SECTION III Service Systems
8.11 Final Remarks
Ergonomists compete with many parts of the company for limited amounts of capital available to improve the company. In order to compete effectively, ergonomists must identify and quantify the economic advantages and show them to be more important than other contenders if they expect to receive the investment funds. Accordingly, ergonomists must learn to identify important economic opportunities and they must learn to seize those with potential and then to get the greatest potential from them. While that requires art and ergonomical technology to find appropriate solutions, it also requires knowledge, prediction capability, and the forms of analysis shown above.
One of the pragmatic principles of economics is to look for some short-range optimum economic solutions to be sure the optimum range is identified, but one does not have to be dogmatic about specifying the very best. Solutions in the optimum ballpark are often indistinguishable from one another, and usually they are quite stable under expected variations. Another economic principle is to use single resources if possible, but if not, use multiple resources with balanced marginal costs.
Economics was formed from the study of people and logic. Things which are economically sound are usually humanistically balanced if realistically represented. For these very reasons, some of the ergonomic theories of how people behave come from economic theory and related principles. That is why there are economic–ergonomic interactions and why both specialists of economics and ergonomics should be looking for them.
FIGURE 8.7
8-32 Occupational Ergonomics: Design and Management of Work Systems
References
Anderson, D. (1990) Design for Manufacturability, CIM Press, U.S.A.
Arzi, Y. and Shtub, A. (1996) Learning and forgetting in high cognitive and low cognitive tasks, Advances in Applied Ergonomics, A. F. Ozok and G. Salvendy (editors), U.S.A. Publishing, 672-675.
Au, T. and Au, T.P. (1992) Engineering Economics for Capital Investment Analysis, Second edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Bevis, F. W., Finniear, C., and Towill, D. (1970) Prediction of operator performance during learning of repetitive tasks, International Journal of Production Research, 8, 293-305.
Buck, J. R. and Hill, T. W., Jr. (1975) Alpha/beta difference equations and their zeta transforms in eco- nomic analysis, American Institute of Industrial Engineers Transactions, 7, 3, 330-358.
Buck, J. R., Tanchoco, J. M. A., and Sweet, A. L. (1976) Parameter estimation methods for discrete exponential learning curves, American Institute of Industrial Engineers Transactions, 8, 2, 184-194.
Buck, J. R. and Askin, R. G. (1983) On the economic loading of parallel processes, The Engineering Economist, 29, 1, 13-32.
Buck, J. R. and Cheng, S. W. J. (1993) Instructions and feedback effects on speed and accuracy with different learning curve functions, Institute of Industrial Engineers Transactions, 25, 6, 34-47.
Buck, J. R. and Yenamedra, A. (1996) Ergonomic issues on entering the automated highway system, Chapter 18 in Ergonomics and Safety of Intelligent Driver Interfaces, I. Noy, editor, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 309-328.
Dar-El, E. and Vollichman, R. (1996) Speed v/s accuracy under continuous and intermittent learning, Advances in Applied Ergonomics, A. F. Ozok and G. Salvendy (editors), U.S.A. Publishing, 676-682.
DeGarmo, E. P., Sullivan, W. G., and Canada, J. R. (1984) Engineering Economy, 7th Edition, Macmillan, New York.
de Jong, J. R. (1957) The effect of increasing skill on cycle time and its consequences for time standards, Ergonomics, 1, 51-60.
Drury, C. G. (1988) The human as optimizer, Contemporary Ergonomics, E. D. Megaw, editor, Taylor &
Francis, London.
Fabrycky, W. J., Thuesen, G. J., and Verma, D. (1998) Economic Decision Analysis, Third Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Fabrycky, W. J., Thuesen, G. J., and Verma, D. (1998) Economic Decision Analysis, Third Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Glover, J. (1966) Manufacturing process functions ii: selections of trainees and control of their progress, International Journal of Production Research, 8, 293-305.
Goldberg, S. (1961) Introduction to Difference Equations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Hax, A. C. and Majluf, N. W. (1982) Competitive cost dynamics: the experience curve, INTERFACES, 12, 5.
Helson, H. (1949) Design of equipment and optimal human operation, American Journal of Psychology, LXII, 4, 473-497.
Hill, T. W., Jr. and Buck, J. R. (1974) Zeta transforms, present value, and economic analysis, American Institute of Industrial Engineers Transactions, 16, 2, 120-124.
Hutchings, B. and Towill, D. R. (1975) An error analysis of the time constraint learning curve model, International Journal of Production Research, 13, 2, 105–135.
Nadler, G. (1970) Work Design: A Systems Concept, Revised Edition, R. D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.
Nanda, R. and Adler, G. editors, (1977) Learning Curves Theory and Applications, Monograph 6, American Institute of Industrial Engineers, Norcross, GA.
Navon, D. and Gopher, D. (1979) On the economy of the human processing systems, Psychological Review, 86, 254-255.
Newnan, D. G. (1991) Engineering Economic Analysis, 4th edition, Engineering Press, San Jose, CA.
Newnan, D. G. (1996) Engineering Economic Analysis, Engineering Press, San Jose, CA.
Park, C. S. and Sharpe-Bette, G. P. (1990) Advanced Engineering Economics, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Tanchoco, J. M. A., Buck, J. R., and Leung, L. C. (1981) Modelling and discounting of continuous cash flows under risk, Engineering Costs and Production Economics, 5, 205-216.
Theusen, G. J. and Fabrycky, W. J. (1989) Engineering Economy, 7th edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
White, J. A., Agee, M. H., and Case, K. E. (1989) Principles of Engineering Economic Analysis, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Wickens, C. D. (1992) Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, Second Edition, HarperCollins Publishers, New York.
Wright, T. P. (1936) Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes, Journal of Aeronautical Science, 3, 122-128.
Wulff, J. J. and Berry P. C. (1962) Aids to job performance, Psychological Principles in System Development, R. M. Gagne and A. W. Melton, editors, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
0-8493-1801-7/03/$0.00+$1.50 9-1
© 2003 by CRC Press LLC
9.1 Why Do Organizations Feel They Need
Ergonomics? ...9-2 Money • Employee Complaints • Regulatory
Concerns • Production/Quality Concerns 9.2 What Are the Costs Associated with
Ergonomic Mismatches?...9-3 Workers’ Compensation Claim Costs
Direct Claim Costs • Indirect Claim Costs • Measuring Claim Cost • The Concept of Fully Developed
Losses • Salary Continuation Expenses (LTD/STD) • Lost Workdays/Restricted Workdays • The Cost of
Turnover • Estimating the Probability and Value of Loss
9.3 Methods for Justifying Ergonomic Interventions...9-8 What Is a Cost Benefit Analysis? • Payback
Method • Internal Rate of Return • Present-Value Method • Ergonomics and Productivity
9.4 The Influence of Corporate Culture on Cost
Benefit Analysis ...9-10 Organizational Culture and Values • Demonstrating and
Communicating Safety and Health Values • Advances in Economic Analysis • Value Chain Analysis • Cost Driver Analysis • Competitive Advantage Analysis • Summary of Costs and Benefits • Summary and Conclusion
9.5 Justifying Ergonomics Initiatives — Case Studies...9-14 Travelers Tennessee Nursing Home Study • Vehicle
Subassembly Plant Ergonomics Success Story • Post-Injury Ergonomics Intervention for a Chronic Carpal Tunnel Case
“I have not been able to discover that repetitive labor injures a man in any way. I have been told by parlor experts that repetitive labor is soul, as well as body-destroying, but that has not been the result of our investigations.” — Henry Ford1
The great automotive pioneer Henry Ford expressed the above opinion in 1922. What we know today about the soul and body-destroying nature of “repetitive labor” and its associated science, ergonomics, is much more definitive than Henry Ford could have ever imagined. While recent ergonomic investiga- tions, discoveries, and understandings of the adverse affects of repetitive tasks conducted by Ford Motor Company and researchers worldwide have moved us far beyond the opinions of a true industrialist, there William E. Lischeid
Travelers Insurance Company
David J. Roy
Travelers Insurance Company
9-2 Occupational Ergonomics: Design and Management of Work Systems
are still too many senior executives and managers in business and industry today echoing these past opinions. They have subscribed to the Fordian school of thought of yesteryear without appreciating the evolution of the science of ergonomics and the significant cost that repetitive labor can have on the risk of injury and their own bottom line.
Without a carefully conceived method of justifying the cost of ergonomic improvements, ergonomists will continue to find resistance to the science and the benefits that it can bring to the modern workplace.
The ability to quantify as well as qualify the cost benefit of ergonomic improvement initiatives is a critical skill that will differentiate those ergonomists who are viewed as being a source of value to the bottom line from those who are viewed as a corporate irritant.
In the past, many safety and health professionals were hesitant to use cost benefit analysis because it was ethically and morally challenging to place a value on the life and health of an individual. Ergonomics is a science that is based on both documented scientific research and sound engineering principles.
Ergonomics is far more than a specialty within the safety and health field. It is a set of design principles that, when applied to the workplace, can create jobs that are within human capabilities and limitations.
The practical application of the science of ergonomics in the vast majority of situations has the potential to maximize the contribution of the worker to the work process, without compromising safety and health.
We cannot forget that despite the advances in technology and automation, the single greatest resource available to most organizations is the human resource. Ergonomics can increase productivity and human performance by making jobs more physically and psychologically efficient as well as reducing the risk factors that can and often do result in lost work time and turnover. It is therefore very appropriate to use cost benefit analysis techniques to document the costs of ergonomic initiatives and quantify the benefits to safety and health as well as company productivity and profitability.
Many of us in the ergonomics community intuitively know that the benefits of most ergonomic improvements far outweigh the human and capital costs. Why, then, is it so difficult to sell ergonomics to management?