2.2.5 Hardware ergonomics
Classical ergonomics actually means this type of ergonomics. A narrow framework for the study of hardware ergonomics includes technical-physical components of a computer system and a broader framework includes direct and indirect environments of the system, such as appropriate structure of a workplace with computer equipment, physical characteristics of the workplace, a desk and a chair and their properties, microclimate, lighting, etc.
(see Chapter 4). Figure 2.11 shows a workplace with computer equipment.
Figure 2.11 Workplace with the computer equipment
that infl uence work, the structure of HMS must be examined by monitoring human labor in relation to the information and the speed of information fl ow.
This includes setting up the task, its putting into action, the performing of the task, and the result of performing the task. A feedback closes the control loop formed for the HMS and shows that the operator is generally capable of com- paring the task and the result. All the disorders of this process are the impacts of the environment. While analyzing the task defi nition, there are:
• tasks with predominantly physical strain. Here, some people defi ne the difference between static and dynamic physical work. In both cases, stress can be quantifi ed by defi ning the physical requirements;
• tasks with predominantly mental strain (intellectual work). A generalized concept for defi ning this stress in numbers does not exist.
Intellectual work is therefore taken as a factor of stress;
• tasks with both requirements (physical and mental).
Figure 2.12 Human–Machine system
System ergonomics tends to optimize this interaction and reduces the num- ber of errors made by man (so-called active safety) and to improve the reli- ability of the overall performance of HMS. The objective of system analysis is to provide requirements for the plan of a MMI within the HMS specifi cations or the ideas for possible improvements.
The basic procedure in system ergonomics is to defi ne elements of a system and their interactions. Two basic principles are:
• Information is always transmitted through very specifi c channels from the output of one element to the input of another one.
• Elements are defi ned by their characteristics in order to change information in a specifi c way, which was determined by the element.
Fundamental characteristics of systems analysis and therefore system ergonomics are not paying attention to the physical nature of elements and their interaction and the very study of the formal structure of this interaction, and they refer to the transfer of element information. In system ergonomics, components of the ‘‘man’’ and ‘‘machine’’ system are the main subjects of research. As this standpoint does not depend on the physical nature of indi- vidual elements, the results of system ergonomics can be transferred through different HMS.
Ergonomics of HMS can be connected with system reliability and evalua- tion to measure its effectiveness for the optimization of HMS taken for ergo- nomic system analysis.
System elements include the following:
1. The reason for the existence of the system.
2. Man and his characteristics involved in the HMS, accomplishing the goal of the system.
3. Machine and its characteristics, location, size, shape, access, etc. It can be a simple part or a tool or a very complex system with many components, displays and components.
4. Environment with all its characteristics (temperature, humidity, noise, etc.) where there is a human–machine interaction.
5. Information.
6. The actions that workers need to do interacting with a machine in order to perform the tasks (it can be mental, e.g. decision making, or physical, e.g. catching).
7. Performing the task – the conditions and results of the interaction of a man with the machine and equipment.
Organization of HMS is shown in Fig. 2.13.
The indicators of a well-designed HMS are as follows:
• good and precise performance of work operations
• short time required for training on the machine
• increased work and health safety and
• increased motivation for work
Objectives of the System - production - quality - security - health -comfort Results of the system - production - quality - security - health -comfort
Environment (temperature, noise, lighting, microphone) Man - power - tolerability - observation - visibility - touch - skill
Machine - position - size - form - access - appearance
Information - visual - audio Action - deciding - reach - touch - holding - move - use - waiting Figure 2.13Organization of human–machine system
Indicators of a badly designed HMS are:
(a) errors regarding the intention
• slip: right intention and poor workmanship
• mistake: bad intention and workmanship responding to the intention
• lapse: failure to perform the intention due to, e.g. abandoning the workplace, sleepiness, etc.
(b) errors regarding the outcome
• omission
• commission
• wrong schedule of actions in working operation
• bad production time
• too fast or too slow in performing
Figure 2.14 Badly-designed human–machine system
While analyzing environmental impacts (ergonomics of environment), there are:
(a) physical environmental impacts, which can be measured, as well as their impact on man and can be assessed quantitatively (lighting, noise, mechanical vibrations, air-conditioning, toxic gases, radiation, dust, dirt, and humidity).
(b) social environmental impacts, which cannot be measured physically and therefore are marked differently (they are sometimes called a work sociology or industrial psychology).
Macro-ergonomics is a top-down socio-technical system approach to a work system design, and the design of related human–job, human–machine,
human–software, and human environment interfaces; although top-down con- ceptually, in practice, macro-ergonomics involves the analysis of the work system at all organizational levels. It usually involves extensive participation of persons from all units and levels of the work system.
Macro-ergonomics deals with the systematic structure and organization of workfl ow considering the task, the content and the time factors. It can be di- vided into the organizational structure and the organization of work processes.
The goal of macro-ergonomics is not an individual workplace but the interac- tion between many workplaces. Its goal is testing ergonomic requirements at this level. In this context, the term macro work can be used as well. The unit area of macro-organization can be divided if a unit of operating system is transferred to a higher operating task in the context of a group. The analysis of workfl ow provides the right-in-time information necessary for the task that should be performed within the organizational unit and on the basis of internal dependences. This allows the specifying of capacity requirements of humans, the means of production and the time of their utilization. In particular, ways of communication and possible losses of information are determined in order to optimize the interaction between workers and working funds. The develop- ment of innovative telecommunications and computer technology is a new challenge for the organization of work.
Environmental conditions are defi ned as those that do not directly infl uence the work process and the process of communication but, similar to micro- ergonomics, change it indirectly. It is important to emphasize the difference between the impact that cannot be changed by the organization of work and the infl uence that can be optimized by the corresponding design of workfl ow and organizational structure of cooperation.
On the output side of the working process, performance improvement can be obtained by organizational steps, with personally verifi ed methods of the quality of working object and the results, respectively, developed on the one hand, and on the other there is the worker under the infl uence of motivational factors.
Many of the cases described cannot simply be proved by an experiment.
Therefore, partial detailed simulation methods are often used, and through cumulative key numbers they describe personal acceptance, personal qualifi - cations, waiting time, overlapping by simultaneous upcoming order to provide the assessment of organizational changes and new structures.
References
1. Adsit JD, London M, Crom S, and Jones D (1996) ‘Relationships between employee attitudes, customer satisfaction and departmental performance,’ Journal of Management, 15(1), 62–75.
2. Ahuja MK and Carley KM (1998) ‘Network structure in virtual organizations,’ JCMC, 3(4).
3. American Society for Quality Control (Available from http://asq.org/
index.aspx).
4. Arnold J (2005) Work psychology: understanding human behavior in the workplace, Prentice Hall, London.
5. Banjanin M (2007) Komunikacioni inzinjering, Saobracajno-tehnicki fakultet, Doboj.
6. Barnes RM (1968) Motion and time study: design and measurement of work, Wiley, New York.
7. Baskin OW and Aronoff CE (1988) Publick realtins: the profession and the practice, W.C. Brown, Iowa.
8. Böhme A. (1991) Systemergonomische Betrachtung des Arbeitssystems mobiler Landmaschinen als Grundlage für die Entwicklung eines Simulationsversuchsstandes für Tätigkeiten und Ausführungsbedingungen auf mobilen Maschinen, Diss, Dresden.
9. Brewer JD and Hsiang SM (2002) ‘The ergonomics paradigm:
foundations, challenges and future directions,’ Theoretical issues in ergonomics science, 3(3), 285–305.
10. Colovic G (2010) Management of technology systems in the garment industry, Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
11. Colovic G (2012) Strategic management in the garment industry, Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
12. Council Directive on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment – 90/270/EEC.
13. Deal TE and Kennedy AA (1988) Corporate cultures – the rites and rituals of corporate life, Penguin Books.
14. DeCenzo D and Robbins SP (1996) Human resource management, 4th ed, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York
15. Döring B (1976) Analitical methods in man – machine system development, in Introduction to human engineering, Kraiss Moraal,Verlag Tüv Rheinland Gmbh, Köln.
16. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (Available from http://
osha.europa.eu).
17. Fung YC (1998) Biomechanics, Springer Verlag.
18. Hendrick H and Kleiner B (2001) Macroergonomics: an introduction to work system design, HFES, Santa Monica, CA.
19. Ingram H, Teare R, Scheuing E, and Armistead C (1997) ‘A system model of effective teamwork,’ The TQM Magazine, 9(2), 118–127.
20. International Labour Offi ce (Available from www.ilo.org).
21. Katz D and Kahn RL (1966) The social psychology of organizations, Wiley, New York.
22. Katzebach JR (1998) Work of Teams, Harvard Business School Press.
23. Kroemer KHE and Grandjean E (1997) Fitting the task to the human, Taylor & Francis, London.
24. Marmaras N and Kontogiannis T (2001) ‘Cognitive tasks,’ in Handbook of Industrial Engineering (G. Salvendy), 3rd ed, Wiley Press, New York.
25. Muchinsky PM (2000) Psychology applied to work, Brooks Cole, New York.
26. Munipov V and Zinchenko V (1989) Fundamentals of ergonomics, Progress Company.
27. Optitex (Available from http://www.optitex.com).
28. Panjabi MM and White AA (2001) Biomechanics in the musculoskeletal system, Churchil Livingstone, New York.
29. Pilbeam S and Corbridge M (2002) People resourcing HRM in practice, Prentice Hall, London.
30. Pistotnik B (2003) Osnove gibanja. Gibalne sposobnosti in osnovna sredstva za njihov razvoj v sportni praksi, Institut za sport, Ljubljana.
31. Ramax Company (Available from http://www.ramax.co.rs/).
32. Reason J (1990) Human error, Cambridge University Press.
33. Robbins SP (2004) Organizational behavior, 11 ed, Prentice Hall, London.
34. Salvend G. (1997) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 2nd ed, J. Willey & Sons Inc., New York
35. Samovar AL and Porter ER (2003) Intercultural communication, Thomson Learning, Belmont.
36. Schein EH (1992) Organizational culture and leadership, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
37. Singleton WT (1982) The body at work, University Press, Cambridge.
38. Spitzer DR (1995) Supermotivatio, Amacom Books, New York.
39. Starcevic J, Ilic M and Paunovic-Pfaf J (2010) Prirucnik za procenu rizika, Globe Design, Beograd.
40. The International Commission on Occupational Health (Available from http://www.icohweb.org).
41. Vink P, Koningsveld EAP, and Dhondt S (1998) ‘Human Factors in organizational design and management,’ VI Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management Held in The Hague, The Netherlands, August 19–22.
42. West MA, Borrill CS, and Unsworth KL (1998) ‘Team effectiveness in organizations,’ International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13, 1–48.
43. Wilson J (2003) New Methods in Ergonomics, New York.
44. Winter DA (2009) Biomechanics and motor control of human movement, 4th ed, John Willey and Sons, New Jersey.
45. Zecevic M (2005) International Business and Management, Evropski univerzitet, Beograd.
46. Zeidler A and Zellner R (1994) Software-Ergonomie, Oldenbourg, München.
Ergonomic conditions of work
Abstract: Knowledge of ergonomic conditions prevents employee discomfort, fatigue, and physical injury. Injury related to poor ergonomic conditions can be prevented by designing the physical work environment around the physical needs of individual employees. Therefore, it is necessary to know the physiological, psycho-sociological conditions, and anthropometric ergonomic conditions.
Key words: physiology, motivation, fatigue, monotony, stress, anthropometric, bio- mechanical