Solution Building Versus Problem Convincing: Ergonomists Report on Conducting Workplace Assessments

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONS

Professional ergonomists (n = 21) from across Canada reported initiating workplace assessments with observations, interviews, and imaging approaches. When necessary, they proceeded to deeper, usually quantitative, methods in order to provide a better understanding of the situation or, more frequently, to motivate action in the company, operating in a “convincing” mode. Some ergonomists reported that when working in a higher trust environment, they used simpler, often more qualitative, evaluation methods to move directly to developing design alternatives—a “solution-building” mode. These findings shed light on how ergonomists judge the appropriateness of a method for a given context in their daily work. They may also be valuable for ergonomists trying to refine their assessment approach, both for researchers trying to better support practitioners through improved tools and knowledge and for the planning of ergonomists’ education.

TECHNICAL ABSTRACT

Rationale: There are many methods available to help ergonomists in the design and evaluation of work. Very little is known about how practitioners chose appropriate methods in their daily work. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine what approaches are used by ergonomists in their daily work, to describe the experiences of ergonomists with different assessment methods, and to discover how they judge the appropriateness of a method. Methods: In order to explore the use of such methods, 21 semi-structured interviews were completed with professional ergonomists across Canada. Results: Most ergonomists reported initiating a study using methods such as observation, interviews, and imaging. There was a frequent mention of hazard identification and risk assessment at workplaces by the ergonomists interviewed. In some situations, ergonomists proceeded to deeper, often quantitative, analyses in order to provide a better understanding of ergonomics issues or, more frequently, to motivate a recommended action—operating in a ‘convincer’ mode. Some ergonomists reported that when working in a higher trust environment, they are able to use simpler evaluation methods to move directly to developing design alternatives—a “solution-building” mode. Applications: These findings shed light on how ergonomists judge the appropriateness of a method for a given context. They may also be valuable for ergonomists trying to refine their assessment approach, for researchers trying to better support practitioners through improved tools and knowledge or in the planning of ergonomists’ education.

KEYWORDS:

• Professional practice
• risk assessment
• job analysis
• human factors
• organizational design and management

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This authors wish to acknowledge the generosity and candor of the participants for giving their time to describe their daily practice in detail. They are also grateful for the contributions of Dr. Jonas Laring, Dr. Saeed Zolfaghari, and Megan Mekitiak. This project was funded by a research grant provided by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario.