Archival, objective, subjective exam questions Flashcards
Identify and briefly describe one archival, one objective and one subjective method of investigation used by ergonomists. Indicate the strengths and weaknesses of each method [10 marks].
Identify and briefly describe one archival, one objective and one subjective method of investigation used by ergonomists. Indicate the strengths and weaknesses of each method [10 marks].
Archival - literature review.
- comprehensive literature search (and other documents such as industry reports) is likely to uncover relevant information from the industry and from refereed work carried out internationally.
- strengths - global data source
- weaknesses - time-consuming
Objective - direct observation video, audio, photo.
- is when the ergonomist is the instrument of measurement with minimal interaction with the people and situations being observed.
- strengths - seeing workers in action provides valuable diagnostic material.
- weakness - workers can change their behaviour as a result of being observed.
Subjective- employee questionnaires
- either standardised (created for the industry, relevant/reliable measures of perception compatible with the industry) or designed specifically for the organisation by management, employees and ergonimist.
- Strengths - provides information directly linked to employee experiences - they are the expert on their working experiences.
- can be disruptive to work if employees are required to repeatedly stop work to answer questions.
Part 2: Give a brief account of how you might use a selection of archival, objective and subjective methods if you were assessing a warehouse with reports of musculoskeletal disorders? Indicate why triangulation of your findings is important [10 marks].
If I was assessing a warehouse with reports of musculoskeletal disorders I would start with a review of archival data stored by the organisation. I would hope to see incident reports, health and safety data, employee job descriptions and training procedures, I would also look for industry-relevant literature. Once I have reviewed this information I would request access to observe the systems in action, I would be looking at posturing, form, equipment, workplace culture and how workers interact with eachother. I would take footage of tasks for further measurements and measure forces, the weight of equipment/products etc. I would also arrange to measure subjective experiences to determine what, where and how employees define their experiences. By triangulating information from all three areas I should be able to confidently determine what the problems are, who is directly affected, how they make sense of the situation and from there make suggestions for change and implementation of interventions.
Give a full internationally accepted definition of ergonomics [5 marks].
Ergonomics (human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions between humans and other elements of a system, the profession applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimise human well-being and overall system performance.
What are the definition’s key positive features [5 marks]?
The recognition that humans and other elements of a system interact.
That it’s a scientific discipline = thorough and reliable because based on scientific methods, not common sense and instinct.
That the goal is to improve design to optimise human well-being and overall system performance.
Ergonomics promotes a holistic approach in which considerations of physical, cognitive, social, organizational, environmental and other relevant factors are taken into account.
What are its limitations [5 marks]?
Humans
In your own words, please provide your own (new) definition of Ergonomics [5 marks]?
Ergonomics is a holistic system focused discipline, which prioritises and aims to optimise human functioning within organisations. Grounded in science, ergonomists tap into a range of knowledge that spans multiple disciplines in order to assess, design and evaluate how various components of the system are interacting. From this perspective, risks can be identified and mitigated against to reduce the risk of harm to people and equipment/products.
Discuss the validity of ‘Pheasant’s five fundamental fallacies’, which are:
(i) This design is satisfactory for me – it will, therefore, be satisfactory for everybody else
(ii) This design is satisfactory for the average person – it will, therefore, be satisfactory for everybody else
(iii) The variability of human beings is so great that it cannot possibly be catered for in any design – but since people are wonderfully adaptable it doesn’t matter anyway.
(iv) Ergonomics is expensive and since products are actually purchased on appearance and styling, ergonomic considerations may conveniently be ignored.
(v) Ergonomics is an excellent idea. I always design things with ergonomics in mind – but I do it intuitively and rely on my common sense so I don’t need tables of data.
1) This design is satisfactory for me – it will, therefore, be satisfactory for everybody else.
“The designer considers the matter, tries out the prototype, and concludes ‘it feels right to me’, with the clear implication that if it is satisfactory ‘for me’ it will be for other people too.”
- The range in human proportions represent remarkable diversity, in ergonomics first and foremost design for the user where possible. Failing that designs which can be adjusted (eg. work stations, chairs etc) or will suit 95% of the population (doorways, safety exits).
2) This design is satisfactory for the average person – it will, therefore, be satisfactory for everybody else.
“Most people consider themselves to be more or less average”
- Eg. designing a door to fit 50% of the population would mean 50% of the pop. would bang their heads if they don’t duck, and 50% would have to turn sideways to fit through the doorway. → it would accommodate less than half of the doorway users because the taller half is not necessarily the wider half.
3) The variability of human beings is so great that it cannot possibly be catered for in any design – but since people are wonderfully adaptable it doesn’t matter anyway.
- Procrustean approach to design.
“People will put up with a great deal and not complain”
Like the previous example, the taller folks learn to duck or they would get repeatedly concussed. - However, repeatedly adapting to poor design can lead to injuries.
4) Ergonomics is expensive and since products are actually purchased on appearance and styling, ergonomic considerations may conveniently be ignored.
Hidden costs of adoption - Economic loss just an excuse - back pain, neck pain, repetitive strain etc. The actual cost of adapting to the user is not usually as high as expected.
Eg. Designs created reflect society created in or consumer pressure leads to ergonomic features in design - office equipment.
5) Ergonomics is an excellent idea. I always design things with ergonomics in mind – but I do it intuitively and rely on my common sense so I don’t need tables of data.
Empathy - does this infer that the client becomes an extension of the designer so they are really just designing for themselves?
Common sense - what is this really - justification for blind acceptance of an untested hypothesis?
