Program ergonomics

More than one third of occupational related injuries or illnesses reported by employees to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics are estimated to be caused by musculoskeletal disorders. In 2003 federal regulations based on occupational management guidelines that are 15 years old are still not finalized as a result of OSHA continuing to work with Congress and small business advocacy groups to complete a rule that is deemed fair to both employees and employers. 

---

Ergonomics program. Final rule removal. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Fed Reg 2001 666 20403. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Elements of ergonomics programs. A primer based on workplace evaluations of musculoskeletal disorders. Centers for Disease Control (NIOSH) Publication No. 97-117. Atlanta, GA Centers for Disease Control, March, 1997. 

Cohen, A. L., Gjessing, C. C., Eine, L. J., Bernard, B. P., and McGlotWin, J. D. (1997), Elements of Ergonomics Programs A Primer Based on Workplace Evaluations of Musculoskeletal Disorders, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati. 

Haims, M. C., and Carayon, P. (1998), Theory tuid Practice for the Implementation of Tn-house, Continuous Improvement Participatory Ergonomic Programs, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 461-472. 

An important component of musculoskeletal disorders management efforts is development of a well-structured and comprehensive ergonomic program. According to Alexander and Orr (1992), the basic components of such a program should include ... 

The standard applies only to the jobs specified in Section 1910.901, not to the entire workplace or to other workplaces in the company. The standard does not apply to agriculture, construction, or maritime operations. In the proposed standard, a full ergonomics program consists of these six program elements ... 

The employer should set up the complete ergonomics program if either the quick fix controls do not ehminate the MSD hazards within the quick fix deadline (120 days) or another covered MSD is reported in that job within 36 months. 

Finally, it should be noted that the OSHA s Final Ergonomic Program Standard took effect on January 16, 2001. 

Alexander, D. C., and Orr, G. B. (1992), The Evaluation of Occupational Ergonomics Programs, in Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting, pp. 697-701. 

GAO (1997), Worker Protection Private Sector Ergonomics Programs Yield Positive Results, GAO/ HEHS-97-163, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. 

Ideally, an audit system would be broad enough to cover any task in any industry, would provide highly detailed andysis and recommendations, and would be applied rapidly. Unfortunately, the three variables of breadth, depth, and application time are likely to trade off in a practical system. Thus a thermal audit (Parsons 1992) sacrifices breadth to provide considerable depth based on the heat balance equation but requires measurement of seven variables. Some can be obtained rapidly (air temperature, relative humidity), but some take longer (clothing insulation value, metabolic rate). Conversely, structured interviews with participants in an ergonomics program (Drury 1990a) can be broad and rapid but quite deficient in depth. 

The ergonomics program was similarly diverse. It started with a corporate launch by the highest-level executives and was rolled out to the divisions and then to individual plants. The pace of change was widely variable. AU divisions were given a standard set of workplace analysis and modification tools (based on Drury and Wick 1984) but were encouraged to develop their own solutions to problems in a way appropriate to their specific needs. 

The major user concern at the plant level was time devoted to ergonomics by providers. At the corporate level, the need was seen for more rapid job-analysis methods and corporate policies, such as on back belts or good chairs. Overall, 94% of users made positive comments about the ergonomics program. 

On another level, the audit was a useful reminder to the company of the fact that it had incurred most of the up-front costs of a corporate ergonomics program, and was now beginning to reap the benefits. Indeed, by 1996, corporate injury costs and rates had decreased by about 20% per year after... 

Verma, S. (2000), Introduction of Context in Human Performance Models as Applied to Dynamic Resectorization, Master s thesis, San Jose State University, Human Factors and Ergonomics Program, San Jose, CA. 

With much of the OSHA debate focusing on the value of ergonomic programs, many astute business leaders began to look at the business effects of ergonomically bad jobs in their organizations. For some, this appears to have resulted in a shift of the drivers behind ergonomic processes... 

---