Opinion
March 26 2010
Ergonomic déjà-vu
Workplace
ergonomics seems to have slipped on and off the radar over the past 40
years.
Dr Gunther Paul looks at why a practice that has proved its worth
since the Industrial Revolution gets struck off the agenda and what can be
done to make it stick.
According to Sherri McLeish from Forrester Research in the US, workplace ergonomics is making a comeback. In fact, they've recently prepared a report titled "Workplace Ergonomics Makes A Comeback", and share this Executive Summary:
“Attention to workplace ergonomics has fallen to the wayside for many businesses, brought down by a global recession and the repeal of ergonomic legislation in the US. But with expectations of a more activist OSHA under the Obama administration and a current debate on a proposed workplace safety rule, some enterprises have begun re-evaluating how they support workplace ergonomics. More than ever, iWorkers today are tethered to workstations and mobile devices. Though many have gained flexibility in where they work and what tools they use, they continue to risk repetitive stress and eye strain injuries. Along with preparing for regulatory changes, organizations that address ergonomics in the Information Workplace stand to improve worker health while minimizing risk of potential insurance claims, compensation, medical and administrative costs, and indirect costs of lost productivity.”
It is not surprising that the US is experiencing a similar trend to what we're seeing in Australia. Although the Forrester report highlights the "iWorker", there's also a growing perception among the workforce in general that ergonomics related work issues need more attention – once again. The story seems like a déjà-vu to me: haven’t we seen the “ergonomic revolution” already in the 70s, and then again in the 90s? Why is it that we keep forgetting about the payback from ergonomic work(place) design after only a few years?
Back in 1857, the Polish biologist Wojciech Jastrzebowski defined “ergonomics” to be the “scientific approach to the problem of human labour, following a unique theory, so that from our lives we harvest the best fruit at the smallest effort, with the highest satisfaction for our own and the public good”. Undoubtedly he had two aims in mind, reducing the human workload while at the same time optimising the economic benefit.
Isn’t this still a valid goal in 2010? Apparently ergonomic interventions are closely linked to the economic cycle. While the industrial downs typically lead to a reduction of the workforce and resulting increase in the density of work, inappropriate work design quickly becomes apparent. As a matter of fact, this insight eventually coincides with the turn of the cycle. From this point on, measures are taken to improve the workplace – seemingly related to the economic up.
Is it this relationship between ergonomic activity and the phase of economic wealth that makes us sometimes believe that Ergonomics is a luxury, only for those who can afford it?
The gain from prospective ergonomic workplace design is not marginal. While a single case of manufacturing related shoulder injury incurs cost of about $80,000 for the employer, chronic diseases like repetitive strain injuries (RSI) or a low back syndrome (LBP), caused by poor workplace design, will easily accumulate to over $300,000 in damage per employee.
But then why are we tempted to think that Ergonomics is expensive, if in fact it can save so much money? A possible answer to this may be that “ergonomic” has a connotation of high quality. Indeed, many of the companies that have systematically applied ergonomic design guidelines to their products over a sustained period of time have achieved market leadership and are able to sell their goods at a higher price than the market.
Strangely, the obvious long-term nature of an ergonomic investment is
regularly ignored. Similar to spending on production assets, the cost of
occupational health and safety provisions needs to be consolidated over a
period of several years. In general, it may also take a significant time to
put these changes in place and see their advantage. On the other hand, once
effective, both company and employees will mutually profit from the
improvement over a long period – unless work content and organisation are
changed, or the ergonomic intervention is overruled by cost cutting
constraints.
Hence the character of ergonomic involvement is dynamic – it requires
constant review and adaptation to the working conditions, as much as the
emphasis on a sustainable environment. The trendy project approach is
therefore leading in the wrong direction: shouldn’t we rather assume a
repetitive, closed ergonomic process?
In system dynamics, lag times like the one we can find for an ergonomic intervention, and overreaction are elements that introduce potential instability into a structure, which coincides with a loss in usable energy. If we desire to avoid wasting our resources, a feasible approach would be to proactively apply ergonomics as a continuous improvement process.
20 years ago, I learned the two most important laws for successful stock trading from the famous Hungarian stock exchange guru André Kostolany: buy when the market is down, and have a long breath. I believe the same applies to ergonomics.
Dr Gunther Paul is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of
South Australia’s Mawson
Institute and is also the Director of its newly launched
ErgoLab. ErgoLab is supported by
AutoCRC and the South Australian Department of Trade and Economic
Development (DTED).
An edited version of this article 'Support for workers' was published in the Independent Weekly newspaper on
March 26th, 2010