Following the general approach taken to participation in this chapter, from the broader concept of worker involvement to the more specific concept of participa
tory ergonomics, it is appropriate here to consider the model proposed by Dachler and Wilpert (1978) which identifies the dimensions that may be used to describe the properties of employee involvement. They proposed five general dimensions: formal-informal, direct-indirect, level of access, content of involve
ment issues, and social range of the involvement (Dachler & Wilpert, 1978).
Formal-Informal. Formal involvement refers to a "system of rules . . . imposed on or granted to the organization" (Dachler & Wilpert, 1978, p. 10).
Informal involvement is a consensus that arises in a casual way. A quality circle program or a work team would be formal forms of involvement, whereas a supervisor who casually allows workers to make decisions about how work is done would be informal involvement.
Direct-Indirect. Direct involvement refers to "immediate personal in
volvement of organizational members" (Dachler & Wilpert, 1978, p. 12), a one- on-one involvement with immediate and personal impact. Indirect involvement involves some kind of worker representation in which the worker's representa
tive is involved. Quality circle programs exemplify direct involvement, while a worker council would be indirect involvement.
Level of Access. This refers to the amount of influence that organizational members can exert while making a decision. It is a continuum of access from no advance information given to employees to a decision completely in the hands of employees.
Content of the Issues. Even though most employee involvement programs focus on issues and decisions directly related to one's work, this is not always
true; for example, workers may make suggestions about aspects of work or policy issues not necessarily related to one's job responsibilities.
Social Range of Involvement. This dimension refers to who is involved.
It may also refer to whether involvement is on an individual or group level.
These dimensions may be used to describe and categorize various forms of employee involvement, and there are many possible combinations.
Dimensions of Participatory Ergonomics
As stated earlier, participatory ergonomics is a complex concept, and there is no consensus about what the term actually means. Participatory ergonomics initia
tives can take a wide variety of forms. Haines and Wilson (1998) have identified some of the dimensions across which participatory ergonomic initiatives might vary (see Table 2.1). These dimensions follow without further citation. Haines and Wilson caution that the perspective of Western industrialized society is taken, and that in other parts of the world some of these dimensions might not be relevant or might not apply (Haines & Wilson, 1998). The dimensions appear to be closely related to those of Dachler and Wilpert (1978) but more specific to participatory ergonomics (another example of the differences in approaches to involvement noted by Cotton (1993).
Extent/Level. This dimension incorporates the earlier dimensions of level and focus (Wilson & Haines, 1997) and is concerned with where ergonomics is applied: across an organization, a work system, a work station, or a product (macro- to microparticipation).
Purpose. This dimension considers whether participatory ergonomics is being used to implement a particular change or whether it is the method of work organization itself.
TABLE 2.1
Dimensions of Participatory Ergonomics
Extent/Level Organization Worksystem Workplace Product Purpose Work organization Design Implementation
Continuity Continuous Discrete Involvement Direct (full/partial) Representative
Formality Formal Informal Requirement Voluntary Compulsory Decision-Making Workers decide Consensus Consultation
Coupling Direct Remote (Adapted from Haines & Wilson, 1998.)
39 2. MACROERGONOMIC METHODS: PARTICIPATION
Continuity of Use. Continuity of use depends on whether the process has a continuous (repetitive) or discrete (periodic) timeline.
Involvement. This dimension is concerned with who actually takes part in the process. It may range from full direct participation (all affected stakeholders become participants), through partial direct participation (representation by a subgroup of stakeholders), to representative participation (nominated or elected representatives of stakeholders who participate in the process).
Formality. Participation may range from formal (work teams, committees) to informal, where managers casually allow workers to make decisions about their work.
Requirement for Participation. Involvement may be either voluntary or compulsory. Voluntary participation is the usual form wherein workers volunteer their contributions and are involved in initiating the process. Compulsory partici
pation is found where involvement in quality circles and continuous improve
ment programs is obligatory.
Decision-Making Structures. This dimension is dependent on the degree of centralization-decentralization of decision-making authority in the organiza
tion and the degree of empowerment accorded the worker.
Coupling. This final dimension refers to how directly participative methods are applied. Direct coupling involves the application of participants' views and suggestions, while remote coupling involves some filtering of participants' views.
Structure: A General Framework
Haines and Wilson (1998) have developed a "first general framework" for initi
ating and structuring participatory ergonomic initiatives (Fig. 2.1). It begins with an organizational decision to implement and employ participatory ergonomics.
They point out certain motivational factors that may contribute to this decision:
legislation, availability of expert advice, external recommendations, awareness of the importance of ergonomic problems, management philosophy, workforce/
union negotiations, worker complaints and claims, and product/market advan
tage (Haines & Wilson, 1998). After deciding to implement participatory ergo
nomics, some type of initiative will then be implemented, the structure of which may be defined across the dimensions of participatory ergonomics described ear
lier. Criteria that influence the structure of the initiative include organizational size and culture, nature of workplace problems, the time frame and resources available, stakeholders, and workforce education and training.
Decision to implement Factors which may motivate an organization to implement participatory ergonomics participatory ergonomics
Structure of Criteria influencing initiative structure of initiative
Implementation Criteria influencing
process selection of methods
Evaluation
Environment
Wider, social, economic, legal, and technical factors
FIG. 2.1. General framework for developing and implementing a participatory ergonomic initiative (adapted from Haines &
Wilson, 1998).
Once the decision to implement participatory ergonomics has been made, implementation methods may be selected. Factors influencing the selection of methods include the type of problem, knowledge of and experience with methods chosen, resources available, and the number of participants. Finally, a feedback loop will be required for ongoing continuous improvement, the sociotechnical principle of incompletion (Hendrick & Kleiner, 2001). From a
41 2. MACROERGONOM1C METHODS: PARTICIPATION
macroergonomic point of view, this framework is an open system and is subject to factors from the external environment (such as economic, technical, social, and legal factors). During macroergonomic design these factors are analyzed and taken into consideration along with other relevant variables (Hendrick &
Kleiner, 2001).