Ergonomía

Realistic, Cost-Effective Ergonomics
for Real People

T
Using a simpler approach to ergonomics and stressing design that fits actual workers can reduce costs and result in a safer, more productive workplace.
by William H. Kincaid, P.E., CSP

o reduce the costs associated with injuries and wasted effort, ergonomic principles should be applied to every possible work area to boostproductivity and efficiency, and to improve human well-being. A cost-effective, practical approach to ergonomics is more hands-on than theoretical. The process involves anyone who can add value to get the most done with the lowest costs. This frugal, practical approach meshes well with the lean manufacturing philosophy that is in implementation in many workplaces. Ergonomics, although a legitimate science,isn’t rocket science. Ergonomics does not have to be complicated in every application. The downfall of the OSHA ergonomics regulation a few years ago was due to a number of factors, but public indignation over the paperwork burden it would have created must have been a main one. All that documentation would have taken up lots of time at the expense of the time available to fix anything in theworkplace. Regardless of the regulatory approach, keeping things simple accomplishes a couple of worthy goals. One benefit is that ergonomics becomes accessible to more people when it is simplified. A factory worker with a high school education can be fully involved in an ergonomics program if the ergonomic approach is practical. Lots of companies will tell you that the production people are their mainasset in improving their work processes. The creativity and first-hand experience that the production team brings to the table can be priceless. The second benefit of using a simpler ergonomic approach is that jobs are assessed in a time-efficient manner and conclusions are reached more quickly. Some technical articles on ergonomics stress analyses and hardly touch on practical changes. Theauthors seem to enjoy the compilation of objective data and crunching numbers into graphs and charts. However scientifically valid this
www.occupationalhazards.com

44 Occupational Hazards / August 2005

process might be, what the end users need are ways to improve tasks, not pages of numbers. The time required to analyze a task is tremendously shorter using simple “rules of thumb” such as thosedescribed in a recent article in OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS (“Applying Manual Material Handling Guidelines to Job Tasks,” November 2004). If the results are valid, it doesn’t matter whether the course of action used to reach the conclusions happened to be time-consuming or short and sweet.

If your employees are going to participate in improving ergonomics, they will need to consider implementationcosts.
management should develop and monitor some leading-indicator metrics for ergonomic process performance. (This is a subject in itself, so there isn’t space to cover it in this article.) 3. Establishing simple, usable inhouse ergonomic standards for new and re-installed processes and equipment to prevent needless redesign. Redesign and alteration of existing processes is a form of waste, sothe long-term goal should be to reach a point where it will never be necessary to re-invent anything. Our standards should consider the full range of weights, shapes and sizes of our work force. Coincidentally, these elements mesh very well with the philosophies of 5-S, Lean, Kaizen, etc. In practice, the line where ergonomics ends and these processes begin is a little blurry, but when we considerthat everyone in an organization should contribute to improving performance in important operating parameters, it is unnecessary to make the distinction. The important point is to integrate ergonomic thinking into daily activities in a practical, cost-effective way. If it benefits our Lean efforts, that’s a bonus. nies. Very few companies can afford to throw money at their problems. Most...