http://pro.sagepub.com/Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

Proceedings of the Human Factors and

http://pro.sagepub.com/content/45/14/1101The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/154193120104501424

2001 45: 1101Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingWilliam L. Mergen, Jr.

Ergonomics Process Consulting - Lessons Learned at a Large Midwest Manufacturer  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

can be found at:Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingAdditional services and information for    

  http://pro.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://pro.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://pro.sagepub.com/content/45/14/1101.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Oct 1, 2001Version of Record >>

at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 45th ANNUAL MEETING- 2001

ERGONOMICS PROCESS CONSULTING-LESSONS LEARNED AT A LARGE MIDWEST MANUFACTURER

William L. Mergen Jr. CPETravelers InsuranceNaperville, Illinois

An ergonomics process was created at a large Midwest manufacturing plantthat included a unique combination of known best practices for ergonomicsprograms, behavior-based safety principles, and post-injury managementprinciples. A four-phase consulting process (Discovery, Design, System Up,and System Check) was used to assist the client in tailoring a process to itsculture. The process resulted in the formation of six teams, the creation of asteering committee, and the development of a document that describes allaspects of the process. The client's loss frequency rate was reduced by 16%and loss cost rate was reduced by 43% during the first year. Several "lessonslearned" were noted during this project. These include job evaluation toolsfor supervisors need to be very simple and brief, ergonomics processes mayreduce losses sooner than expected, all Cumulative Trauma Disorder (CTD)injuries should be investigated using the referral process created, commontracking forms should have been developed during Design, and jobimprovement follow-up needed better tracking.

INTRODUCTION period of about 18 months. The four-phaseconsulting process includes Discovery, Design,

An ergonomics process was created at a System Up, and System Check.large (1200 employees, non-union) Midwest Discovery. The consulting process startsmanufacturing plant that included a unique with Discovery. About ten per cent of the workcombination of known best practices for force including hourly associates, supervisors,ergonomics programs, behavior-based safety managers, and skilled trades personnel isprinciples, and post-injury management principles, interviewed and appropriate documents are

The elements considered for the ergonomics reviewed. This step is used to establish a baselineprocess included" Management Commitment; set of data, develop trust with the client, and beginEmployee Involvement; Worksite Analysis; Hazard to present concepts to the plant to assess its level ofPrevention and Control; Training and Education; interest in change.Written Program; and Program Review and Design. A document that describes theImprovement (OSHA, 1993). The Medical process was tailored to this client using a designManagement element of a traditional ergonomics team composed of managers, supervisors, andprocess was included by using post-injury employees from the client location.management "best practices" from multiple sources . System Up. The tailored process waswithin the insurance industry. The behavior-based delivered to the plant during the System Up phasesafety elements of this project were considered a through a series of meetings, training sessions, andseparate project component and are not addressed in printed communications. The type of informationthispaper, andthemethodusedtopresentthe informationwas

varied based on the interaction of the audience with

The Consulting Process the ergonomics process.System Check. Initially, telephonic support

This process was developed using the is provided duringthe System Check phase as theTravelers four-phase consulting approach over a plant takes ownership of the process. Several team

1101

at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 45th ANNUAL MEETING- 2001

meetings were observed to ensure each team 1997 1998 1999understoodits roleandwasaddressingthemost Cases 40 39 20critical issues in a timely manner. Aiter several Back Lost 13 102 27months of letting the process mature, an audit was Rest. 316 302 178performed to verify that all elements of the designed Cases 20 17 12process were being fully implemented. A fewopportunitiesfor improvementinprocess Shoulder Lost 0 46 0implementation were identified in this audit and the Rest 458 360 176SteeringCommitteewas chargedwithtaking Cases 13 4 16corrective action. Arm Lost 53 7 37

The client now uses the process developed Rest 260 154 219to address all safety issues, including ergonomics Cases 32 15 14problems. Hand Lost 197 77 0

THESIS Rest 506 212 85

Table 1. CTD Loss Trend by Body Part.This paper will discuss a few of the key Number of cases that are likely related to CTD risk

elements incorporated into this plant's ergonomics factors from the OSHA 200 Log, number of lostprocess and the impact of implementing that days, and number of restricted days.process. "Lessons learned" will also be presented.

FINDINGSSOURCES OF INFORMATION

The consulting process used and theThe main sources used to develop the ergonomics process developed for this client

ergonomics process portion of the project material included the following aspects that may be ofinclude interesttootherergonomists:

• OSHA Ergonomics Program of 1. A steering team of senior managers was createdNovember 2000 (overturned March at the start of the project to help support the2001) design and implementation of the entire process.

• Washington State Ergonomics Rule The initial role of this group was to identify anyobstacles to the successful implementation of

• NIOSH Elements of Ergonomics the process. The group took or directed actionsPrograms neededto eliminatethe obstaclepriorto theend

• OSHA Ergonomics Program &the Design stage of the consulting process.Management for Meatpacking Plants This group evolved into a standing committee

aider Design was complete and continues toLoss information was gathered from the meet and coordinate all activities related to the

client's OSHA 200 log (see Table 1) and our ergonomics process. The new role of theworkers compensation claim database. This data steering team is focused on giving long rangewas further broken down into trends by department . direction to the individual department teams andso that the teams could be guided to the most evaluating the effectiveness of the overallcritical issues early in the System Up phase of theproject. The client also prepared an overhead view process.map of the facility for each of the same years 2. A set of ergonomie design standards developedshowing the location of the workstation associated from multiple sources (e.g., OSHA, 1993;with each CTD injury. The color code of the "dot" NIOSH, 1997; Human Factors Society, 1988;used indicated the body part affected. Rodgers & Eggleton, 1983;Rodgers, 1986;

Chrysler Corporation, 1998; NavistarInternational; Corlett & Clark, 1995; and

1102

at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 45th ANNUAL MEETING- 2001

NIOSH, 1986) was presented to the client to be layout. Each tool was tested by the Designused in the design of future workstations. This Team to ensure it was comfortable with usingstandardwas tailored to thi'splant and its the tool.

operations by a group of senior engineering 7. A referral form is used to bring an issue into themanagers from the plant during two Design ergonomics process. The form encouragessessions. This tailored ergonomic design associates to present ideas and includes roomstandard was then adopted by the engineering for the impact of the problem on productivity,group to support the plant's ergonomics effort quality and morale. The use of this form is theby ensuring that all future workstations would heart of the process.be designed using known ergonomic standards.Training on basic ergonomics, workstation 8. The plant was already using Kaizen events as aevaluation, the ergonomic design standard, and method to improve jobs. This process wasthe use of anthropometric tables was provided to modified to better coordinate with theall engineers that have an impact on workstation ergonomics process developed. The keydesignor work methods, elementwas to includebasicergonomics

training during Kaizen training to minimize the3. Then, a Design Team was selected to develop chance that a Kaizen event would create a new

and define the ergonomics process to be used in ergonomics problemtheplant.Theteamstartedwithmaterialprovided by Travelers Insurance and tailored the 9. Loss information report formats were developedsections to the culture of their facility during a to present the data in a way that allows resourceseries of five meetings held every two weeks, allocation from the Steering Committee.

The team included managers, supervisors, 10. A behavior observation process was integratedhourly associates, and the safety manager, into this plan. This element was implemented

4. A "pocket guide" was created for supervisors during a second phase of System Up. Theand a "trifold brochure" was created for details of this process are beyond the scope ofassociates to help communicate the process this paper.

elements and various roles and responsibilities 11. An audit of the process was performed byto the entire plant. These tools were created Travelers Insurance a_er the system had been induring the Design process and included place for about nine months. The purpose of theappropriate photographs from the plant. This audit was to verify through direct observationinformation also included basic ergonomics that the plant was implementing the process asprinciples, intendedandthattheprocesswashavingthe

5. Six "Safety Resource Teams" were selected by desired impact.management and trained during the System Upphase of the project. They serve the principle DISCUSSIONareas of the plant and include a team made upentirely of at_emoon and night shift associates. The following "Lessons Learned" areHourly associates were carefully selected by presented:

management to be the key leaders on the six .1. The job evaluation tools designed were not usedteams. The leadership and commitment by some teams and were used only once ordemonstrated by those associates running the twice by other teams. The teams indicated theyteams turned out to be one of the key element felt the tools were too complicated even thoughfor successofeachteam. theyagreedto the format duringthe Design

6. Workstations are currently evaluated with process. For most issues, the team used only anformal job evaluation tools. These tools were issue tracking form to document their jobcreated during the Design process and improvement efforts. A single page "issueincorporate basic ergonomic principles in a brief investigation form" to be used on all ergonomic

1103

at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 45th ANNUAL MEETING- 2001

issues may have been a better approach. The Figure 1. Accident Frequency Trend. Claimmore complicated issues would then be Rate is the number of workers compensation claimsevaluated using the complete tool as needed, per 200,000 hours worked.

2. Loss frequency and severity were reducedsooner than anticipated (see Figures 1 and 2). It 20 - 18.93 17.99

is suspected that the associates changed their 18 - 14.88attitude toward management during the 16 -14-implementation of this process. Associatesinterviewed informally just after System Up Claim 12

indicated they were happy to have a process to Rate 1086-

addresstheir concerns. It is possiblethat this 4translated into a reduced number of 2"harassment"claims.Thiseffectwouldbe 0 , , ,offset by the traditional finding that accident 1998 1999 2000frequencytendsto rise after the implementationof anergonomicsprocessdueto increased

awareness and the promotion of early reporting Figure 2. Accident Severity Trend. Loss Costof Cumulative Trauma Disorder (CTD) Rate is the cost of workers compensation claims persymptoms. 200,000hoursworked.Allclaimswerevaluedas

3. The referral process was not required to be used of March 31 of the year after the year of injury.

for all CTD injuries. This resulted in a reduced $58,578number of referrals and reduced impact of the $60,000-

process. The referral process should have been $50,000-a required element of all CTD accident $42,302

investigations. Future Design Teams should not $4o,ooo - -_" $33,581be given the opportunity to remove this element Loss Cost !from the process. Rate $3O,OOO-

$20,000 - i !4. TheSteeringCommitteewasa littleunsureof !

its role initially. The process documents should $10,000 - ilI !have included guidance such as meeting agenda, $0 , ! , ,goal setting requirements, and team 1998 1999 2000effectivenessevaluations.

5. Each team used a slightly different form to trackthe issues they were addressing. This caused REFERENCESconfusion at the team coordination level andmade it more difficult for teams to learn from Chrysler Corporation (1998). Do's & Don 'ts,each other's work. A standard tracking form Safety Considerations for Processshould have been agreed to during Design. This Engineering, (Section 15).also would make review of issues much easier.

E.N. Corlett & T.S. Clark. (1995). The6. There were many cases where improvements Ergonomics of Workspaces and Machines, A

were made, however, they were never checked Design Manual. Taylor & Francis: Bristolto be sure they addressed the issue effectively PA.and didn't cause some other problem. The

referral form needed to include a formal follow- GAO (1997). WORKER PROTECTION: Privateup element to force this issue. The tracking Sector Ergonomics Programs Yield Positiveform needs to provide for this action as well. Results. (GAO/HEHS #97-163). General

Accounting Office: Washington, DC.

1104

at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 45th ANNUAL MEETING- 2001

Human Factors Society (1988). American National OSHA (2000). Ergonomics Program; Final Rule.Standard for Human Factors Engineering of (as published in Federal Register, Vol. 65,Visual Display Terminal Workstations. No. 220 and now overturned). (29 CFR Part(ANSI/HFS Standard Number 100-1988). 1910). Occupational Safety and HealthHuman Factors Society, Inc." Santa Monica, Administration: Washington, DC.CA.

Rodgers, S.H. & Eggleton, E.M. (Eds.), (1983).Navistar International. Ergonomics Guidelines for Ergonomic Design for People at Work,

Proper Engineering. Volume 1. John Wiley & Sons, Inc." NY.

NIOSH (1986). Occupational Exposure to Hot Rodgers, S.H. 0Ed.), (1986). Ergonomic Design forEnvironments. (NIOSH #86-113). National People at Work, Volume 2. John Wiley &Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Sons, Inc.: NY.Washington, DC.

Washington State (2000). Ergonomics. (WACNIOSH (1997). Elements of Ergonomics Programs. 296-62-051). Department of Labor and

(NIOSH #97-117). National Institute for Industries.Occupational Safety and Health: Cincinnati,OH.

OSHA (1993). Ergonomics Program ManagementFor Meatpacking Plants. (OSHA #3123).Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration" Washington, DC.

1105

at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 14, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from