Ergonomics: An emerging concept in industrially developing countries

91

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 4 (1989) 91-100 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

ERGONOMICS: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN INDUSTRIALLY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Houshang Shahnavaz University of Luel~, Department of Human Work Sciences, Center for Ergonomics of Developing Countries, CEDC, S-951 87 Lule& (Sweden)

ABSTRACT Industrialization via technology transfer is seen as the main development strategy by many developing countries (DC). The assumption that importation of advanced technology on its own, without adapting it to the environmental, physical, mental and sociocultural needs of the workforce in the receipient country wouM bring technical changes for the benefit of the majority of people has proved to be unrealistic. The failure to appreciate the characteristics and preferences of human operators has often frustrated technical development, alienated the work force and achieved little to improve the living and working conditions of the local people. Ergonomics is a useful tool for evaluating the choise of technology and its implementation and can contribute to the safe and productive transfer of technology. However, the area is fairly new or even unknown in many DC. They need assistance to acquire and apply the knowledge to their own need and capacity. It must also be emphasized that the available body of knowledge (e.g. standards, recommendations, procedures, etc.) concerning working conditions, occupational health and safety, which has been developed largely in industrialized countries (1C), often cannot be applied directly to DC, because of significant differences which are existing in all aspects of the work system between IC and DC. Since many factors influencing the nature, extent and diversity of problems are specific to each DC (e.g. climate, people, method of work, facilities, infrastructures of technology, finance, etc.) it is necessary to incorporate research into industrial development programmes.

INTRODUCTION Advances in technology have stimulated the recent rush for speedier industrialization in developing countries (DC) via technology transfer. The rapid rate of change which has taken place in most DCs is often too hasty and sometimes too defective to suit individuals and the society. In this rash process, the quality of working life and the provision of safe working environment is mainly neglected. As a result, many DCs are experiencing an epidemiological transition. The old world epidemic of infections are progressively 0169-8141/89/$03.50

© 1989 Elsevier SciencePublishers B.V.

being replaced by man-made diseases and injuries, due to work hazards, accidents, physical environmental factors and work stressors (Smith and Madhave, 1986). This is not only causing enormous human suffering, but also low productivity and material losses. For the past 16 years (since Oostebeck Forum, 1972) scientists have emphasized the importance of ergonomics application in DCs as a measure for improving the working condition and productivity. The considerable effort by International Labour Office (ILO) under the International programme for the improvement of working condi-

92 tions (PIAC programme) is the world wide comprehensive attempt in the area. The urgent need for ergonomics research and application in DCs has been emphasized during the first International Conference on Ergonomics for DCs (June 1983, Lule&, Sweden). The recent International Symposium on Ergonomics in DC, organized by International Labour Office (ILO), World Health Organization (WHO) and International Ergonomics Association (IEA) (November 85, Jakarta, Indonesia), the International Conference on Musculoskeletal Injuries in the Workplaces, organized by WHO, ILO and the World Rehabilitation Fund (May 86, Copenhagen, Denmark) and the Xlth World Congress on the Prevention of Occupational Accident and Diseases (May 87, Stockholm, Sweden), emphasize strongly the consideration of ergonomics to improve occupational safety and health aspects in the third world countries and also express that: "Productivity is interwoven in many ways into the matrix of ergonomics in developing countries". The humanization of work through ergonomics application was the major message of these meetings. However, the area is fairly new or even unknown in many DCs. They require assistance to acquire and apply the knowledge to their own needs and capacity. It must also be emphasized that the available body of knowledge (e.g. standards, recommendations, procedures, techniques, etc.) concerning working conditions, occupational

MATERIAL GOODS ENERGY INFORMATION

I

health and safety, which has been developed largely in industrialized countries (ICs), cannot be applied directly to DCs, because of the significant differences which are existing in all aspects of the work system between ICs and DCs.

ERGONOMICS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Since the establishment of our Center, 1983, several colleagues specially from abroad have asked us why we called it "Center for Ergonomics of Developing Countries and not ergonomics for developing countries". The question arises this assumption whether ergonomics is not a universal science, applicable throughout the world, independent of differences regarding races or geographical places. The answer to this question lies in the definition of ergonomics and its present state. By definition ergonomics is: "The study of people at work in relation to their working environment aimed at increasing their efficiencyand thereby productivity, but also to promote health, safety and satisfaction of men and woman in any working environment". In any working environment, the human being operates on some kind of "work object", by means of different techniques, transferring the input " work object" to a kind of "work outcome" (Rohmert, 1985), see Fig. 1. In such a man-at-work system, the man through his (physical a n d / o r mental) effort, acts by means

>

WORKOBJECT

PHYSICAL&SOCIAl.)~ Fig. 1. Relationship between man and work (Rohmert, 1985).

93 of relevant techniques on the available work object. The work object in question can have a form of material, energy or information. The human action on the work object results in a reaction from the work object upon the man. Work object and human beings are always located in a designed workplace, surrounded by specific and defined environment, which contains both physical and social parameters. Man and work object influence continuously the surrounding environment not only individually but mostly via techniques used by man for processing the work objects. These forms of actions on the objective surroundings, in turn cause reactions enforced by the environment not only on the individual components of the system but also on the system outcome. Looking closer into the system configuration, one notices that each individual system is unique by the virtue of its components i.e., the work object, the man, the technique used and the total working environment. However, systems operating under certain conditions and circumstances, contain factors of more or less similar characteristics. They would, therefore, develop some kind of common features. It is, therefore, possible to distinguish very broadly between man at work systems in industrialized countries compaired to developing countries. In IC the work object tends more and more to the information side. Currently, more than 60% of employees are working with information materials. The environments in IC are mainly regulated and controlled. The man is better protected and trained and finally more skillful in technical activities. The labour problems which require ergonomics measures, originate usually from the unsatisfactory or ill designed interfaces at the man-at-work system. The different labour problem issues are concerned with: Occupational safety and health, working time, job security, fair treatment, worker participations, challenge of work content, worker satisfaction and other problems of the quality of working life, are more or less the direct or indirect results of inappropriate interactions of man with other systems elements in the man-at-work system, including the surrounding environments. Optimum design of the interfaces involving human beings (i.e. man-machine and man-environment)

is the key to effective and safe operation of any production. It is no doubt, that wider application of ergonomics by improving working environment and increased protection of the physical and social working environment make a substantial contribution to promoting the quality of working life in every sense of the world (Delamotte and Takezawa, 1984), resulting in higher job satisfaction and more positive and sensible behaviour. However, the quality of working life is a domestic issue and can be best served within each society. The study of ergonomics problems must inevitably start with the examination of individual worker at his or her workplace. The relation between the problems perceived by the worker and his objective surroundings is the basis for corrective measures. Thus, apart from fundamental principles, many corrective measures cannot be transferred from one culture to another. Although the ergonomics problems require, in general, simple solutions which can be readily understood and meaningful to large numbers of the population, still, because of fundamental differences in all aspects of the man-at-work system in ICs compaired to DCs, and the nature of problems, the solutions developed in ICs for their problems are not applicable in DCs. Up to now ergonomics has largely been an American and West European discipline. Our knowledge of ergonomics is at present insufficient, with wide gaps, especially in relation to people and their working problems in DCs. It is, therefore, true to say that ergonomics at present cannot be considered as an universally applicable science by means of currently available standards due to the lack of information about the man-at-work systems in DCs, their related problems and eventual solutions, which certainly differ greatly from ICs. Thus, the answer to the question raised at the start of this discussion is at least at this time "'no", and that ergonomics of developing countries still needs to be developed.

ERGONOMICS TRANSFER

OF

TECHNOLOGY

Human factors of technology transfer is the emerging area in ergonomics both in ICs and

94 DCs. Western equipment and techniques, do not always match the requirements and capabilities of users in the developing countries. This is one of the common problems of DCs, which need ergonomics consideration. The subject will be discussed later as an ergonomics case. On the other hand, considering the concept of ergonomics in its broader scense, which indicate that "Ergonomics is an applied science which aims to match the demand of products, jobs and places of work with the people who use them. The focus of ergonomics is that of people and their requirements, which should be considered when objects, facilities, systems and environments which people use and operate within, are designed or evaluated.", it is right to say that ergonomics principles are universally valid. This means that available ergonomics principles are, in general, relevant and proper guidelines for designing and evaluating products, jobs and systems, irrespective of the individual characteristics for different workplaces or of m a n - m a chine systems. According to these principles, products and systems should be designed for comfortable, safe and efficient use for people, independent of nationalities or geographical places of work. However, the practical application of ergonomics principles to the problems of different countries need relevant standards and practices, which varies from society and even from enterprises to enterprises. Information which allows the modification of these standards, so that they are applied equally to

different societies, especially in DCs is not yet available. Thus, to apply the important ergonomics principles (which have been evolved in the pioneering nations of this science), the standards which have been elaborated to fulfill those principles in Western Society, need substantial modifications for other societies. In conclusion, although ergonomics is a universal science, there are some serious questions about the universality of its standard and practice. Thus, in order to apply ergonomics, each country had to work out its own solution and particular approach to its ergonomics problems. They should develop relevant and applicable standards and practices. Such measures and practices should be feasible and appropriate. It should be held in mind that most DCs have very limited financial resources and few skilled personnel in the field of ergonomics and, therefore, the application of ergonomics should not need to be expensive nor should need sophisticated methods. This view has also been expressed by Singleton and Whitfield (1968), and by the ILO, PIACT programme (1982). As mentioned before, one of the dilemmas of many developing countries is the area of "technology transfer". The momentum behind technology transfer comes from both the multinational corporations wanting to gain a wide world market, and from DCs to accelerate the path of development for improving the economic grouth of the country and also for narrowing the existing technological gap between DCs and ICs, an attempt for avoiding to be "left behind". However, the fact that

Designer's cognitive modet of the user

I

Mochine'simage ~ .-----iI of the operator

Designer

L'

I

I INTERFACE

product/Machine

__

Operator's reDder of the product

relationship.

User / Operator

I

IJ

I L_ _ _

I I

&

F i g . 2. T h e m o d e l - i m a g e

I

~

/

95 ICAPAC~TIZs q

Operoto,"s I_ [ Opera,o,"s model

~

ch.racteristics l

I

I Designer's I

model

I__

;______

/ ,

Machine's image

Match

DEMANDS

1 Redesigning the ~.

I

system

I

....

o .~

Safe and efficient

!

operation

t. . . . . . . . . . .

I R e t r a i n i n g the -~'~ Operator

]

I

L

I

I

II System Malfunctoning -

Fig. 3, The model-image match and mismatch.

technology development in one region (eg. IC) cannot be transfered unadopted into another country (eg., DC) can be illustrated by the following simplified model. The designer of a piece of technology (product) will select his design parameters and characteristics in designing a particular product to be employed by the user, according to his cognitive model of the intended user in a given environment. Accordingly, the designer will build into his product/systems, assumptions about the user's cognitive characteristics (i.e., how the user's memory functions, how performance is organized and what level of physical and mental effort are required for optimum operation). Consequently, every product/system includes an image of the user and their environment. But, also, the user of the product or system, based upon his/her training, experiences, instructions and the nature of interface, develops a set of internal models that describe the structure, function, relationship and operation of the machine (Holnagel, 1984), see Fig. 2. A safe and effective operation of a m a n - m a chine environment system occurs when the following two models match each other: (a) The designer's model of the user which is reflected in the machine's image of the operator, i.e., the "interface", and (b) The operator's model of the machine which is developed from the actual operator's cognitive characteristics. A mismatch between these two cases (i.e., model-image) is the major source of system

malfunctioning, generally attributable to human error (Holnagel, 1984), see Fig. 3 .

FORMATION OF P R O D U C T S - - D O WE NEED DIFFERENT DESIGN FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES? Bearing in mind the designer's cognitive model of the user, the socioeconomic environment and the level of technology in the society in which the product is to be employed, the designer formulates a product-design model. Consideration is, therefore, taken of the anthropological, socioeconomic and technological factors (it is important to em-

Fig. 4. Designer's cognitive model of his product/system demands.

96 phasize that the designer's cognitive model is arrived at through the overall consideration of interlocking factors which cannot be viewed independently). However, these interelated parameters can be classified into three major dimensions namely: anthropological, socioeconomic and technological factors, see Fig. 4. The anthropological aspects can include: level of skill, education, knowledge, attitude and preferences, population physique, anthropometrical, physiological and psychological considerations, customs and practice, i.e. all aspects of man including physical, physiological and mental. The socioeconomic aspects include for example: political and social norms and values, cost and efficiency, class structure, culture, employment issues, working conditions, trade union policies, social and organizational structure, and the existing laws and regulations, etc. The technological aspects can incorporate: level of technology, type of technology (labour or capital intensitive), technical infrastructure, state of world trade market, availability, maintainability, system safety, sale, national and regional considerations of competition, resources, traditions and historical considerations, physical environment, production method and work pattern etc. Therefore, the design model (of the anticipated system demand) and the subsequent construction of the product, is based upon certain assumptions: "Naturally the theories (models) set forth a tend to have some explanatory power for western development, because it was the historical and sociological factors in that process which were the premises for modern building (modernisation including industrialisation). It was only when these models were applied outside the western nations that their premises became painfully obvious" (Weinberger, 1969). Consequently, with the importation of a product (without product adaptation) from an industrialized country into a developing country, the designer's model becomes invalid and unrepresentative of the acutal user population and socioeconomic situation. Assuming a conscious designer who consider ergonomics aspects of the products, by trying to design for human use, he would aim to fit the product to the user. The designer, therefore, formulates the demand of his product (or system)

~'OesCjne('Scognitive

model of user~

capacity

Fig. 5. Theoretical arrangement showing the relative relationship between the designer's cognitive model of the user's capacity and his image of the system demand.

within the scope of his cognitive model of the user's capacity to ensure safe and efficient operation of the system or product, see Fig. 5. On the implementation of the product (or system), discrepancies evidently become apparent between the designer's image of the system demand and the actual system demand (the common inconsistency between theory and practice), see Fig. 6. All those numerous parameters and their interactions in the real life situation cannot usually be anticipated and considered by the designer completely. And also because of the technical limitations and engineering faults, the real system demands differ to some extent from the theoretical model. In this way technical readjustments may be necessary after the initial trial period in order to ensure that the product (or system) demands fall within the user's capacity to operate it safely and efficiently. With the introduction of the product (or system) into the real-life situation (such as the prototype tests, for example) it is sometimes evident that the product (or system) demand is in excess of the average user's available capacity. It is then necessary either to retrain the operator, thereby increasing his capacity (skill), or to select more

97

Fig. 6. Discrepancies between real system demand and the theoretical demand of the system in relation to the designer's cognitive model of the average operator.

qualified operators, as well as carrying out modifications on the product. In this way, the product is redesigned to fit the actual population within the given environment, see Fig. 7. However it is worth mentioning that as the man is to a great extent a finished design, it is more

Fig. 7. Discrepancies between real-life system demand, the theoretical model of user's capacity and the actual user's capacity.

realistic and also cheaper to make effort to match the demand of the products to the human being rather than vice versa. Nevertheless, the majority of the real system demands do lie within the average user's actual capacity due to the fact that the designer's cognitive model of the user formed the underlying foundations of his subsequent product-design model, because of his ergonomics awareness and rational designing. Assuming the same product (or system) is transferred into a different environment to be used by a different population (unknown to the designer), the actual average user's capacity, as well as the socioeconomic and technological factors in the new situation (in a developing country for example) will, undoubtedly, differ from those in the country of origin (usually an already industrialized country).

INTRODUCING A PRODUCT, WHICH IS DESIGNED FOR OPERATION IN AN INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY, TO A DEVELOPING COUNTRY In developing countries the user's capacity is not necessarily less than his counterpart's in industrialized countries, as recent work by K. Meckassoua (1985) reveals. Capacity, however, differs in so far as skills and knowledge lie in other areas, traditional technology for example. Thus, the available occupational capacity is usually less. Particularly regarding physiological tasks due to poor nutrition, longer working hours and excessive environmental loads, the operator's working capacity is much less. However, in other dimensions (socioeconomic and technological) the differences between the population of the recipient and origination countries are more pronounced. As Fig. 8 shows, there may exist little overlap between the real system demand and the average user's capacity in developing countries when the product (system), without modification or adaption, is introduced into an alien environment to be used by a different population. In this situation a great deal of training and re-education is usually necessary to enable the

98

Fig. 8. Introduction of the designed system (for use in industrialized countries) into operation in a developing country.

user to operate the product to some extent safely and efficiently. The system, therefore, demands the maximal effort of the operator to meet the minimal requirement of the task. Frequently, due to constraints of the recipient counting (in all three dimensions) the task of fitting the product (or system) to the new environment and population is largely impractical, if not impossible. Consequently, the transplanted technology is not only socially destructive but also economically expensive in terms of human suffering, low productivity and material losses. Many common problems in DCs, such as low productivity (less than 50%), high rate of accident and occupational diseases (5 times higher than ICs), low motivation level, increased physical and mental stress and high absenteeism and turn-over are inherently of an ergonomics nature. The underlying argument of this model is that even an "ergonomicaly designed product" (or system), made for a certain population can not be used efficiently and safely by different population in a diverse environment. It is thus better, from the economic and the well-beeing of the native population points of view, for the system to be designed within the user's capacity in a given environment, for developing countries as well as

industrialized countries. It is important to stress that the system must be designed not for exporting to developing countries, but for use by the particular population in a particular region or country.

FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PEOPLE OF VARIOUS COUNTRIES The information obtained through the application of ergonomics to ICs is not usually directly applicable to DCs, owing to certain fundamental differences. These differences can be classified under the following headings (Wyndham, 1975): 1. Anthropometry. The differences in body dimensions, body shape, weight and proportions can cause problems in designing proper equipment, lay-out, work space, protective clothing, etc. 2. Physiology. The differences in capacity for physical work and strength due to nutrition, epidemic disease, climate, habits and sociocultural parameters can cause problems in: design of work (manual work), work standards, worker selection and placement and also in the area of equipment and tool design and lay-outs of controls, etc.

99

3. Psychology and labour force characteristics. Differences in manual dexterity, perceptional responses, cognitive complexity, abilities, aptitude, decision style and information processing behaviour, skill and training causes problems in design and lay-out of information system, interface design, display-control compatibility, software design, etc. 4. Sociocultural. Here the differences in language, population stereotype, manner of work, work attitude and motivation and social values are the main sources of problems in work design and organization. In each of these cases the differences may be great enough to require re-evaluation of commonly acceptable ergonomics standards and practices.

AN EXAMPLE; CAN A PRODUCT MADE FOR THE SWEDISH MARKET OPERATE EFFICIENTLY AND SAFELY IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. In order to illustrate the above mentioned model of inappropriate technology transfer an example of the assumptions of the designer is outlined below. Assuming the product to be operational and efficient within its intended environment, the design of a product for use in Sweden, for example, would be based upon certain user characteristics. Anthropological assumptions might include; a minimum of nine years basic education, qualifications indicating the level of skill reached, certain body dimensions and physique. The product would need to be competitive at international and national levels and to meet national regulations and standards regarding safety aspects and environmental working conditions. Additionally, from the socioeconomic viewpoint it would need to satisfy the user's demands. The user in Sweden would enjoy high standards of health, nutrition and community welfare. The products should have a competetitive quality and price. Finally, the technical assumptions would include, for example, the likely positioning of the product within an automatised, moreover computerised, system, having a high level of availability and efficiecy.

The user population, socioeconomic trends and technical considerations in the recipient developing country would differ markedly; the user would probably have a lowe pshysical capacity and lower resistance to diseases and accidents, be less skilled in the technical realm and of different body dimensions. He would be accustomed to low standards of nutrition, health, housing, sanitaion and education. Furthermore, his socioeconomic life might be governed by tradition and customs. The user would be unfamiliar with the technological requirements of the product and the task, and unprotected from the harmful effects of heat, dust, toxic gases, noise and humidity. His work methods and organization would not usually be subject to Trade Union protection. From the technological viewpoint, the user in developing countries has little access to, and is generally unfamiliar with current technological developments and may be needing a more labour intensive system at an intermediate technology level. It is evident then that if the product is to be successfully transferred, the designer needs to adapt the product to all the factors influencing the actual user, the real system demands and the prevailing socioeconomic and technological environment in which the product is to be employed.

CONCLUSION Technology, defined as the capacity to create, select and use various techniques (Arghiri, 1981), describes the degree to which a country can master best its problems. This is not wholly transferable, but must be developed locally. The DCs should aim at strengthening the autonomous capacity of their country for creating indiginous technology, so that self-reliance is achieved to meet their own economic and technological needs through their own effort, in harmony with the sociocultural characteristics of the country. What could be transferred are know-how and appropriate techniques in accordance with each countrys plans and provisions, so that DCs shift from consumption of technology to creation of relevant technology. To sum it up, many current problems in industrially developing countries are of ergonomics

100

nature and could be solved through application of ergonomics principles. At the stage of design, ergonomics principles should be applied to adopt the task and the working conditions to the needs, capacities and aspirations of the local worker. This would not only ensure a suitable technical system with optimum efficiency, but would also improve the social conditions at work, thereby improving the worker's satisfaction and motivation. Unfortunately, the knowledge needed to apply ergonomics in the specific conditions prevailing in developing countries is not available. It is, therefore, essential for potential ergonomics institutes in ICs and especially the DCs themselves to make effort in: 1. Education and training in ergonomics at different levels. 2. Establish erognomics centers, trying: (a) to collect relevant ergonomics data in the DCs, (b) to establish ergonomics standards, and (c) to carry out ergonomics research in the areas of work related problems, technology transfer and improvement of working conditions.

REFERENCES Arghiri, E., 1981. Multinational enterprises and technology transfer. Round Table 81, Socialism, Science, Technology Development Strategies. Cavbat, Jugoslavia.

Delamotte, Y. and Takezawa, S., 1984. Quality of Working Life in International Perspective. ILO, Geneva. Holnagel, E., 1984. A conceptual frame work for the description and analyses of man-machine system interaction. In: Ergonomics Problem in Process Operations. Pergamon, pp 81-93. ILO, 1982. International programme for the improvement of working conditions and environment (PIACT). Report on the Asian Regional Workshop on the Role and Potential of Ergonomics. ILO, Geneva. Meckassoua, K., 1985. Etude Comparre des Activitirs de Regulation dans la Cadre d'un Transfer de Technologie (Brasserie). Thrse Doctorat d'Ergonomie CNAM, Paris. Cited in: Ergonomics in Industrially Developing Countries, Ergonomics, 28: 1213-1224. Rohmert, W., 1985. Umdruck zur vorlesung Arbeitswissenschaft 1. Institut fiJr Arbeitswissenschaft der Technischen Hochschule Darmstadt, W. Germany. Singleton, W.T. and Whitfield, D., 1968. The organisation and conduct of a world health organisation inter-regional course on ergonomics for developing countries. Hum. Factors, 10 (6): 633-644. Shahnavaz, H., 1983. The importance of ergonomics in developing countries. Presented at 1st International Conference on Ergonomics in Developing Countries, CEDC, Lule~ University, Sweden. Smith, G.S. and Madhave, V., 1986. Occupational injuries in developing countries. Division of Public Health Protection and Practice (Injury Control), John Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, U.S.A. Weinberger, J., 1969. The problems of the emergence of industrial societies. A critical look at the state of theory. In: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol 11., no. 1. Wyndham, C.H., 1975. Ergonomics problems in the transition from peasant to industrial life in South Africa in: A. Chapanis (Ed.), Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineering. Johns Hopkins University Press.