Ergonomics in the Office
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Proper use of ergonomics can prevent absenteeism, increase productivity, and eliminate much of the twisting, bending, and repetitive lifting that accounts for most of the industrial accidents today in the materials handling industry (Kulwiec, Feare, Forger, & Auguston, 1995). Nevertheless, controversy surrounds the movement to apply ergonomic principles in the work place. Some opposition stems from political philosophy ù opposition to any action required by government. Strong employer opposition based on costs argues that the costs associated with ergonomic improvements in the work place outweigh the benefits [benefits measured as productivity improvements, not as fewer injuries on the job]. Other opposition rests on the argument that research findings do not support all advocated ergonomic innovations (Lambert, 2001).In spite of stiff opposition to the implementation of ergonomic principles in the work place, organizations are increasingly moving to implement such measures because of demonstrated benefits to the organization and because workers increasingly demand such action (Berkman & David, 2001). For such organization, a central issue becomes a determination of how best to implement the ergonomic process within the organization (Gilson, Mouloua, Graft, & McDonald, 2001). The objective of an ergonomics program within an organization is to fit jobs to workers, as opposed to fitting workers to job. The accomplishment of this
. . .
managers to line workers to engineers. Ford also has formed local ergonomics committees at more than 70 of the company's plants in the United States, and has given those eight-person committees (four each from management and labor) the responsibility to track ergonomic problems and implement solutions (Syverson, 2001).
The core of the Ford Motor Company approach to implementing the ergonomic process is employee involvement (EI). EI can lead to improved ergonomics when the corporate culture encourages creative thinking on work design from both a top-down and bottom-up perspective. This approach produced ergonomic improvements at Ford's St. Louis assembly plant, where Aerostar vans are assembled (Feare, 1991).
The Aerostar's three-passenger rear seat weighs approximately 100 pounds, and two workers outside of a vehicle were required to move the seat through the vehicle's sliding door to an installer on the inside of the vehicle. The process denied the outside workers sufficient leverage to efficiently and safely insert the seat into the vehicle, while the insider installer was required to twist and turn in unnatural positions to install the seat in the correct location within the vehicle. An EI team at the plant developed an
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Vlachonikolis Buckle, Collection Instrument, Gramm Viscusi, Automobile Workers, Research Division, St Louis, Martin Rempel, Graft McDonald, Background Repetitive, Federal Express, ergonomic process, implementation ergonomic, implementation ergonomic process, ergonomic process organization, process organization, materials handling, research sample, data collection, approach implementation ergonomic, approach implementation, buckle 2002, vlachonikolis buckle 2002, mixed office-manufacturing, devereux vlachonikolis, devereux vlachonikolis buckle,
Approximate Word count = 4608
Approximate Pages = 18 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
