Valerie J. Berg Rice
WHEN SHOULD A PRACTITIONER USE A MICROERGONOMIC APPROACH?
A microergonomic approach is appropriate when the identifi ed problem is limited in scope. An example would be conducting an evaluation and
fi nding a solution for a single individual with a history of back pain and/or back surgery who could benefi t from a supportive chair and a better workstation design. Another example would be if a rash of injuries occurred after the introduction of a new process or tool. If that tool or process is undoubtedly the culprit, then large-scale evalua-tions and intervenevalua-tions are unwarranted. Basi-cally, a microergonomic approach is best when there is no indication that a larger scale approach will yield greater results.
Limitations in resources can also dictate a microergonomic approach. A macroergonomic ap-proach is impossible without suffi cient funds, per-sonnel, time, or interest on the part of the client.
Sometimes, when resources are limited, a linear, stepwise approach can be used for problem solving, prioritizing those issues that are most important and implementing solutions as resources become available. An alternative would be to investigate with a macro approach but to imple-ment changes or interventions in a linear, one-at-a-time fashion. A third option with low-level funding is to make changes but incur the charges over time.
Many ergonomists move from micro to macro approaches, using the “low-hanging fruit”—that is, quick achievement of lesser goals—to fuel their future work to make bigger, lasting changes. This technique works well in situations where costs and benefi ts of ergonomics are relatively unknown, or held suspect, by managers. As managers see improvements and cost savings, they are more willing to invest in additional ventures to improve conditions.
CONCLUSION
Therapists are unlikely to perform MEAD unless they obtain substantial additional training, such as attending a degree program or a series of college courses. These are not skills that can be gained in a short course. However, therapists can play a signifi cant role in helping individuals and manag-ers see the value of ergonomics through micro-ergonomic applications. Subsequently they can suggest a supplementation of their efforts, and a
Ch003-A04853.indd 44
Ch003-A04853.indd 44 6/8/2007 3:02:58 PM6/8/2007 3:02:58 PM
team approach, in order to attain large-scale, long-lasting organizational changes through macro-ergonomics. Having an understanding of the power of system-wide evaluations and interven-tions can help therapists explain why certain levels of achievement may, or may not, be met using a specifi c technique or technology.
Based on the case study provided in this chapter, what actions might an ergonomic team take during the initial evaluation phase of a macroergonomic project? What actions did the ergonomic team evaluating musculoskeletal inju-ries take? Which principles of macroergonomics did the ergonomic team evaluating musculo-skeletal injuries seem to consider? How would you have done things differently? What evidence-based outcome measures did the ergonomics team use? What other measures do you assume they used (but that may not be mentioned in this chapter)?
Multiple Choice Review Questions 1. Macroergonomics is:
A. fi tting a task to the individuals who do the task.
B. designing physical items so they fi t the person using them and can be used by other employees also.
C. fi tting the organization to the people in the organization.
D. harmonizing the operation of an organization by designing or redesigning any and all parts of the organization.
quantify the answers (or identify existing surveys you could use).
4. Discuss the evidenced-based outcome measures that might be of interest to the students, staff, department head, and college president. Consider the ethics of such a question. Which interests are more important? Which one is your “client”?
5. What other colleagues might you want on your team, and how do you think they contribute to the project?
6. Imagine you fi nd other issues outside the realm of musculoskeletal injuries. One involves an instructor with partial blindness who does not seem to have the appropriate tools and assistance to do the best job possible. How would you handle that situation, being that you were hired for a different purpose? Role-play talking with this instructor. Role-play talking with the department head about the issue.
Learning Exercises
Although the occupational therapy department in your educational institution is a microcosm of the overall university, it is a good place to start think-ing about the use of a macroergonomic approach.
Imagine you are a consultant and your job is to evaluate the department regarding overuse inju-ries for both students and staff. The following are some questions and exercises to help you think about the issues.
1. List all the systems that might affect musculoskeletal injuries among students and staff.
2. List all the issues that might also affect musculoskeletal injuries among students and staff.
3. Identify information you would like to have from students, staff, and the college or university.
a. Develop structured interviews for each group.
b. Develop survey questions for both students and staff for which you can
Ch003-A04853.indd 45
Ch003-A04853.indd 45 6/8/2007 3:02:58 PM6/8/2007 3:02:58 PM
2. A macroergonomic project may involve which of the following evaluations?
(Select all that apply.) A. Work fl ow
B. Decision points
C. Periods of high-volume or high-stress work
D. Mission and goals of the organization E. Functional work capacities of the
workers
3. Differentiation, when speaking of macroergonomics, refers to:
A. the integration of the organization.
B. the degree of standardization in the organization.
C. the segmentation of the organization.
D. the centralization of the organization.
4. Participatory ergonomics refers to:
A. involving the members of the work force in the ergonomic evaluation and solution process.
B. the communication and integration among the ergonomic team members.
C. the interactions among the workers that may affect ergonomics in the workplace.
D. considering the hierarchy and
communication systems as part of the ergonomic evaluation process.
5. A macroergonomic evaluation process looking at musculoskeletal injuries in the workplace would include:
A. identifying the gaps between what currently exists within an organization and the best practices within the research literature.
B. evaluating all systems that affect the workforce.
C. evaluating hiring, fi ring, and prehire practices.
D. evaluating the workforce population, including demographics such as gender and race.
E. all of the above
6. Evidenced-based outcomes, when considering macroergonomics, include which of the following? (Select the best single answer.)
A. Consideration of the basic mission of the organization
B. The individual characteristics of the employees (such as strength and endurance)
C. Alignment with traditional clinic-based outcomes in occupational therapy practices, such as functional lifting and carrying abilities of workers D. Are not important; we cannot measure
everything anyway
7. Research, data collection, and data comparison after a design intervention are part of the ergonomic process.
A. True B. False
8. Which of the following should drive design decisions within an organization?
(Select the single best answer.) A. Interview results
B. The top decision maker for the organization
C. Ergonomic assessments results D. Subject matter expert opinions E. Open-literature research results 9. Principles that apply to using
macroergonomics to achieve large-scale and lasting changes (LSLC) within an organization include which of the following? (Select all that apply.) A. Dictated changes can result in LSLC,
while attitudes and beliefs change.
B. LSLC is more likely when workers of all levels help identify the problems and solutions (participatory
ergonomics).
C. Typically the culture and values of an organization, although important, do not affect issues of an ergonomic nature, such as musculoskeletal injuries.
Ch003-A04853.indd 46
Ch003-A04853.indd 46 6/8/2007 3:02:58 PM6/8/2007 3:02:58 PM
D. If workers of all levels understand and agree with the need for change, LSLC is more likely.
10. A macroergonomic approach is used when which of the following are true?
(Select all that apply.)
A. The ergonomic consultant is an academic researcher.
B. The complexity of the situation demands that a larger scale evaluation and set of solutions be developed.
C. The ergonomic consultant wants a long, involved project, so they will have a greater income for a longer period of time.
D. A company wants long-term, lasting organizational change.
E. When there are suffi cient subject matter experts available to put together a good, strong ergonomic team approach.
REFERENCES
1. Hendrick H, Kleiner B: Macroergonomics: an intro-duction to work system design, Santa Monica, Calif, 2000, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
2. Kaplan RS, Norton DP: Alignment: using the balanced scorecard to create corporate synergies, Cambridge, 2006, Harvard Business School Press.
3. Kaplan RS, Norton DP: Translating strategy into action: the balanced scorecard, Cambridge, 1996, Harvard Business School Press.
4. Kleiner BM: Macroergonomics: analysis and design of work systems, Appl Ergon 37:81, 2006.
5. Rice VJ, Bergeron A, Connolly V et al: A macroer-gonomic and public health approach to injury control, San Antonio, 2002, presented to the Asso-ciation of the United States Army.
6. Rice VJ, Gable C: A combined macroergonomics &
public health approach to injury prevention: two years later. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 46th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, Calif, 2004, Human Factors Society.
7. Rice VJ, Mays MZ: Combining models to solve the problem: macroergonomics and public health. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 46th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, Calif, 2002, Human Factors Society.
8. Rice VJ, Pekarek D, Connolly V et al: Participatory ergonomics: determining injury control “buy-in” of U.S. Army cadre, Work 18(2):191, 2002.
9. Rice VJB, Connolly V, Bergeron A et al: Evaluation of a progressive unit-based running program during advanced individual training, Technical Report No.
Aegis T02-1, Fort Sam Houston, Tex, 2002, U.S.
Army Medical Department Center and School.
10. Robertson MM: Macroergonomics: a work system design perspective. In Proceedings of the SELF-ACE 2001 Conference—Ergonomics for Changing Work, Montreal, 2001.
SUGGESTED READING
Brown O: Participatory ergonomics: from participation research to high involvement ergonomics. In Brown O, Hendrick H, editors: Human factors in organiza-tional design and management, Amsterdam, 1996, North-Holland.
Dray SM, Eason K, Gower J, Henderson DA: Macroer-gonomics in organizations. In Brown ID, Goldsmith R, Coombes K, Sinclair MA, editors: Ergonomics International (Proceedings of the 9th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Bournemouth, England, September, 1985), Philadelphia, 1985, Taylor & Francis.
Haines H, Wilson JR, Vink P and others: Validating a framework for participatory ergonomics (the PEF), Ergonomics 45(4):309, 2002.
Heacox NJ, Holly AH: Separate sides of the same coin:
organizational design and (good) design of a deci-sion support tool. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting, Orlando, Fla, 2005.
Hendrick HW: Macroergonomics: a conceptual model for integrating human factors with organizational design. In Brown O, Hendrick H, editors: Human factors in organizational design and management, Amsterdam, 1996, North-Holland.
Hendrick HW: Organizational design and macroergo-nomics. In Salvendy G, editor: Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, New York, 1997, Wiley.
Ch003-A04853.indd 47
Ch003-A04853.indd 47 6/8/2007 3:02:58 PM6/8/2007 3:02:58 PM