Industrial Engineering Meets Ergonomics Work Analysis
Abstract
An industrial ergonomist must work synergistically with others in the organization, who are at levels above the ergonomics function, in order to ensure the success of any ergonomics effort. This article discusses some of the conflicts that have developed between ergonomics and industrial engineering. It also details ways that industrial ergonomists can achieve synergy in this kind of environment.
HESE DAYS, AN INDUSTRIAL
ergonomist is still more likely to be
asked for redesign than for design
recommendations. To some extent,
this is a reflection of the lack of wide-
spread integration of ergonomics
into the design process. Unfortu-
nately, redesign is typically more
expensive and challenging than de-
sign, and there are often more constraints. The suc-
cess of any ergonomics effort will depend partly on
performing appropriate analyses, but providing rec-
ommendations that will be embraced and implement-
ed is just as important.
In practice, this means that recommendations will
often need to be approved by people involved in the
industrial engineering function - perhaps the industri-
al engineering department or one of its corollaries, such
as production planning, quality assurance, and manu-
facturing engineering. It is therefore important for the
industrial ergonomist to work synergistically with oth-
ers in the organization who are at levels above the ergo-
nomics function. Following a brief discussion of history
and some of the conflicts that have developed between
ergonomics and industrial engineering, I explore ways
that industrial ergonomists can achieve synergy in this
kind of environment.
Historical Perspective
Industrial engineers have been involved in the
analysis of work since the discipline began. The micro-
analysis techniques of Frederick Winslow Taylor and
Frank and Lillian Gilbreth had a profound influence on
the origins of industrial engineering, as well as on ergo-
nomics analysis techniques. Taylor's time study work
was predicated on scientifically determining exactly
what was to be done and how long should be allowed to
do it. Motion study, on the other hand, examines the
kinematic aspects of work with the goal of eliminating
so-called wasteful elements or motions.
These fundamental industrial engineering tech-
niques are useful and continue to be applied. Howev-
er, industrial engineering now goes far beyond these
techniques and is primarily oriented toward productiv-
ity improvement, which, "broadly defined, implies a
more efficient use of resources, less waste per unit of
input supplied, higher levels of output for fixed levels of
input supplied, and so on" (Saunders, 1982).
Ergonomics, on the other hand, is always oriented
toward enhancing
human
performance by applying the
principles of anatomy, psychology, and physiology to
the design and analysis of work. The aspects of human
performance I typically focus on include health, safety,
and productivity, which are inherently related. For
instance, productivity must be bounded by the require-
ments of safety and workers' ability to maintain pro-
ductivity over long periods without injuries or disease.
Likewise, focusing on health and safety without consid-
ering productivity issues may lead to poor acceptance
(or even rejection) of ergonomics recommendations.
Health, safety, and productivity are all factors in the
"equation" that affects the relationship between output
and input; therefore, ergonomics naturally operates
within the scope of industrial engineering.
One need look no further than contemporary ergo-
nomics analysis techniques to appreciate the influence
of industrial engineering on ergonomics. An excellent
example is the analysis of upper-extremity work. The
rise in reporting of musculoskeletal disorders of the
upper extremity in the last two decades has spawned
numerous analysis techniques with clear motion study
influences. These techniques represent an elemental-
based approach to dissecting work for the purpose of
enhancing human performance. Some excellent exam-
ples are provided by Armstrong, Chaffin, and Foulke
(1979), Putz-Anderson (1988), and Yen and Radwin
(1996). In addition to studying the elemental motions,
these researchers considered the frequency of the
motions, hand and wrist postures, and forces exerted.
An area of ergonomics with a strong task-based focus
influenced by scientific management efforts is manual
materials handling (MMH). Despite the increased use of
automation, MMH is still a significant part of work in
manufacturing, construction, transportation, health
care, and other industries and services. There is no
shortage of MMH analysis techniques that analyze
MMH jobs at the task level, including biomechanical
approaches (e.g., Chaffin
&
Page, 1994), physiological
approaches (e.g., Garg, Chaffin,
&
Herrin, 1978) and
psychophysical approaches (e.g., Snook
&
Ciriello,
1991). Taylor's (1912) discussion of Gilbreth's bricklay-
ing experiments is just one example of how scientific
management influenced contemporary MMH analysis:
I stoop down to the floor to the pile of bricks
and disentangle a brick from the pile and pick it
up off the pile. "My God," I said, "that is noth-
ing short of barbarous." Think of it! Here I am,
a man weighing over 250 pounds, and every time
I stoop down to pick up a brick I lower 250
pounds of weight down two feet so as to pick up
a brick weighing 4 pounds, and then raise my
250 pounds of weight up again, and all this to lift
up a brick weighing 4 pounds. Think of this
waste of effort. It is monstrous. (Pp. 68-69)
An MMH example illustrating the greatest similar-
ities between the scientific management and ergonom-
ics approaches to work analysis is the pig-iran-loading
experiments Taylor coordinated at Bethlehem Iron Com-
pany and the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation (Waters,
Putz-Anderson, Garg,
&
Fine, 1993). In response to a
request by Taylor, Carl Barth developed an equation
that mathematically defined daily tonnage specifications
for workers who loaded pig iron onto railroad cars.
Using Gillespie and Wolle's (1899) report of time stud-
ies of pig iron handling, Barth developed the following
formula:
w-
47
- t
2
1+--
2700
where W
=
long tons (2240 lb, or
lOIS
kg) and I
=
aver-
age distance pigs were carried.
The formula was applicable to loading when the
slope of the walk did not exceed a one to five grade and
when the pigs were carried less than or equal to 30ft
(about 9 m). Reductions were provided for summer
because of the added heat stress. In summary, task para-
meters were used to set MMH limits.
Using a considerably larger base ofliterature, Waters
et a1. (1993) developed the current NIOSH equation
that provides the recommended weight limit (RWL) for
lifting and lowering tasks:
RWL=51Ib. x [~]x
u-O.
0075IV-301]x
[0.82
+
I~]XFMX [1-0.0032 x
A]
xCM
where H = horizontal location in inches, V = vertical
location in inches, D = vertical travel distance in inches,
and A = angle of asymmetry in degrees. The values of
the frequency multiplier (FM) and coupling multiplier
(CM) are determined using tables.
There are a number of differences between Barth's
and the NIOSH equation. First, each applies to a dif-
ferent type of MMH task. Second, the Barth equation
specifies a daily total load handled. Third, the Barth
method uses fewer task parameters. Perhaps most crit-
ically, the Barth equation was designed to maximize
productivity, whereas the NIOSH equation was de-
signed to protect the majority of the population.
The two equations are similar in that both specify
handling limits using task parameters, both apply to a
narrow set of MMH tasks, and both are in the form of
an equation. When one considers that 94 years separate
the techniques, it is remarkable that they are far more
similar than dissimilar.
The ergonomics task analysis techniques discussed
earlier are examples of the broad influence of industrial
engineering on ergonomics. Task analysis is one of the
most widely used ergonomics analysis techniques. The
influence of the Gilbreths' and of Taylor's work is evi-
dent in Miller's (1953) landmark report on task analysis.
A strong emphasis on defining training requirements
FALL 2000 • ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN
5
- An analysis of the operation into its elements.
- A study of these elements separately.
- A synthesis, or putting together the results of our
study. (P. 16)
Gilbreth's statement is a systemic view of ergonom-
ics and an excellent example of how the Gilbreths' pio-
neering work was oriented toward optimizing system
performance.
A careful study of the anatomy of the worker
will enable one to adapt his work, surroundings,
equipment, and tools to him. This will decrease
the number of motions he must make, and make
the necessary motions shorter and less fatiguing.
(P. 10)
Conflicts
The most apparent conflicts between industrial
engineering and ergonomics have been between time
study and ergonomics concerns. \iVhen workers at the
Watertown Arsenal outside Boston went on strike in
1910 in response to time studies being conducted, the
issues that surfaced in hearings included workers' health
and safety. This trend continued, and Taylor's (1911)
condescending description of his experiences with Henry
Knolle during the pig iron experiments did little to
encourage use of his techniques in some circles. The
actual dialogue between Taylor and Knolle may have
been exaggerated by Taylor to make for more engaging
lectures and reading (Kanigel, 1997).
Today, ergonomists also question some applications
of time study when the aspects of human performance
considered are of limited scope. For example, prede-
termined time systems capture only limited aspects of
performance. (See the section "Adapting Industrial En-
gineering Tools" regarding needlenose pliers for an
example.) Applying such data without a careful analysis
of human capabilities and limitations can be detrimen-
tal to
system
performance. Although some applications
of microanalysis techniques will result in decreased
fatigue and injury while simultaneously increasing pro-
ductivity, unilateral focus on one specific system out-
come (e.g., injuries or productivity) will not necessarily
optimize system performance.
The "battle" between ergonomics and time study
has come full circle: Taylor's approach was accused of
neglecting the health and safety of workers, and today's
ergonomics is sometimes faulted for neglecting pro-
ductivity concerns that are often the focus of time stud-
ies. Some in industry believe ergonomics seeks only to
decrease the frequency or intensity of work. Often
ignored is the potential increase of
system peiformance
attributable to factors such as reduced fatigue, discom-
fort, and injuries that can positively affect workers'
compensation costs, product quality, and costs associat-
ed with hiring and training workers to replace those on
disability.
As an example, Kern (1997) criticized the NIOSH
lifting equation - which he incorrectly stated is used to
set limits for carrying - for its energy consumption cri-
terion. He discussed studies indicating that strenuous
exercise is beneficial, so NIOSH is obviously wrong.
For example, he claimed that because energy expendi-
ture for a 160-lb (72.6 kg) person walking at 3.57 mph
(5.75 km/h; predetermined time standard for normal
walking) exceeds 5.0 kilocalories, ergonomics and work
measurement are in conflict. This statement does not
appear to consider widely accepted principles of work
physiology (e.g., lifting aerobic capacity is considerably
lower than walking aerobic capacity). The energy
expenditure relative to the maximum (which is highly
task specific) is the important physiologic metric.
in
syne
I
s
im.
indu
can be found in the work of Miller, Taylor, and the
Gilbreths.
In 1911 and today, industrial engineering approach-
es to the analysis of manual work rely heavily on task-
based or elemental-based analyses. Henry Gantt (1911)
provided a succinct summary of this approach to study-
ing manual work:
Examples of concern for safety and health are pre-
sent in the scientific management literature. Aside from
Taylor's (1912) responses to questions before the U.S.
House of Representatives committee that investigated
scientific management, others proactively discussed
health and safety. De Freminville (192 5) stated that
Taylor's experiments, described in
The Principles of Sci-
entific Management,
were "the best studies in fatigue
which have ever been made." He also noted how pro-
ductivity in France rose under scientific management
but that sick leave reports also decreased. Feiss (1916)
described how the goal of scientific management to
achieve "the maximum of prosperity for both manage-
ment and worker" is "attained not only by safeguarding,
but also by directly contributing to the health of the
worker" (p. 13).
When one looks at Gilbreth's (1911) philosophy, it
is not at all surprising that ergonomics was influenced
so strongly by his work:
6
ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN'
FALL 2000
ond, the example shows the profound differences that
two factors (pliers design and work height) can have on
productivity. There are always multiple factors that
affect performance in many industrial environments. I
know of no predetermined time data that make allow-
ances for such variables.
The complexities of this parochial example stress
the importance of a multifaceted approach to the micro-
analysis of manual work. For other examples of the
wire-twisting task and have been used for years as a
didactic example of a hand tool that incorporates
ergonomics principles. Unfortunately, the assumption
that the pliers would be beneficial for any task requir-
ing needlenose pliers has been implicit in the ergonom-
ics literature.
The performance data in Figure I illustrate several
important points. First, productivity can be increased
by following the ergonomics design guidelines that
standing work be performed near elbow height. Sec-
An understanding of the task-specific nature of aer-
obic capacity and biomechanics quickly clarifies why
some forms of exercise, such as bicycling and low-
impact aerobics, can be beneficial while others are inju-
rious to the body - for example, lifting lOO-lb [45-kg]
castings in a foundry). Mechanical loading on the
human body becomes a critical metric when tissue dam-
age is likely to result from the activity. More important,
the whole of ergonomics is not the NIOSH equation,
just as selecting the fittest workers for the pig iron ex-
periments was not the whole of scientific management.
Such narrow arguments are counterproductive to the
goals of both ergonomics and industrial engineering.
Synergy
In the foregoing sections, I have focused on philo-
sophical relationships among time study, motion study,
and ergonomics. In this section, I use some examples to
illustrate how using multiple approaches to the micro-
analysis of human work can benefit ergonomists.
The first example illustrates the sometimes compli-
cated relationship between ergonomics and time and
motion study. Figure 1 shows experimental perfor-
mance data for two types of needlenose pliers at five
work heights. The first are conventional needlenose
pliers designed in accordance with ANSI standards; the
second type is a particular kind of needlenose pliers
designed for a specific wire-twisting operation in the
electronics industry (Tichauer,
1976).
The latter were
intended to reduce wrist deviation while performing the
o
n
than
conte:mp
ics
34
-e-
Western Electric Pliers
____ Conventional Pliers
32
GI
~
~
c
:E
30
"-
GI
a.
VI
C
0
'Z
28
~
0
>
GI
a:
26
Figure 1.
Interactive effect
of work height
and pliers type
on performance
(Dempsey
&-
Leamon, 1995).
Reprinted with the
permission of the
American
Industrial Hygiene
Association
Journal.
24
Elbow
Height -10"
Elbow Elbow
Height -5" Height
Work Height
Elbow
Height +5"
Elbow
Height +5"
FALL 2000 • ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN
7
IFROM
TO
I
Lathe
Mill
Finishing Area
Warehouse
Loading Dock
Lathe
8
Mill
24
Finishing Area
120
Warehouse
95
34
Loading Dock
Figure
2.
Example offrom-to chart with distances of material movements (manual handling is indicated by bold numbers).
sometimes complex interaction between analysis tech-
niques, see Resnick (1997).
The second example illustrates how interventions
based on ergonomics analyses can reduce stresses asso-
ciated with a palletizing operation without interfering
with throughput. Assume that a hypothetical palletizing
operation requires workers to lift 28-lb boxes arriving
on a conveyor, carry them an average of 10 ft to the
pallet, and then lower the boxes to the 10 box
X
10 box
X
5 box pallet. The boxes arrive at the rate of five per
minute. Managers are concerned about the palletizing
operation because of the entries on the injury and ill-
ness recordkeeping form required by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA 200 log) the
process generates, but they do not want to add more
workers or decrease throughput in order to avoid
increasing costs. Therefore, they will consider only
ergonomics interventions that do not require addition-
al workers or a lower throughput.
Because the palletizing operation requires lifting
and lowering while carrying, a computerized version of
Snook and Ciriello's (1991) psychophysical database
was used to analyze the task. The analysis indicated that
the operation accommodates 49% of the male popula-
tion and requires an estimated energy consumption of
7.5 kilocalories per minute. Clearly, task redesign
should be considered. A rotating lift table, which is capa-
ble of eliminating the need to bend and of decreasing
Process Chart
Present Method
0
Date 9/4/99
Proposed Method
lEI
Chart
By
PO
Subject Charted Revised castina stackina - analysis is for Chart No. 23
removina 20 castinas and stackina them
Sheet
1
of
1
Deoartment
Finishina
Process
Shakeout
Distance Time
Chart
(ft.) (min)
Symbol Process Descriotion
0.50
eQODV1
Attach hoist to castinq (x20)
3
0.25
O.ODV1
Move casting to rack via hoist (x20)
0.25
eQODV1
Stack in new rack (x20)
1.00
OQOtV1
Sianal fork truck driver when rack is full
12
0.50
O.ODV1
Fork truck moves rack
0001)\7
Summary
Present Proposed
Method
method Difference
Ooerations
0
40 40
0
Transoortations
Q
41 21 -20
Insoections
0
Delays
D
1
+1
Storaaes
V1
0
Total time (min) 20 castinqs
35
21.5 -13.5
Travel Distanceltt) 20 castinQs
240 72 -168
8
ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN·
FALL 2000
Fir;ure 3.
Example of
process chart
showing benefits
ofproposed
methods
changes. (Based
on aformat
presented by
Barnes, 1980.)
Left Hand
Reach for box
Assemble box
Reach for two pieces of product
Place product in box
Hold box flaps shut
Place on conveyor
Right Hand
Assemble box
Place foam in box
Reach for two pieces of product
Place product in box
Tape box closed
Reach for label
Attach label
Place on conveyor
Figure 4.
Example of an
operation chart for
a simple packaging
operation. (Based
on aformat
p1'esented
by
Barnes, 1980.)
the average carry distance from 10 to 5 ft, will result in
accommodation of 71% of the male population and an
energy expenditure of only 4.1 kilocalories per minute,
which is reasonable for males. In this case, there is no
decrease in productivity, and the additional biome-
chanical stress of bending has been removed from the
task, which is similar to the reductions that Gilbreth's
bricklaying study achieved with similar engineering
controls.
Adapting Industrial Engineering Tools
There is tremendous potential for ergonomists to
analyze work and present the results to convey the
potential increase in system performance that will result
from ergonomics improvements. Justification of imple-
menting such improvements becomes easier, typically
through more detailed financial assessments (e.g., Som-
merich, 1999). In some cases, the description and analy-
sis of work can be used for other industrial engineering
analyses, adding further value to the ergonomics analy-
sis. This is particularly true when the industrial engi-
neering and ergonomics functions are performed by the
same personnel.
The foregoing examplesrepresent only a sample of the
congruencies between industrial engineering and ergo-
nomics. The following techniques and their potential use
for ergonomists further illustrate these congruencies. Inter-
ested readers can consult a variety of industrial engineer-
ing texts for further information (e.g., Barnes, 1980;
Salvendy,
1982;
Tompkins
&
White,
1984).
From-to charts. These charts, or matrices, are used
to analyze material flow, with emphasis on reducing
movement and optimizing material flow through a
facility. An example of a from-to chart is given in Figure
2 (see previous page). The charts can easily be modified
to delineate manual, machine-assisted, and automated
material movement. The results can be used to pinpoint
unnecessary human stress and can provide the basis for
a task description for detailed analysis.
Facilities layout and equipment selection can some-
times solve MMH problems. Processes can be redesigned
to be more efficient, and the reduction of injuries and ill-
nesses will enhance the bottom line.
Process charts. A process chart graphically illustrates
the steps in a task or set of tasks (the process chart sym-
bols developed by the Gilbreths are still in use). These
charts are often used to improve the efficiency of a
process and can also provide a detailed task description
for a task analysis. Figure 3 (page 8) illustrates a process
chart for a recommended redesign of an operation in
which castings are removed from a shake table in a
foundry, placed on the ground, and rolled to a stack 12
ft from the operator. It was recommended that the cast-
ings be placed directly into a rack and moved with a
fork truck to eliminate awkward and stressful postures
while rolling the castings. The process chart shows the
overall efficiency gains that the redesign provides, in
addition to the ergonomics improvements.
Operation chart (or left- and right-hand charts).
The operation chart assists in process improvement and
operator training (Barnes, 1980). Detailed descriptions
of the sequence of motions performed by each hand are
recorded (see Figure 4). The level of detail recorded can
FALL 2000 • ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN
9
vary depending on the requirements of the analysis, as is
the case with task analysis. The principles of motion
economy relevant to the operation become apparent.
Similarly, the operation chart provides the basis for
a detailed ergonomics assessment of upper-extremity
demands (for example, see Drury, 1987; Putz-Anderson,
1988). Niebel and Freivalds (1999) provided their
"Principles of Work Design," which integrate ergo-
nomics and traditional principles of motion economy.
These principles are very useful for industrial engineers
and ergonomists, and the list can be used with the oper-
ation chart to help the analyst determine potential
improvements.
The techniques discussed can be used to form a cat-
alogue of tasks, processes, and jobs for use by industri-
al engineers, ergonomists, and others involved with the
design and analysis of work. When changes are made, the
analyses can be easily modified to reflect the changes.
The catalogue can be used as a basis for further analy-
sis, to create job descriptions, define training require-
ments, and similar purposes. Ultimately, this can lead to
more efficient systems and, more important, increased
efficiency for those charged with analyzing systems.
Conclusions
Understanding the similarities and differences be-
tween industrial engineering and ergonomics not only
resolves apparent conflicts but also allows industrial en-
gineers and ergonomists to efficiently exploit the benefits
of each approach. When used correctly and concurrent-
ly, these different approaches to the analysis of work
provide an opportunity for work analysis that benefits
labor, management, and the end user of the goods or ser-
vices produced. The concurrent application of these tech-
niques will yield greater insight into, and enhancement
of, human performance, allowing for a systems-based ap-
proach to enhancing the bottom line of an organization.
References
Armstrong, T.]., Chaffin, D. B.,
&
Foulke,]. A. (1979). A method-
ology for documenting hand positions and forces during manual
work.
Journal of Biomecha7lics,
12, 131-13 3.
Barnes, R. M. (1980).
Motion and time study: Design and measurement
of work
(7th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Chaffin, D. B.,
&
Page, G. B. (1994). Postural effects on biomecharucal
and psychophysical weight-lifting limits,
Ergonomics,
37, 663-676.
De Freminville, C. (1925). How Taylor introduced the scientific
method into management of the shop.
Bulletin of the Taylor Soci-
ety,
X(I) Part II, 30-40.
Dempsey, P. G., & Leamon, T. B. (1995). Bending the tool and the
effect on productivity: An investigation of a simulated wire-twisting
task.
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal,
56(7), 686-692.
Drury, C. G. (1987). A biomechanical evaluation of the repetitive
motion injury potential of industrial jobs.
Seminars in Occupation-
al Medicine,
2(1),41-49.
Feiss, R. A. (1916, October 25).
Scientific management and its relation-
ship to the health of the worker.
Paper delivered at the American
Public Health Association meeting, Cincinnati, OH. Hoboken,
N):
F. W. Taylor Archive, S. C. Williams Library.
Gantt, H. L. (1911, October).
Task work the basis of proper manage-
10
ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN.
FALL 2000
ment.
Paper presented at the Tenth Annual Convention of the
National Machine Tool Builders' Association, New York, NY.
Hoboken, NJ: F. W. Taylor Archive, S. C. Williams Library.
Garg, A., Chaffin, D. B.,
&
Herrin, G. D. (1978). Prediction of meta-
bolic rates for manual handling jobs.
American Industrial Hygiene
Association Journal,
39, 661-674.
Gilbreth, F. B. (1911).
Motion study: A method for increasing the effi-
ciency of the workman.
New York: Van Nostrand.
Gillespie,].,
&
Wolle, H. C. (1899).
Report on the establishment of
piecework in conjunction with the loading of pig iron.
South Bethle-
hem, PA: Bethlehem Iron Co. (Hoboken, NJ: F. W. Taylor
Archive, S. C. Williams Library)
Kanigel, R. (1997).
The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the
enigma of efficiency.
New York: Viking.
Kern, W. L. (1997, September). The dichotomy ofIE: Ergonomics
and work measurement.
IIE Solutions,
pp. 20-21.
Miller, R. B. (1953).
A method for man-machine task analysis
(WADC
Tech. Report 53-137). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH:
Wright Air Development Center.
Niebel, B.,
&
Freivalds, A. (1999).
Methods, standards and work design
(lOth ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hili.
Putz-Anderson, V. (Ed.). (1988).
Cumulative trauma disorders:A manual
ftr musculoskeletal diseasesof the upper limbs.
London: Taylor
&
Frands.
Resnick, M. L. (1997). Productivity and ergonomics - Are they com-
patible? In B. Das
&
W. Karwowski (Eds.),
Advances in occupation-
al ergonomics and safety II
(pp. 481-484). Amsterdam: lOS Press.
Salvendy, G. (Ed.). (1982).
Handbook of industrial engineering.
New
York: Wiley.
Saunders, B. W. (1982). The industrial engineering profession. In G.
Salvendy (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial engineering
(chapter 1.1).
New York: Wiley.
Snook, S. H.,
&
Ciriello, V. M. (1991). The design of manual han-
dling tasks: Revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and
forces.
Ergonomics,
34, 1197-1213.
Sommerich, C. M. (1999). Economic analysis for ergonomics pro-
grams. In W. Karwowski
&
W. S. Marras (Eds.),
The occupational
ergonomics handbook
(pp. 1475-1494). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Taylor, F. W. (1911).
The principles of scientific management.
New
York: Harper and Brothers.
Taylor, F. W. (1912).
Taylor's testimony before the Special House Com-
mittee.
New York: Harper and Brothers.
Tichauer, E. R. (1976). Biomechanics sustains occupational safety and
health.
Industrial Engineering,
8(2),45-56.
Tompkins,]. A.,
&
White,]. A. (1984).
Facilities planning.
New York:
Wiley.
Waters, T. R., Putz-Anderson, V., Garg, A.,
&
Firie, L.]. (1993).
Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of man-
uallifting tasks.
Ergonomics,
36(7), 749-776.
Yen, T. Y.,
&
Radwin, R. G. (1996). Comparison of spectral analysis,
time and motion study, and postural classification for quantifying
biomechanical stress in repetitive industrial work. In
Proceedings of
the 4th Pan Pacific Conference on Occupational Ergonomics
(pp.
635-638). Hsinchu, Taiwan: Ergonomics Society of Taiwan.
Patrick
G.
Dempsey is a researcher at the Liberty Mutual Re-
search Center for Safety
&
Health,
71
Prankland Road, Hop-
kinton, MA 01748, patrick.dempsey@libertymutual.com. His
interests include the design and evaluation of manual materials
handling systems; the relationships among time study, motion
study, and ergonomics; and the evaluation and validation of
ergonomicsJob analysis tools. The author thanks Nydia Cruz of
the F. W Taylor Archive at Stevens Institute of Technolog;yfor
her assistancein obtaining some of the articlescited.
UI!l
- CitationsCitations1
- ReferencesReferences21
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The paper reviews recent work, conducted at Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation, on the evaluation of military training technologies, including simulators and synthetic learning environments. Practical and conceptual considerations for the development of evaluation criteria and procedures are discussed, along with their conceptual underpinnings in total system performance analysis.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
This publication is from a journal that may support self archiving.
Learn more