/nl~,r n~t~or/ai JGu!

i ~ ~t

Industrial
Ergonomics
ELSEVIER

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 19 (1997) 267-270

Tools and means of implementing participatory ergonomics

Ilkka Kuorinka
Institut de Recherche en Sant~ et en S~curit~ du Travail du Qugbec (IRSST), 505, boul. de Maisonneuue Ouest, Montrgal, Qugbec Canada
H3A 3C2

Abstract

A review of the techniques used in participatory ergonomic projects is presented. The emphasis is on pragmatic tools and
the means often used in the context of occupational safety and health. Few methods stem from the domain of participatory
ergonomics itself but come from organizational development, rationalization, etc. It is emphasized that these methods should
be used in a systemic context and they should respect the participants' needs and expectations.
Relevance to industry

Participatory approaches, including ergonomics, help management to deal with uncertainty and to manage complex
situations in designing manual tasks. Participation adds value to product design and adds realism to complex systems design.
Keywords:

Participatoryergonomics;Participation; Methodology;Problem-solving

1. Introduction

The methods used to implement participatory ergonomics at the shop floor level do not form a
coherent set of conceptual tools. They are merely a
collection of techniques and approaches often used
in solving work place and organizational problems
and in conducting working groups. Although these
techniques come from various sources like rationalization (e.g. Miles, 1961) or organizational development (e.g. Sen, 1987), there are also issues that are
specific to participatory ergonomics. Such issues include the analysis of the work and activity (Wisner,
1994), and the balancing of the roles of the specialist
and the operator in the implementation of participatory ergonomics (e.g. Kuorinka et al., 1993).
It should be noted that the methodology in participatory ergonomics depends on the social, organizational and industrial context, but that discussion is

beyond the scope of this article. Shipley (1990), for

example, has discussed these issues in a larger context.
The following text is based on the author's experience with participatory ergonomics tools rather than
on a theoretical review of participatory issues.
Before exploring the tools, participatory ergonomics should itself be defined.
Participatory ergonomics is an approach resulting
from several trends: Participation in society, organization of production according to sociotechnical
principles, and the development of ergonomics from
'micro' to 'macro'.
The societal aspect goes back to debates in the
nineteen sixties about industrial democracy (e.g.,
ILO, 1981). The main issues concern participation in
the capital of the enterprises, co-determination, etc.
These issues have little practical influence on participatory ergonomics.

0169-8141/97/$17.00 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PH S0169-8141(96)00035-2

268

L Kuorinka / lnternational Journal ()f lndustrial Ergonomics 19 (1997) 267-270

The sociotechnical principles of work organization demonstrated the need and usefulness of participation in modern industrial production (e.g., Daniellou and Garrigou, 1992). Several tendencies can be
identified; in the past, the main themes focused on
autonomy, self-development, etc.
Finally, ergonomics itself is moving towards a
systems approach, i.e., macroergonomics (Hendrick,
1994). Understanding and identifying the organizational, technological and individual component roles
in an industrial production has shifted the emphasis
to systemic issues,
'Just-in-time', 'design for manufacturing' and
other trends in industry have influenced the need for
participatory ergonomics. They have also changed
the role of an ergonomist from a specialist to a
change agent, which in turn influences the practice
of participatory ergonomics. In the framework of a
case study, Wilson (1995a) has discussed the relative
merits of a participatory and specialist approach.
Participatory ergonomics is defined here as practical ergonomics with participation of the necessary
actors in problem solving. The participation is not
limited to 'worker participation' nor to formal, representative participation. It covers, in principle, all
levels of the hierarchy, inviting the participation of
those who may have first-hand experience about the
problem in question.

2. The nature of participatory tools

The essence of a participatory ergonomics process
is learning (see e.g. Lepp~inen, 1993). The learning
takes place both at a professional (dealing with
technical subject matter) as well as a social level
(inter-professional learning). In the first place, the
participants learn technical issues about the problem
at hand but they also learn to communicate their
knowledge and experience across the professional
boundaries. This is an important element in a problem-solving situation.
The interprofessional communication dictates the
nature of participatory ergonomics' conceptual tools:
They must be practical and concrete but also hierarchical, allowing for a progression from concrete to
abstract. Practicality is important because the educational background of the participants may be hetero-

geneous. It requires a concrete, hands-on approach to

begin with (see e.g. Wilson, 1995b). As the process
advances, the methods should allow for progressive
dealing with abstract and conceptual issues. Otherwise, the results of the participatory process remain
trivial and not necessarily useful.
Conventional design is mainly technology-oriented. Participatory design brings function into it.
The technology is therefore integrated into an actual
work process: the machine meets the operator. The
conventional tools, tables, drawings, CAD, etc., are
too complex and may not be applicable in a participatory context.

3. Methods used to concretize the workplace and

process
The simulation of full-scale workplaces is an
established design tool which has been used for the
simple exploration of workplace components as well
as for testing the dimensioning of space vehicles. But
the simulation has another quality in a participatory
context: It allows a workplace a n d / o r work process
that does not exist yet to be visualized and explored.
In a conventional design, it is usually the project
leader who has a mental image of the future state of
the design object. In participatory design, this image
must be shared with and enriched by the participants.
Constructing a simulated lay-out, for example, is one
way of sharing the image.
Simulation may take different forms: Full-size or
scale mock-ups are classical means of concretizing
and testing a finite object. An example is the design
of the cockpit of a police car (C6t~ et al., 1991).
Simple, readily available means, scrap material,
cardboard boxes marking furniture, and tapemarks
on the floor showing the boundaries of a machine are
effective ways to show the future situation.
Several other methods have been used to concretize and illustrate a design object or situation (e.g.
Wilson, 1991). Innovative production games have
been used in training at work, which may also be
useful in participatory design (Vartiainen et al.,
1985). Imada (1991) enumerates several categories
of tools, which may be employed in a participatory
process.
Actually, the goal of the simulation is to bring the

1. Kuorinka / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 19 (1997) 267-270

still non-existent future to the here-and-now so that

the participants can project their experience on a
concrete realization.

269

The problem-solving converges towards the design of the solutions retained. From there on, the
participatory process becomes more technical, requiring a specialist's contribution.

4. Methods used for solving problems

5. Promoting the solution
The goal of participatory ergonomics is problemsolving. Although participatory processes can and
have been used in the design and planning of a
completely new installation, it is more often used to
find solutions to an existing problem. This opens a
wide range of approaches which are commonly used
in other contexts, for example, in organizational
development.
Identification of the problem is usually the first
step, although the company and the participants may
have an idea about it. A good example is the autoconfrontation method (e.g., Pinsky, 1992) where a
worker is invited to explain his/her work as seen on
a video recording. The narration gives a picture
about the actual work process but may also go
deeply into the cognitive content of the work, going
from the concrete to the abstract. Autoconfrontation
is a way to enrich the understanding of the problem
and to analyze its determinants. In so doing, the
solutions begin to take form.
Problem-solving is commonly, but not always
preceded by analysis and diagnostics. Problem-solving itself emphasizes innovation and creativity instead of meticulous fact-finding. Some recent approaches in occupational safety and health minimize
the prior analysis and go directly to problem-solving,
integrating analytic components into the problemsolving itself (ILO, in press).
The creation of the solutions is rarely straightforward. It is usually non-linear, iterative and aims to
recruit the innovative capacities of the participants.
Free associations, production games, value analysis,
etc., can be used to create alternative solutions which
then can be analyzed for their respective merits,
feasibility and cost.
According to Kubr (1992), the search for ideas on
possible solutions, orienting the search, using experience and creative thinking, etc., is the first phase in
problem-solving. Then come developing and evaluating the alternative solutions, and the process ends
with an action proposal.

An important characteristic of a solution is its

'saleability' - i.e., the question whether the solution
is sufficiently attractive to convince the decisionmakers. Even the best solution is useless if it does
not pass the threshold of an action decision. In an
industrial context, decisions about changing the production system - be it a workplace, piece of machinery or a production line - usually take into account
several criteria, the most important being cost and
productivity. Often, due to the nature of a participatory process, the end result, however elegant, may
only be a partial solution to the problem.
Thus, one aspect of the participative methodology
should be the ability to demonstrate the added value
of a participatory process to produce relevant solutions and 'sell' the idea and demonstrate the need for
a participatory approach to the management. A major
sales argument is that the participatory process is
capable of achieving a realistic understanding of the
production operations at the shop floor level and
convert that information into suitable form for a
design process. Particularly, management may be
totally unaware of the problems related to the manual handling of material and other manual tasks,
although such problems may be crucial for productivity. As Shipley (1990) notes, participatory
methodology also helps managers to deal with complexity, which is an important issue in modem industry.
Complex industrial processes actually may differ
greatly from procedural standards (Daniellou et al.,
1994) and, thus, may benefit from participatory approaches in redesign.
There is no specific methodology for 'selling'
participatory ideas to management. Personal relations
and mutual respect between technical experts, management and ergonomists are more important than
formal procedures. Unfortunately, ergonomists often
occupy low organizational positions which makes
their negotiating position weak.

270

L Kuorinka / lnternational Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 19 (1997) 26 ~ 270

6. Conclusion

The methodology in participatory ergonomics is

not a solid body of knowledge based on a theoretical
construct. It is merely a collection of structures and
approaches which have shown their usefulness in the
hands of a competent ergonomics practitioner. Many
aspects of these tools and means are technical and
easy to apply. Others require experience and an
understanding of the basic processes in the participation. It should be borne in mind that participatory
processes may create expectations and social forces,
which, if not properly controlled, may backfire. Participatory tools and means should not be seen as
tricks and techniques but part of a complex set-up.
They should be used with honesty, diplomacy and
tact, supported by sufficient knowledge about participatory processes.

References
C6t6, M.-M., Kuorinka, I., Baril, R., Dalzell, M.-A., Geoffrion,
R., Gigubre, D. and Lame, C., 1991. Patrol car passenger
compartment design and the prevention of low back pain.
IRSST, Rapport de Recherche, January 1991, 109 pp.
Daniellou, F. and Garrigou, A., 1992. Human factors in design:
Sociotechnics or ergonomics? In: M. Helander and M. Nagamachi (Eds.), Design for Manufacturability. A Systems Approach to Concurrent Engineering and Ergonomics. Taylor and
Francis, London, pp. 55-63.
Daniellou, F., Carballeda, G. and Garrigou, A., 1994. Travail de
formalisation et travail de r~gulation: une double contrainte.
Le cas de la maintenance d'une industrie h risques. Ergonomie
et Ing6nierie, tome 1, XXIXbme congrbs de la Soci6t6
d'Ergonomie de Langue Franqaise, pp. 181-187.
Hendrick, H.W., 1994. Future directions in macroergonomics.
Proc. 12th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics
Association, Vol 1, pp. 41-43.

Imada, A.S, 1991. The rationale and tools of participatory ergonomics, In: K. Noro and A.S. imada (Eds.), Participatory
Ergonomics. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 30-49.
Kubr, M. (Ed.), 1992. Management Consulting. A Guide to lhe
Profession. International Labour Office, Geneva, pp. 167-182.
Kuorinka, I., Patry, L. and Normand, M., 1993. Projet d'ergonomie participative pour la pr6vention des maux de dos ~ la
Soci~t~ des alcools du Qu6bec. IRSST l~tudes et recherches,
octobre, R-075, 29 pp.
Lepp~,nen, A., 1993. Relationship between and development of
conceptual masteu and well-being among personnel in paper
production (in Finnish). Ty~ ja ihminen, Suppl. 6/93, 162 pp.
Miles, L.D., 1961. Techniques of Value Analysis. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Pinsky, L., 1992. Concevoir pour Faction et la communication.
Essais d'ergonomie cognitive. Peter Lang, Berne, 300 pp.
Sen, T.K., 1987. Participative group techniques. In: G. Salvendy
(Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors. Wiley, New York, pp.
454-469.
Shipley, P., 1990. Participation ideology and methodology in
ergonomic practice. In: J.R. Wilson and E.N. Corlett (Eds.).
Evaluation of Human Work. Taylor and Francis, London, pp.
819-834.
Vartiainen, M., Teikari, V. and P6yhfinen, M., 1985. The teaching
of anticipatory work style. Human Learning, 4: 203-212.
Wisner, A., 1994. Situated cognition and action: Implications tot
ergonomic work analysis and anthropotechnology. Proc. 12th
Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 1, pp. 13-16.
Wilson, J.R., 1991. Design decision groups - A participative
process for developing workplaces. In: K. Noro and A.S.
lmada (Eds.), Participatory Ergonomics. Taylor and Francis,
pp. 81-96.
Wilson, J.R., 1995a. Solution ownership in participative work
redesign: The case of a crane control room. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15(5): 329-344.
Wilson, J.R., 1995b. Ergonomics and participation. In: J.R. WiL
son and E.N. Corlett (Eds.), Evaluation of Human Work. A
Practical Ergonomics Methodology. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 1071-1096.
ILO, 1981. Workers' Participation in Decisions Within Undertakings. Geneva, 224 pp.
ILO, in press. Ergonomics Checkpoints. Geneva.