Högskolan i Skövde

Manufacturing corporations sometimes use corporate-internal procedures to evaluate and monitor the ergonomic status of the workplace. This article describes an industrial case study in the Swedish automotive sector, where an internally developed evaluation procedure was compared with a procedure based on a Swedish national standard provision.

It was found that the national standard procedure tended to give more severe ratings and statistical support shows that the two evaluation procedures are not equivalent. The ability of the methods to identify body segments at risk was also compared.

The quantitative comparison was followed up with interviews, where the influence of professional tasks and objectives became evident, as well as the fact that evaluation criteria are quantified differently by the two procedures. The main finding is that unforeseen differences in analysis procedure, criteria of acceptability and levels of detail can cause use-related difficulties for different professional groups when methods are used interchangeably.

Relevance to industry: Industrial corporations wishing to monitor ergonomics consistently are advised by the authors to ensure that ratings from internal evaluations are interpreted the same way by all involved personnel, and that they at least have criteria levels equivalent to those of a national standard.