Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 491

Pedro Arezes Editor

Advances in Safety Management and Human FactorsProceedings of the AHFE 2016International Conference on SafetyManagement and Human Factors,July 27–31, 2016, Walt Disney World®,Florida, USA

Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing

Volume 491

Series editor

Janusz Kacprzyk, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Polande-mail: kacprzyk@ibspan.waw.pl

About this Series

The series “Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing” contains publications on theory,applications, and design methods of Intelligent Systems and Intelligent Computing. Virtuallyall disciplines such as engineering, natural sciences, computer and information science, ICT,economics, business, e-commerce, environment, healthcare, life science are covered. The listof topics spans all the areas of modern intelligent systems and computing.

The publications within “Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing” are primarilytextbooks and proceedings of important conferences, symposia and congresses. They coversignificant recent developments in the field, both of a foundational and applicable character.An important characteristic feature of the series is the short publication time and world-widedistribution. This permits a rapid and broad dissemination of research results.

Advisory Board

Chairman

Nikhil R. Pal, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, Indiae-mail: nikhil@isical.ac.in

Members

Rafael Bello, Universidad Central “Marta Abreu” de Las Villas, Santa Clara, Cubae-mail: rbellop@uclv.edu.cu

Emilio S. Corchado, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spaine-mail: escorchado@usal.es

Hani Hagras, University of Essex, Colchester, UKe-mail: hani@essex.ac.uk

László T. Kóczy, Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungarye-mail: koczy@sze.hu

Vladik Kreinovich, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, USAe-mail: vladik@utep.edu

Chin-Teng Lin, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwane-mail: ctlin@mail.nctu.edu.tw

Jie Lu, University of Technology, Sydney, Australiae-mail: Jie.Lu@uts.edu.au

Patricia Melin, Tijuana Institute of Technology, Tijuana, Mexicoe-mail: epmelin@hafsamx.org

Nadia Nedjah, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazile-mail: nadia@eng.uerj.br

Ngoc Thanh Nguyen, Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw, Polande-mail: Ngoc-Thanh.Nguyen@pwr.edu.pl

Jun Wang, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Konge-mail: jwang@mae.cuhk.edu.hk

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11156

Pedro ArezesEditor

Advances in SafetyManagement and HumanFactorsProceedings of the AHFE 2016 InternationalConference on Safety Managementand Human Factors, July 27–31, 2016,Walt Disney World®, Florida, USA

123

EditorPedro ArezesUniversity of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal

ISSN 2194-5357 ISSN 2194-5365 (electronic)Advances in Intelligent Systems and ComputingISBN 978-3-319-41928-2 ISBN 978-3-319-41929-9 (eBook)DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41929-9

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016943957

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or partof the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmissionor information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodology now known or hereafter developed.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt fromthe relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in thisbook are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor theauthors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein orfor any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer NatureThe registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland

Advances in Human Factorsand Ergonomics 2016

AHFE 2016 Series Editors

Tareq Z. Ahram, Florida, USAWaldemar Karwowski, Florida, USA

7th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics

Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International Conference on Safety Managementand Human Factors, July 27–31, 2016, Walt Disney World®, Florida, USA

Advances in Cross-Cultural Decision Making Sae Schatz and Mark Hoffman

Advances in Applied Digital Human Modelingand Simulation

Vincent G. Duffy

Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics inHealthcare

Vincent G. Duffy and Nancy Lightner

Advances in Affective and Pleasurable Design WonJoon Chung and Cliff(Sungsoo) Shin

Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation Neville A. Stanton, Steven Landry, GiuseppeDi Bucchianico and Andrea Vallicelli

Advances in Ergonomics In Design Francisco Rebelo and Marcelo Soares

Advances in Ergonomics Modeling, Usability &Special Populations

Marcelo Soares, Christianne Falcão andTareq Z. Ahram

Advances in Social & Occupational Ergonomics Richard Goossens

Advances in Neuroergonomics and CognitiveEngineering

Kelly S. Hale and Kay M. Stanney

Advances in Physical Ergonomics and HumanFactors

Ravindra Goonetilleke and WaldemarKarwowski

Advances in The Ergonomics in Manufacturing:Managing the Enterprise of the Future

Christopher Schlick and Stefan Trzcielinski

Advances in Safety Management and HumanFactors

Pedro Arezes

Advances in Human Factors, Software, andSystems Engineering

Ben Amaba

(continued)

v

(continued)

Advances in Human Factors and SustainableInfrastructure

Jerzy Charytonowicz

Advances in The Human Side of ServiceEngineering

Tareq Z. Ahram and Waldemar Karwowski

Advances in Human Factors in Energy: Oil,Gas, Nuclear and Electric Power Industries

Sacit Cetiner, Paul Fechtelkotter andMichael Legatt

Advances in Human Factors in Sports andOutdoor Recreation

Paul Salmon and Anne-Claire Macquet

Advances in Human Factors and SystemInteractions

Isabel L. Nunes

Advances in Human Factors, BusinessManagement, Training and Education

Jussi Kantola, Tibor Barath, Salman Nazirand Terence Andre

Advances in Human Factors in Robots andUnmanned Systems

Pamela Savage-Knepshield and Jessie Chen

Advances in Design for Inclusion Giuseppe Di Bucchianico and Pete Kercher

Advances in Human Factors in Cybersecurity Denise Nicholson, Janae Lockett-Reynoldsand Katherine Muse

vi Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics 2016

Preface

Injury prevention is a common thread throughout every workplace, yet keepingemployee safety and health knowledge consistently is a continual challenge for allemployers. The discipline of Safety Management and Human Factors iscross-disciplinary concerning safety, health and welfare of the people engaged inwork or employment. The book offers a platform to showcase research and for theexchange of information in safety management and human factors. Mastering safetymanagement and human factors concepts is fundamental to both the creation ofproducts and systems that people use and the design of work systems to avoidstresses and minimize the risk for accidents.

This book focuses on the advances in the safety management and its relationshipwith human factors, which are critical in the design of any human-centered tech-nological system. The ideas and practical solutions described in the book are theoutcome of dedicated research by academics and practitioners aiming to advancetheory and practice in this dynamic and all-encompassing discipline.

A total of six sections are presented in this book. Each section contains researchpapers that have been reviewed by members of the International Editorial Board.Our sincere thanks and appreciation to the following Board members:

A. Abreu Mol, BrazilS. Albolino, ItalyV. Banuls SIlvera, SpainB. Barkokebas Junior, BrazilC. Burns, CanadaE. Cagno, ItalyP. Carvalho, BrazilL. Franz, BrazilC. Guedes Soares, PortugalF. Guldenmund, the NetherlandsC. Jacinto, PortugalT. Larsson, SwedenR. Matos, Brazil

vii

Participatory Ergonomic Approachfor Workplace Improvements:A Case Study in an Industrial Plant

Hélia Fonseca, Nuno Santos, Isabel Loureiro and Pedro Arezes

Abstract This paper aims to describe the development of an ergonomic programbased on the principles of Participatory Ergonomics, in order to implement work-place improvements. A case study was conducted in an industrial plant where severalmusculoskeletal disorders were previously identified as being the main cause of ahigh absenteeism. As a result of the ergonomic intervention program, several dif-ferent improvements measures were implemented, improving several workplaceaspects, namely workers’ posture and, consequently, their working conditions. Theobtained results indicate that there was a significant ergonomic improvement in taskswhere the proposed measures have been implemented. The workers’ satisfaction hasincreased considerably after the implementation of the suggested measures. Finally,it was possible to conclude that based in the success of this project, the sameapproach can also be extended to the remaining company’s workplaces.

Keywords Ergonomics � Improvements � Participatory ergonomics � Workers’involvement � Evaluation � Effectiveness

H. Fonseca (&) � I. Loureiro � P. ArezesALGORITMI Research Center, School of Engineering, University of Minho,Azurém, Guimarães 4800-058, Portugale-mail: helia.fonseca@conti.de

I. Loureiroe-mail: ifloureiro@dps.uminho.pt

P. Arezese-mail: parezes@dps.uminho.pt

N. SantosSystems and Production Department, School of Engineering,University of Minho, Azurém, Guimarães 4800-058, Portugale-mail: nunodiasbiom@gmail.com

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016P. Arezes (ed.), Advances in Safety Management and Human Factors,Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 491,DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41929-9_38

407

1 Introduction

The way companies works is more important than ever to ensure success and futuresustainability. Many businesses realize that real success requires continuousimprovement in several key-areas, including business performance, costs, quality,occupational safety and health, and environmental protection. Human componenthas taken an important role in almost industries. The study of the influence ofHuman factors in industries aims to guarantee that working conditions are asadequate as possible, ensuring workers’ motivation, while preventing diseases andaccidents. By doing so, healthy and motivated workers will be more willing toincrease productivity.

Participatory Ergonomics (PE) is an intervention strategy to reduce risks related tophysical load. Usually, there are several reasons for its implementation. First, itaddresses one of the categories of occupational risks with the greatest impact onworkers’ health, both in terms of incidence, prevalence, or disability [1]. Additionally,the basic principle of PE is to enable workers to participate in the identification of risksresulting from exposure to physical loads in the workplace, as well as to propose andevaluate appropriate corrective measures for each situation. Finally, it enables solu-tions’ development without interfering with the technical procedures.

According to Martin et al. [2], a participatory approach can encourage sustain-ability by using industry and workplace knowledge with design skill to meet allobjectives, including the goal of sustainability. The most effective business systemis the one that achieves all the sustainability’ standards such as, economics, envi-ronmental, production, quality and occupational health, as well as meeting theneeds of all the stakeholders.

Nowadays, industries are under a lot of pressure for several reasons as increasingof demands force manufacturers to improve the flow of assembly orders togetherwith a more efficient process. This kind of pressure on the organization is likely toincrease workers mental and physical stresses [3]. In order to solve or minimizethese problems a participatory approach can be developed. Wilson and Haines [4]defined PE as “the involvement of people in planning and controlling a significantamount of their own work activities, with sufficient knowledge and power toinfluence both processes and outcomes in order to achieve desirable goals”. Thisactive participation of workers in their workplace decisions, with the support of theorganization headed by their supervisors and managers, has as main benefit theimprovement of working conditions.

Theberge et al. [5] suggest PE as an intervention strategy in which workers areinvolved in planning and control of a portion of its own working activities. PE liststhe different aspects of the organization of work, whether physical or socialalthough the implementation of this kind of strategy is (and must be) unique to eachparticular situation and organization [6, 7].

The positive effects of Participatory Ergonomics targeted on the EuropeanFoundation for the Improvement of Living and Work Conditions (1999) reports.According to Vink et al. [8] report’ analysis direct participation in production

408 H. Fonseca et al.

organizations most often leads to quality improvements (90 % of the cases), toreduction of cycle time (60 % of the cases), and to a cost reduction (60 % of thecases).

Tompa et al. [9], in a study carried out in a textile plant, suggested that PEinterventions can be cost beneficial from the company perspective. In this study,even though proposals were typically low-cost and low-tech interventions benefitswere achieved on both the health and financial fronts. A successful ParticipatoryErgonomics program should be systematic, focused and integrated into existingprocesses and operations and it must be also viewed as a good business decision forit to succeed [10].

It seems to there is a consensus in literature that PE methodology should alwayshave an assumption, which is the creation of an ergonomic ‘team’ (steering group).This group will guide the intervention process. Typically this group comprisesemployees (or their representatives), managers, ergonomists, health and safetypersonnel, and research experts and will allow the Ergonomics to be high beyondthe singular work situation and may interfere in the organizational structure [11].

Once formed, teams undergo training by an expert to become familiar with thebasic ergonomic principles [1, 12].

The participatory and integrative approach has a stepwise background. Forexample, Vink et al. [13], divided the step-by-step approach in nine major steps:introduction, analysis, idea generation, idea selection, prototyping, testing, adjust-ing, implementation and evaluation. Indeed, active participation of end-users andmanagement is very important for the ‘involvement’ process. On the other hand, the‘process’ success is dependent on a good inventory of the problems, a structuredstepwise approach, a steering group (with well-defined responsibilities for eachmember of the group) and a good check/monitoring of the effects [8].

The current study aims to develop an ergonomic program based on the principlesof Participatory Ergonomics, in order to implement workplace improvements. Itwas conducted in a textile plant where several MSD were previously identified asbeing the main cause of a high absenteeism. The purpose of this research is to showthat the active participation of all stakeholders in workplace design is essential, andthis kind of approach provides a strong rationale for the use of ParticipatoryErgonomic principles in the development of safety work systems.

2 Methodology

2.1 Sample

This project was developed in a production area of a textile industry for automotivecomponents, located in the North of Portugal. The manufacturing process includestextile reinforcements of tires, which is a key element in the tire manufacturing.Three stages with strict production criteria are established: twisting, weaving and

Participatory Ergonomic Approach for Workplace Improvements … 409

dipping. Twisters are the machines responsible for twist of yarns, obtaining ropewith improved characteristics. The cord resulting from twisting is rolled into tubes,of plastic or cardboard, forming bobbins that are the feedstock and will be trans-ferred to one of two possible stages. In one of the stages, the cord can go directly tothe dipping machine where the impregnation and drying of the cord is performed.

The machines work continuously, 24 h a day, 7 days per week. There are threedifferent 8 h shifts. On average, workers have 25.1 years old (standard devia-tion = 3.7) and a vast majority are male (95.65 %). The majority (63.2 %) work inthe company between 1 to 5 years. The second most reported range is the categoryone more than 5 years (31.6 %).

The workplace of dipping cord was selected to the Participatory Ergonomicprogram implementation, since this area, according to previous internal reports, isassociated to a high-risk level of MSDs.

2.2 Participatory Ergonomics—Project Implementation

To implement the ergonomics participatory project, three fundamental stages weredefined: pre-intervention, intervention and post-intervention.

A summary of the various stages of the program, as well as their objectives andtarget groups, is presented in Fig. 1.

A brief description of each stage is provided. The complexity of this process(project implementation) requires a sequence, in which ideas are introduced withinthe lead teams (pre-intervention stage). Therefore, at the beginning of the project,authors addressed the nature of the work to the Management Board andEngineering Departments, where the scope of the project was discussed as well asseveral steps and timeline. Following this formal presentation, it was then sched-uled several communication activities to the plant operators, where fundamentaland basics knowledge’s about Ergonomics were exploited and tackled (mainly:ergonomics concepts, risk factors, exposure effects and safety) intertwined with anintroduction to the project scope (Participatory Ergonomics) and all the differentphases to be developed. Two communications sessions were booked, covering thefour shifts of the studied workplace, where 24 persons were informed about theproject’s motivations and goals.

The intervention stage starts with an assessment of all the risks inherent to eachworkplace, enabling a simple and fast evaluation of the root causes. This infor-mation was collected by a diagnostic questionnaire applied to all workers thatparticipated on the program. The questionnaire was based on the ERGOPAR [14]method, whereas the workers’ identification was done according the Companyguidelines. The main purpose of the questionnaire was to identify symptoms andergonomic risk factors existing in the selected jobs for analysis. The questionnairewas divided in three main parts. The first part (workers’ characterization) wasrelated to certain variables such as gender, age, shift, type of contract and profes-sional seniority. In the second part of the questionnaire, it was possible to assess the

410 H. Fonseca et al.

possible damage related to occupational health. Workers were asked to indicate, foreach body area, if they felt or not discomfort or pain when performing the differenttasks. In the third part, workers responded to questions about their usual posturesand actions adopted when carrying out their tasks to perceive the ergonomic riskfactors.

All data were collected in a spreadsheet for a more specific analysis of the resultsin the IBM SPSS Statistics 22, a software package used for statistical analysis.

After concluding the initial assessment phase, it was time to provide meaningfulinterpretations for the results and naturally start to act on the optimization of theissues highlighted by the study (treatment stage). In order to achieve this objective,the initial step was to produce a refined action plan with several proposals to tacklethe workplace problems. From an ergonomic point of view, the main focus duringan assembly line design should be on the worker. This is why these workplacesre-design should fit each worker and not the other way around. Therefore, an earlyinvolvement of the operators on this exercise is crucial since the optimum working

Fig. 1 Overview of the participatory ergonomics program

Participatory Ergonomic Approach for Workplace Improvements … 411

environment is mostly determined on the perception that the operators have fromtheir own working place.

The participation of the operators within the project activities is done via a“steering group” that generates a “decision context/environmental” where theintervention strategy to be applied in each workplace is proposed, extensivelydiscussed and the key actions and monitoring mechanisms are agreed between all.

The “steering group” is defined as a specific and multidisciplinary project teamwith an important role of acting during the conception and problem solvingactivities of the project. Furthermore, several assumptions were taken under con-sideration, namely: (1) experience with the selected workplaces; (2) size of the“steering group” should be as such that everyone could have an important andactive role (5 to 10 persons); (3) participation in the group should be voluntary;(4) the team should comprise workers from the different shifts.

With these requirements in mind, the “steering group” was then created andconsisted in 8 operators, covering all shifts of the workplace, as well as the stafffrom the Ergonomics team of Quality and Safety Department. It should be notedthat the team contained operators with different functions in the company (planning,quality and maintenance). During the entire project the Engineering Departmentwas also briefed about the status of the project.

It was carried out three different sessions across the entire length of the project,with the following subjects under discussion:

• The first session had consisted in the analysis of the results from the ques-tionnaire and an information leaflet was produced, stating all the risks identifiedduring the survey for the workplace;

• In the second session, all the information that have been gathered was organizedin a table with corresponding tasks addressed to each of risks. In addition to this,preventive measures were discussed and grouped by main challenges, being allaccepted and listed;

• In the third, and last, session, an evaluation, prioritization and selection ofsolutions were technically validated and the relevant ones chosen for practicalimplementation.

After the selection of measures to be implemented, these were introduced in thecompany suggestion system to require the approval of the Quality, Production,Engineering, Health and Safety, as well as the cell leader linked to the area where theidea would be applied. For their development and determining the recommendabledimensions it was necessary to perform the anthropometric calculations based on theanthropometric data of the adult Portuguese population, according to Arezes et al.[15], and it was considered either the 95th or 5th percentile, i.e. covering 95 % of thepopulation that would be satisfied with the proposed dimensions.

Post-intervention stage occurs following the initial assessment exercise and withthe objective of monitoring all the improvements that were previously identified,suggesting that all the achieved results may now converge towards the direction ofproject target.

412 H. Fonseca et al.

In order to analyze the effectiveness of the measures, two scenarios were estab-lished: scenario 1—corresponding to the present situation; and scenario 2—after theimplementation process—and two approaches were used:

1. Assesses of postural loading2. Identification per corporal segment of the level of reported pain.

Due to the type of work demand, Rapid Upper Limb Assessment method—RULA [16] was used to assess the risk associated to workers’ postures. The risk andaction levels were calculated according to Table 1 and compared against the initialresults.

The operator’s body postures were also extensively observed and recorded bymeans of pictures and/or videos. Thereafter, scores were given according to fourdifferent risk levels and corresponding colors (green illustrates a small risk, yellow amedium risk, orange a high risk and finally red representing a very high risk), basedon the different main body areas under evaluation in order to better understand theimpact of each improvement proposal.

The identification per corporal segment (neck, shoulders, arms, wrists, trunk andlegs) of the level of reported pain regarding the two scenarios was made. For thispurpose, a map was developed as presented in Fig. 2. In order to actively help in thefinal project assessment, a questionnaire was then created, distributed and explainedto each of the workers (23 individuals) how to fill it, where each of the tasks werescored according to the type of pain and intensity, for the before and after scenarios.Workers have to score each body area in a scale of pain intensity ranging between 1and 5.

Additionally, the risk and action levels were re-calculated and compared againstthe initial results. This analysis constitutes a unique way of investigate if the chosenactions had the expected impacted in increasing the ergonomic levels of any givenworkplace. Results obtained from the two scenarios were compared though a visualrepresentation of each segment and with data analysis though a non-parametric test,Wilcoxon signed-rank test for two dependent samples (IBM SPSS Statistics 22software). A significance level of 5 % was considered.

Table 1 Action levels of RULA method (adapted from McAtamney and Nigel Corlett [16])

Actionlevel

Action

A A score of 1 or 2 indicates that posture is acceptable if it is not maintained orrepeated for long periods

B A score of 3 or 4 indicates that further investigation is needed and changes maybe required

C A score of 5 or 6 indicates that investigation and changes are required soon

D A score of 7 indicates that investigation and changes are required immediately

Participatory Ergonomic Approach for Workplace Improvements … 413

3 Results and Discussion

Nineteen workers participated in the intervention phase responding to the diag-nostics questionnaire. Workers indicated, for each body area, their level of dis-comfort or pain when performing the different tasks.

As shown in Fig. 3, elbows were the only body area with no associated pain.Neck, shoulders, and lumbar spine, were identified as the most reported painfulareas, while body down extremities were mostly associated with a discomfort level.

The great majority of workers (74 %) considers that their jobs were physicalhigh demanding (Fig. 4).

After analysis and discussion of the results with the steering group, three dif-ferent sessions were hold helping the identification of the measures to be imple-mented in short-term or medium/long term. Management board has validated theproposal measures presented in Table 2. Status of the implementation process isalso presented. Note that ongoing process, although not been selected to immedi-ately implementation, was introduced in the ideas system of company formedium/long term implementation.

An example of implemented measures, regarding the raise of the base of metalboxes and bench with wheels, is presented in Fig. 5.

In order to measure the effectiveness of implemented measures, RULA methodwas applied for each of the tasks under analysis. Risk levels were assigned todifferent body areas and a general assessment of the improvement rate regarding thenew postures was performed.

Table 3 identifies the four-risk level obtained from RULA and correspondentpercentage of occurrence. It is important to highlight that before implementation33.33 % of the risk level was on the high category and in the “after” situation thiscategory dropped to 2.3 %. The lowest level increased 34.43 %, being a direct

Fig. 2 Map of body parts (adapted from Corlett and Wilson [17])

414 H. Fonseca et al.

consequence of the measures implemented on the different workplaces, improvingthe postures adopted by the worker when performing the different tasks.

Regarding the statistical analysis performed on the questionnairepost-intervention phase, results showed a significant improvement in all tasks,concerning the intensity level of reported discomfort/pain felt by workers.

The statistical analysis (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) of the self-symptoms resultsreported by workers “before” and “after” the implementation of measure presentedin Fig. 5a) is shown in Table 4.

According to workers’ opinion, by raising the handle height the level of reporteddiscomfort/pain is alleviated in all evaluated areas of the body. However, the trunk isthe most benefited body area going from an average level of discomfort of 3.87 to2.48, corresponding to a “moderate” level of discomfort/pain according to the

Fig. 3 Level of reported discomfort/pain per body area

Fig. 4 Physical demands ofjobs according to workers’perception

Participatory Ergonomic Approach for Workplace Improvements … 415

Table 2 Proposal measures: objectives, technical changes and status

Measures Objective Technical changes Status

Acquisition ofan electric highlift pallet truck

Load and unload creels andtransport pallets easily

Permits that works adjust thehigh of lift the bobbinsduring loading andunloading creels

Ongoing

Developmentof benches withwheels

Sit while cleaning twisterspots and the wire avoidingpoor postures

The workers doesn´t need toget up while they areperforming tasks. The seatheight should not exceed38.4 cm

Finished

Developmentof a platform(bench)

Reach the upper level of thecreels just to easily pass thewire and perform safely

Bench height may notexceed the height of thebottom level of the creels(45 cm). The platform heightshould be between 53.6 and67.9 cm

Finished

Developmentadapted bench

Clean the dipping machinestove rolls on a mesh floor

The seat height should notexceed 38.4 cm

Finished

Extend theramp of thecarpet ramp

Lower the handle heightduring the task of unloadtwisters

The handle height of thecarpet ramp should bebetween 117.1 and 131.4 cm

Finished

Modify thetable of scale

Twisters-raise the tableheight

The handle height of thetable + scale should be thehigh of the carpet

Ongoing

Raise the baseof the metalboxes

Dipping machine—raisingthe handle height

Minimum height of bottomlevel is 62.8 cm andmaximum height of upperlevel is 155 cm

Finished

Create supportfor compressedair hose

To dipping machine Design of support indevelopment stage

Ongoing

Fig. 5 Before/After implementation of a base of metal boxes (a) and a bench with wheels (b)

416 H. Fonseca et al.

intensity scale presented in Fig. 2. The differences between “before” and “after” arestatistically significant to a level of significance of 5 % (p < 0.05) for all body areas.

It should be noted some difficulties in implementing a program based onParticipatory Ergonomics and advices for this type of approach, namely:

• It is a slow and time-consuming process because of the need to build trust andcredibility among all participants and at all levels of the organization;

• It requires a high and constant effort to raise awareness to the participation of allstakeholders, and it is necessary that, during the process, to consult regularly ifworkers wish to continue with their participatory role given that the levels ofinterest and motivation can change throughout the process;

• Even after the training sessions, workers may not understand some ergonomicaspects, which could mislead in some of the suggested measures;

• Sometimes there are difficulties in obtaining financial support, as it is undeniablethat a process that takes time to get results can be seen as anunprofitable investment;

• The investigator’s role is fundamental in order to demonstrate the benefits thatsuch approach can bring, both for workers and organization in the short,medium and long-terms.

Table 3 Risk levels associated with different body areas and % of occurrence before and after theimplementation of measures

Risk level Before (%) After (%)

Very high 33.33 2.78

High 11.11 8.33

Moderate 38.89 52.78

Low 16.67 36.11

Table 4 Descriptive statistics per body area (questionnaire post-intervention)

Body area Before average After average Wilcoxon statistics

Neck 2.96 2.26 2.859**

Shoulders 3.43 2.48 3.372**

Arms 3.30 2.39 3.384**

Wrists 3.04 2.35 3.066**

Trunk 3.87 2.48 3.895**

Legs 3.04 2.39 2.877**

**p < 0.05

Participatory Ergonomic Approach for Workplace Improvements … 417

4 Conclusions

The current study shows that Participatory Ergonomics can be an effective strategyin reducing the workers’ exposure to WMSDs risk factors of. Furthermore, itstrengthens the importance of employees’ participation at all stages of the process.Indeed, workers know their workplaces better than anyone, and this knowledgeallows them to develop a deeper understanding of both ergonomic problems andpotential solutions.

The objectivity of the program was also essential to the success of the imple-mentation process, as it allowed keep people committed to the proposed goals.

According to RULA method, the obtained results indicate that there was asignificant ergonomic improvement in tasks where measures have been imple-mented. Results also showed that workers felt a significant improvement regardingthe level of reported discomfort/pain.

Finally, based on the results, Management Board decided that the very sameapproach should be extend to all sections of the company,

Aside all the relevant contributions, this study also has its own limitations. Themain one, inherent to the research method, is the difficulty in generalizing the results.Therefore, it shall be taken into account that, when analyzing the results, theimplementation of Participatory Ergonomics program described here is only a casestudy on a specific type of organization, a multinational company with a high-levelof safety culture. Consequently, due to the limited scope of the study, and the natureof action research, the implementation and results of Participatory Ergonomicsprogram are not easily generalized to other contexts.

Acknowledgments This work is financed by FEDER funds through the Competitive FactorsOperational Program (COMPETE) POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007043 and by national funds throughFCT—Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under the projectUID/CEC/00319/2013. This work is financed also by Continental-Indústria Têxtil do Ave, S.A.

References

1. Rivilis, I., Van Eerd, D., Cullen, K., Cole, D.C., Irvin, E., Tyson, J., Mahood, Q.:Effectiveness of participatory ergonomic interventions on health outcomes: a systematicreview. Appl. Ergon. 39(3), 342–358 (2008)

2. Martin, K., Legg, S., Brown, C.: Designing for sustainability: ergonomics–carpe diem.Ergonomics 56(3), 365–388 (2013)

3. De Looze, M.P., Van Rhijn, J.W., Van Deursen, J., Tuinzaad, G.H., Reijneveld, C.N.: Aparticipatory and integrative approach to improve productivity and ergonomics in assembly.Prod. Plan. Control 14(2), 174–181 (2003)

4. Wilson, H., Haines, J.R.: Participatory ergonomics. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook ofHuman Factors and Ergonomics (2nd ed.), pp. 490–513. Wiley, New York (1997)

5. Theberge, N., Granzow, K., Cole, D., Laing, A.: Negotiating participation: understanding the‘how’ in an ergonomic change team. Appl. Ergon. 37(2), 239–248 (2006)

418 H. Fonseca et al.

6. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W.S., Wilson, J.R., van derDoelen, B.: A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline andprofession. Ergonomics 55(4), 377–395 (2012)

7. Stanton, N., Hedge, A., Brookhuis, K., Salas, E., Hendrick, H.: Handbook of Human Factorsand Ergonomics Methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005)

8. Vink, P., Koningsveld, E., Molenbroek, J.: Positive outcomes of participatory ergonomics interms of greater comfort and higher productivity. Appl. Ergon. 37(4), 537–546 (2006)

9. Tompa, E., Dolinschi, R., Natale, J.: Economic evaluation of a participatory ergonomicsintervention in a textile plant. Appl. Ergon. 44(3), 480–487 (2013)

10. Jatczak, M.: Key Factors for Successful Implementation of a Participatory (2008)11. Bolis, I.: Contribuições da ergonomia para a melhoria do trabalho e para o processo de

emancipação dos sujeitos,” p. 180 (2011)12. Wells, R., Norman, R., Frazer, M., Laing, A., Cole, D., Kerr, M., Services, S.C.: University of

Waterloo ergonomics program implementation blueprint, no. (2003)13. Vink, P., Imada, A.S., Zink, K.J.: Defining stakeholder involvement in participatory design

processes. Appl. Ergon. 39(4), 519–526 (2008)14. A. y S. (ISTAS-C. Instituto Sindical de Trabajo, “Recursos de apoyo al tutor en la aplicación

del Método ERGOPAR Versión 2.0,” 2014. Available: http://ergopar.istas.net/recursos/.Accessed 15 Jan 2015

15. Arezes, P., da Costa, L.G., Miguel, A.S., Barroso, M., Cordeiro, P.: Base de dadosantropométricos de uma população laboral. Revista Ingenium, Ordem dos Engenheiros II(88),64–69 (2005)

16. McAtamney, L., Nigel, E.: Corlett, “RULA: a survey method for the investigation ofwork-related upper limb disorders.”. Appl. Ergon. 24(2), 91–99 (1993)

17. Corlett, N., Wilson, J.: Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology,2 ed. Taylor & Francis, London (1995)

Participatory Ergonomic Approach for Workplace Improvements … 419