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 รน 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 objective occurs through the application of the ergonomics process. The elements of the ergonomic process are (1) data collection, (2) assessment, (3) the development of an ergonomic plan, and (4) the evaluation of ergonomic strategies (Michalak-Turcott, 2000).
There are a number of approaches to implement the ergonomic process in an organization. In a top-down approach, management dictates an ergonomic strategies and plans. In a bottom-up approach, ergonomic policies develop from requests and...