Service organizations and their employees encounter challenges today due to an increase in the average age of employees, a decrease in recruitment, and changes in work tasks, sites, and communities. These factors give rise to physical and psychosocial burdens that can lower the work ability and productivity of the employees.
OBJECTIVE:
The goal of this study is to find practical solutions for challenges related to the work environment and practices at a public in-house enterprise providing meal and cleaning services. Also, the design of a model for the management of these load factors at municipal workplaces, where stakeholders from different subdivisions work together, is intended.
METHODS:
The materials comprised of documents provided by the case organization, interviews, and work observations. Root cause analysis and participatory development sessions were carried out to find causes for the observed challenges and to discover practical solutions.
RESULTS:
A number of microergonomic solutions were found. Also, broader subjects for development, common to several target workplaces, were discovered.
CONCLUSIONS:
The concept of a shared workplace, proved useful in exploring ways to manage work ability and productivity. A generalizable macroergonomics model for the management of load factors at shared workplaces in the public sector was proposed.
ReimanA, AhonenG, Juvonen-PostiP, HeusalaT, TakalaEP, JoensuuM. Economic impacts of workplace disability management in a public enterprise. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management. 2017;3(3):297–310.
2.
ReimanA, VäyrynenS. Holistic well-being and sustainable organisations – A review and argumentative propositions. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering. 2018;11(5):321–29.
3.
SchulteP, VainioH. Well-Being at work – Overview and perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health. 2010;36(5):422–9.
4.
BliesePD, EdwardsJR, SonnentagS. Stress and well-being at work: A century of empirical trends reflecting theoretical and societal influences. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2017;102(3):389–402.
5.
ZinkKJ, FischerK. Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics?Ergonomics. 2013;56(3):348–56.
6.
NenonenS, VasaraJ. Safety management in multiemployer worksites in the manufacturing industry: Opinions and co-operation and problems encountered. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 2013;19(2):168–83.
7.
MilchV, Laumann,K. Interorganizational complexity and organizational accident risk: A literature review. Safety Science. 2016;82:9–17.
8.
SchulzV, BrennerW. Characteristics of shared service centers. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. 2010;4(3):210–9.
9.
VäyrynenS, KoivupaloM, Latva-RantaJ. A 15-year development path of actions towards an integrated management system: Description, evaluation and safety effects within the process industry network in Finland. International Journal of Strategic Engineering Asset Management. 2012;1(1):3–32.
10.
KoivupaloM, JunnoH, VäyrynenS. Integrated management within a Finnish industrial network: Steel mill case of HSEQ assessment procedure. In: VäyrynenS, HäkkinenK, NiskanenT, editors. Integrated occupational safety and health management. Solutions and industrial cases. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 41–67.
11.
KekkonenP, PohjosenperäT, KantolaH, VäyrynenS. Rational and participative task allocation between the nursing staff and the logistics support service provider in healthcare. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries. 2018;1–13.
12.
NenonenS. Fatal workplace accidents in outsourced operations in the manufacturing industry. Safety Science. 2001;49:1394–403.
13.
NenonenS. Implementation of Safety Management in Outsourced Services in the Manufacturing Industry. Tampere University of Technology, Tampere. Publication: 1023, 2012.
14.
Occupational Safety and Health Act. 738/2002. Chapter 6: Special situations of organising work. Finland: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; 2002. Unofficial translation. Available from: http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2002/en20020738.pdf.
15.
VäyrynenS, HäkkinenK, NiskanenT. (eds.). Integrated Occupational Safety and Health Management. Solutions and Industrial Cases. Springer International Publishing; 2015.
16.
LindS, Nenonen,S. Occupational risks in industrial maintenance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 2008;14(2):194–204.
17.
ValluruCT, DekkerS, RaeA. How and why do subcontractors experience different safety on high-risk work sites?Cognition, Technology & Work. 2017;19(4):785–94.
18.
FischerK, ZinkKJ. Defining elements of sustainable work systems – a system-oriented approach. Work. 2012;41:3900–3905.
19.
VäyrynenS, JounilaH, Latva-RantaJ, PikkarainenS, von Weissenberg,K. HSEQ assessment procedure for supplying network: A tool for promoting sustainability and safety culture in SMEs. In: ArezesP, Rodrigues de Carvalho,PV, editors. Ergonomics and human factors in safety management. Industrial and Systems Engineering Series, CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group; 2016. pp. 83–108.
20.
CarayonP. The balance theory and the work system model ... twenty years later. International. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2009;25(5):313–27.
21.
HendrickHW, KleinerBM. Macroergonomics – An Introduction to Work System Design. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2001.
22.
SmithMJ, SainfortPC. A balance theory of job design for stress reduction. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1989;4:67–79.
23.
CarayonP, SmithMJ. Work organization and ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics. 2000;31:649–62.
24.
VäyrynenS, Kiema-JunesH. Exploring blue- and white-collar employees’ well-being at work system: Differences in indicators of physical and psychosocial conditions of occupational groups. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development. 2018;10(2):14–34.
25.
van EerdD, ColeD, IrvinE, MahoodQ, KeownK, ThebergeN, et al.Process and implementation of participatory ergonomic interventions: A systematic review. Ergonomics. 2010;53(10):1153–66.
