ArticlePDF Available

Ergonomics at Work Environment in India

Authors:
  • Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, Tirupati
  • Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, Karakambadi Road, Tirupati
ERGONOMICS AT WORK ENVIRONMENT IN INDIA
Mrs. Toopalli Sirisha
Assistant Professor
Department of Management Studies
Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering
Karakambadi Road, Tirupati-517507
Dr. Nalla Bala Kalyan
Associate Professor
Department of Management Studies
Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering
Karakambadi Road, Tirupati-517507
Abstract:
The article concerns about human factors and ergonomics at workplace, how far a workplace and
the equipment used there can best be designed for comfort, efficiency, safety, and productivity of
human. Normally we use to blame poorly designed work stations, cars, sofas and other equipment and
furniture for our aches and pains. Frequently the missing piece is how we actually use our own body.
Even the very best ergonomically premeditated workplace is of narrow importance if the human being
using it does not use their own body well. Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline
concerned with the thoughtful of the communications among human being and other elements of a
organization, and the career that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to
optimize person well-being and overall system performance. The goal of this study was to find out the
control of suitability of workplace and equipment designs and the work posture ergonomics at tube
Products of India, a Unit of Murugappa Group.
Keywords: Abilities, Ergonomics, Human Factor, India, Work Environment
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
1. Introduction
Ergonomics is that the study of designing equipment and devices that fit the individual body, its
actions, and its cognitive abilities. Ergonomics is the process of designing or arranging workplaces,
commodities and systems as a result they fit the persons who use them. Ergonomics applies to the
design of something that involves individual’s workspaces, sports and leisure, health and safety.
Ergonomics have seen an increasing interest in documenting the effectiveness of intervention to
prevent musculoskeletal disorders at the primary and secondary level. Ergonomics aims to enhance
workspaces and environments to minimize risk of injury or hurt. Ergonomics deals with the ‘fit’
between the user, instrumentation and their environments. It takes account of the user’s
capabilities and limitations in seeking to make sure those tasks, functions, and the atmosphere
suit all users. Therefore as technologies modification, therefore too force the requirement to
make sure that the tools we have a tendency to access for work, rest and play designed for our
body’s needs. The main aim of ergonomics is to allow any employee to avoid injury and
discomfort at work environment. These ergonomics principles can be applied to home,
hobbies or help friends and co-workers those have parallel issue. The objective ergonomics is
to reduce human error, increase productivity, and enhance safety and comfort with a specific focus on
the interaction between the human and work place. Ergonomics is applied at organizations
designing equipment, devices and processes that fit the human body and its cognitive abilities.
Excellent use of people in social environment helps them to solve problems and compensate for gaps
in their knowledge.
2. Objectives of the Study
To study about the working culture of Ergonomics at Tube Products of India
To know and understand employees feel towards their work postures and repetitive bodily
movements at work.
To analyze the nature of job, equipments and employee satisfaction towards work
environment
To identify the various factors that creates Musculoskeletal Disorders and Repetitive Strain
Injuries (RSI)
To assess whether the workplace Ergonomics of Tube Products of Murugappa Groups
maximizes efficiency, productivity and high employee morale.
To identify the pitfalls if any and to suggest valuable suggestions, recommendations to
improve the workplace ergonomics at Tube Products of Murugappa Group.
3. Scope of the Study
On the basis or results of this study it can be possible to develop this study at a experimental
research type concentrating performance of workers at different ergonomics. Separate study for
physical ergonomics can also be possible for physical work based organization. Ergonomics on the
basis of employee cognition has also been taken as main research motto for mental and attitudinal
work areas in near future. Drawbacks in the current designing of workplace, material handling, tools
designing, environmental mapping can also be identified and corrective measures also been made
with help of this study.
4. Data Analysis &Interpretation
4.1 Percentage Method Table No 4.1
Age Group of the Respondents
S. No
Age
No. of Respondents
1
20-29
10
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Age profiles of respondents are shown in Table 4.1. indicated that most belonged
to the age group of thirty to thirty nine years and minimum represented the age group of twenty to
twenty nine, From the above table, it is interference that 11% of the respondents are from the age
group of 20 -29 age group , 38% of the respondents are from the age group of 30 -39 age group ,
32% of the respondents are from the age group of 40 -49 age group, and only 19% of the
respondents are from the age group 50 and above, which indicates that the majority of the
population belongs to the age group of 30-39 yrs in the organization. And also minority of
population belongs to the age group of 20-29.
Figure 4.1
4. 2 Educational Qualification of the Respondents
Table 4.2
S. No
Educational qualification
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Below SSLC
7
8
2
SSLC
14
16
3
HSC
19
21
4
Diploma/ ITI
33
37
5
UG/PG
17
19
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table 4.2 shows that about 16 per cent of the respondents were educated SSLC
and relatively lesser number of them, 21 per cent were educated up to higher secondary level.
The number of respondents attaining higher education was 21 percent. 19 per cent of the
respondents were educated up to the undergraduate or post graduates level. A considerable
number of respondents were just functionally below SSLC only 8 percent. It can be concluded
from the Table above that by and large the respondents were progressive in education but they
were still far away from the higher education which is so important today to create a knowledge
based society. Figure 4.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
1 2 3 4 5
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
2
30-39
34
3
40-49
29
4
50 & Above
17
Total
90
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
4.3 Experience of the Respondents Table 4.3
Experience of the Respondents
S. No
Experience
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
1-3 years
11
12
2
3-5 years
17
19
3
5-7 years
28
31
4
7 years & above
34
38
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table 4.3 and Figure 4.3 shows that 11 out of 90 respondents are having
experience 1 -3 years, 17 respondents are having experience more than 3 years but less than 5
years. Employees with 5to 7 years of experience are 28, and 34 employees are having work
experience of 7 years and above. It means that 12 percent of selected respondents having
experience 1 to 3 years. 19% employees having experience more than 3 years but less than 5
years.31% of the respondents are having experience more than 5years but less than 7 years. The
data shows that majority of the respondents are having more Than 7 years of work experience.
Figure 4.3
4.4 Present Work Postures of the Respondents
Table 4.4
S. No
Present Work Postures
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Highly comfortable
20
22
2
Comfortable
11
12
3
Neutral
9
10
4
Uncomfortable
29
32
5
Highly uncomfortable
21
23
0
50
100
150
200
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
Total
12345
Percentage (%)
No. of Respondents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
1 2 3 4 5
Percentage (%)
No. of Respondents
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table 4.4 and Figure 4.4 shows that 20 out of 90 respondents are feeling
highly comfortable at their present work postures, where as 21 out of 90 respondents are feeling
highly uncomfortable at their present work postures. 11 respondents feel quite comfortable at
Present Work Postures, 9 respondents expressed neutral at their Present Work Postures, and the
majority of respondents i.e. 29 out of 90 feel uncomfortable. It means that 22 percent of selected
respondents are highly comfortable for their present work postures. 12% of respondents feel
comfortable. 10 % of the respondents are neutral. Majority i.e. 32% of respondents feel
uncomfortable. As well 23% of respondents expressed highly uncomfortable at their present
work postures. The above data reveals that majority 55 % of respondents feel that the Present
Work Postures uncomfortable as well highly uncomfortable.
Figure 4.4
4.5 Respondent’s Towards the Repetitive Tasks for Long Hours
Table 4.5
S. NO
Experience
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Yes
61
68
2
No
29
32
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and Figure 4.5 show that 68 percent of respondents feel that they are
performing Repetitive Tasks for Long Hours at their work. It shows that Majority of respondents
feel that they are performing Repetitive Tasks for Long Hours at their work.
Figure 4.5
4.6 Frequent Body Movements of the Respondents
Table 4.6
S. No
Frequent Body Movements
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Hands
53
59
0
50
100
150
200
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
Total
1 2 3 4 5
Percentage (%)
No. of Respondents
0
20
40
60
Not at all Rarely Sometimes
1 2 3
Percentage (%)
No. of Respondents
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
2
Shoulders
13
14
3
Legs
9
10
4
Neck
15
17
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and Figure 4.6 shows that majority i.e. 59% of respondents are moving
their hands very frequently at their work, minority i.e 9 % of respondents are moving their legs
frequently at their work and 15 % feel that they move the neck frequently and 13% of
respondents are moving their Shoulders frequently.
Figure 4.6
4.7 Respondents’ Opinion towards the Activities with Hand Raised Above Shoulder Height
of the Respondents Table 4.7
S. No
Above Shoulder Height
Activities
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Not at all
14
16
2
Rarely
22
24
3
Sometimes
27
30
4
Often
19
21
5
Very often
8
9
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and figure 4.7, revealed that 30% respondents sometimes perform the
task above shoulder height, 24 % respondents rarely perform the task above shoulder height, 21
% respondents perform the task above shoulder height often, minority i.e. 9% respondents
perform the task above shoulder height very often and finally, 16% of the respondents are not at
all performing any task above shoulder height.
Figure 4.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
1 2 3 4 5
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
4.8 Respondents’ Opinion towards Changes in Postures
Table 4.8
S. No
Changes In Postures
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Not at all
36
40
2
Rarely
10
11
3
Sometimes
11
12
4
Often
16
18
5
Very often
17
19
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and figure 4.8, Revealed that 12% respondents sometimes perform the
task by changing their postures at work, minority i.e. 11% respondents rarely perform the task by
changing their postures at work, 18% respondents task by changing their postures at work, 19%
respondents task by changing their postures at work very often and finally, majority of
respondents i.e. 40% of the respondents are not at all task by changing their postures at work.
Graph 4.8
4.9 Respondents’ Feel towards Working Long Hours in the Same Postures
Table 4.9
S. No
Long Hours In The Same Postures
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Got accustomed & feel comfortable
27
30
2
Uncomfortable
24
27
3
Adjustable but can be modified
39
43
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
Total
1234 5
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Always serviced & MaintainedRarely serviced & MaintainedTotal
1 2
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
Interpretation: Table and Figure 4.9 shows that 27 out of 90 respondents are feeling that
they Got accustomed & feel comfortable at Working Long Hours in the Same Postures at
present work , where as 24 out of 90 respondents are feeling that they Got Uncomfortable at
Working Long Hours in the Same Postures at present work. 39 respondents out of 90 are feeling
that they are Adjustable but can be modified at Working Long Hours in the Same Postures at
present work. It means that 30% respondents are feeling that they Got accustomed & feel
comfortable at Working Long Hours in the Same Postures at present work, where as 27%
respondents are feeling that they Got Uncomfortable at Working Long Hours in the Same
Postures at present work.43% are feeling that they are Adjustable but can be modified at
Working Long Hours in the Same Postures at present work.
Graph 4.9
4.10 Respondents’ Opinion towards the Nature of Job
Table 4.10
S. No
Nature of Job
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Repetitive
35
39
2
Random
17
19
3
Burdensome
13
14
4
Forceful
11
12
5
Friction
14
16
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and Figure 4.10 confirm that the majority i.e. 39% of the respondents are
feeling that their nature of job is Repetitive. 19 % of the respondents are feel that their nature of
job is Random, 14 % of the respondents are feel that their nature of job is Burdensome, 12% of
the respondents are feel that their nature of job is Forceful, 16% of the respondents are feel that
their nature of job is Friction. Graph 4.10
020 40 60 80 100
Always serviced &
Maintained
Rarely serviced &
Maintained
Total
12
Percentage (%)
No. of Respondents
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Always serviced & MaintainedRarely serviced & MaintainedTotal
1 2
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
4.11 Respondents’ Opinion towards First Aid Facility
Table 4.11
S. No
First Aid Facility
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Very good
27
30
2
Good
15
17
3
Fair
21
23
4
Poor
16
18
5
Very poor
11
12
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and Figure 4.11 , shows that 30% of the respondents agreeing that First
Aid Facility at work place is very good , as well 17% as good , 21 % as Fair , 18% as poor and
12 % respondents feel as very poor . Graph 4.11
4.12 Respondent’s Opinion towards Equipments Maintenance
Table 4.12
S. No
Equipments Maintenance
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Always serviced & Maintained
69
77
2
Rarely serviced & Maintained
21
23
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and Figure 4.12, 77% of the respondents authenticate that equipments
are always serviced & Maintained, where as 23% answered that the equipments are rarely
services and maintained Graph 4.12
4.13 Respondents’ Comfort ability towards Equipments Handling
Table 4.13
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Always serviced & MaintainedRarely serviced & MaintainedTotal
1 2
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Always
serviced &
Maintained
Rarely
serviced &
Maintained
Total
1 2
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
S. No
Equipments Handling
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Highly comfortable
43
48
2
Comfortable
15
17
3
Neutral
12
13
4
Uncomfortable
14
16
5
Highly uncomfortable
6
7
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and Figure 4.13 shows that 43 out of 90 respondents are feeling highly
comfortable at their equipment handling at present work, where as minority of respondent’s i.e.
6 out of 90 respondents are feeling highly uncomfortable at their equipment handling at present
work. 15 respondents feel quite comfortable at Present Work Postures, 12 respondents expressed
neutral at their Present Work Postures, and the 14 out of 90 feel uncomfortable. It means that
majority i.e. 48 percent of selected respondents are highly comfortable at their equipment
handling at present work. 17% of respondents feel comfortable. 12 % of the respondents are
neutral. 14% of respondents feel uncomfortable. As well 6 % of respondents expressed highly
uncomfortable at their equipment handling at present work.
Graph 4.13
4.14 Respondents’ Opinion towards Adjustability of Workstation & Equipments
Table 4.14
S. No
Adjustability of Workstation &
Equipments
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Strongly agree
33
37
2
Agree
25
28
3
Neither agree nor disagree
17
19
4
disagree
9
10
5
Strongly disagree
6
7
TOTAL
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and Figure 4.14, inferred that 37% of the respondents strongly agree
about the adjustability of workstation and the equipments and the 7% of the respondents strongly
disagreed. Graph 4.14
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
Total
1 2 3 4 5
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
4.15 Respondents’ Opinion towards Vibration Work
Table 4.15
S.NO
Vibration Work
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Not at all
13
14
2
Rarely
18
20
3
Sometimes
14
16
4
Often
37
41
5
Very often
8
9
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and figure 4.15 revealed that 16% respondents sometimes feeling
vibration at work, 20 % respondents rarely feels vibration at work, 41% respondents feeling
vibration at work t often, minority i.e. 9% respondents feeling vibration at work very often and
finally, 13 % of the respondents are not at all feeling vibration at work.
Graph 4.15
4.16 Respondents’ Opinion towards Noise Distraction
Table 4.16
S. No
Noise Distraction
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Always
6
7
2
Mostly
9
10
3
Often
18
20
4
To some extent
22
24
5
Not at all
35
39
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
050 100 150 200
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
Total
1 2 3 4 5
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
0
50
100
150
200
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
Total
1 2 3 4 5
Percentage (%)
No. of Respondents
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
Interpretation: Noise level is one of the ergonomic elements that impacts on employee
communication and cognitive activities. Responses were obtained on the noise levels. As shown
in Fig. 4.16, revealed that 24% respondents some extent feeling noise distraction at work , 20 %
respondents often feels noise distraction at work, 7% respondents always feeling noise
distraction at work, minority i.e. 10% feeling noise distraction at work a mostly and finally, 39
% of the respondents are not at feeling noise distraction at work
Graph 4.16
4.17 Respondents’ Feel towards Overall Temperature at Their Workplace
Table 4.17
S. No
Overall temperature
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Pleasant
42
47
2
Very warm
13
14
3
Moderate and tolerable
35
39
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: The study considered room temperature as one of the key elements of work
place ergonomic. As seen in Fig. 4.17, 47% of respondents feel that the Temperature at
workplace is pleasant and 14% of the respondents feel it as very warm, and 39% feel that the
Temperature at workplace Moderate and tolerable.
Graph 4.17
4.18 Respondent’s Feel towards Lighting Facility at Their Workplace
Table 4.18
S. No
Lighting Facility
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Sufficient
61
68
2
Not very bad but can be
improved
29
32
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
Total
1 2 3 4 5
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
0
10
20
30
40
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
1234
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
Interpretation: The study considered Lighting as one of the key elements of work place
ergonomic. As seen in Fig. 4.18, shows that 68% of the respondents feel that the lighting facility
at workplace is sufficient and 32% of the respondents feel as fair as fair but can be improve.
Graph 4.18
4.19 Respondents’ Comfort ability towards the Space Provided At Workplace
Table 4.19
S. No
Space Provided At Workplace
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
High comfort ability
25
28
2
comfortable
27
30
3
Neutral
19
21
4
Uncomfortable
13
14
5
High uncomfortable
6
7
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and Figure 4.19 shows t hat 25 out of 90 respondents are feeling highly
comfortable towards the space provided at workplace, 27 out of 90 respondents are feeling
comfortable at their towards the space provided at workplace, 9 respondents expressed neutral at
towards the space provided at workplace, Whereas minority i.e 6 out of 90 respondents are
feeling highly un comfortable towards the space provided at workplace. It means that 28 percent
of selected respondents are highly comfortable towards the space provided at workplace.
Majority i.e. 30% of respondents feel comfortable towards the space provided at workplace. 21
% of the respondents are neutral. 14% of respondents feel uncomfortable. As well 7% of
respondents expressed highly uncomfortable towards the space provided at workplace.
Graph 4.19
4.20 Respondents’ Option towards the Present Ergonomics at Their Workplace
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Not at all Rarely Sometimes
1 2 3
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
Total
12345
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
Table 4.20
S. No
Present Ergonomics
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
1
Not at all
9
10
2
Rarely
29
32
3
Sometimes
24
27
4
Often
21
23
5
Very often
7
8
Total
90
100
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation: Table and Figure 4.20, it is inferred that 32% of the respondents told that
they can rarely achieve the goals with the present ergonomic at their workplace, and 8%
respondents answered that they can very often achieve the goals.
Figure 4.20
4.21 Analysis of Opinion of the Respondents’ Towards the Age Group and Year of
Experience Table 4.21
(Chi Square)-Cross Tabulation of Age vs. Years of Experience
AGE
20-29 yrs
30-39 yrs
40-49 yrs
50 & above
Total
Experience
1-3 yrs
10
1
0
0
11
3-5 yrs
0
17
0
0
17
5-7 yrs
0
16
12
0
28
7 yrs & above
0
0
17
17
34
Total
10
34
29
17
90
Hypothesis:
(H0): There is no significant association between the age and the years of experience of the
employees.ss
(H1): There is significant association between the age and the years of experience of the
employees. (0-E) 2
Chi-Square =
Ei
Chi-Square Tests
value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson chi-square
1.486E2a
9
.000
Likelihood ratio
140.410
9
.000
Linear- by linear association
67.787
1
.000
0
50
100
150
200
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
Total
1 2 3 4 5
Percentage (%)
No. of Respondents
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
N of valid cases
90
Calculation:
Calculated value = 1.486
Degrees of freedom = 9
Table value = 0.000
Interpretation: The above SPSS generated table clearly states that the significant value is below
0.05.Therefore Null Hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Hence, by
accepting Null hypothesis it can be interpreted that there is an association between the age group
and years of the experience of the respondents. The association among the age group and years
of the experience of the respondents explains that the age of the respondents increases, the years
of the experience of the respondents also simultaneously increases.
4.22 Analysis of Opinion of the Respondents’ Towards the Present Posture and Equipment
Handlings Table 4.22- Correlation
S.NO
Response Scale
Present Posture
Equipment Posture
1
High comfort ability
20
43
2
comfortable
11
15
3
Neutral
9
12
4
Uncomfortable
29
14
5
High uncomfortable
21
6
Total
90
100
Hypothesis:
(H0): There is no significant relationship between the present posture of the workplace and
equipment handling of the employees.
(H1): There is significant relationship between the present posture of the workplace and
equipment handling of the employees.
6∑di 2
r = 1-
n (n2-1)
Correlation
Present posture
Handling equipment
for long hrs
Present posture
Pearson correlation
1
.831
Sig-(2-talited)
.000
N
90
90
Handling equipments
for long hrs
Person Correlation
.831
1
Sig(2-talirf)
.000
N
90
90
r=0.831
Interpretation: The above SPSS generated table depicts that r=0.831 which falls between (0 to
1) and shows a positive correlation between respondents present posture at work and equipment
handling. From the above table it is inferred that the significant value is below is below 0.05
which shows a significant relationship between the present posture and equipments handling of
the respondents.
4.23 Analysis of Opinion of the Respondents’ Towards the Age Group and the Present
Posture of the Respondents’ (ANOVA)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
Table 4.23
Age Group of the Respondents
S.NO
Age
No. of respondents
1
20-29 yrs
10
2
30-39 yrs
34
3
40-49 yrs
29
4
50& above
17
Total
90
Table 4.24
Present Postures of the Respondents
S.NO
Response Scale
No of Respondents
1
High comfort ability
20
2
comfortable
11
3
Neutral
9
4
Uncomfortable
29
5
High uncomfortable
21
Total
90
Hypothesis:
(H0): There is no significant difference between the age and the present posture of the employees
at workplace.
(H1): There is significant difference between the age and the present posture of the employees at
workplace. Table 4.25
One-Way ANOVA
Age
Sum of
squares
df
Mean square
F
Sig.
Between group
64.103
4
16.026
116.561
.000
Within group
11.636
85
.137
75.789
89
Table 4.26
Post Hoc Tests, Homogeneous Subsets
Present posture
Duncan
Age
N
Subset for alpha=0.05
1
2
3
4
20-29 yrs
10
1.00
30-39 yrs
34
2.21
40-49 yrs
29
4.14
50& above
17
5.00
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Interpretation: The results derived from the SPSS calculation shows that significant is
below 0.05 and it paves the way for rejecting the Null Hypothesis by accepting the alternative
one and shows a significant difference between the respondents’ age and the present work
posture.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
Graph 4.26
Interpretation: From the Duncan means plot, it is clear that the age group and present
postures of the respondents varies inversely proportional (i.e.) as the age of the respondents
increases, the comfort ability towards work postures decreases. Therefore there is a significant
difference between both mentioned variable.
5. Findings
Majority i.e. 38% of respondents are in the age of the respondents belong to the age group
of 30 to 39 years and also 37% are diploma qualified among and 38% are having more than
seven years experience.
Majority of respondents i.e. 32% of the respondents feel uncomfortable present posture at
their work and also 68% of respondents inconvenient towards performing repetitive work
for long duration, as well 59% of respondents are use their hands as frequent bodily moment
at their working hours
30 % Respondents expressed that they perform the activities with hands raised above
shoulder height at workplace sometimes and their work postures are static, and 43% of the
respondents feel that working long hours in the same postures can be adjustable but
modification and improvement is required.
Majority respondents have replied that their nature of job is repetitive and 30% respondents
feel very good about the first aid facilities
Majority 77% of the respondents answered that the equipments are always serviced and
maintained at their workplace and 48% of the respondents feel highly comfortable about
handling the equipments 37% of the respondents strongly agreed about the adjustability of
workstation is possible.
Majority 41% of the respondents have responded they often involved in vibration work and
39% of the respondents answered that that they are not at all distracted by noise as well 74%
of the respondents tolerate noise at their workplace
From the study it is found that 47% of the respondents feel that the temperature workplace is
pleasant, and 68% of the respondents feel sufficient towards the lighting facility at
workplace.
Majority 30% of the respondents feel comfortable about the workplace. 32%) of the
respondents have responded as that they can rarely achieve their goals with the present
ergonomics at their workplace.
The chi-square shows that there significant association between the age and years of
experience of the employees.
The variance analysis expressed there is significant difference between the age and the
present posture of the employees at workplace.
0
1
2
3
4
Mean of age
present posture
MEANS PLOT
MEANS PLOT
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
The weighted average method it is understood that, most of the respondent’s ranked stress at
workplace as first for the causes of ergonomics.
The Weighted average method it is understood that, most of the respondent’s ranked stress at
workplace as first for the causes of ergonomics.
The correlation, it is inferred that there is significant relationship between the present
posture and equipments handling of the respondents.
The weighted average method it shows that most of the respondents have given headache as
first rank for stress at workplace.
6. Suggestions
From the research it is identified that the equipments maintenance in the organization is
excellent. The respondents feel that the equipments are well maintained, checked periodically
and serviced properly. So, the management can pursue the existing process in maintaining the
equipments.
From the research, it is found that the respondents of the organization feel that the first aid
facilities provided by the management are well satisfying. It implies the concern of the
management for the workers safety.
From the study, it is identified that the nature of the job is repetitive which may cause carpal
tunnel syndrome. The risk of injury is greater when highly repetitive jobs are combined with
low-force exertions such as in assembling task involving the hands, wrists, elbows and shoulders.
Hence, the management may allot the job to the workers on rotation or random basis.
From the study it is found that few of the respondents feel that they are often involved in
vibration work. Continuous usage of vibrating tools such as drills can cause exposure to hand-
arm vibration. These exposures may result in wrist pain, numbness, tingling and decreased
sensitivity to touch in fingers, hands and arms. Hence, the management may design the
equipment by improving grip with hooks or straps or magnets. This will decrease the vibration
level.
It is identified that few of the respondents feel inconvenient for working long hours in the same
posture.
In general, workers find difficulty in achieving their goals due to some ergonomics problems.
Therefore, it is suggested to the management to maintain good ergonomics problems. Therefore,
it is suggested to the management to maintain good ergonomics which in turn will increase the
morale of the employees and productivity.
7. Conclusion
This study has exposed that suitable workstation and equipment designs as well as condition of
work posture are aspects of ergonomic factors that contributed significantly in attaining a higher level
of job satisfaction. . From the study it is analyzed that the most of respondents are moderately satisfied
with the present working postures (working for long duration in the same postures), nature of job
includes vibrations work etc. Hence the researcher concludes that the present workplace ergonomics at
Tube products of India, A Unit of Murugappa Group feels satisfied. Hence the researcher concludes
that the present workplace ergonomics at Tube products of India, A Unit of Murugappa Group feels
satisfied. In order to improve it further the management may take suggestions such as providing
comfortable postures based upon their age group, convenient environmental setting by providing well
equipments in order to improve the grips with hooks or straps or magnets to reduce the vibration level
and allotting jobs at random and rotation basis etc. This in turn will increase productivity and high
morale among employees. In the light of the unfavorable effects of neglecting ergonomic principles in
the designing of workstations and equipment at the workplace, the resultant decrease in performance
and production, and the numerous health effects that could result from deprived ergonomics, this study
recommends that there should be a collaboration between the organization and employee; in
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
introducing and implementing ergonomic measures that would involve the set-up of sufficient and
healthy workstation equipment that would allow the users to adopt optimal working postures at
organization.
8. References
1. Chapanis, A., 1967. The relevance of laboratory studies to practical situations. Ergonomics 10 (5),
557- 577.
2. Daniellou, F., 1999. The ergonomist is a worker that is the (epistemological) question. In:
Marmaras, N. (Ed.), Proceedings of Strengths and Weaknesses, Threats and Opportunities of
Ergonomics in Front of 2000, Santorini, Greece, August September, 21}28
3. Dowell, J., Long, J.B., 1989. Towards a conception for an engineering discipline of human
factors. Ergonomics 32 (11), 1513}1535.
4. Dul. J., Bruder, R.,Buckle, P. Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W.S. Wilson, J.R, Van der Doelen.
(2012). a strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession.
Ergonomics 55 (4), 377-395.
5. Edholm, O.G., Murrell, K.F.H., 1973. The Ergonomics Research Society: A History 1949-1970.
The Ergonomics Society, Loughborough
6. Ehrlich, K., 1988. An interview with Austin Henderson. Interactions 5 (6), 36-4
7. Fulton Suri, J., Marsh, M., 2000. Scenario building as an ergonomics method in consumer
product design. Applied Ergonomics 31, 151-158.
8. Girault, P., 1998. Ergonomics: not a new science. Ergonomics in Design 6/2 (6), 30
9. Green, B., Jordan, P.W., 1999. The Future of Ergonomics. In: Hanson, M.A., Lovesey, E.J.,
Robertson, S.A. (Eds.), Contemporary Ergonomics, '99. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 110-114.
10. Howell, W.C., 1994. Human factors and the challenges of the future. Psychol. Sci. 5 (1), 4 (7)
11. Marmaras, N., Poulakakis, G., Papakostopoulos, V., 1999. Ergonomics design in ancient Greece.
Appl. Ergon. 30, 361}368
12. Meister, D., 1995, Divergent Viewpoints: Essays on Human Factors Questions. Personal
publication
13. Monk, A., Nardi, B., Gilbert, N., Mantei, M., McCarthy, J., 1993. Mixing oil and water
Ethnography versus experimental psychology in the study of computer-mediated
communication. International CHI'93 Conference, April, 3(6).
14. Moray, N., 1994. `De Maximis non Curat Lexa or how context reduces science to art in the
practice of human factors. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th
Annual Meeting, pp. 526-530.
15. Nardi, B.A., 1993. A Small Matter of Programming: Perspectives on End User Computing. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348292
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Unlabelled: Human factors/ergonomics (HFE) has great potential to contribute to the design of all kinds of systems with people (work systems, product/service systems), but faces challenges in the readiness of its market and in the supply of high-quality applications. HFE has a unique combination of three fundamental characteristics: (1) it takes a systems approach (2) it is design driven and (3) it focuses on two closely related outcomes: performance and well-being. In order to contribute to future system design, HFE must demonstrate its value more successfully to the main stakeholders of system design. HFE already has a strong value proposition (mainly well-being) and interactivity with the stakeholder group of 'system actors' (employees and product/service users). However, the value proposition (mainly performance) and relationships with the stakeholder groups of 'system experts' (experts fromtechnical and social sciences involved in system design), and 'system decision makers' (managers and other decision makers involved in system design, purchase, implementation and use), who have a strong power to influence system design, need to be developed. Therefore, the first main strategic direction is to strengthen the demand for high-quality HFE by increasing awareness among powerful stakeholders of the value of high-quality HFE by communicating with stakeholders, by building partnerships and by educating stakeholders. The second main strategic direction is to strengthen the application of high-quality HFE by promoting the education of HFE specialists, by ensuring high-quality standards of HFE applications and HFE specialists, and by promoting HFE research excellence at universities and other organisations. This strategy requires cooperation between the HFE community at large, consisting of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), local (national and regional) HFE societies, and HFE specialists. We propose a joint world-wide HFE development plan, in which the IEA takes a leadership role. Practitioner summary: Human factors/ergonomics (HFE) has much to offer by addressing major business and societal challenges regarding work and product/service systems. HFE potential, however, is underexploited. This paper presents a strategy for the HFE community to strengthen demand and application of high-quality HFE, emphasising its key elements: systems approach, design driven, and performance and well-being goals.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
We identify an important type of software design knowledge that we call community specific folklore and show problems with current approaches to managing it. We built a tool that serves as a living design memory for ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper concerns one possible response of human factors to the need for better user interactions of computer-based systems. The paper is in two parts. Part I examines the potential for human factors to formulate engineering principles. A basic prerequisite for realizing that potential is a conception of the general design problem addressed by human factors. The problem is expressed informally as: 'to design human interactions with computers for effective working'. A conception would provide the set of related concepts which both expressed the general design problem more formally, and which might be embodied in engineering principles. Part II of the paper proposes such a conception and illustrates its concepts. It is offered as an initial and speculative step towards a conception for an engineering discipline of Human Factors.
Frequently claims are made that what the discipline of human factors and ergonomics needs are better and more detailed data bases which can be used by designers as “look up” tables to specify the properties of human beings. Several of these already exist but they seem not to be satisfactory. The experience of teaching user centered design has convinced the author that the problem lies not in the absence of appropriate data tables for designers, but in the nature of the systems we design. Unlike many other engineering disciplines human factors is extremely sensitive to context. The result is that there are no such things as context free laws in applied psychology, and hence the value of data bases and tables is restricted to certain fairly basic ergonomic problems. It is moreover not merely in small details that laws do not apply - hence the title of this paper. Increasingly the nature of advanced systems renders such data bases of little value unless we can develop equivalent data bases which describe context, not merely the properties of humans.
Article
By their very nature laboratory experiments are at best only rough and approximate models of any real-life situation. First of all the possible independent variables that influence behaviour in any practical situation, a laboratory experiment selects only a. few for test. As a result, hidden or unsuspected interactions in real-life may easily nullify, or even reverse, conclusions arrived at in the laboratory. Second, variables always change when they are brought into the laboratory. Third, the effect of controlling extraneous or irrelevant variables in the laboratory is to increase the precision of an experiment but at the risk of discovering effects so small that they are of no practical importance. Fourth, the dependent variables (or criteria) used in laboratory experiments are variables of convenience. Rarely are they selected for their relevance to some practical situation. Last, the methods used to present variables in the laboratory are sometimes artificial and unrealistic. The safest and most honest conclusion to draw from all these considerations is that one should generalize with extreme caution from the results of laboratory experiments to the solution of practical problems.
Article
Although the science of ergonomics did not actually emerge until the 20th century, there is evidence to suggest that ergonomic principles were in fact known and adhered to 25 centuries ago. The study reported here is a first attempt to research the ergonomics concerns of ancient Greeks, on both a conceptual and a practical level. On the former we present a collection of literature references to the concepts of usability and human-centred design. On the latter, examples of ergonomic design from a variety of fields are analysed. The fields explored here include the design of everyday utensils, the sculpture and manipulation of marble as a building material and the design of theatres. Though hardly exhaustive, these examples serve to demonstrate that the ergonomics principles, in content if not in name, actually emerged a lot earlier than is traditionally thought.