Improving Working Situations Through Participatory Ergonomics and Training

Musculo-skeletal disorders (MSDs) are a growing concern in many workplaces. Certain risk factors present in work activity are known to contribute to such disorders. Examples would include awkward postures and forced and repetitive gestures. An ergonomic analysis of job tasks, including observation of the activity in question, highlights the presence of risk factors and helps in understanding the determinants of MSDs. Changes can then be made to the determinants, thus reducing the risk factors.

The action research program reported in this article was carried out over a period of 24 months by a team composed of four ergonomists and one sociologist. The implementation process was documented in various contexts, and the results were assessed using a realistic approach. The intervention program, implemented in two factories, was divided into three components : mobilization, training and action.

Mobilization. Two main activities were carried out to obtain the company’s commitment to the project : first, a structure for the intervention was set up ; second, information was circulated throughout the company on both the program and its implementation. For each factory, the intervention structure was composed of Ergo groups that became the main players in the process, together with a steering committee that served as an interface between the research team, the Ergo groups and the company. The members of the Ergo groups were selected to complement one another. For example, a group would be composed of a production employee, a maintenance employee, a first level manager (e.g. supervisor), a technical officer (a technician or engineer) and a health and safety officer (physician, prevention officer or workplace health and safety consultant). The Ergo group members attended training given by the ergonomists and were involved in a set of actions ranging from the selection of a working situation in which MSD risk factors were present, to diagnosis and then to the implementation of projects for change.

Training. Training was given to the seven Ergo groups (four in factory A and three in Factory B). It was divided into four two-day units comprising theoretical sessions and practical work, and was spread over a period of six months. The group members met between the units to do their practical work. The four units were as follows : (1) Portrait of the Working Situation, (2) Identification of the Risk Factors in the Selected Situation, (3) Analysis of MSD Risk Factor Determinants, and (4) Changes to the Working Situation.

Action. On the basis of interviews and data available in the factory, each group put together a portrait of a working situation in which MSD risks were present. It then observed the selected situation and made videos. The videos were analyzed to break down the activities and identify the risk factors (postures, force, duration, etc.). Examination of the operations identified as being most at risk led to an analysis of the risk factor determinants, i.e. the elements of the working situation that contributed to the presence of the risk factors. Participants were then invited to explore several families of determinants, including tools, equipment, layout, processes, work organization and training. They met for a brainstorming session at which a certain number of changes were proposed. The proposals were screened and transformed into projects that were then submitted to the steering committee.

In personal logbooks set up at the beginning of the project, the ergonomists listed a total of 150 activities carried out in the two factories. The principal activities were meetings with the Ergo groups, shift meetings and work observation sessions. A sociologist specialized in evaluation was asked to monitor the program by analyzing the logbook notes and recordings of the ergonomists’ meetings. He also recorded the meetings of the steering committees in the two factories at the end of the training period, as well as the individual interviews with all steering committee and Ergo group members at the end of the intervention (a year later).

The Ergo groups analyzed nine working situations. The nine diagnoses generated 40 projects for change. For each working situation diagnosed, the ergonomists produced a review of changes from on-site observations. The purpose was to ensure that the changes had actually been implemented and the project goals achieved. Subsequently, using the logbooks and other documents produced by the participants, they reconstituted the trajectory of each change, attempting to highlight the elements that facilitated implementation and the obstacles encountered during the process.

Most of the projects initiated and implemented by the people who took part in the initial training were concerned with equipment and had short decision circuits. Projects were also more likely to be implemented if the MSD issue was linked to safety, quality or other issues of importance to management. Lastly, the transformation from proposed solution to project for change was essential for implementation to take place. In addition to the work analysis skills learned during the training sessions, the projects required a rich knowledge of the factory’s own formal and informal project implementation processes.