t e d musculoskeletal disorders. Accepted for publication in: P Vink (ed): Occupational Ergonomics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2014.

Chapter 5 is

Larson N., Wick, H., Hallbeck, S., Vink, P. Ergonomics case study projects d e m o n s t r a t e positive results in a global multi-industry, resubmitted in 2014 t o HE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics & Human Factors.

Chapter 6 is

Larson N. Corporate Ergonomics: Its Musculoskeletal Disorder M a n a g e m e n t and System Optimization. Ergonomics in Design: 2012 20: 29-32.

regulations requiring ergonomics programs t o be included as part of business. These global companies are in a unique position t o elevate t h e w o r k well-being of hundreds of millions of workers and also improve o p e r a t i n g efficiency t h r o u g h t h e application of ergonomics. The lEA, in their 2012 policy s t a t e m e n t describes t h e w i d e variety of ways ergonomics can be applied in various settings. While m e n t i o n i n g industrial ergonomics as one o f t h e applications, it does not specifically address this o p p o r t u n i t y . The profession needs t o develop justification, w r i t t e n in t h e language of business, in order t o continue t o expand t h e realized value in global operations.

This research provides evidence f o r this proposal and confirms t h a t dual benefit or t h e reduction of WMSDs and operational efficiency can b o t h be realized by application of ergonomics in industry. This research demonstrates t h a t t o realize these benefits all levels of ergonomics, microergonomics, participatory ergonomics and macroergonomics are i m p o r t a n t , and t h e c o m m o n l y r e c o m m e n d e d ergonomics program elements all c o n t r i b u t e t o and also impact success. Further research t o broaden t h e understanding regarding h o w these technical and program elements interrelate and benefit b o t h employees and business is needed t o guide companies and industrial ergonomics programs.

Chapter 1:

Introduction

1. Background

Billions of w o r k i n g situations all over the w o r l d are d e m a n d i n g f o r t h e h u m a n musculoskeletal system. W o r k Related IVlusculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs) occur w h e n w o r k activities or w o r k conditions significantly c o n t r i b u t e t o their d e v e l o p m e n t , or existing s y m p t o m s are exacerbated because of exposure t o w o r k - r e l a t e d factors (Bosch et al., 2 0 1 1 ; Solidaki et a!., 2010). Musculoskeletal disorders cause III health and decreased w o r k ability, t h e r e b y increasing t h e cost of absenteeism f o r companies and interfering in social security systems on a national scale. Leigh (2011) studied injury and illness records in t h e year 2007 in t h e USA, using data of organizations such as t h e Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and t h e National Academy of Social Insurance. His research estimated t h e direct and indirect cost of w o r k - r e l a t e d illness was $250 billion per year in t h e USA, w h i c h is an e n o r m o u s societal p r o b l e m and shows t h e magnitude of t h e negative impact on b o t h w o r k e r well-being and business.

Preventing WMSDs is necessary not only t o reduce these costs and t h e personal burden experienced by those affected w i t h WMSDs. Additional

Studies have s h o w n t h a t improving t h e w o r k i n g situation reduces WiVISDs and also has the potential f o r Increasing operational efficiency (de Jong & Vink, 2005).

The International Ergonomics Association (lEA) defines ergonomics (or human factors) as the scientific discipline concerned w i t h the understanding of interactions among humans and o t h e r elements of a system, and t h e profession t h a t applies t h e o r y , principles, data, and m e t h o d s t o design in order t o optimize human well-being and overall system performance (lEA, 2014). Ergonomists and o t h e r practitioners of ergonomics c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e design and evaluation of tasks, jobs, products, e n v i r o n m e n t s , and systems in o r d e r t o make t h e m compatible w i t h the needs, abilities, and limitations of people. One specific focus of t h e field of ergonomics and human factors is how these objectives specifically apply t o the global w o r k f o r c e .

The global w o r k f o r c e refers t o the international labor pool of workers, including those employed by multinational companies and others, such as i m m i g r a n t workers, transient migrant workers, t e l e c o m m u t i n g workers, and those in contingent w o r k and o t h e r precarious e m p l o y m e n t . As of 2012, t h e global labor pool consisted of approximately 3 billion workers (Torres, 2013). In 2009, t h e US Bureau of Labor Statistics listed t h e US w o r k f o r c e at approximately 154,000,000. According t o Eurostat, at least 30,000,000 employees are w o r k i n g in t h e manufacturing industry in Europe. In 2012, Fortune Magazine r e p o r t e d t h e 50 largest US Fortune 500 companies had almost 12,000,000 employees and the 10 largest Global Fortune 500 companies alone had over 8,000,000.

It is essential f o r business t o find ways t o protect t h e health of these employees, both because it is ethically correct and also because in many countries laws and regulations require it. The application of ergonomics is one way t o achieve this objective. In a d d i t i o n , t h e application of ergonomics in w o r k design results in positive benefits t o t h e corporate b o t t o m line. M a n y global corporations and large companies have dedicated ergonomics programs focusing on one or both of these objectives. However, t h r o u g h o u t industry ergonomics expertise is inconsistently applied and many t i m e s not utilized for hundreds of millions of workers.

2. Purpose of this PhD

M o s t f r e q u e n t l y t h e purpose and justification of a corporate ergonomics program is reduction of w o r k - r e l a t e d illness (NIOSH, 1997; GAO, 1997; OSHA, 2000; Larson, 2014), especially WMSDs. The results of many, if n o t most, industrial ergonomics programs are evaluated primarily by t h e subsequent impact upon WMSDs (e.g.. M o l e n et a!., 2005; Driesen et al, 2011). However, in large corporations, at a very high level, t h e purpose and responsibility o f a company's ergonomics program is much broader: t o protect t h e assets of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , including positively impacting p r o d u c t i o n , quality, and productivity, in addition t o enhancing employee safety and health, and m e e t i n g regulatory requirements. This dissertation stresses t h e i m p o r t a n c e of designing ergonomie programs in corporations t o achieve WMSD reduction as w e l l as provide operational value t o business operations. To understand t h e i m p o r t a n c e of these programs, it is useful t o k n o w w h a t t h e effects are f o r t h e companies. In this dissertation much a t t e n t i o n is given t o t h e effects of interest t o t h e design, i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , and impact o f corporate ergonomics programs. Therefore, t h e ergonomics programs in t w o companies, American Express Financial Advisors (AEFA), a division o f American Express (a Fortune 100 company), and 3 M Company (a Fortune 500 Company), are reviewed in this PhD. Most a t t e n t i o n is paid t o 3 M as research was primarily p e r f o r m e d in this company.

A great deal of literature shows t h a t macroergonomics and participatory ergonomics are elements t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o a successful ergonomics program (e.g., Hendrick, 2003 ; Noro and Imada, 1991). An objective of this dissertation is t o d e m o n s t r a t e w h a t benefits a company may realize t h r o u g h application of ergonomics w i t h special a t t e n t i o n given t o t h e role o f macroergonomics and participatory ergonomics contributions in order t o achieve benefits in b o t h employee well-being and business performance. Based upon these t w o c o m p a n y examples, t h e research question t o be discussed in this dissertation is: What is the best way to advance the application of ergonomics within a global company's business structure in order to advance the acceptance and application of ergonomics into business practice? The ergonomics programs f o r each company are described in t h e f o l l o w i n g paragraphs and in t h e next chapters t o give t h e reader a context of w h e r e t h e studies w e r e p e r f o r m e d .

3. Attention for Macroergonomics and Participatory

Ergonomics

According t o t h e lEA, w i t h i n t h e discipline of Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE), there are t h r e e primary domains: physical, cognitive, and organizational (lEA, 2014). This dissertation focuses on t h e physical or t r a d i t i o n a l ergonomics and organizational or participatory and macroergonomics applications of ergonomics w i t h i n companies.

Macroergonomics provides a conceptual model f o r integrating human factors w i t h organizational design ( B r o w n , 1985). Imada and Hendrick (1986) state t h a t macroergonomics is h u m a n - c e n t e r e d because it considers t h e w o r k e r ' s professional and psychosocial characteristics in designing a w o r k system and subsequently carries t h e w o r k system design t h r o u g h t o t h e ergonomie design of specific jobs and related hardware and software interfaces. Integral t o this human-centered design process is j o i n t design o f t h e technical and personnel subsystems, using a humanized task approach in allocating functions and tasks.

Industrial Macroergonomics

According t o Hendrick (2002), understanding organizational complexity includes understanding t h e vertical d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n (levels of organization hierarchy), horizontal d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n (departmentalization by functional expertise), and integration (systems t h a t align w o r k or d e p a r t m e n t s , including policies, procedures, and programs) characteristics. The m o r e levels of organization hierarchy and t h e m o r e departmentalized w o r k , t h e m o r e complex t h e organization. Today's global industrial corporations meet these criteria as highly complex systems t h a t can benefit f r o m t h e application of macroergonomics. In general, t h e more complex t h e organization, t h e greater t h e need f o r systems t o integrate communications, goals, and processes. Additionally, formalization (the degree t o which jobs are standardized) and centralization (at w h a t organizational level decisions are made) also impact t h e design o f t h e ergonomics p r o g r a m .

Physical Ergonomics

Physical ergonomics is concerned w i t h h u m a n anatomical, a n t h r o p o m e t r i c , physiological, and biomechanical characteristics as they relate t o physical activity. An i m p o r t a n t area w i t h i n this d o m a i n is WMSDs.

WMSDs are a m o n g t h e most costly health problems in today's society, w i t h t h e low back, neck, shoulders, and upper limbs most subject t o risk (e.g., Roquelaure et al., 2006; de Looze et al., 2010). A review of 600 epidemiologic studies focusing upon identifying factors associated upper e x t r e m i t y and low back musculoskeletal disorders conducted by t h e US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health identified a n u m b e r of specific physical exposures strongly associated w i t h d e v e l o p m e n t of WMSDs (NIOSH, 1997c). A m o n g t h e factors associated w i t h t h e risk f o r developing WMSDs are individual, physical workplace, organizational, and psychosocial factors (Hoogendoorn, 2000; Huang, 2002). Research, conducted by academics and practitioners in many countries, evaluating t h e consideration and application of these t h r e e factors as part of preventive ergonomics initiatives have r e p o r t e d successful reduction of WMSD incidents w i t h i n a variety of w o r k operations, including industrial operations (Karsh, 2002; Poosanthanasarn, 2005; Koningsveld, 2005; M o n r o e , 2012; Verbeek, 2009; Neumann 2010; Hendrick 2003; Denis 2008; Butler, 2003, Rzepecki 2012; Carrivick 2005; Rivilis, 2008).

To identify and manage WMSDs, corporate ergonomics programs vary in design and in i m p l e m e n t a t i o n based upon business need, organizational structure, and operational objectives. They mostly contain t h e f o l l o w i n g basic program r e q u i r e m e n t s (GAO, 1997; NIOSH, 1997a, 1997b; OSHA, 2000; Hendrick, 2008).

• A t t a i n i n g management c o m m i t m e n t

• Analyzing ergonomics-related risk and controlling t h e risk • Developing technical expertise

Participatory Ergonomics

Participatory ergonomics is t h e discipline t h a t studies h o w d i f f e r e n t parties should be involved in a design process. It is based on t h e adaptation of t h e e n v i r o n m e n t t o t h e human (i.e., ergonomics) w i t h t h e i n v o l v e m e n t of t h e proper persons in question (participants) (Vink, 2002). Key questions t h a t are integral t o participatory ergonomics are: W h a t is t h e issue of concern? W h o knows about t h e issue? W h a t is t h e desired state of t h e issue? W h o knows about h o w t o achieve t h e desired state? W h o will be impacted by changes made t o resolve t h e issue and achieve t h e desired state? A n d , finally, w h o will approve t h e changes (or w h o can say no)? The answers t o these questions collectively identify t h e knowledge and expertise of participants needed in order t o use a participatory process.

Participatory ergonomics is m o r e an umbrella t e r m under w h i c h various approaches are f o u n d . Kuorinka (1997) describes participatory ergonomics as "practical ergonomics w i t h necessary actors in problem solving." Wilson (1995) puts it into another perspective: "It is t h e involvement of people in planning and controlling a significant a m o u n t of t h e i r o w n w o r k activities, w i t h sufficient knowledge and p o w e r t o influence both processes and outcomes in o r d e r t o achieve desirable goals." Thus, Wilson stresses t h e fact t h a t the employee should have control over his task, which is another aspect of participatory ergonomics f u r t h e r d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e umbrella concept. The c o m m o n characteristic participatory ergonomics is t h a t during an ergonomie design process a t t e n t i o n is paid explicitly t o t h e role of designers, employees, end users, and o t h e r stakeholders involved.

4. Brief History of Industrial Ergonomics Programs

For t h e t w o companies in this dissertation, in t h e beginning, b o t h company's ergonomics programs w e r e initially s u p p o r t e d by a business champion and led by a technical expert. These programs applied a t r a d i t i o n a l or microergonomics strategy, focusing on i m p r o v i n g an individual employee's w o r k s t a t i o n in response t o t h e employee developing and r e p o r t i n g s y m p t o m s of a WiVlSD. The c o m m o n solution was t o have an ergonomist conduct an assessment based upon his or her expert knowledge and i m p l e m e n t t h e r e c o m m e n d e d solutions. Success was measured by t h e resolution of a specific issue f o r an individual employee. Over t i m e , as seen in o t h e r companies also, realizing t h a t m o r e efficient and effective results may be realized w h e n employees and o t h e r business partners, such as engineering, quality, and m a n a g e m e n t , are included in identifying and i m p l e m e n t i n g ergonomics solutions and programs, transitioned t h e i r efforts t o a m o r e participatory approach (Hererra, 2011). Table 1 summarizes this phase in c o l u m n 2.

Transition to Participatory Ergonomics

By t h e 1990s many corporations integrated ergonomics into health and safety programs. Elements of an effective ergonomics program w e r e established and widely i m p l e m e n t e d . NIOSH's publication. Elements of Ergonomie Programs, was only one of many describing t h e essential program elements. Corporate ergonomics programs o f t e n included some f o r m of t h e f o l l o w i n g initiatives (IMIOSH, 1997a):

• Identification o f Signs and Symptoms o f WMSDs • Medical M a n a g e m e n t of WMSDs

• M a n a g e m e n t C o m m i t m e n t • Technical Expertise • Ergonomie Risk Analysis • Controls I m p l e m e n t a t i o n

• Employee Training and Participation

Ergonomie programs provided a structure t h a t broadened and a l l o w e d generalization of t h e application of ergonomie expertise. Also, many companies established and provided general awareness training f o r all employees and created ergonomie teams w i t h t h e expectation o f reducing

WMSDs and associated wori<ers' compensation costs. Ottier companies establislied ergonomie teams similar t o safety teams t o focus upon W M S D -related injuries. Column 3 of Table 1 describes t h e key components of a participatory ergonomics process.

Macroergonomics - Today

As summarized in t h e Macroergonomics c o l u m n of Table 1, some companies have a d o p t e d a macroergonomics program strategy t h a t includes ergonomics expertise applied w i t h i n c o m p a n y w i d e management systems linked t o business objectives.

Today, as corporations are increasingly global in o p e r a t i o n , a macroergonomics f r a m e w o r k f o r supporting t h e company's specific business objectives is needed (Hendrick, 2002 Larson 2008; NIOSH 1997b; OSHA 2000). In t h e increasing r e q u i r e m e n t f o r business transparency, regulatory compliance is "business critical." Furthermore, financial discipline and c o n t r i b u t i o n t o operational efficiency and profitability is expected in all areas of t h e company, including staff groups. Macroergonomics sets t h e stage for ergonomie programs t o develop sustainable, consistent, globally applicable programs w i t h i n existing business operations. In short, macroergonomics must create a structure f o r ergonomics t o become integrated into business practices in order f o r companies t o achieve global business expectations. The f u t u r e success of industrial ergonomics in complex corporations depends upon ergonomics both being fully integrated into the business processes and d e m o n s t r a t i n g a strategic business advantage f o r t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . Macroergonomics provides guidance t o t h e design of these programs in order t o m e e t these requirements.

Table 1. Ergonomics Program Strategies (Larson 2006)

Microergonomics Participatory Ergonomics Macroergonomics

Strategy

Unique solutions to individual

problems.

Collaborative efforts to create solutions to address ergonomics issues that cross department responsibilities

Strategic focus using ergonomics to achieve business objectives. Process and Scope Assess and implement solutions for infrequently occurring or unique ergonomics issues. Often initiated by specific employee request or need. Efforts are conducted locally to meet well-defined specific needs.

Cross-functional teams, led by technical experts, identify and implement solutions to complex and interdependent ergonomics issues. Solutions focus on programs, training, and tools. Efforts are conducted across business organizations.

Create strategic policy, programs, and performance expectations for consistent application of ergonomics to support business objectives and achieve conformance to internal and external requirements. Typically instituted when ergonomics is recognized as an integral part of achieving business objectives and when there are efficiencies to be gained by comprehensive, companywide initiatives. Measure of Success Resolution of individual's WMSD symptoms through workstation redesign or equipment changes. Success is dependent upon knowledge and skill of a technical expert to resolve ergonomics issues.

Establishment or revision of processes, jobs, or programs to address cross-functional ergonomics issues. Success is dependent upon

collaborative efforts to implement systems and processes, enabling locations to achieve companywide prioritized objectives.

Implementation of sustainable, effective, and efficient policy, programs and standards that support ergonomics. Success is measured by achievement of companywide goals and business objectives. Core Competencies Ergonomics Technical Expertise Training Ergonomics Technical Expertise Project Management Collaborative Leadership Program Development Training Strategic Planning Systems and Program Development Compliance Assurance Organizational Location Expertise provided as part of technical department or contract resource.

Leadership from a business or technical department. Internal or contract expert resource.

Leadership, from department with global/ corporate responsibility.

5. American Express

T w o studies included in this research w e r e p e r f o r m e d at American Express Financial Advisors (AEFA). AEFA, originally Investor Diversified Services (IDS), provides individual financial assistance. It is h e a d q u a r t e r e d in IVIinneapolis, M i n n e s o t a . At t h e t i m e of this research, during t h e widespread i n t r o d u c t i o n of computers into office w o r k in t h e late 1980s into the 1990s, AEFA employees p e r f o r m e d typical office w o r k tasks. A business decision t o reorganize t h e 1,000 employee customer service d e p a r t m e n t coincided w i t h this technology transition w h i c h , according t o Hendrick (2002), is one of t h e four opportunities w h e r e macroergonomics can be most successful. At this company, a workplace i m p r o v e m e n t process (WIP) was developed t o prevent increasing health and safety problems due t o t h e rapid expansion of computer-based w o r k . The WIP was a collaborative e f f o r t of business, facility management, IT, p r o p e r t y m a n a g e m e n t , employees, and ergonomics. It included an o p p o r t u n i t y t o apply ergonomics design into t h e n e w w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t , workspaces, and f u r n i t u r e , as well as educate employees about ergonomics c o m p u t e r guidelines. It is an example of successful macroergonomics and participatory ergonomics w i t h i n a real w o r l d office application (GAO 1997; NIOSH 1997b). Subsequent research, c o n d u c t e d t w o years later in t h e same w o r k group and utilizing a controlled g r o u p study m o d e l , evaluated t h e impact of six strategies (i.e., t w o alternative keyboards, stretching, manager/supervisor t r a i n i n g , keying technique training, and c o n t r o l g r o u p ) , which at t h e t i m e w e r e c o m m o n l y p r o m o t e d t o reduce WMSDs in c o m p u t e r w o r k .

E R G O N O M I C S —

T H E R I G H T F I T F O R ¥

O 1/

6. 3M Ergonomics Program

Development of the Ergonomie Program Prior to 2000

3 M , a Fortune 500 company w i t h over 88,000 employees, t o d a y has over 190 manufacturing and distribution operations located in over 30 countries around t h e w o r l d . The company manufactures over 55,000 unique products, w h i c h are developed, m a n u f a c t u r e d , and m a r k e t e d w i t h i n five business organizations: Consumer, Safety and Graphics, Electronics and Energy, Health Care, and Industrial (3M website 2014). The p r o d u c t i o n of these products requires a w i d e variety of manufacturing operations, such as mining, coating, converting, packaging, c o m p o u n d i n g assembly, milling, mixing, and slitting.

As described in Table 1, many companies and ergonomie practitioners started w i t h w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t adaptations focused on reducing WMSDs. But over t i m e , they transitioned t o more rigorous ergonomics programs using a macroergonomic approach. The 3 M Ergonomics Program has f o l l o w e d this progression of ergonomics program development. The ergonomics program primarily exists t o reduce t h e impact of WMSDs, which historically have been over 50% of all health and safety incidents and t h e single largest category of w o r k e r ' s compensation costs. Initially in t h e 1980s, t h e strategy was t o react and respond t o technically specific issues as t h e y arose. Responding t o questions and providing j o b assessments w e r e t h e focus of t h e t w o corporate ergonomists. While t h e strategy provided value, some processes and m a n u f a c t u r i n g e q u i p m e n t had ergonomie i m p r o v e m e n t s . However, t h e locations d i d n ' t always k n o w they had ergonomie issues so they did not ask f o r help.

Starting in t h e mid 1990s, t h e n o w f o u r corporate ergonomists continued providing training, responding t o unique requests, and conducting e q u i p m e n t design reviews. They also established and led a cross-functional training t e a m , comprised of ergonomists, occupational health nurses, and engineers t o conduct ergonomics t e a m training at each US manufacturing location. The objective was t o establish and t r a i n ergonomie t e a m m e m b e r s at eaeh m a n u f a c t u r i n g location in order t o develop knowledgeable and skilled resources in t h e locations able t o identify and address specific ergonomie issues w i t h i n their operating priorities. This strategy effectively leveraged t h e

skill and knowledge of t h e corporate ergonomists and raised awareness t h r o u g h o u t the company. There w e r e many successes: some plants developed strong, active, and effective ergonomie teams; some engineers integrated ergonomie criteria into t h e i r e q u i p m e n t and process designs; and some locations called the corporate ergonomists for technical help. But ergonomics was not evenly applied t h r o u g h o u t t h e corporation as it was primarily US focused. Identification of ergonomie issues increased, but o f t e n t h e location's ergonomics t e a m had high t u r n o v e r , t h e teams w e r e not always successful at identifying or i m p l e m e n t i n g effective solutions, and t h e r e was no u n i f o r m m e t h o d t o verify t h e effectiveness or t h e impact of t h e interventions. In some instances, primarily due t o staffing changes, it was difficult f o r a location t o maintain sufficient expertise t o lead t h e ergonomie efforts. At about t h e same t i m e , engineering training raised engineers' awareness of t h e importanee of considering t h e capabilities and limitations of t h e employee w h e n designing e q u i p m e n t and processes. A n u m b e r of engineers began including ergonomie considerations in t h e i r designs. During this t i m e , j o b analysis coupled w i t h " e x p e r t o p i n i o n " was used by corporate ergonomists and location ergonomics t e a m members t o identify jobs w i t h ergonomie issues.

In t h e late 1990s, a c o m p a n y w i d e safety and health m a n a g e m e n t system was created t o facilitate broader integration of ergonomics into corporate health and safety initiatives. The ergonomics p r o g r a m , as part of t h e Industrial Hygiene d e p a r t m e n t , became defined as a specific element of t h e company's global safety and health m a n a g e m e n t system. At this t i m e , location conformance t o t h e internal program was expected but n o t v e r i f i e d . These efforts w e r e successful but not sufficient t o meet new business challenges of t h e expanding global business (Larson 2005).

The Program at 3M Since 2000

Three primary factors - company organization changes, an increase in international operations, and t h e shortlived US OSHA Ergonomics regulation -w e r e primary catalysts for revising t h e company's ergonomics p r o g r a m . A ne-w CEO resulted in many organizational changes, including m o r e centralized health and safety programs and c o m m o n performance expectations t h r o u g h o u t all operations globally. The brief existence of a US Ergonomics Standard added t o t h e need. These events resulted in t h e company's

ergonomics program transitioning f r o m being US-centric t o having a global perspective and t h e reevaluation and identification of n e w strategies, i m p l e m e n t a t i o n plans, and creation of measures of success. Therefore, new objectives t o meet regulatory requirements, achieve efficiency of approaches, and allow f o r c o m p a n y w i d e oversight of p e r f o r m a n c e globally w e r e established. Additionally, it became an increasing challenge t o d e t e r m i n e w h e n company objectives, processes, tools and p e r f o r m a n c e expectations provided value or merely resulted in unnecessary bureaucracy. Careful consideration of how macroergonomic, participatory, and microergonomic strategies each c o n t r i b u t e in order t o protect t h e company and achieve economies of scale and enable local a u t o n o m y t o achieve efficient and effective results was invaluable.

Establishing location ergonomics performance expectations and providing increased corporate oversight (protecting t h e corporation) became t h e dual focus. W h a t did not change was t h e company's c o m m i t m e n t t o safeguarding t h e health and safety of employees. The company's Corporate Safety and Health Policy, programs, and assessments t o g e t h e r defined h o w the safety and health of employees w o r l d w i d e w o u l d be p r o t e c t e d . The ergonomics program a d o p t e d a macroergonomic strategy t o successfully m e e t t h e ever-changing business requirements. The redesigned ergonomics program for m a n u f a c t u r i n g locations focused on f o u r key initiatives:

• Ergonomie Process and Programs: Development, a d o p t i o n , and

m e a s u r e m e n t of a c o m p a n y w i d e ergonomics program and p e r f o r m a n c e expectations

• Job Analysis: Identification, assessment, and control of W M S D risk in

m a n u f a c t u r i n g operations t h r o u g h analysis of existing e q u i p m e n t and processes

• Ergonomie Design: A d o p t i o n of ergonomics standards f o r engineering

design of new e q u i p m e n t and processes

• Professional Development: Ergonomie knowledge and technical

Ergonomics Process and Program

Corporate Ergonomics created an Ergonomics Risl< Reduction Process (ERRP), w h i c h was included as one element o f t h e company's global safety and health m a n a g e m e n t system and defined t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s for each m a n u f a c t u r i n g and distribution location t h r o u g h o u t t h e w o r l d .

The ergonomics e l e m e n t of the company's safety and health m a n a g e m e n t system was m o d i f i e d in 2000 t o include i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of t h e ERRP, and a s u p p o r t i n g ergonomics certification process was created. The certification process established a professional d e v e l o p m e n t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r key health and safety individuals at each location. Using t h e ERRP process, staff at each m a n u f a c t u r i n g location answered a series of questions i n t e n d e d t o identify jobs w i t h t h e potential for high-risk ergonomie issues (e.g., high t u r n o v e r , r e p o r t e d W M S D injuries, employee complaints and jobs typically k n o w n t o be " h a r d j o b s " ) . Each j o b on t h e list was screened and prioritized at t h e location based upon a variety of criteria including, but not limited t o : identified risk exposure levels, p r o d u c t i o n requirements, staff and financial resource availability, W M S D illness history, scheduled e q u i p m e n t maintenance or m o d i f i c a t i o n , or difficulty of i n t e r v e n t i o n identification or i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . Each year locations updated t h e list of jobs and identified those jobs t a r g e t e d f o r detailed ergonomics j o b analysis and i m p r o v e m e n t .

In o r d e r t o adequately identify and understand t h e ergonomie issues in m a n u f a c t u r i n g operations, a c o m m o n j o b assessment t o o l was needed. Several factors w e r e considered in identifying an a p p r o p r i a t e assessment t o o l . M a n y organizational factors (or macroergonomic issues) w e r e considered. First, t h e company manufactures over 50,000 products based upon more t h a n 40 unique technology platforms. The ergonomie risk assessment t o o l needed t o apply t o a w i d e variety of m a n u f a c t u r i n g , such as converting, mixing, c o m p o u n d i n g , processing, and packaging operations. Additionally, t h e assessment criteria needed t o be applicable t o a global w o r k f o r c e w i t h a broad e m p l o y e e p o p u l a t i o n t h a t includes males and females of all ages and ethnic backgrounds. Also, t h e intended target user f o r t h e assessment t o o l was health and safety staff located in m a n u f a c t u r i n g locations. Almost all these staff had a f o r m a l educational background in either a health and safety area or engineering. M o s t w e r e familiar w i t h ergonomics in general, but f e w had m o r e

than a basic w o r k i n g expertise in t h e field. A final consideration was t o focus upon t h e physical j o b requirements t h a t could be analyzed and changes i m p l e m e n t e d as needed and not include consideration of psychosocial factors, which are neither part of t h e expertise nor the responsibility of t h e location health and safety staff.

Job Analysis and Risk Reduction

Thus, a standard comprehensive j o b assessment t o o l , applicable at all manufacturing locations c o m p a n y w i d e , was adopted and integrated into t h e ERRP. The Ergonomics Job Analysis Tool (EJA) (Auburn Engineers, 2003) focused upon identifying and measuring exposure t o a w i d e variety of ergonomie risk factors associated w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of WMSDs. It was i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e t o o l be used effectively by health and safety staff at each location. A d o p t i n g a " s t a n d a r d " ergonomie risk exposure assessment t o o l and subsequently developing related internal engineering ergonomie design criteria became primary objectives. The t o o l a d o p t e d was created by an external consultant. A u b u r n Engineers, and based on the f o l l o w i n g criteria:

"The EJA is based on information from leading ergonomics texts, research reports, and conference proceedings. The information was collected from sources such as the International Ergonomics Association, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, International Labour Office, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, 2000), Ergonomics Design for People at Work (Eastman Kodak, 1983), HumanScale (Dreyfuss, 1993, Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design (Army-Navy-Air Force 1995), Ergonomics How to Design for Ease and Efficiency (Kroemer, 1972), Human Factors Design Handbook (Woodson, 1992), and Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 1993). The data were compiled, condensed and combined into manageable guidelines, utilizing the professional judgment of Certified Professional Ergonomists, Professional Engineers and health professionals. Conservative values and appropriate safety factors were used to ensure that the ergonomie risk is minimized for the majority of employees." (Auburn Engineers, 2003)

To verify t h e t o o l w o u l d meet t h e needs of 3 M , several pilot and usability tests w e r e led by corporate staff and c o m p l e t e d w i t h the participation of individuals representative of t h e target users. The tool's ergonomie risk exposure categorization provided a ranking system t o help each location prioritize resources and identify effective solutions. This strategy provided t h e means t o obtain W M S D risk exposure data in order t o assess progress t o w a r d s eliminating t h e highest impact ergonomie exposures in specifically targeted jobs d e t e r m i n e d by the ERRP. In addition t o creating a c o m m o n risk exposure m e a s u r e m e n t process, t h e comprehensive assessment t o o l also allowed c o r p o r a t e ergonomics t o m o r e efficiently provide ongoing s u p p o r t f o r one t o o l (rather than support several tools), create and deploy t r a i n i n g , and ensure i n f o r m a t i o n security.

To facilitate dissemination of ergonomie knowledge, a central Intranet repository database f o r storing t h e results of the assessments was created. M a i n t a i n i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n in t h e web-based corporate Intranet provides many advantages including: baseline j o b assessments combined w i t h post-assessments providing evidence of reduction of high risk exposure; s u p p o r t i n g risk r e d u c t i o n r e p o r t i n g c o m p a n y w i d e and at each location; and providing identification of e q u i p m e n t or jobs w i t h significant ergonomie issues f o r f u t u r e a t t e n t i o n t h r o u g h o u t company operations.

Ascertaining WMSD data is complex in a global company. Some countries have medical privacy laws and regulations t h a t restrict W M S D injury i n f o r m a t i o n except f o r medical personal. In other countries, r e p o r t i n g a W M S D s y m p t o m runs counter t o t h e i r culture and it is difficult t o gather c o m p l e t e i n f o r m a t i o n regarding prevalence as employees do not consistently recognize or r e p o r t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of signs or s y m p t o m s related t o WMSDs. However, since t h e company's ergonomie assessment t o o l measures direct exposure t o c o m m o n ergonomie risk factors, t h e reduction in exposure is independent of injury data and provides a measure of i m p r o v e m e n t separate f r o m WMSD incident rates. The continuing company goal is t o reduce these highest ergonomie risk exposures w i t h t h e expectation t h a t t h e frequency and severity of WMSDs will be reduced over t i m e .

Engineering Design Criteria

Engineers are l<ey participants in t l i e design of new e q u i p m e n t so t t i a t ergonomie issues are n o t included in new e q u i p m e n t design or specification. Tfierefore, f o l l o w i n g i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of t h e ERRP, an Ergonomics Design Criteria (EDC) Tool was developed and integrated into t h e company's engineering design standards and project m a n a g e m e n t system. The t o o l needed t o be acceptable t o t h e target users (the engineers) and provide ergonomie design i n f o r m a t i o n , but not require engineers t o become ergonomists. Development of the EDC t o o l was j o i n t l y sponsored by Engineering and Ergonomics. A participatory process, both in t h e design o f t h e t o o l and t h e t a r g e t test user g r o u p , was used. New e q u i p m e n t eould t h e n be r e v i e w e d early in t h e design process for ergonomie concerns prior t o requests f o r f u n d i n g .

The EJA j o b assessment t o o l applies w h e n reviewing existing e q u i p m e n t and processes. The EDC t o o l applies w h e n specifying new e q u i p m e n t and processes. It was i m p o r t a n t t h e t w o tools use a similar strategy and exposure criteria t o allow t h e person t r a i n e d in ergonomie j o b analysis t o be an effective " e x p e r t " resource on projects t o identify potentially unacceptable WMSD risk exposures.

Five categories of ergonomie issues are considered in t h e EDC t o o l : 1) manual material handling; 2) reaches; 3) visual w o r k ; 4) hand forces; and 5) miscellaneous. Only tasks exceeding a specific threshold are required t o provide m o r e detailed analysis and exposure m i t i g a t i o n . If an engineering solution is not possible, t h e location's ergonomics staff have t i m e t o identify and prepare administrative controls prior t o t h e e q u i p m e n t installation and o p e r a t i o n .

The ERRP process is integrated into t h e safety and health annual planning process. Locations identify jobs f o r analysis and c o n t r o l , along w i t h training and o t h e r p r o g r a m needs in t h e i r annual safety and health plans. Program sustainability is a ehallenge going f o r w a r d , specifically as t h e company acquires new companies - many w i t h o u t existing ergonomics programs or knowledgeable staff.

Professional Development

Due t o t h e increased focus o n ergonomics, expertise needed t o be expanded t h r o u g h o u t t h e company. Thus an internal ergonomics training and certification process was established, and each m a n u f a c t u r i n g location was required t o have an employee certified t o use t h e ergonomie j o b analysis t o o l and be t h e primary contact f o r ergonomie technical c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t o t h e location. The training included core ergonomie topics such as biomechanics, a n t h r o p o m e t r y , and w o r k s t a t i o n design. A hands-on w o r k s h o p held in a m a n u f a c t u r i n g facility provided practice using t h e ergonomics j o b assessment t o o l on real jobs. The certification process also included s u b m i t t i n g a n u m b e r of c o m p l e t e d j o b assessments and video t o board certified ergonomists f o r review as t o completeness and accuracy. Additional computer-based training modules focusing o n solution identification, cost benefit analysis, and project m a n a g e m e n t w e r e also required, along w i t h presentation o f a Capstone Project.

This training and certification process, focused on developing ergonomie j o b analysis and assessment skills, significantly increased t h e ergonomie expertise t h r o u g h o u t t h e company - a key element needed f o r an ergonomie program t o be successful. To date, over 400 individuals f r o m over 30 countries have participated in this ergonomics t r a i n i n g and certification. Being certified in ergonomie j o b analysis has provided an advantage w h e n safety and health employees apply f o r p r o m o t i o n s or n e w j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s . The need f o r specialized ergonomics training and certification will continue as t h e c o m p a n y expands t h r o u g h acquisitions and builds n e w manufacturing operations globally. An internal n e t w o r k among those practicing ergonomics is emerging w i t h sharing of effective and efficient solutions a primary focus.

7. Coping with Globalization Issues

Apart f r o m t h e above m e n t i o n e d contexts, globalization was influencing and will continue in t h e f u t u r e t o influence t h e w a y ergonomie programs will w o r k - especially in corporations. M a n y issues add t o t h e difficulty and complexity of h o w a global ergonomics program ean be effective. Due t o c o m m u n i c a t i o n technology, t h e number of electronic meetings has increased dramatically. Pepper et al. (2010) describe t h a t " c o m m u n i c a t i o n in multilingual meetings is diffieult, and interpersonal barriers increase w i t h t h e n u m b e r o f languages

used in t i i e discussion." So, new c o m m u n i c a t i o n sl<ills are needed f o r electronic meetings -- h o w do y o u k n o w t h e attendees c o m p r e h e n d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w h e n in their culture asking a question reflects badly on t h e instructor? Some cultures rely on personal relationships - h o w do y o u establish personal relationships remotely? Some cultures have litde or no concept of ergonomics or WMSDs - h o w should t h e importance of this issue be explained t o management as well as t o employees?

A company's ergonomie standards provide a c o m m o n performance expectation, but many regions and countries also have specific ergonomie requirements. W h a t do you do w h e n countries' physical requirements conflict - f o r example in t h e US a 5 1 p o u n d lifting limit is c o m m o n l y accepted, b u t in t h e EU t h e limit is 25 kg (55 pounds), or in some counties t h e r e are d i f f e r e n t male and female lifting requirements but y o u have b o t h male and female employees p e r f o r m i n g t h e task? W h e r e is t h e balance b e t w e e n protecting t h e company and respecting local culture and meeting local regulations? An Increasingly i m p o r t a n t c o m p o n e n t of a successful ergonomics program is t h e ability t o continually d e m o n s t r a t e program effectiveness. Being asked t o describe, explain, and justify t h e value of ergonomics programs in relation t o business p r o d u c t i v i t y and survive global c o m p e t i t i o n is critical (Vink, 2005). These and o t h e r challenges cut across all disciplines of ergonomics, f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l microergonomics, t o participatory ergonomics and macroergonomics.

In today's w o r l d change occurs constantly. Political, e n v i r o n m e n t a l , economic, technological, and business organizational events all impact a company's operations. The organizational and business changes in large corporations p r o m p t almost continuous a d j u s t m e n t t o corporate business strategies. M a i n t a i n i n g t h e f o u n d a t i o n a l health and safety principles can be challenging. In global companies, safety and health program i m p l e m e n t a t i o n is increasingly a globally shared responsibility b e t w e e n corporate staff and decentralized business operations and r e m o t e m a n u f a c t u r i n g locations. O f t e n , corporate staff will continue t o provide technical leadership, facilitate communications (including best practices), and provide guidance for program i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . Individual businesses are responsible f o r results. Despite these global changes, w h a t is n o t changing at 3 M is t h e company's c o m m i t m e n t t o safeguarding t h e

health and safety of employees. Because of t h e participatory and macroergonomic strategies t h a t w e r e initially used t o develop t h e company's ergonomics p r o g r a m , as business conditions change t h e program should enable ongoing success as t h e " t h i n k global, act local" philosophy takes o n m o r e i m p o r t a n c e - not just t o be effective but t o be sustainable.

The responsibility of a corporate ergonomics program is t o protect b o t h t h e broad assets of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , including employee safety and health, p r o d u c t i o n , quality, and productivity, and t h e company r e p u t a t i o n . The objectives of an ergonomics p r o g r a m in a global company can vary greatly. On one hand, it may provide a centralized program w i t h well-defined p e r f o r m a n c e expectations using standardized t o o l s and processes. On t h e o t h e r hand, it may focus upon dissemination of technical I n f o r m a t i o n and regulatory requirements t o be used as guidance w h e n needed. An ideal ergonomics p r o g r a m brings t o g e t h e r b o t h f o r t h e most effective i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of ergonomics w i t h i n t h e organizational context o f t h e company (Lee, 2005).

8. The Organization of this PhD

Chapter 2 details t h e process used and t h e benefits realized by applying ergonomics during a financial service institution's customer service d e p a r t m e n t reorganization t o address t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f n e w office w o r k technology - t h e c o m p u t e r . It concerns a description of t h e ergonomie p r o g r a m in an office e n v i r o n m e n t . An evaluation was carried o u t on a high level (Part 1). In Part 2 o f this chapter, f r o m t h e same w o r k p o p u l a t i o n , t h e potential benefits o f additional c o m p u t e r w o r k strategies is researched.

In Chapter 3 t h e phrase "Think globally, act locally," invented by t h e t o w n planner Patrick Geddes (2002), also is used t o apply macroergonomics in a global company. This paper reviews t h e evolution of ergonomie programs in general f r o m t h e initial Technical Expert / Champion-led efforts focusing on individual workstations or processes t o Participatory Ergonomics emphasizing programs and t e a m w o r k t o Macroergonomics as s u p p o r t i n g core business processes.

Chapter 4 examines t h e elements of an ergonomics program focused o n r e d u c t i o n of WMSDs at a global m a n u f a c t u r i n g company. Both t h e program

attributes and associated 5-year, c o m p a n y w i d e ergonomics goal t o reduce WMSDs is presented.

Chapter 5 expands t h e ongoing results f r o m t h e company program described in Chapters 3 and 4. A review of ergonomie ease studies provides insight into h o w projects were identified and conducted. Additionally, t h e potential employee well-being and operational efficiency benefits realized f r o m the ergonomie ease studies are presented.

Chapter 6 highlights t h e key findings f r o m Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 and speculates about h o w t h e application of industrial ergonomics may be advanced in business t h r o u g h t h e use of macroergonomics.

Chapter 1 References

3 M C o m p a n y . (2014) h t t p : / / w w w . 3 m . c o m .

A u b u r n Engineers. (2003) Ergo Job Analyzer User Guide, A u b u r n Engineers.

Beevis, D. (2003b) Ergonomics: Costs a n d b e n e f i t s r e v i s i t e d . Applied Ergonomics, 3 4 : 4 9 1 - 4 9 6 .

Bosch, T., IVlafhiassen, S. E., Visser, B., De Looze, IVl.D., Van Dieen, J.V. (2011) The e f f e c f o f worl< pace o n w o r k l o a d , m o t o r v a r i a b i l i t y and f a t i g u e d u r i n g s i m u l a t e d light assembly w o r k . Ergonomics, 54: 1 5 4 - 1 6 8 .

B r o w n , O. Jr. & Hendrick H.W. (Eds.) (1986) Human factors in organizational design

and management II, pp. 4 6 7 - 4 7 8 . A m s t e r d a m : N o r t h - H o l l a n d .

Bureau o f Labor Statistics. 2 0 1 2 . h t t p : / / w w w . b l s . g o v

Butler M . (2003) C o r p o r a t e e r g o n o m i c s p r o g r a m at Scottish & N e w c a s t l e . Applied

Ergonomics, 34: 3 5 - 3 8 .

Carrivick, P., Lee, A., Yuau, K., Stevenson, M . (2005) Evaluating t h e effectiveness o f a p a r t i c i p a t o r y e r g o n o m i c s a p p r o a c h in r e d u c i n g t h e risk a n d severity o f injuries f r o m m a n u a l h a n d l i n g . Ergonomics, 4 8 ( 8 ) : 9 0 7 - 9 1 4 .

de Jong A, Vink P. (2002) P a r t i c i p a t o r y e r g o n o m i c s a p p l i e d in i n s t a l l a t i o n w o r k . Applied

Ergonomics, 3 3 ( 5 ) : 4 3 9 - 4 4 8 .

de Looze, M., Vink, P., Koningsveld, E., Kuijt-Evers, L, & Van Rhijn, G. (2010) Cost-effectiveness o f e r g o n o m i e i n t e r v e n t i o n s in p r o d u c t i o n . Human Factors and

Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 2 0 : 3 1 6 - 3 2 3 .

Denis, D., St. V i n c e n t , M., I m b e a u , D. J e t t e , C , Nastasia, I. (2008) I n t e r v e n t i o n practices in musculoskeletal d i s o r d e r p r e v e n t i o n : A critical l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w . Applied

Ergonomics, 39:1-14.

Driessen M T , Proper KI, A n e m a JR, Knol DL, Bongers P M , van der Beek AJ. (2011) The effectiveness o f p a r t i c i p a t o r y e r g o n o m i c s t o p r e v e n t l o w b a c k and neck pain -results o f a cluster r a n d o m i z e d c o n t r o l l e d t r i a l , Scand Journal of Work

Environmental Health, 3 7 ( 5 ) : 3 8 3 - 3 9 3 .

Eastman Kodak C o m p a n y . (1983) Ergonomie Design for People at Work, Volumes 1 and

2. Van N o s t r a n d Reinhold, N e w York, N e w York.

E u r o s t a t . h f t p : / / e p p . e u r o s t a t . e c . e u r o p a . e u / s t a t i s t i c s _ e x p l a i n e d / i n d e x . p h p / M a n u f a c f u r i n g _ s t a t i s t i c s _ - _ N A C E _ R e v . _ 2 .

Geddes, P., Barash, D. (2002) Peace and Conflict. Sage Publications, p. 5 4 7 . ISBN 978-0¬ 7 6 1 9 - 2 5 0 7 - 1 .

G o v e r n m e n t A c c o u n t i n g O f f i c e . (1997) Worker Protection: Private Sector Ergonomics

Programs Yield Positive Results. GAO/HEHS-97-163.

Haro, E., Kleiner, B. (2008) M a c r o e r g o n o m i c s as an Organizing Process f o r System Safety. Applied Ergonomics, 3 9 : 4 5 0 - 4 5 8 .

Hendrick, H. (2003) D e t e r m i n i n g t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t o f e r g o n o m i c s projects a n d f a c t o r s t h a t lead t o t h e i r success. Applied Ergonomics, 3 4 : 4 1 9 - 4 2 7 .

Hendrick, H. (2008) A p p l y i n g Ergonomics t o Systems: S o m e D o c u m e n t e d "Lessons L e a r n e d " . Applied Ergononnics, 3 9 : 1 8 - 4 2 6 .

Hendrick, H. Kleiner, B. (2002) Macroergonomic Theory, Methods, and Applicadons. Lawrence Eribaum Associates. M a h w a h , NJ.

Henry Dreyfuss Associates, (1981) Human Scale, Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology, MIT Press.

Herrera S, Huatuco, L. (2011) M a c r o e r g o n o m i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n Programs: R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r Their Design a n d I m p l e m e n t a t i o n . Human Factors and

Ergonomics In Manufacturing & Service Industries, 2 1 ( 3 ) 2 2 7 - 2 4 3 .

H o o g e n d o o r n , L. (2001) W o r k - r e l a t e d risk f a c t o r s f o r l o w back p a i n . PhD thesis. Vrije Universiteit A m s t e r d a m .

Huang, G.D., Feuerstein, M., Sauter, S.L. (2002) Occupational stress a n d w o r k - r e l a t e d u p p e r e x t r e m i t y d i s o r d e r s : c o n c e p t s a n d m o d e l s . American Journal of Industrial

Medicine, 41(5):298-314.

I m a d a , A. S., Noro, K. & Nagamachi, M . (1986) Participatory e r g o n o m i c s : M e t h o d s f o r i m p r o v i n g individual a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l effectiveness. In 0. B r o w n Jr. & H W Hendrick (Eds.) Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management II, 4 0 3 - 4 0 6 , Elsevier, A m s t e r d a m : N o r t h - H o l l a n d .

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Ergonomics A s s o c i a t i o n . (2014) W h a t is e r g o n o m i c s , h t t p : / / w w w . i e a . c c / . Karsh, B., M o r o , F., S m i t h , M . (2001) The efficacy o f w o r k p l a c e e r g o n o m i e

i n t e r v e n t i o n s t o c o n t r o l musculoskeletal disorders: a critical analysis o r t h e p e e r - r e v i e w e d l i t e r a t u r e . Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2 ( l ) : 2 3 - 9 6 . Koningsveld, J, Dul, J. Van Rhijn, G W , Vink, P. (2005) Enhancing t h e i m p a c t o f

e r g o n o m i c s i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Ergonomics 4 8 ( 5 ) 5 5 9 - 5 8 0 .

K r o e m e r , K.H.E. (1972) H u m a n Engineering t h e Keyboard. Human Factors, 14:51-63. K u o r i n k a , I. (1997) Tools a n d means of i m p l e m e n t i n g p a r t i c i p a t o r y e r g o n o m i c s .

InternationalJournal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1 5 : 3 6 5 - 3 7 0 .

Larson, N, (2005) M a c r o e r g o n o m i c s in Global C o r p o r a t i o n s " H o w t o Get it D o n e " In O. B r o w n Jr. a n d H.W. Kleiner, B. a n d Hendrick, H. (Eds.), Human Factors in

Organizational Design and Management - VIII, 87-92.

Larson, N, W i c k , H, A l b i n , T., Hallbeck, S, Vink, P. (2014). Industrial Ergonomics: The i m p a c t o f a m a c r o e r g o n o m i c s p r o g r a m w i t h a w e l l - d e f i n e d p e r f o r m a n c e goal in r e d u c i n g w o r k - r e l a t e d musculoskeletal disorders. Proceedings of the 5th

International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics AHFE 2014.

Edited by T. A h r a m , W . K a r w o w s k i a n d T. M a r e k .

Larson, N. (2008) M a c r o e r g o n o m i c s in Global C o r p o r a t i o n s " G o i n g G l o b a l " . In O. B r o w n Jr. a n d H.W. Henrick (Eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Design and

Management - VIX.

Lee, K. (2005) Ergonomics in t o t a l q u a l i t y m a n a g e m e n t : H o w can w e sell e r g o n o m i c s t o m a n a g e m e n t ? Ergonomics, 4 8 ( 1 5 ) 5 4 7 - 5 5 8 .

Leigh, J. P. (2011) Economic Burden o f Occupational Injury a n d Illness in t h e U n i t e d States. Milbank Quarterly, 8 9 : 7 2 8 - 7 7 2 .

M c C o r m i c k , E., Sanders, M . (1993) Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 7th

edition, M c G r a w - H i l l Book C o m p a n y .

M o l e n , HF., van der. Sluiter, JK., Hulschof, CTJ., Vink, P., Frings-Dresen, M H W . (2005) Effectiveness of m e a s u r e s a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n strategies in r e d u c i n g physical w o r k d e m a n d s d u e t o m a n u a l h a n d l i n g at w o r k . Scandinavian Journal of Work,

Environment & Health, 75-87.

N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r O c c u p a t i o n a l Safety and Health (1997a) Elements of Ergonomics

Programs. US. D e p a r t m e n t o f Health a n d H u m a n Services P B 9 7 0 1 4 4 9 0 1 .

N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r O c c u p a t i o n a l Safety a n d Health (NIOSH). ( 1 9 9 7 b ) NIOSH/OSHA Ergonomics Best Practice C o n f e r e n c e .

National I n s t i t u t e f o r O c c u p a t i o n a l Safety a n d Health (1997c) Musculoskeletal

Disorders and Workplace Factors. U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f Health a n d H u m a n

Services PB97178628.

N e u m a n n W , Ekiund J, Hansson B, Lindbeck L. (2010) On Effect Assessment in W o r k E n v i r o n m e n t I n t e r v e n t i o n s - A L i t e r a t u r e O v e r v i e w a n d M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Reflection. Industrial Engineering Publications and Research Paper2.

N o r o K., & Imada A.S. (1991) Participatory Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, L o n d o n .

O c c u p a t i o n a l Safety a n d Health A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (OSHA). (1989). Ergonomics Program

Management Guidelines for Meatpacking, U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f Labor. OSHA 3

123.

O c c u p a t i o n a l Safety a n d Health A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (OSHA). (2000) Ergonomics Program

Standard. Federal Register 1 9 1 0 . 9 0 0 .

Pepper W., Aiken M., Garner, B. (2011) Usefulness a n d Usability o f a M u l t i l i n g u a l Electronic M e e t i n g System. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, l l ( 1 0 ) : 3 5 - 4 0 .

P o o s a n t h a n a s a r n , N., Lohachit, C , Fungladda, W., Sriboorapa, S., Pulkate, C. (2005) An e r g o n o m i c s i n t e r v e n t i o n p r o g r a m t o p r e v e n t w o r k e r injuries in a m e t a l a u t o p a r t s f a c t o r y . Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine Public Health, 3 6 ( 2 ) : 5 1 2 - 5 2 2 .

Rivilis, I., Van EERD, D., Cullen, K., Cole, D.C, Irvin, E.„ Tyson, J., M a h o o d , W . (2008) Effectiveness o f p a r t i c i p a t o r y e r g o n o m i e i n t e r v e n t i o n s on health o u t c o m e s : A systematic r e v i e w . Applied Ergonomics 3 9 : 3 4 2 - 3 5 8 .

Roquelaure, Y., Ha, C , Leclerc, A., T o u r a n c h e f , A., S a u t e r o n , M., M e l c h i o r , M., I m b e r n o n , E., G o l d b e r g , M . (2006) Epidemiologic surveillance o f u p p e r -e x t r -e m i t y m u s c u l o s k -e l -e t a l disord-ers in t h -e w o r k i n g p o p u l a t i o n . Arthritis Car-e &

Research, 5 5 ( 5 ) : 7 6 5 - 7 7 8 .

Rzepecki, J. (2012) Cost a n d Benefits o f I m p l e m e n t i n g an O c c u p a t i o n a l Safety a n d Health M a n a g e m e n t System (OSH MS) in Enterprises in Poland. Internadonal

Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 18(2):181-193.

Solidake, E., Chatzi, L, Bitsoios, P., M a r k a t z l , I., Plana, E., Castro, F., Palmer, F., Palmer, K., Coggon, D., Kogevinas, M . (2010) W o r k - r e l a t e d a n d psychological d e t e r m i n a n t s of m u l t i s i f e musculoskeletal pain. Scandinavian Journal of Work,

Torres, R. (ed.). (2013) W o r l d o f w o r k r e p o r f 2 0 1 3 : Repairing f h e e c o n o m i c a n d social fabric. Geneva: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Labour Organisation I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r Labour Studies. ISBN 9 7 8 - 9 2 9 2 5 1 0 1 8 3 .

US D e p a r t m e n t o f Defense. (1995) H u m a n Engineering Design Guidelines MIL-HDBK 759C.

V e r b e e k , J., Pulliainen, M . , Kankaapaa, E. (2009) A systematic r e v i e w o f o c c u p a t i o n a l safety a n d h e a l t h business cases. ScancJ Journal of Work Environmental Health. 3 5 ( 6 ) : 4 0 3 - 4 1 2 .

Vink P., Ed. (2005) Comfort and design: principles and good practice. Boca R a t o n : CRC Press.

Vink, P., Imada, A., Zink, K. (2008) Defining Stakeholder I n v o l v e m e n t in Participatory Design Process. Applied Ergonomics, 3 9 : 5 2 0 - 5 2 6 .

Vink P., Koningsveld EAP, M o l e n b r o e k JFM, van Eijk, DJ. (2002) Increase in p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d c o m f o r t by a p p l y i n g p a r t i c i p a t o r y e r g o n o m i c s : 8 success f a c t o r s .

International Journal of Occupational Safety & Ergonomics 5 : 1 4 3 - 1 6 0

W e s t g a a r d , R. H. (2000) W o r k - r e l a t e d musculoskeletal c o m p l a i n t s : Some e r g o n o m i c s challenges u p o n t h e start o f a n e w c e n t u r y . Applied Ergonomics, 3 1 : 5 6 9 - 5 8 0 . W i l s o n , J.R., (1995) S o l u t i o n o w n e r s h i p in p a r t i c i p a t i v e w o r k redesign: t h e case o f a

c r a n e c o n t r o l r o o m . International Journal of Ergonomics., 1 5 : 3 2 9 - 3 4 4 .

W o o d s o n , W . (1992) Human Factors Design Handbook: Information and guidelines for

the design of systems, facilities, equipment, and products for human use.