Ergonomics Professionals Research Articles

A Mathematical Equation for Quantifying Control Functionality in Agricultural Tractors

The overall accessibility of controls is one of the most important issues to consider when designing a control layout. Well-arranged controls, whose operational characteristics are based on both design guidelines and on human factors considerations, allow the operator to efficiently interact with the system in question. The objective of this article is to introduce a numerical index, referred to as the "index of functionality", capable of comparing, on a mathematical basis, different control arrangements in agricultural tractors. The model is based on information that has been gleaned from the published literature, with input from both professional ergonomists and experienced agricultural tractor operators. The numerical index may take any value between 0 and +1, with +1 being defined as an optimum value in terms of the functionality of a workstation. Data were collected from six old (pre-1982) and six modern (post-2003) tractor workstations to determine whether the model would recognize improvements that have occurred in the ergonomic design of tractor control layouts over the past 20 years. An average score of 0.19 +/- 0.07 was calculated for the pre-1982 tractor workstations. By contrast, an average score of 0.63 +/- 0.10 was calculated for the post-2003 tractor workstations. A number of limitations have been identified with the current model; despite these limitations, the index of functionality clearly recognized the ergonomic improvements in tractor workstations that have occurred over the past 20 years.

ERGONOMICS - FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The International Ergonomics Association plays a leadership role in shaping the future of ergonomics. Having formed nearly 50 years ago for researchers to meet and exchange their findings, it still provides a wide range of opportunities for promoting research and teaching. In 2006, the IEA is also an outward looking organisation with linkages to governments, international agencies and other professional associations. We have many opportunities to extend our engagement with industry and the community through the IEA communication strategy and Technical Committees. Whilst the IEA now has 20 Technical Committees that demonstrate the diversity of ergonomics research there is a growing trend towards integration of specialist areas. The emergence of a holistic approach to research and application of ergonomics is making a new direction for the ergonomics profession. Apart from the role of a technical specialist, the Ergonomist is also a team member with a range of other stakeholders. To be effective in practice, the Ergonomist needs to be a good communicator and "agent of change" who can mentor others to develop simple cost effective interventions. Research is fundamental to the science of ergonomics. Evaluation of interventions remains a major component of future ergonomics research. Sustainable positive outcomes based on a holistic approach will result in a broad uptake of ergonomics findings. In industry future challenges relating to psychological health in developed countries and the informal sector in developing countries are emerging as new areas for research and application of ergonomics.

Placement Opportunities for Human Factors Engineering and Ergonomics Professionals

During the period from January 2006 through December 2006, the Placement Service of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society distributed announcements describing 140 new positions available for human factors and ergonomics professionals. This paper focuses on the 124 placement opportunities for those in Industry and the government/military, and briefly addresses positions in Education. The attributes of the position descriptions examined include: employment sector, degree requirements, work experience, expertise, salary, and geographic location. The employment sector type seeking the most employees was Consulting Firms that specialize in Human Factors with 29 positions (23%). The degree required was usually a Masters (48%) and the geographic area with the most jobs was the MidWest (N=16). The areas of expertise most frequently requested by employers were Engineering and Psychology.

Modified virtual build methodology for computer‐aided ergonomics and safety

AbstractIn the past, computer‐based ergonomic analysis has been time‐consuming and has required many assumptions when the virtual human motion paths have been programmed. Hence, it appears that many in the human factors and ergonomics profession have not developed much expertise in the Digital Human Modeling area. The Virtual Build method first demonstrated by the Ford Motor Company appears to improve the accuracy and speed of the ergonomic analyses used in design of assembly processes. It allows capture of real‐motion and virtual process interaction rather than assuming expected posture and task motion. A variation of the Virtual Build methodology, presented in this article, affords the benefit that both product and process design can be analyzed prior to production and limitations have been overcome. Hardware limitations in the Virtual Build environment previously prevented transfer of the data collection and analysis methods to the real manufacturing environment and limited the ability to validate the predictions from the virtual industrial environment. Preliminary results of the case illustrating the modified Virtual Build research methodology presented in this article appear to be promising in support of computer‐aided ergonomics and safety for design of new or existing workstations and consumer products. A mixed‐mode virtual‐real environment that provides force feedback can be used to supplement the experimental setup and improve fidelity of the interactions in a work design assessment. A summary of the comfort assessment for a product design example that was tested with constrained human motion is outlined in the results section and presented in the context of a summary of key issues in Virtual Interactive Design and Virtual Build Assessments. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Hum Factors Man 17: 413–422, 2007.

Modular course provision for professional ergonomists with micro- and macro-ergonomic design competency in the system ‘human being–technology–organization’

Ergonomics intends to convey the fundamental knowledge which is necessary to utilize existing design possibilities in human–machine systems and human–computer interaction, whilst taking abilities and limitations of people into consideration. This is, of course, true for developers, designers and production engineers alike, since, e.g. mechanical engineers need to develop and design instruments and tools, devices and facilities, as well as production equipment and to carry the responsibility for the products they create. Even though within a ‘scientific community’, a canon of generally accepted knowledge and skills for a specific discipline exists—what is taught and which areas of research are followed at the diverse ergonomics divisions are, to some degree, matters of personal choice of the university professors. This may, on the one hand, lead to the consequence that the inter-disciplinary goal of ergonomics may be somewhat neglected. Additionally, the scope and importance of ergonomics in the curriculum vary from university to university, irrespective of how important ergonomics may be in the education. On the other hand, the possibility to combine the various strengths of differing centres of excellence offers an extraordinary opportunity for the development of a comprehensive qualification. In light of this rather heterogeneous situation in the ergonomics field, modular course offerings in the form of inter-university co-operation have been developed, enabling micro- as well as macro-ergonomic design competency in the system ‘human being–technology–organization’ to be able to be conveyed to the student. The first step was to define and describe core modules which, in terms of content and quantity of material, must be considered fundamental elements of a well-founded education in the subject. Dependent on an individual's needs and previous knowledge, optional specialization modules are then offered in addition to this foundation. Personal preferences or ‘schools’ should not play a major role in the design of individual modules, rather the defining factors should be the needs of the ergonomist in practice, as well as a certain ergonomic ‘self-confidence’ and a challenging systems ergonomic requirement, which must be based not solely on simple point-scoring improvements in a work system but rather on a holistic view of the problem. Circumspect action and often profound thought, in the sense of ‘human factors engineering’, is required in order to achieve an optimal solution for the use of human capital, given the typical complexity of the circumstances. Considering the rather strong legal-normative foundation of ergonomics which has developed, an increased demand from businesses for the availability of well-founded ergonomic knowledge and design competency can be assumed.

Placement Opportunities for Human Factors Engineering and Ergonomics Professionals in Industry and Government/Military Positions

During the period from January 2005 through December 2005, the Placement Service of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society distributed announcements describing 123 new positions available for human factors and ergonomics professionals. This paper describes the 111 placement opportunities for those in Industry and the Government/Military. The attributes of the position descriptions examined include: employment sector, degree requirements, work experience, expertise, salary, and geographic location. The employment sector type seeking the most employees was Consumer Products at 28%. The degree required was usually a Masters (42 %) and the geographic area with the most jobs was the Northeast (N=32). The area of expertise most frequently requested by employers was Experimental Research (N=58).

The relation between OSH and ergonomics: A ‘mother–daughter’ or ‘sister–sister’ relation?

Despite the growing importance of ergonomics and ergonomists worldwide, the position of ergonomics in companies is often not clear. Today, in many countries ergonomics is mainly (or even only) associated with the reduction of risks of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). Therefore, many companies consider ergonomics a part of occupational safety and health (OSH) that focuses mainly on the reduction of risks. This paper aims to analyse the links between occupational ergonomics and OSH. The position of occupational ergonomics in legislation, the presence of ergonomics in OSH networks, and the position of ergonomics in OSH company services are discussed. In addition, the added value of ergonomics to companies is examined. From these discussions, it becomes clear that ergonomics should be part of the OSH policy of companies, and should be integrated into today's company strategies to improve labour conditions. If ergonomics is considered as a discipline in its own right, a clear legislative context should be developed that goes beyond voluntary guidelines and the goodwill of employers, and necessitates the presence of ergonomics professionals in companies.

Using surveys to identify stressors in generalized jobs: A direct clustering method

The objective of this research was to develop a method for identifying the tasks involved in a given general-description job and each such task's associated physiological and psychological stress factors. The resulting method consisted of a three-section survey followed by a short interview. The first two sections of the survey provide descriptive information concerning both employee demographics and the physiological burden being placed on the employees, in terms of stress exhibited on specific body parts and the severity of that stress. The third survey section and interview then focuses on identifying correlations between job task and perceived stressors. The primary benefit of the proposed method lies in its potential to identify high-risk tasks in general job categories using relatively expedient and inexpensive techniques and hence to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of on-site analysis. To evaluate the efficacy of the proposed method, a fisheries operation was considered in a pilot study. The results of this study, presented herein, identified eight high-risk tasks. Subsequent on-site analysis quantitatively verified that each of these tasks had been correctly classified by the presented method. Relevance to industry Use of the presented method has shown to be both an efficient and cost effective tool, which are traits highly desired by industry and ergonomic professionals.

사무작업의 인간공학적 평가를 위한 자가 기입 체크리스트의 타당성 검토

The objective of this study was to investigate the validity of a self-administered checklist for office ergonomics. Total 71 office workers were asked to fill up the checklist, while 3 trained ergonomists assessed the work posture of the workers. It was shown that out of 10 checklist items, there were significant differences for 8 posture-related items between the worker group and the professional group. Therefore, when a checklist is applied to office environment, the posture-related aspect should be evaluated by ergonomic professionals.

Placement Opportunities for Human Factors Engineering and Ergonomics Professionals in Industry and Government/Military Positions

During the period from January 2004 through December 2004, the Placement Service of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society distributed announcements describing 115 new positions available for human factors and ergonomics professionals. This paper describes the 92 placement opportunities in Industry and the Government/Military. The attributes of the position descriptions examined include: employment sector, degree requirements, work experience, expertise, salary, and geographic location. The type of industry seeking most employees was Consumer Products at 16%. The degree required was usually a Masters (43.5%) and the geographic area with the most jobs was the Northeast (N=15). The area of expertise most frequently requested by employers was Human Computer Interaction (N=50). Human Factors/Ergonomics (N=22) was the most commonly specified job expertise. During the period from October 25, 2004 through December 25, 2004, forty-three announcements for new positions were listed on HFCareers.com . Findings are discussed separately for the HFES Placement Service and HFCareers.

A survey of tools and methods used by certified professional ergonomists

A survey of Certified Professional Ergonomists (CPEs) was conducted to gather information on the types of basic tools, direct and observational measurement techniques, and software used by practitioners. The motivation for the survey was to better understand what types of tools and methods practitioners use, their opinions of these tools, and to potentially gain an understanding of the constraints or preferences that influence this selection. Reasons for using or not using a selection of tools were also surveyed. Of 578 surveys that were delivered to CPEs and Associate Ergonomics Professionals, 308 were returned for a response rate of 53%. The respondents tended to be biased towards physical ergonomics, as the survey primarily focused on this area of ergonomics. A high percentage of respondents reported using tape measures, video cameras, stopwatches and digital cameras. The most commonly used observational methods were those involving manual materials handling, whereas the most commonly used direct measurement tools were pinch and grip dynamometers and push/pull gauges. The frequency and type of checklists, software, and anthropometric data used are summarized.

Using Kinematics to Assess Software Usability and Ergonomic Risk Factors

Over fifty percent of the workforce utilize the computer and suffer health problems that include musculoskeletal disorders and physical discomfort (Newburger, 1999 and Work Loss Data Institute, 2001). Professionals from disciplines of human factors and ergonomics address computer issues independently. Usability and user interface issues are identified in the software development stage focusing on the users ability to perceive and understand the designed functions. Ergonomic professionals are involved in usability after implementation and upon complaints and user injury. The focus of ergonomics is to evaluate extreme postures, resulting from design that cause stress to the body. By using motion analysis, usability studies are enriched by identifying extreme movements in completing system tasks. In this paper we will present a novel method that utilizes the kinematics of the user's hand and wrist movements to simultaneously evaluate physical strain and usability.

A Consumer's Guide to Internet Questionnaire Development Tools: II

Questionnaires are among the tools most commonly used by human factors and ergonomics professionals. There are many commercially available tools that can assist HF professionals in the production of questionnaires and collection of data. Four commercially available tools for the construction of Internet-based questionnaires were selected and evaluated for their use in human factors. This product review compares relevant features and provides recommendations on the value and usefulness of these tools.

Industrial Ergonomics Tool Use by Certified Professional Ergonomists

A survey of Certified Professional Ergonomists (CPEs) was conducted to gather information on the types of basic tools, direct and observational measurement techniques, and software used by practitioners. The results of the industrial ergonomics tools are reported here. A high percentage of respondents reported using tape measures, video cameras, stopwatches and digital cameras. The most commonly used observational methods were those involving manual materials handling, whereas the most commonly used direct measurement tools were pinch and grip dynamometers and push/pull gauges. The type of checklists, software, and anthropometric data used also are summarized, and potential reasons for use, or lack of, are discussed.

Placement Opportunities for Human Factors Engineering and Ergonomics Professionals in Industry and Government/Military Positions

During the period from January 2002 through December 2002, the Placement Service of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society distributed announcements describing 141 new positions available for human factors and ergonomics professionals. This paper describes placement opportunities for HF and ergonomics professionals in Industry and Government/Military (N=117). The attributes of the position descriptions examined include: employment sector, major field of study, degree requirements, required work experience, salary, geographic location, travel, and areas of expertise. The type of industry seeking most employees was Consulting at 32%. The most frequently specified major field of study was Human Factors (N=73). Forty-nine percent of positions describe the master's degree as the minimum requirement. The geographical areas with the most jobs were East Central (N=20) and the Mid Atlantic (N=17). Finally, the area of expertise most frequently requested by employers was Human Computer Interaction (N=23) and Human Factors/Ergonomics (N=32) was the most commonly specified job expertise/function.

The 'ergonomics paradigm': Foundations, challenges and future directions

The challenges confronting the multi-disciplinary human factors and ergonomics profession are rapidly growing as the pace of technological change redefines the way in which people interact with each other at work and at play. Areas such as human-computer interaction, cognitive ergonomics and information technology management are booming. Calls for greater influence on designing for teams and other large groups of people, i.e. macroergonomics are growing rapidly. All the while, physical ergonomics (e.g. occupational biomechanics, manual materials handling) continues to be a strong focus in the US and around the world. To keep pace with these challenges, each human factors professional should understand the history of the field, remember the complexity of the 'user' and be able to see how their efforts unify and expand the ergonomics discipline. This paper reviews the development of the ergonomics paradigm, explores the challenges confronting the ergonomics discipline and presents ways in which those challenges may be addressed using methodologies familiar to human factors practitioners and researchers.

Placement Opportunities for Human Factors Engineering and Ergonomics Professionals in Industry and Government/Military Positions

During the period from October 1999 through December 2000, the Placement Service of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society distributed announcements describing 233 new positions available for human factors engineers and ergonomics professionals. This paper describes placement opportunities for HF and ergonomics professionals in industry and government/military (N=220). The attributes of the position descriptions examined include: employment sector, major field of study, degree requirements, required work experience, salary, geographic location, travel, and areas of expertise. The type of industry seeking most employees was Internet based at 33%. The most frequently specified major field of study was human factors (N=124). Fifty-three percent of the positions describe the master's degree as the minimum requirement. The geographical areas with the most jobs were California (N=48) and the Northwest (N=23). Finally, the area of expertise most frequently requested by employers was usability testing and design (N=99) and Human Computer Interaction (N=42) was the most commonly specified job expertise/function.

Practicing What We Preach? A Usability Evaluation of Two Electronic Conference Proceedings

This study reports on the usability of two electronic hypertext conference proceedings from the 2000 Human Factors and Ergonomic Society and Usability Professionals' Association conferences. Eight participants, who were moderately familiar with the conference content, completed five search tasks with the conference proceedings that were distributed on CD-ROM. Assessment of both objective (time, success) and subjective (satisfaction) measures indicate several usability problems with the search and navigational structure for both Proceedings. Developers are reminded that the benefits of electronic informational systems only hold true when usability practices are incorporated into their development process.

Establishment of a Certification System of Professional Ergonomists and it's social role

Establishment of a Certification System of Professional Ergonomists and it's social role

Basic Concepts in Professional Ergonomics: Defined or Debunked?

Professional forensic ergonomists are often confronted with difficulties in making sure that their expert opinions are both understood by juries and judges but also that they make the desired contribution to resolving critical issues in injury and tort law. What is at issue here are the terms and phrases used by the professionals “under oath” meaning when providing formal testimony in a court of law or as part of a deposition. For example, there are such terms and phrases as “with complete certainty,” “accident,” “fault,” “cause,” “mitigated,” “random,” “arbitrary,” and “artifactual,” just to cite a few. The problem lies with the vagaries of the English language where any single word or phrase can have many meanings and interpretations depending upon the context, the intent of the user, and the biases of those who hear it or read it. When dealing with a critically important issue such as debilitating injury to human being and in the course of trying to determine whether or not some other person is responsible, as such is the realm of tort law, vagueness of phrasing by the persons who are contributing testimony are a nagging problem. The final decision of the court and the juries may hang on a single word or phrase. In order to ensure that the professional integrity of forensic ergonomics as well as to add solidarity to the foundation of the discipline of professional ergonomics, it is critically important that it is not the forensic ergonomists in tort litigation who fail to make their intended and necessary contributions to the case because of unsuccinct words and phrases when testifying. This is a very complex issue and more than one way highly frustrating for many practicing professional forensic ergonomists. Thus, this panel discussion is designed to make an initial foray into this problem which in itself is vague and ill-defined. The panel will address three key points: 1) Whether there should be an established, professionally accepted, or endorsed taxonomy (lexicon) of standard terms to be used by forensic ergonomics professionals and lawyers. 2) How should a standard taxonomy of professional forensic ergonomic terms be developed, adopted, promulgated?; and 3) How to determine which terms and phrases need to be put into the taxonomy or lexicon. The panel will be comprised of a chair or moderator (TBD) and four professional forensic ergonomists who have extensive experience “under oath” in providing expert opinion and analysis in tort law.