Prevention through Design: A Macroergonomic Conceptual Approach to Risk Reduction

Abstract

Occupational Applications:Prevention through Design (PtD) is the first United States macro-ergonomic initiative to address occupational and environmental risks associated with work operations. In the PtD approach, all aspects of the work operation (worker, equipment, materials, environment, processes) are evaluated, inherent risks identified, and design solutions generated. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health launched an initiative in 2008 to disseminate Prevention through Design methods in all industrial sectors. Innovative design solutions are being developed to reduce injury, illness, and pollution arising from agriculture, construction, manufacturing, commercial fishing, healthcare, and mining. Diffusion of new design solutions and adoption within the industries, though, remain major hurdles to implementation. Therefore, this paper describes a conceptual model to predict industry acceptance of these innovations. Practicing ergonomists and occupational safety and health professionals can employ the constructs of this model in developing intervention strategies within the workplace. ABSTRACTBackground: A recent National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health initiative has

Occupational Macroergonomics: Principles, Scope, Value, and Methods

“…Fray et al (2015) use the Safety Culture Survey, developed by safety scientists. Weidman et al (2015) leverage multiple useful theories and a standard scale development process to produce a measurement tool of large potential value for macroergonomics. Other papers describe the use of methods and approaches originating in macroergonomics, such as the Ergonomic Work Analysis in Sznelwar and Hubault (2015), the mesoergonomic paradigm and the Tool for Risks Outstanding in Patient Handling Interventions (TROPHI) in Fray et al (2015) or the Ergonomics Job Analysis (EJA) and Engineering Design Criteria (EDC) tools used in the 3M Corporation’s risk reduction program in Larson et al (2015).…”

“…Cognitive work analysis (Vicente, 1999) and many forms of cognitive task analysis (Hoffman & Militello, 2009) are already well suited to macroergonomic pursuits. Other useful approaches are being newly developed, such as the Prevention by Design approach described by Weidman et al (2015) and the Intervention Design and Analysis Scorecard (IDEAS) (Robertson et al, 2013). Future macroergonomic methods could focus on product design and evaluation, teamwork, virtual environments, and adaptive human activity (see also Sznelwar & Hubault, 2015).…”

“…Kubek, Fischer, and Zink (2015) implicate entire international supply chains in their conceptualization of macroergonomics for sustainable work systems. The papers also address a wide range of topics: Larson et al (2015) evaluate the nature of successful HFE interventions with implications for assessing and promoting corporate ergonomic programs.Weidman, Dickerson, and Koebel (2015) develop a conceptual model and survey instrument for assessing the factors that influence industry adoption of a national macroergonomic initiative.Sznelwar and Hubault (2015) examine workers’ goal-directed activity as a guiding principle and resource for the participatory design of work organization.Ghosh and Dickerson (2015) adapt a measurement approach for interpersonal interactions to describe communication in construction project meetings.Fray et al (2015) study the relationship between patient handling and patient safety climate in a UK hospital.Kubek et al (2015) consider the concept of a sustainable work system as a potential paradigm for HFE and macroergonomics.…”

“…Weidman, Dickerson, and Koebel (2015) develop a conceptual model and survey instrument for assessing the factors that influence industry adoption of a national macroergonomic initiative.…”

“…Weidman et al’s (2015) rigorous survey development paper gives one reason why: even for a well-publicized and large-scale national macroergonomic program, adoption and acceptance are not guaranteed and depend on stakeholder perceptions of the programs usefulness, and cost – i.e., value.…”