Assessing human factors and ergonomics capability in organisations - the Human Factors Integration Toolset.

This paper presents the development of a tool that allows an organisation to assess its level of human factors (HF) and ergonomics integration and maturity within the organisation. The Human Factors Integration Toolset (available at: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Factors-Integration-Toolset ) has been developed and validated through a series of workshops with 45 participants from industry and academia and through industry partnered field-testing. HF maturity is assessed across five levels in 16 organisational functions based on any of 31 discrete elements contributing to HF. Summing element scores in a function determines a percent of ideal HF for the function. Industry stakeholders engaged in field-testing found the tool helped to establish the status of HF in the organisation, plan projects to further develop HF capabilities, and initiate discussions on HF for performance and well-being. Improvement suggestions included adding an IT function, refining the language for non-HF specialists, including knowledge work and creating a digital version to improve usability. Practitioner summary: A tool scoring HF capability in 16 organisation functions has been developed collaboratively. Industry stakeholders expressed a need for the tool and provided validation of tool design decisions. Field-testing improved tool usability and showed that beyond scoring HF capability, the tool created opportunities for discussions of HF-related improvement possibilities. Abbreviations: HF: human factors; HFIT: Human Factors Integration Toolset.

Young consumers' considerations of healthy working conditions in purchasing decisions: a qualitative examination.

Research has suggested that products manufactured under healthy work conditions (HWC) may provide a marketing advantage to companies. This paper explores young consumers' considerations of HWC in purchasing decisions using data from qualitative interviews with a sample of 21 university students. The results suggest that interviewees frequently considered the working conditions of those who produced the products they purchased. Participants reported a willingness to pay 17.5% more on a $100 product if it were produced under HWC compared to not. Their ability and willingness to act on this issue was, however, hampered by  a lack of credible information about working conditions in production, the limited availability of HWC goods and a presumed higher price of HWC goods. While caution should be applied when generalising from this targetable market segment to a general population, these results provide actionable direction for companies interested in using a HWC brand image to gain a strategic sales advantage. Practitioner Summary: This interview study shows that young consumers are interested in, and willing to pay a premium for, goods made under healthy working conditions (HWC). Reported barriers to acting on this impulse include a lack of credible information on working conditions. Ergonomics can help provide a strategic marketing advantage for companies.

Consumer demand as a driver of improved working conditions: the 'Ergo-Brand' proposition.

This article develops and explores the 'Ergo-Brand' proposition, which posits that consumers may prefer to buy goods that are made under good working conditions (GWCs). This preference would enhance a differentiation strategy for companies, thereby fostering the application of ergonomics in production. This proposition is developed in the context of a narrative review of the literature on 'ethical consumerism'. This is supplemented with a survey study, conducted in both Canada and Sweden (n = 141) to explore this proposition. Results indicate that consumers would prefer goods made under GWCs, but not unconditionally as quality and price concerns were ranked higher. Access to information on the working conditions in production was seen as a barrier. Nevertheless, the Ergo-Brand concept may be a viable avenue in promoting attention towards ergonomics in companies - particularly if consumer habits are subject to intervention by advertising. Further research on this strategy is warranted.

Did you have an impact? A theory-based method for planning and evaluating knowledge-transfer and exchange activities in occupational health and safety.

Few evaluation tools are available to assess knowledge-transfer and exchange interventions. The objective of this paper is to develop and demonstrate a theory-based knowledge-transfer and exchange method of evaluation (KEME) that synthesizes 3 theoretical frameworks: the promoting action on research implementation of health services (PARiHS) model, the transtheoretical model of change, and a model of knowledge use. It proposes a new term, keme, to mean a unit of evidence-based transferable knowledge. The usefulness of the evaluation method is demonstrated with 4 occupational health and safety knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) implementation case studies that are based upon the analysis of over 50 pre-existing interviews. The usefulness of the evaluation model has enabled us to better understand stakeholder feedback, frame our interpretation, and perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the knowledge use outcomes of our KTE efforts.

Reflecting on a program of participatory ergonomics interventions: a multiple case study.

Evaluations of participative ergonomics (PE) interventions have reported mixed results, potentially due to both program and theory deficits. In a multiple case study of four worksites in different companies using a quasi-experimental approach, we examined process, implementation, and effects. The process evaluation was based upon fieldwork and interviews with approximately 90 persons. Implemented changes were documented by PE teams and intensity judged by the research team. The effect evaluation was performed using questionnaire-based measures (physical effort, influence, pain and potential confounders) among cohorts present both before and after the changes (N=258). Ergonomic change teams (ECTs) faced challenges securing employees' time, varying management commitment and significant production pressures. Nevertheless they actively introduced between 10 and 21 changes over 10-20 months of activity. Limited intensity of exposure reduction was observed, resulting in no discernible effects on physical effort or pain among the employees. Potential reasons that may account for limited effects and lessons for workplace parties, practitioners, and intervention researchers are discussed.