In my last blog I wrote about my recent experience at the Applied Ergonomics Conference where there were sessions devoted to stretching programs. In it I stated how ergonomics is not stretching. This time I’m going to focus on time, i.e. money, spent stretching and the ergonomics that could be accomplished if that time, i.e. money, was given to ergonomics.
“We started off well but things have fallen by the wayside”. “Employees were trained, they were enthusiastic and then things just started slipping away…” The previous two statements are ones I’ve heard from companies who wanted to do ergonomics that then proceeded to get a program together and implemented who currently find themselves with a program “in name only”. Common reasons given for demise of the program were that other priorities came up that took precedence or people just got tired of doing it. There can be numerous reasons given for program failure but with a closer look can b
The last two blogs have focused on why employees, despite knowing policies and processes and even paying attention to them most of the time still consciously choose to take risks. The next question that should be considered looks at the flip side, “Why companies/CEOs/directors/managers, even if there’s great evidence that safety solutions are cost effective, will lead to more productivity and profitability, consciously decide to ignore those solutions and continue to permit risky situations?”
Have you ever brought up a new idea at work only to have it “shot down” before you could explain the reasoning and benefits of doing something different? Or have you been the person who has “shot down” the new ideas? Chances are we’ve had experience doing both. Oftentimes we are very quick to put down new ideas because of our bias that new ideas mean more work with a less than certain outcome. Based upon my experience in working for companies as an employee or as a consultant here the top 10 responses to new ideas that happen but shouldn’t. Read the list and ask yourself are you sayin
This is the sixth blog in the series on deer hunting and Lean, Ergonomics (Human Factors, Six Sigma and Systems Thinking (L.E.S.S.). In my last blog I discuss how I’ve applied process improvement principles to individual components of deer hunting. In this part I want to focus on systems thinking and systems approach to deer hunting—the final “S” in L.E.S.S.
Productivity and efficiency—two buzz words that are talked about and heard continually from large to small businesses. Why? The productivity and efficiency of people and operations can make or break a business. Unfortunately we can’t snap our fingers and make high productivity happen all by itself. However, significant improvements are common when you apply the right principles, guidelines and tools to your business systems and processes.
This is the final blog in the 4 part series on the 4 M’s to effective ergonomics systems. The 4th M stands for Momentum! Momentum or energy is continually needed to drive the system on a continual basis. First, momentum is needed in you (me) both inwardly and outwardly. The keys to inward momentum are:
This is the third part out of four in the article series on the 4 M’s to effective and sustainable ergonomics systems. The third M stands for Mindset. According to the Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, mindset means “mental inclination, tendency, or habit”. Another definition is offered by thefreedictionary.com, “A fixed mental attitude or disposition that predetermines a person’s responses to and interpretations of situations.” Mindset is the third key principle on which successful ergonomics systems are built. One must determine whose mindset must be understood.
This is the second of the 4 part blog series on the 4 M’s to Effective Ergonomics Systems in the Short and Long Term. The second “M” is Marketing. By marketing I mean that the ergonomics systems and associated projects should have a brand. Consider the following: What company name comes to mind based on the following: a Swoosh and the tagline “Just Do It”? Or what company comes to mind if I tell you the logo is a red bullseye? If you said Nike and Target you’d be correct. What about the company you work for? Does it have a brand—a logo and/or tagline?
In my previous blog I described the how behavioral based safety and ergonomics are not the same and definitely do not utilize the same approach. That being said, companies are really good at identifying “bad” employee behavior and using policy, observations and enforcement to correct it. So the question becomes how do companies who aren’t versed in ergonomics learn how to change behavior through workplace design? Let’s start with a simple framework on which built upon.
There are basically 7 steps to determining design solutions to change behavior.
