Five Approaches to Managing Occupational Musculoskeletal Disorders

Walt Rostykus

While working and benchmarking with a wide variety of companies, I hear a range of interpretations of what constitutes an “ergonomics program.”  Unfortunately, the term is being used to describe a mix of approaches (in addition to ergonomics) to managing musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).

Several leading organizations are in the process of evaluating and changing their programs to simplify, improve focus and improve efficiencies in addressing and preventing MSDs. Currently, there are five general, but very different, approaches used to manage MSDs.  Companies use a few, some, or all of these to reduce losses resulting from these types of injuries.

1.     Change the Work and Workplace: This approach focuses on the design of new jobs, or changes to existing workstations, tools and equipment to better fit the population doing the work.  This is occupational ergonomics, which has been defined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as “The science of fitting workplace conditions and job demands to the capabilities of the working population.  Ergonomics is an approach or solution to deal with a number of problems – among them are work-related musculoskeletal disorders.”

The most effective workplace changes are engineering controls, which are adjustments and changes in the physical workplace to ensure that the reaches, forces and distances are within the acceptable limits of the workforce.  This means designing the workplace to fit people, from the fifth-percentile female to the ninety-fifth-percentile male, to prevent exposure to MSD risk factors for most workers.  Engineering controls have been proven to be effective and efficient through research and benchmarking studies.

A secondary level of control is administrative controls, or changes to the administration of work, like job rotation, rest breaks and slowed pace.  Unfortunately, administrative controls do not reduce or eliminate the presence of MSD risk factors; they just reduce the exposure time.  They can also create additional work and challenges for managers and supervisors as they shift people between work task assignments.

Both of these types of controls are best supported by ergonomists, engineers, and professionals qualified in ergonomics.

2.     Change the Capability of the Person: This approach is based on trying to change the capabilities, fitness and stamina of the individual doing the work.  This is an element of fitness and wellness programs, and includes stretching, exercise and conditioning.  The focus is on changing the individual employee and is dependent upon the willingness and participation of people, as well as their existing physical condition.

Although some organizations mandate stretching before and during work, many find it a challenge to get people to participate in stretching and wellness programs.  In addition, company-mandated stretching programs have not been proven to be effective in preventing MSDs.

Unfortunately, employers have limited influence on the personal health and wellness of their employees, and have no control over pre-existing conditions.  This approach is typically supported by fitness trainers/specialists, physical therapists and occupational therapists.

3.     Change how the Person Performs the Task: This approach is based on getting people to behave differently in hopes of reducing exposure to MSD risk factors.  This is behavioral modification, and may include behavior-based safety programs, training and awareness campaigns, and use of body mechanics.  This requires people to change their perceptions of work and risk, and change how they perform work (consistently throughout the day, week and their careers).

Even when behaviors do change, they rarely have a significant impact on preventing exposure to MSD risk factors.  Managers have expressed their frustrations on “getting people to use safe working practices.”  This approach is typically supported by behavioral safety professionals/programs, training and fitness trainers.

4.     Fit the Person to the Task:  In this approach, the focus is on the individual employee (or candidate), measuring their physical abilities (strength, reach, range of motion), and matching their individual capabilities to the demands of work tasks.  This is accomplished by conducting a Functional Job Analysis and Pre-Work Screening to match the results to Functional Job Descriptions.

It requires an investment in performing tests on each employee and the time to match them to the physical demands of a task.  This practice was in favor in the 1960’s through the early 1980’s but appears to be waning.  It is our experience that 15 to 30 percent of U.S. companies still practice this approach. Companies in which manual material handling and field tasks are common typically have these programs in place.

Physical therapists can provide valid test methods to help match the capabilities of an individual to the physical requirements of a task.

5.     Fix the Person: When people experience an MSD or sprain/strain injury, they must be diagnosed and treated, and then managed in their return to work.  This is medical management, a reactive program to reduce the losses due to injuries that have already occurred.  The need for good medical management is totally dependent on the exposure to MSD risk factors in the workplace and the effectiveness of the ergonomics, fitness and job placement programs in place.  A medical management program is best supported by health care providers (nurses and doctors) qualified in occupational health.

So, how does your organization manage MSDs?

What approach or approaches do you use?

What has worked for you and what hasn’t?

What changes have you made to improve management of MSDs?

Measuring Change (and what Frank Zappa would say about it)

Walt Rostykus

Early in my scuba diving days I learned a critical lesson about measuring progress. While diving in the dark, cold, and fast moving waters of the Pacific Northwest, I learned not to trust just what I saw, but also what was measured.

Watching the gauge for depth and compass for direction was essential for ensuring we were moving in the right direction and at the correct pace and depth to reach our objective. This practice of checking gauges (measures) and comparing the two points of (1) where you were and (2) where you are now, to verify progress and direction, has served me well on road trips, while hiking in the back country and in managing  environment, health and safety (EHS) processes.  Comparing metrics to verify improvement is a critical element of any environment or safety management system. But I am still amazed at how many organizations do not apply this practice to individual workplace improvements as part of their safety and ergonomics improvement process.

Milton Friedman, American Economist and Nobel Prize Winner, stated it clearly: “The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.” This simple act of comparing two points of data to validate change is a core element of EHS management system and continuous improvement process.

During Humantech’s recent benchmarking study of ergonomics program/process management, we explored if and how organizations verify the effectiveness of workplace changes and improvements. We found that:

• Only 59 percent conducted formal follow-up assessments (reassessments) using the same risk assessment tool used in the initial “ergonomic” assessment. Of these,
  • 80 percent used quantitative assessment methods, allowing them to compare “before” and “after” scores to verify that the improvement reduced the level of risk. These were predominately programs in the ‘proactive’ and ‘advanced’ levels of maturity.
  • 41 percent interview or survey employees as their only or a supplementary method. These were predominately programs in the ‘reactive’ level of maturity.
• 23 percent use a lagging or activity-based method.  These included tracking reduction of injury and reviewing project improvement records.
• 18 percent of participants do not conduct follow-up assessments.

The benchmarking study looked at the level of maturity and effectiveness of each ergonomics process and found that all of the highest performers included comparison of before and after metrics at both the program (strategic) level, and at the tactical (workplace improvement) level.

Frank Zappa summarized it well when he said, “Without deviation, progress is not possible.”

I’d appreciate hearing from you about your experience and methods for validating improvement of EHS and/or ergonomics programs and conditions.

• Do you compare before and after, or trust that change happens?
• Are you confident of the direction and magnitude of change?
• How do you measure change? By activity or results? With lagging or leading indicators?
• What challenges have you encountered?
• What best practices have you learned?

Walt Rostykus is a vice president and consultant with Humantech Inc., a consulting firm that combines the science of ergonomics with their unique 30-Inch View^® – where people, work, and environment intersect–to deliver practical solutions that impact safety, quality, and productivity.  When he is not travelling for work, Walt resides in New Mexico enjoying the great outdoors.

Sustaining a Safe Workplace through Design

Walt Rostykus

As safety practitioners, we know that engineering controls (elimination, isolation or substitution) are the first and preferred levels in the Hierarchy of Controls. By eliminating or reducing the exposure to a hazard through the design of a job or workstation, we establish a level of safety for all people working there. Engineering controls, also called Prevention through Design (PtD), also reduce the need for administrative (behavioral) controls and use of personal protective equipment. PtD is not a new concept, but is a recent initiative that is taking hold again.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is leading a national initiative to promote this concept and highlight its importance in all business decisions. The concept continues to focus on planning and design of new workstations and process through two steps:

1. Identifying hazards and
2. Designing out the hazards through engineering controls.

It sounds easy. But if it is, why do environment, health and safety (EHS) programs struggle to control hazards after the fact? Why do safety professionals and management still rely heavily on behavioral and administrative controls instead of engineering controls? In my experience and through Humantech benchmarking studies, we’ve identified the three key elements for successful PtD processes as “At the right time, by the people (in the right role), and with the right criteria.”

• Right time:  Prevention starts at the design phase when layout and tool design are concepts. This is where chemical, musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), and pinch-point hazards (to name a few) are easily identified by reviewing drawings and mock-ups. Changes made during the design phase to add capture ventilation, reduce reach distances, and add guarding cost 1/10 to 1/100 of what they would cost if made retroactively.

• Right people (role):  The person(s) who designs the workplace or tool or specifies equipment is the best person to find and fix unacceptable exposures. Typically, these people are in an engineering role (process, production, mechanical, facilities or new product design engineers). Benchmarking studies continue to show that a common characteristic of companies with effective ergonomic improvement processes is that engineers, not solely the safety staff, are responsible and accountable for low-hazard design of the workplace.
• Right criteria:  For engineers to be successful in designing jobs and workstations with low risk/hazard, they need the right tools. I am not referring to a shelf of engineering textbooks, but a limited and focused set of design guidelines, specific to that product or industry, that quickly provides the acceptable limits for design. Examples of ergonomic design guidelines include standing workstation height; reach distance; force limits for reaching, pulling or pressing; and viewing distance and placement. From this, engineers can quickly design the physical parameters of the workplace to fit the capability of the working population.

The concept of PtD sounds simple. And, in fact, it is simple. As simple as patching a leaky boat so you can paddle, not bail. Is PtD working in your organization?  Is it practiced at all levels of the organization, or does EHS have to be the cheerleader and driver of the process?  If success relies on EHS, what are the barriers you’ve encountered and how have you overcome them?

Ergonomic Success Requires Leadership

Walt Rostykus

Over the years, I’ve met environment, health and safety (EHS) managers who are convinced that by driving safety and ergonomics through a grassroots approach,  some day the initiative will catch on with supervisors, managers and company leaders as an infectious commitment.

“If you build it, he will come” may have worked for Ray Kinsella in the movie “Field of Dreams”, but let’s get real folks: This approach is a shot in the dark for quickly and effectively improving and sustaining safety and performance in the workplace.

Indeed, the key elements of leadership in maintaining an effective and sustainable ergonomic improvement process are no different than those of an EHS system, company culture, or any other aspect of a business. The bottom line is that leadership must occur from the top.

A wise person once noted, “What interests my manager motivates me.” This is the key to leading a safety and ergonomics process over time. Think about it: At work your priorities and activities are guided by how your manager tracks and measures your performance. It is our experience that when managers, engineers, supervisors and employees have a clear understanding of their involvement in the effort to improve workplace ergonomics (and they are held accountable to those expectations), effective workplace changes are made.

Yet leading an ergonomics process is not usually intuitive to many in top management roles. As an EHS manager, however, you are in a position to coach top management on the few things they need to do; simply put, they need to hold their direct reports accountable for ergonomics performance (see my prior blog on effective goals and metrics for ergonomics). The four most important things they can do to make sure this happens are:

• Set clear expectations (responsibilities, goals, roles, targets)
• Provide people with the resources, tools and training they need to meet their responsibilities
• Visibly and actively monitor and track progress
• Take action when expectations are not met

Fortunately this four-step approach is not foreign to managers and supervisors. They follow some form of these steps to complete work, build widgets and manage production. Leaders in safety should apply the same approach (accountability) to influence, guide and lead their organization to success. It’s all about planning, managing and following through.

Kurt, my climbing instructor from several decades ago, was a great illustration of how not to lead by example. His immortal words “Do as I say, not as I do” sent a mixed message. While he told us to wear the correct helmet and always climb while belayed, he climbed bare-headed and without a lifeline. He was technically knowledgeable, but clearly not a leader.

On the contrary, Dave Packard, Bill Hewlett and Bob Hall were true leaders, who set expectations for performance (including safety) and held people, including general managers, accountable for the quality and safety of their workplace.

Whether you base your company ergonomics program on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) models, the Safety Management System, lean manufacturing or continuous improvement, strong and visible leadership by people in top management is critical for ensuring that engineers design tools to fit the first time; employee teams  reduce exposure to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) risk factors before injuries occur; and that employees adjust their own work stations to best fit them.

If improving ergonomics is a priority for your organization, does your top management team lead by example? Have they set performance expectations, goals, and clear roles? Do they track performance?

If not, what have you done to best prepare them to lead?

What Makes Ergonomics “Green”?

Walt Rostykus

As a break from my planned series on the key strategic elements of successful ergonomics management systems, I want to share some insight from James Good, President of Humantech Inc., regarding ergonomics and LEED. Jim writes:

The ergonomic conditions of a building are neither as obvious nor as intuitive as safety and security.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) defines ergonomics as the science of fitting workplace conditions and job demands to the capabilities of the working population. Effective and successful “fits” increase productivity, reduce illness and injury risks, and increase worker satisfaction.

One assumes that, by definition, any program or initiative that reduces waste, increases productivity and reduces worker injury or illness—and does more with less—is inherently a conservation activity. But let’s dig a little deeper.

The main objectives of sustainable design are to avoid resource depletion of energy, water and raw materials (conservation); prevent environmental degradation caused by facilities and infrastructure throughout their life cycle; and create built environments that are livable, comfortable, safe and productive.

Protecting the health, safety and security of a building’s occupants has expanded beyond disease prevention and nuisance control. It now includes considerations for mental as well as physical health and productivity through the creation of places that exhilarate and delight as they exhibit the realization of human creative potential.

Healthy, comfortable employees are invariably more satisfied and productive. Unfortunately, this simple, compelling truth is often lost, for it is simpler to focus on the first-cost of a project than it is to determine the value of increased user productivity and health. Facilities should be constructed with a focus on providing high-quality interior environments for all users.

Over ten years ago, the U.S. General Services Association (the nation’s landlord) concluded in The Integrated Workplace: A Comprehensive Approach to Developing Workspace that “since people are the most important resource and greatest expense of any organization, the long-term cost benefits of a properly designed, user-friendly work environment should be factored into any initial cost considerations.”

With the launch of LEED® 2009, the U.S. Green Building Council recognized the value of workplace ergonomics as a proactive process. The Innovation in Design Process category provides for five possible points, of which one point can be obtained for good ergonomic design of existing or planned workspaces.

What constitutes good ergonomic design?  “A comprehensive ergonomics strategy that will have a positive impact on human health and comfort when performing daily activity for at least 75 percent of Full Time Equivalent building users.”

While environmental sustainability focuses on the impact of building design on the environment, ergonomics focuses on the impact of the building work environment on the occupant. Good ergonomic design is a critical element of building design; it can significantly hamper or greatly enhance the performance of occupants.

So, what is your choice?

How to find an “Ergo Meter”

Walt Rostykus

My previous blog illustrated the improved results achieved by ergonomic processes that focus is on reducing the risk factors which cause musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and non-value added motions.  In order to identify and measure these risk factors, you need a valid, quantifiable method for detecting and determining exposure to, in the case of MSDs, the causative risk factors of  awkward posture, high force,and time (long duration or high frequency).

Wouldn’t it be great to have a simple “Ergo Meter” that would quickly provide direct readout that a job task is within or outside the limits of what a person can perform safely?  (Where is Ron Popeil when we need him?)

Well, your wait is over.

Several qualitative and quantitative “ergonomic assessment tools” are available on the market today.  The trick is to pick a few, effective, and easy-to-use tools to use as your assessment tool kit.

Qualitative assessment tools use visual indicators to identify and record awkward postures and high forces performed in work tasks.  These simple checklists and memory cards are a quick way for supervisors and employee teams to screen the work area, and in many cases, find and fix obvious problems with a workstation setup.

Like many professionals, I suffer from ‘Industrial Hygienists Disease’: That is;  if I can’t measure it, I don’t know how bad or good the exposure is. This is where quantitative ergonomic risk assessment tools come into play.  Just like a noise dosimeter, these assessment tools combine the exposure to awkward posture and high force, with the duration or frequency of exposure, and compare them to the known limits of what the human body can tolerate without damage.

Unlike noise, which affects only one part of the body (the ears), quantitative ergonomic risk assessment tools have to account for the differences in body joints, i.e. wrist vs. elbow vs. shoulder vs. back, etc.   Some of these tools evaluate exposures to all joints of the body (e.g. Rapid Entire Body Assessment  and Baseline Risk Identification of Ergonomic Factors).  Others are specific for exposures to one part of the body (e.g. Rapid Upper Limb Assessment  and the NIOSH Lifting Equation).

When choosing the quantitative tools for your assessment tool kit, consider the following attributes:

1) Quality

• Validity: The assessment tool should include a limit value for force and frequency and excessive ranges for posture.  To assure validity, look for limits based on at least two independent research studies reported by two independent refereed journals.
• Differentiation: The tool should be able to differentiate exposures between different job tasks and within a job task.
• Reliability: This is the ability to obtain similar results at different times, all other factors being equal.  This is dependent to some degree on the person using the tool for follow the correct rules for use, and within the limitation of use.
• Reproducibility: Refers to the ability of different assessors to obtain similar results independently, all other factors being equal.

2) Application:

Know the scope and limitations of assessment tool.  Not all risk assessment tools measure exposures on all parts of the body. There are limitations for the applicability of all tools.

3) Quantitative Results:

The tool should provide a valid numerical score measuring exposure to risk factors relative to a threshold or limits for humans.  This provides a reference point to determine if the exposure is above or within the capabilities of the human body.

4) Ease of Use

In the workplace, as opposed to a research application, the ergonomic risk assessment tool should be easy to use, identify risk factors and root causes, and determine the level of exposure quickly.  The method should not be invasive, interrupt or negatively affect the person being assessed.  So portability and ease of use are critical.

In Humantech’s recent benchmarking study with companies with effective ergonomic processes, we found that:

• 85% of participants used a qualitative tool to screen the workplace for ergonomic issues
  • Most used an observation-based tool for office and computer self assessments.  This enables individuals to complete self-assessments and make adjustments at their own office workstation, reducing the need for assessments by an “expert”.
• 92% of participants used quantitative tools ( tool set of 2-3) to measure the actual exposure to MSD risk factors.
  • 69% specified the tool(s) to ensure consistency in reporting and communication, and to simplify training.
  • 77% – used employee teams (e.g., Ergonomics Team, Safety Team, ad hoc team) to conduct assessments at non-office job tasks.
  • 77% of participants use the risk assessment score to prioritize jobs/tasks to identify and select jobs for improvement.

So where does your organization stand with management of ergonomics?

• Are you using subjective or objective methods for assessments?
• Do you use an “ergonomic dosimeter” to quantify the exposure to MSD risk factors?
• Are your current risk assessment tools valid?  Do you trust the assessment findings?
• Are your tools getting you results, or just keeping assessors busy?

Lord Kelvin and Yogi Berra on managing ergonomics

Walt Rostykus

As a manager of  environment, health and safety (EHS) programs, you’ve heard the adage, “What gets measured gets done,” a quote often attributed to Deming, Lord Kelvin and others.  The adage and practice is true, but the right goals are not always set nor the right metrics measured.  We’ve found this especially true with the management of occupational ergonomics.

Setting the right goal and metrics are essential for an effective, sustainable ergonomics process.  The traditional goal is to “reduce ergonomic injuries” by measuring incidence rates of ergonomic/MSD (musculoskeletal disorder) injuries.  I call this ‘traditional’ because it has been used by most safety managers and companies since the early 1980’s.

Unfortunately, both the goal and metric are lagging measures of consequences (injury).  They do not allow organizations to take action to prevent the loss.  Yogi Berra was right when he said, “If you don’t know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.”

In a recent benchmarking study of ergonomic program management we found that:

• 54% of participating companies still used injury incidence or lost workday case rate (of MSDs, sprains and strains) as their primary goal and measure for workplace ergonomics (a lagging measure of consequence).
• 15% had no specific measures for ergonomics.  Instead they considered it part of the total injury/illness rate.
• 31% tracked the level of exposure to MSD risk factors (a leading measure of cause).

The benchmarking study also showed that organizations successful in managing occupational ergonomics set a common goal of reducing MSD risk factors to the lowest level possible.  This aligns everyone toward “True North”, a common goal with a leading, proactive measure.  The measure is dependent on being able to quantify the level of exposure to the risk factors that cause MSDs: awkward posture, high force and time (long duration or high frequency).

Quantitative tools for ergonomic risk factors provide measures at two levels: They identify the amount of exposure at an individual task or workstation, and they track the progress of improvement across an organization.  Additionally, they eliminate the need for and use of subjective assessments, providing valid and objective determination of what is an ergonomic hazard, and what is not.

Use of these quantitative risk assessments provide a measure of MSD risk and allows these measures to be fed up through an organization.  With this information you can track risk exposures at the workstation, department, value stream, plant and company-wide levels. This can be a lot of data and create an administrative nightmare just to collate and report the results.

Successful organizations use a common database to collect and report assessments, improvements, follow up assessments and report the measures plant wide and company-wide.  On-line solutions provide a comprehensive database to manage the administrative task needed to document your ergonomics program.

So where does your organization stand with management of ergonomics? Are you focused on measuring cause or consequences? Do your goal and measures support a reactive or proactive approach? How confident are you in your current approach to achieve the results your executive leaders expect?

To discuss more ways to improve  your ergonomic tracking, join NAEM for the 2011 EHS MIS conference, March 2-3 in San Antonio.

Engineering ergonomics

Most safety professionals believe that occupational ergonomics is a safety discipline because organizations have traditionally looked to them to address “ergonomic issues.”  Many safety professionals, however, have limited or no formal education or experience in ergonomics, so they are uncomfortable managing something they don’t know.   I pose to you a different paradigm — that occupational ergonomics is an engineering discipline.

A current trend is to hold engineers and operations accountable for the quality of the workplace and tools they put in place.  One element of measuring quality is how well the workplace fits people, the lack of MSD risk factors and the efficiency of the process (i.e. Lean).

In a recent benchmarking study of 13 companies with effective ergonomic processes, we found that:

• 31 percent  measure the level of MSD risks and the reduction in risk level as a result of workplace change (This is a leading measure of results.)
• 62 percent utilize engineering or operations people (not safety) to lead their ergonomics process
• 46 percent hold engineers responsibile for making workplace improvements in exisiting workplaces and process to reduce MSD risks (i.e. engineering controls)
  • 77 percent provide engineers with Ergonomic Design Criteria to assist with engineering controls
  • 77 percent of participants created a new equipment review process for ergonomics.  Typically this is tied to the existing Phase Gate Review or New Equipment Review Process.
  • 54 percent hold engineering responsible for MSD risk factors

These are indicators of a paradigm shift of how companies manage workplace ergonomics. But the transition still has its challenges:

• Transitioning from safety to engineering is not easy.  Two of the benchmarking companies stated they are struggling to get engineering to take on a “new responsibility.”

• 85 percent of participants indicate the new equipment review and approval process need to be improved.  Reasons include:
  • It is not formal
  • Not always used by engineers
  • Not effective
  • Not followed
  • Engineers are not held accountable

So where does your organization stand?

• Who is ultimately accountable for ensuring your workplace and tools are designed to best fit people and reduce exposure to MSD risk factors?
• Is it working?  How do you know?
• Are you best leveraging your engineering resources?
• If you could change your current approach to managing workplace ergonomics, what would you do?

We look forward to hearing from NAEM members on what works for them.

Taking a systems approach to ergonomics

Walt Rostykus

Historically, the responsibility for managing and improving ergonomics in the workplace lies with the Safety Department.  Over the next several blog posts, I’ll question and test this and other paradigms about occupational ergonomics.   Why?  Because the application of ergonomic  principles not only benefits  safety, but can also improve productivity and quality.  When applied and managed effectively, ergonomics can help you  (the EHS manager) demonstrate value and affect the bottom line of your organization.

Google the word “ergonomics” and you’ll find a wide (and liberal) use of the term.  It’s used to promote stretching and exercise (i.e. wellness);  to sell office chairs, cars, hand tools and dog dishes;  and to describe various types of injuries.  The best definition I’ve found for Occupational Ergonomics is the following one by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health:

“The science of fitting workplace conditions and job demands to the capabilities of the working population.  Ergonomics is an approach or solution to deal with a number of problems – among them are work-related musculoskeletal disorders.”

 

I have observed that the greatest challenge organizations have with “doing ergonomics” is maintaining focus and ownership, and sustaining the application over time.  In other words, the system they use to manage the application of ergonomics in day-to-day operations.  W. Edwards Demming  once said, “If you can’t describe what you are doing as a process, you don’t know what you are doing.”

Managing ergonomics as a process is not a foreign concept.  Quality is typically managed as a continuous improvement process following the Shewart Cycle of Plan-Do-Check-Act or PDCA.  (Note that Demming used the Shewart Cycle as a foundation of his work).   Environmental Management Systems (ISO 14001) and Safety Management Systems (OHSAS 18001, ANSI Z10) are modeled after the PDCA model.  OSHA VPP is not a process, but does state that a system needs to be in place to manage safety.

I challenge you to map out your workplace ergonomics not as a program (the traditional approach) but as a process, based on continuous improvement: Take a blank sheet of paper and draw a “Start” box at the top and an “End” box at the bottom.  Now map out the steps, decisions, documents and tools you need to get there.  Is it complete?  Are there some holes?  Is it really a process?

In a recent benchmarking study we conducted with 13 leading companies, we found that all had aligned their ergonomic program elements with a continuous improvement process that was familiar to the organization.  A recorded summary of the benchmarking study is available on line (Click here).

• How do you manage ergonomics?  As a program, a process, or other means?
• Does it work?  Are you getting the results you need?  Is it a sustainable process/program, or require repeated efforts to revive?

I am interested in hearing your experience and lessons on this.

Walt Rostykus is a vice president and consultant with Humantech Inc., a consulting firm that combines the science of ergonomics with their unique 30-Inch View^® – where people, work, and environment intersect–to deliver practical solutions that impact safety, quality, and productivity.  When he is not travelling for work, Walt resides in New Mexico enjoying the great outdoors.