Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) affect the well-being of workers. Unfortunately, user requirements for design to reduce workplace risk factors for MSDs are not always effectively communicated to designers creating a mismatch between the user requirements and what is ultimately produced.
OBJECTIVE:
To understand the views of practitioners of design and ergonomics regarding tools for participatory design and features they would like to see in such tools.
METHODS:
An online questionnaire survey was conducted with a cohort of practitioners of ergonomics and design (n = 32). In-depth interviews were then conducted with a subset of these practitioners (n = 8). To facilitate discussion, a prototype integrated design tool was developed and demonstrated to practitioners using a verbalized walkthrough approach.
RESULTS:
According to the results of the questionnaire survey, the majority (70%) believed an integrated approach to participatory design would help reduce work-related MSDs and suggested ways to achieve this, for example, through sharing design information. The interviews showed the majority (n = 7) valued being provided with guidance on design activities and ways to manage and present information.
CONCLUSION:
It is believed that an integrated approach to design in order to help reduce work-related MSDs is highly important and a provision to evaluate design solutions would be desirable for practitioners of design and ergonomics.
BuckleP. Ergonomics and musculoskeletal disorders: Overview. Occup Med2005;55(3):164–167.
2.
HainesH, WilsonJR, VinkP, KoningsveldE. Validating a framework for participatory ergonomics (the PEF). Ergonomics2002;45(4):309–327.
3.
KogiK. Facilitating participatory steps for planning and implementing low-cost improvements in small workplaces. Appl Ergonomics2008;39(4):475–481.
4.
ZinkKJ, SteimleU, SchröderD. Comprehensive change management concepts: Development of a participatory approach. Appl Ergonomics2008;39(4):527–538.
5.
CarolyS, LandryA, CholezC, DavaziesP, BellemareM, PoussinN. Innovation in the occupational health physician profession requires the development of a work collective to improve the efficiency of MSD prevention. Work2012;41(1):5–13.
6.
KarwowskiWHandbook of standards and guidelines in ergonomics and human factors. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbausm Associates Inc.; 2006.
7.
NIOSH. Ergonomic guidelines for manual material handling. California: California Department of Industrial Relations (Cal/OSHA); 2007.
8.
OHSCO. MSD prevention toolbox: Getting started- Musculoskeletal disorders prevention series- Part 3A. Canada: Occupational Health and Safety Council of Ontario (OHSCO); 2008.
9.
VinkP, LourusenE, WortelE, DulJ. Rapid communication experiences in participatory ergonomics: Results of a roundtable session during the 11th IEA congress, Paris. July Ergonomics1992;35(2):123–127.
10.
KogiK. Participatory methods effective for ergonomic workplace improvement. Appl Ergonomics2006;37(4):547–554.
11.
ShinnarA, IndelicatoJ, AltimariM, ShinnarS. Survey of ergonomic features of supermarket cash registers: Short communication. Int J Ind Ergonomics2004;34(6):535–541.
12.
BrobergO. Integrating ergonomics into engineering: Empirical evidence and implications for the ergonomists. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing2007;17(4):353–366.
BrobergO, EdwardsK. User-driven innovation of an outpatient department. Work2012;41:101–106.
15.
van EerdD, ColeD, IrvinE, MahoodQ, KeownK, ThebergeN, et al. Process and implementation of participatory ergonomic interventions: A systematic review. Ergonomics2010;53(10):1153–1166.
16.
WilsonJR. Ergonomics and participation. In: WilsonJR, CorlettEN, editors. Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology. 2nd ed. London: Taylor and Francis; 1995;1071–1096.
PunchihewaHKG, GyiDE. Development of a QFD based collaborative design approach to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Design Principles and Practices: An Int J2009;3(6):207–223.
19.
AkaoY. Quality function deployment: Integrating customer requirements into product design. Massachusetts: Productivity Press; 1990.
20.
ChanL-K, WuM-L. Quality function deployment: A literature review. Euro J Operational Research2002;143(3):463–497.
21.
MarsotJ. QFD: A methodological tool for integration of ergonomics at the design stage. Appl Ergonomics2005;36(2):185–192.
22.
KarwowskiW. Ergonomics and human factors: The paradigms for science, engineering, design, technology and management of human-compatible systems- Invited plenary paper. Ergonomics2005;48(5):436–463.
23.
McAtamneyL, CorlettEN. RULA: A survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergonomics1993;24(2):91–99.
CorlettEN. The evaluation of industrial seating. In: WilsonJR, CorlettEN, editors. Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology. London: Taylor & Francis; 1990;500–515.
26.
LiG, BuckleP. Evaluating change in exposure to risk for musculoskeletal disorders- A practical tool. UK: Health and Safety Executive; 1999.
27.
KarhuO, KansiP, KuorinkaI. Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for analysis. Appl Ergonomics1977;8(4):199–201.
28.
BuchholzB, PaquetV, PunnettL, LeeD, MoirS. PATH: A work sampling-based approach to ergonomic job analysis for construction and other non-repetitive work. Appl Ergonomics1996;27(3):177–187.
29.
PunchihewaHKG. The potential of quality function deployment (QFD) in reducing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. UK: Loughborough University; 2010.
30.
Loughborough University. Code of practice on investigations involving human participants: Revised and approved by Council. [Internet]. Leicestershire, Loughborough University. 2003. Available from: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/committees/ethical/cophp/htm
31.
CrossN. Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. 2nd ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
32.
RantanenK, DombE. Simplified TRIZ: New problem solving applications for engineers and manufacturing professionals. Florida: CRC Press; 2002.
33.
SuhNP. The principles of design. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.; 1990.
34.
StantonNA, SalmonPM, WalkerGH, BarberC, JenkinsDP. Human factors methods: A practical guide for engineering and design. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited; 2005.
35.
GlaserBG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems1965;12(4):436–445.
36.
ErlandsonDA, HarrisEL, SkipperBL, AllenSD. Doing naturalistic Inquiry: A guide to methods. California: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1993.
37.
DempseyPG, McGorryRW, MaynardWAS. A survey of tools and methods used by certified professional ergonomists. Appl Ergonomics2005;36(4):489–503.
38.
LiG, BuckleP. Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods. Ergonomics1999;42(5):674–695.
39.
DavidGC. Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: In-depth review. Occu Med2005;55(3):190–199.
40.
WilsonJR, CorlettNE. Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology. London: Taylor & Francis; 1990.
41.
Maguire MC. RESPECT: User-centred requirements hand-book. Version 3.3. RESPECT Consortium. 1998. Available from: http://www.npl.co.uk/respect
42.
Kuijt-EversLFM, MorelKPN, EikelenbergNLW, VinkP. Application of the QFD as a design approach to ensure comfort in using hand tools: Can the design team complete the house of quality appropriately?. Appl Ergonomics2009;40(3):519–526.
43.
HerzwurmG, MellisW, SchockertS, WeinbergerC. Customer oriented evaluation of QFD software tools. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Quality Function Deployment. October 2-3. Linköping Sweden 1997;1:309–323.
44.
RameshB, TiwanaA. Supporting collaborative process knowledge management in new product development teams. Decision Support Systems1999;27(1-2):213–235.
45.
SivaloganathanS, EvbuomwanNFO, JebbA, WynnHP. Design function deployment- a design system for the future. Design Studies1995;16(4):447–470.
46.
ReichY. Improving the rationale capture capability of QFD. Eng with Comp2000;16(3-4):236–252.
47.
GreenLN, BonolloE. The importance of design methods to student industrial designers. Global J Eng Edu2004;8(2):175–182.
48.
BruceM, LeverickF, LittlerD. Complexities of collaborative product development. Technovation1995;15(9):535–552.
49.
FranceschiniF, RossettoS. Quality function deployment: How to improve its use. Total Quality Management1998;9(6):491–500.
50.
LagerT. The industrial usability of quality function deployment: A literature review and synthesis on a meta-level. R&D Management2005;35(4):409–426.
51.
PhamDT, DimovSS. A system for automatic extraction of feature-based assembly information. Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers1999;213(B):97–101.
52.
GreenlawC, Brown-WeltyS. A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: Testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Evaluation Review2009;33(5):464–480.
53.
SaundersM, LewisP, ThornhillA. Research methods for business students. 4th ed. Essex: Prentice Hall: 2007.
54.
ToepoelV, DasM, van SoestA. Design of web questionnaires: The effects of the number of items per screen. Field Methods2009;21(2):200–213.
55.
WilliamsCA, HaslamRA. Core competencies in ergonomics-do we have them? In: PikaarR.N., KoningsveldEAP, SettelsPJM, editors. Proceedings of IEA Congress. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.: 2006.
56.
CharltonSG. Questionnaire techniques for test and evaluation. In: CharltonSG, O’BrienTG, editors. Handbook of human factors testing and evaluation. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2002; 225–46.
57.
RosenbaumS. Usability evaluations versus usability testing: When and why? IEEE Trans on Prof Comm1989;32(4):210–216.
58.
ArmstrongSD, BrewerWC, SteinbergRK. Usability testing. In: CharltonSG, O’BrienTG, editor. Handbook of human factors testing and evaluation. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc2002;403–32.
59.
BowenGA. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qual Research2008;8(1):137–152.
60.
DowdingT, JohnsonR. How many users does it really take? Revisiting usability testing. Design Principles and Practices: An Int J2008;2(2):65–72.
61.
WilliamsCA, HaslamRA. Exploring the knowledge, skills, abilities and other factors of ergonomics advisors. Theor Iss in Ergonomics Science2011;12(2):129–148.
