Sponsored by VelocityEHS

Common myths circulating around ergonomics can prevent a program from getting started, gaining traction, or being sustainable. However, if you know how to distinguish the truth from these myths, you'll have a solid foundation to grow and continuously improve from.

In a recent webinar, Rick Barker, CPE, and I tackled ergonomics myths in five areas: tactical ergonomics, machine learning, strategic ergonomics, the environment of ergonomics, and the business impacts of ergonomics. Let's look at the first one.

Tactical Ergonomics

Tactical ergonomics refers to the practical, everyday tasks aimed at assessing and reducing existing musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) risk levels. Regarding these tasks, if you were presented with these three statements, could you confidently say which two are true and which one isn't?

1. Completing a perfect ergonomics risk assessment is the top priority.
2. The risk assessment method should fit the style of work being assessed.
3. A high-quality root-cause analysis is critical to selecting improvements that address the presence of risk within a job.

The Ergonomics "Myth"

The myth in these options is that "completing a perfect ergonomics risk assessment is the top priority." Let's break it down to see why.

First, we prefer to say "MSD risk" and not "ergonomics risk," as ergonomics is the process that can help reduce the risk of someone developing an MSD.

The second misconception here is that the goal should be a "perfect" assessment. The focus should be on finding effective solutions to job-related problems. When addressing the risky areas of a job, only one-quarter of your time should be devoted to completing assessments. The other three-quarters should focus on developing and implementing solutions that improve the work environment and reduce risks for workers.

The Truths About Tactical Ergonomics

Statement two, "The risk assessment method should fit the style of work being assessed," is true. A primary reason this is so important directly relates to the employees who will be completing the assessments: people won't complete an assessment if the method isn't easy for them to do. We recommend that organizations balance accuracy with simplicity in their MSD risk assessments, ensuring that the assessment method is one that all employees can use. This encourages widespread use and adoption of the ergonomics program, enabling everyone to take part. It also helps to have a cross-functional ergonomics team made up of employees in different functional areas across the organization.

By utilizing newer technology and digital platforms to complete assessments, users with less EHS knowledge can achieve accurate results. This can lead to more consistency and facilitate the completion of assessments by limiting work disruptions. For example, with digital platforms, there is less need to interrupt workers to ask additional questions.

Statement three, "A high-quality root cause analysis is critical to selecting improvements that address the presence of risk within a job," is also true. The value of a good root-cause analysis in ergonomics can't be underestimated. A good root-cause analysis will drastically simplify the objective of your solutions. For instance, if you identify the direct cause as an object within a workstation being too far away, the solution is to move it closer. Or if an employee's sight is obstructed, the solution is to expand their line of sight. As you work toward impactful fixes in a job, don't undervalue the simplicity and efficiency of effective root-cause analysis.

To learn how to separate myth from truth in the other four core areas of ergonomics, watch this on-demand webinar, available now. It includes additional resources to help move your ergonomics process in the right direction.