Myths regarding Ergonomics

When I left the “comfort” of the my corporate position to start Kelby Ergo Design I was immediately struck by two things:  1) the majority of the people I met at business networking events hadn’t heard of my title, “ergonomist”, although most had heard the term ergonomics, and 2) they shared similar misconceptions of what ergonomics was and the impact it could have on business.  I thought I’d address the top three common “myths” that I see as an ergonomist.  There are definitely more than three but I’ll save those for other posts.

Myth #1—Ergonomics is just about safety

When I mention to others that I’m an ergonomist by far the most common response I get is “what?” or “who?” I then go on to explain that I’m an ergonomic consultant and inevitably that leads to comments similar to this, “You’re a safety person who helps people from getting hurt at work.”  While that statement is true, it is at best only half of the story.  Ergonomics is about optimizing human performance.   

The definition put forth by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) defines ergonomics as “the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance”. It further goes on to define an ergonomist as “an individual whose knowledge and skills concern the analysis of human-system interaction and the design of the system in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance”.  Human well-being certainly implies safety but also comfort and enjoyment.  System performance implies productivity, efficiency and effectiveness. 

I will admit that most companies initially hire Kelby Ergo Design because they are having injury issues.  However, the safety or injury issues are often the symptom of a poor work system design.  By that I mean the system doesn’t take into consideration the physical, psychological or organizational capabilities and limitations of people.  Instead of being labeled as a “safety” person, I’d rather be known as a productivity or performance strategist.  To me that label is much more accurate and all encompassing.

Myth #2—Ergonomics is only for the office

Another comment I frequently hear is that “you must assess computer workstations”.  I’ve even had people assume that I represent or sell office furniture.  Although I’m very skilled at office assessments and do my best to keep up with the different office furniture and “ergo” products, office isn’t the only area in which I or other ergonomists work. In fact, I’ve provided ergonomic services for a variety of environments and industries besides office including, but not limited to, healthcare, manufacturing, trades and laboratory.  Besides those areas there are many other areas and specialties in which ergonomics play an important role as well such as military and aerospace.

Myth #3—Ergonomics is costly

I’ve over heard and been told many times that ergonomics takes too much time and money.  Well, on what basis to they think so.  Have they performed a cost/benefit analysis?  Probably not.  Does ergonomics cost?  Sure it does, however, how much more money are businesses losing because they don’t have their work systems optimized?  How much time, energy and effort are wasted because the environment, work space, equipment and task don’t fit their people?  The business case for ergonomics can be seen and quantified in increased productivity, time saving, less errors and yes, less injuries and work comp costs.

I find myself asking why these and other misperceptions exist.  Well, one reason is how we, as ergonomists, have portrayed ourselves or have let others portray ourselves over the years and decades.  We have primarily “sold” ourselves to the public and our employers as injury prevention and safety people.  I’m not saying this was/is wrong as this is what we definitely do.  However, I do believe this “strategy” has led to the misperceptions we hear and continue to see which holds our profession back.  Why should someone with lean and six sigma experience and no ergonomic experience be wanted and preferred over ergonomists for quality and process improvement positions?  After all, improving quality and process is really all about systems and system design which is what ergonomics is all about. 

The convergence of systems, performance and safety comes together in my mission and that of Kelby Ergo Design which is to improve the quality of work life for employees, optimize the systems and processes for companies while having a positive financial impact for the employers. 

What do you think?  Is my perception a “misperception”?  Your comments are most welcome.