Few studies have researched the potential of different quality strategies to prevent musculoskeletal disorders. The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss opportunities and disadvantages by using quality concepts, especially continuous improvement and standardisation, for prevention of musculoskeletal disorders. The results point to that quality strategies are effective in reducing musculoskeletal risks in some cases. In other situations, the results might be the opposite. Available results point to that well-performed implementations, management support in combination with a participative approach are important preconditions for good results. The studies into continuous improvement generally point to the potential to prevent musculoskeletal disorders given that ergonomics issues are addressed. The view on standardisation is more divided. It is hereby proposed that a developmental view on standardisation offers a good potential in this respect, while a regulatory view does not.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerP.GoldoftasB.LevineD. (1997). Ergonomics, employee involvement and the Toyota production system: A case study of Nummi's 1993 model introduction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review.50, 416–437.
2.
AxelssonJ. (1995). Arbetsmiljödriven kvalitetsutveckling. Licentiatavhandling, Avdelningen för industriell arbetsvetenskap, Linköpings tekniska högskola, LiU-Tek-Lic-1995:53. (in Swedish).
3.
AxelssonJ. (1997). Kaizen based suggestion schemes - A tool for participation and improvement of working conditions and quality. In Proceedings of the 13th Triennal Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol 1, Tampere, Finland, 22–24.
4.
BerggrenC.BjörkmanT.HollanderE. (1991). Är*dom oslagbara? Report Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, Institutionen för Arbetsvetenskap, Stockholm. (in Swedish).
5.
BergmanB.KlefsjöB. (1995). Quality: From Customer Needs to Customer Satisfaction. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
6.
BotschkaC. (1996). Participation in problem-solving - A tool for improvement of working conditions?, Report, Linköping University, Division of Industrial Ergonomics and Centre for Studies of Humans, Technology and Organisation, LiTH-IKP-R-921.
7.
BrunssonN.JacobssonB. (1998). Standardisering. Nerenius & Santérus, Stockholm. (In Swedish).
8.
EklundJ. (1995). Relationships between Ergonomics and Quality in Assembly Work. Applied Ergonomics, 26 (1), 15–20.
9.
EklundJ. (1997). Ergonomics, quality and continuous improvement - conceptual and empirical relationships in an industrial context. Ergonomics, 40 (10), 982–1001.
10.
EklundJ.EllströmP.-E.KarltunJ. (1998). Standardisation - A means for creating developing work? In Bishu, Karwowski and Goonnetilleke (eds). Proceedings of the First World Congress on Ergonomics for Global Quality and Productivity. Hongkong, 165–168.
11.
GleavesS.MercurioJ. (1991). Ergonomics circles in assembly line manufacturing. In Pulat and Alexander (eds). Industrial Ergonomics. Case Studies. McGraw Hill, New York.
12.
GustavsenB. (1996). Health and safety as a development resource. In Proceedings from the 25th International Congress on Occupational Health, Keynote addresses, Stockholm, 63–67.
13.
ImaiM. (1986). Kaizen: The Key to Japanese Competitive Success. Random House, New York.
14.
KondoY. (1995). Are creativity and standardisation mutually exclusive? Human Systems Management, 14, 309–312.
15.
KarltunJ.AxelssonJ.EklundJ. (1998). Working conditions and effects of ISO 9000 in six furniture making companies: Implementation and processes. Applied Ergonomics, 29 (4), 225–232.
16.
KuorinkaI.ForcierL. (1995). Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSD) A reference book for prevention. Taylor & Francis, London.
17.
LandsbergisP.CahillJ.SchnallP. (1999). The impact of lean production and related new systems of work organization on worker health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4 (2), 131–141.
18.
LewisH.ImadaA.RobertsonM. (1988). Leadership through quality: Merging human factors and safety through employee participation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting. Anaheim, CA, Human Factors Society, 756–759.
19.
LikerJ.NagamachiM.LifshitzY. (1989). A comparative analysis of participatory ergonomics programs in the US and Japan manufacturing plants. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 3, 185–199.
20.
MeddebB. (1998). The effects of self-directed team and empowerment on quality and productivity improvement: A case study. In BishuKarwowskiGoonnetilleke (eds). Proceedings of the First World Congress on Ergonomics for Global Quality and Productivity.*. Hongkong, 92–95.
21.
MooreJ.S.GargA. (1996). Use of participatory ergonomics teams to address musculoskeletal hazards in the red meat packing industry. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, 402–408.
22.
NoroK. (1991). Concepts, methods and people. In Noro and Imada (eds), Participatory Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, London, 3–29.
23.
SvenssonI. (1996) Personal communication.
24.
TownesM.ImrhanS. (1991). Use of ergonomic line balancing and a “Pull” system to reduce CTD's in electronics assembly - A case study. In Karwowski and Yates, Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety III. Taylor & Francis, London.
25.
WinkelJ.WestgaardR. (1992). Occupational and Individual Risk Factors for Shoulder-Neck Complaints: Part II - The Scientific Basis (Literature Review) for the Guide. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 10 (1–2), 85–104.
26.
ZinkK. J. (1991) Participatory ergonomics - some developments and examples from West Germany, In Noro and Imada (eds), Participatory Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, London, 165–180.
