There are considerable benefits to be obtained through using HCD in mining. The examples presented later in this book show that successful products can be developed in the minerals industry and in related domains by using human-centered design approaches. Work by Horberry et al. (2011) characterized the benefits of using a human-centered approach to mining equipment as being either safety- and health-related, or productivity- and efficiency-focused. Similarly, Kujala (2003) in a review of cost/benefit evidence identified the following benefits that could be obtained when there is extensive user involvement during design:
Of course, not all the mining equipment or new technologies developed using HCD approaches are guaranteed to have all these benefits. Nonetheless, the available evidence about human-centered design from mining and elsewhere indicates that it has a positive effect overall (Kujala, 2003; Horberry et al., 2011).
1.5.1 PARTICIPATORY ERGONOMICS AND HUMAN-CENTERED DESIGN
One effective way of encouraging human-centered design (and particularly, redesign) of work is the implementation of participatory ergonomics programs. Participatory ergonomics means actively involving workers in developing and implementing workplace changes that will improve productivity and reduce risks to safety and healthâor, as Wilson (1995) put it, the âinvolvement of people in planning and controlling a significant amount of their own work activities, with sufficient knowledge and power to influence both processes and outcomes to achieve desirable goals.â The underpinning assumption is that workers are the experts, and that given appropriate knowledge, skills, tools, facilitation, resources, and encouragement, they are best placed to identify and analyze problems and to develop and implement solutions, which will be both effective in reducing injury risks and improving productivity, and will be acceptable to those impacted (Brown, 2005).
Participatory ergonomics programs have been implemented across a large range of industries and organizations, including mining (Burgess-Limerick et al., 2007; Torma-Krajewski et al., 2007) and many others. Perhaps as a consequence of the diverse settings in which programs have been implemented, and the need for programs to âfitâ each organization or situation, there are many variations in the program characteristics, such as the degree and nature of participation, the extent of expert facilitation and assistance provided, the nature and extent of training provided to teams (in ergonomics methods and team work), and the tools employed to assist teams in identifying issues and developing solutions.
Participatory ergonomics is reported to have a range of benefits in addition to the reduction in injury risks, such as an improved flow of useful information within an organization, an improvement in the meaningfulness of work, more rapid technological and organizational change, and enhanced performance (Brown, 1993; Haims and Carayon, 1998; Haines and Wilson, 1998). As well as developing more effective solutions, the use of participative ergonomics techniques to derive solutions is believed to result in greater âownershipâ by those affected, leading to a greater commitment to the changes being implemented.
Although some research has demonstrated the significant effects of implementing a participatory ergonomics program on physical risk factors (e.g., Straker et al., 2004) or productivity (e.g., Vink et al., 1995), most evaluations have focused on direct health effects. The outcomes of individual evaluations are mixed. Silverstein and Clark (2004) noted this variability, concluding that participatory ergonomics programs were âoften, but not always successful.â Cole et al. (2005) reviewed 10 evaluations of the health effects of participatory ergonomics programs, concluding that the studies provided limited evidence that participatory ergonomics programs can have a positive impact on musculoskeletal injury symptoms and compensation costs. More encouragingly, Rivilis et al. (2008) concluded that the â12 studies that were rated as âmediumâ or higher provided partial to moderate evidence that PE interventions have a positive impact on: musculoskeletal symptoms, reducing injuries and workersâ compensation claims, and a reduction in lost days from work or sickness absence.â
More recent evaluations not included in these reviews have also demonstrated mixed results; however, Cantley et al. (2014) reported positive outcomes from a six-year evaluation of a large-scale participatory ergonomics process at a multisite aluminum manufacturer. Control measure implementation targets were set by senior management, and the evaluation noted 204 control measures implemented across 123 jobs at 17 study sites, affecting the work of 14,540 workers. Jobs in which control measures were introduced were associated with significantly lower musculoskeletal injury risk, and the authors concluded that the study âprovides evidence that a systematic approach to ergonomic hazard identification, quantification, and control implementation, in conjunction with requirements to establish an ergonomic process at each manufacturing plant, may be effective in reducing the risk of MSD and acute injury outcomes among workers in targeted jobsâ Cantley et al. (2014).
The mixed nature of evaluations is perhaps unsurprising given the diversity of program designs and the variety of organizational characteristics and contexts in which program implementation has been attempted. It is reasonable to conclude that, although participatory ergonomics programs have the potential for positive health benefits, there are many potential barriers, and success has not always been achieved.
Organizations that are less hierarchical, have good labor relations, have a tradition of consultation in other areas, maintain good communication channels, and have job designs emphasizing personal control are likely to most easily adopt and benefit from a participatory ergonomics program. The commitment of management, at all levels, to the program is the most important factor contributing to the probability of success (Liker et al., 1989; Brown, 2005; Dixon et al., 2009). Senior management commitment is essential for ensuring that adequate resources are available, including the provision of time for team members to participate in training and intervention activities, and the approval of the expenditures required to implement workplace changes (Haines and Wilson, 1998). Constraint on the availability of such resources (both time and money) have been noted as providing significant barriers to success in some studies (e.g., Torma-Krajewski et al., 2007).
It is also important to ensure that middle managers within the organization maintain commitment in the face of inevitable production pressures. The challenge of achieving this is well described by Dixon et al. (2009), who investigated the implementation of three participatory ergonomics programs:
While senior management in all sites was supportive at the outset of the process, it was middle management and supervisors who, for the most part, had to deal with the pragmatic issues around maintaining production once the intervention program was in progress. Given the pressures they faced, it is not surprising that securing their support was an ongoin...
