Annelise M de Jong1, Peter Vink. 1. Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Division Building Engineering, The Netherlands.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This paper evaluates a step-by-step participatory approach to better work, applied in reducing the musculoskeletal workload in installation work. To arrive at a reduction in workload, a steering group led the project through the following steps: 1. INTRODUCTION: defining the goal and informing all 7000 employees. 2. ANALYSIS: finding major loading tasks. 3. Solution phase: creating solutions in group sessions and prioritise. 4. TESTING: promising solutions were tested during real operations. 5. Implementing: spreading the knowledge through the whole company and asking for additional solutions. 6. EVALUATION: the effect and process were evaluated. The result was that 138 devices were bought. Seven out of nine devices were used daily. Users reported a good or very good reduction in musculoskeletal loading and were satisfied. The project was cost-effective within 1 year. Adding organizational measures or system solutions could have increased the effect, and more direct participation could have increased the impact. The first steps (introduction, analysis of work, solution generation and user tests) were well organized and contributed to the success. The processes in the last steps were unstructured and the evaluation was not representative. Sixty additional devices were suggested by employees of which 12 were selected. These devices seemed a success, but no data could be obtained on the use and experience with these solutions.
UNLABELLED: This paper evaluates a step-by-step participatory approach to better work, applied in reducing the musculoskeletal workload in installation work. To arrive at a reduction in workload, a steering group led the project through the following steps: 1. INTRODUCTION: defining the goal and informing all 7000 employees. 2. ANALYSIS: finding major loading tasks. 3. Solution phase: creating solutions in group sessions and prioritise. 4. TESTING: promising solutions were tested during real operations. 5. Implementing: spreading the knowledge through the whole company and asking for additional solutions. 6. EVALUATION: the effect and process were evaluated. The result was that 138 devices were bought. Seven out of nine devices were used daily. Users reported a good or very good reduction in musculoskeletal loading and were satisfied. The project was cost-effective within 1 year. Adding organizational measures or system solutions could have increased the effect, and more direct participation could have increased the impact. The first steps (introduction, analysis of work, solution generation and user tests) were well organized and contributed to the success. The processes in the last steps were unstructured and the evaluation was not representative. Sixty additional devices were suggested by employees of which 12 were selected. These devices seemed a success, but no data could be obtained on the use and experience with these solutions.
Authors: Ivan A Steenstra; Johannes R Anema; Maurits W van Tulder; Paulien M Bongers; Henrica C W de Vet; Willem van Mechelen Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2006-12
Authors: Anping Xie; Pascale Carayon; Elizabeth D Cox; Randi Cartmill; Yaqiong Li; Tosha B Wetterneck; Michelle M Kelly Journal: Ergonomics Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: I A Steenstra; J R Anema; P M Bongers; H C W de Vet; D L Knol; W van Mechelen Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2006-07-17 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Ludeke C Lambeek; Judith E Bosmans; Barend J Van Royen; Maurits W Van Tulder; Willem Van Mechelen; Johannes R Anema Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-11-30
Authors: Maurice T Driessen; Karin I Proper; Johannes R Anema; Paulien M Bongers; Allard J van der Beek Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Ann Marie Dale; Lisa Jaegers; Laura Welch; Bethany T Gardner; Bryan Buchholz; Nancy Weaver; Bradley A Evanoff Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 2.214