Ergonomic Risk Assessment in a Manufacturing Environment

Article Summary

 Introduction

This article highlights scoring methodologies used for the assessment of ergonomic risks. The suggested method comprises three stages- defining ergonomic threat aspects, outlining ergonomic threat outcomes, and computing and ranking ergonomic hazards. The first phase entails the identification of primary ergonomic risks based on procedures and mission plotting mechanisms (Shamsan et al., 2020). During the second stage, score levels align with specified ergonomic risk elements based on set ergonomic regulations. The third stage presents workplace ergonomic risks are determined and ordered to mitigate and put up appropriate action plans in place. The recommended methodology assists in making informed decisions, evaluating ergonomic risks in simplified mannerisms.

Body

The article assesses a manufacturing environment case study, and the outcome from this case study is used to define and isolate ergonomic risks. Hence, the report assists in the development of operational mitigation and regulation frameworks to combat the threats. Ergonomics is referred to as the evaluation of work to design jobs and machinery to fit human features (Shamsan et al., 2020). Therefore, ergonomics focuses on eliminating possible body-related and psychological stresses in the workplace surrounding. One of the benefits of ergonomics is the generation of safe, conducive jobs and reduced number of injuries, leading to superior production and competence, which in turn upgrades the quality of the jobs done. The features of specific jobs or operations that impose a worker's effects are considered ergonomic risk elements. The majority of the ergonomic risks are repetitive, body posture, and other indirect issues linked to the job.  A chance is made up of three occasions-initiative events, primary risk factors, and the subsequent event or the actual impact.

Discussion

 The article constricts its content to fit the narrative presented. For instance, the scoring methodology is based on previous assessing tools and mechanisms; hence, the writer does not give new information to make the article stand out to eliminate risk factors from the workplace surrounding. Therefore, the report defines the obvious and states the standard ergonomic risks; for example, forceful labors and poor postures are some of the article's apparent information instead of coming up with the present and up-to-date information that prove relevant in the current workplace environment. The use of standard information cannot be used to reduce ergonomic risks in the contemporary world extensively. On the other hand, the article correctly gives the reader a good starting point to evaluate ergonomic risk factors within the workplace (Shamsan et al., 2020). The combination of the previous research revealed the professional safety frameworks placed in various working environments around the world, thus giving the reader a broader view of expectations. For instance, the self-assessment software analysis to indicate ergonomic improvements and setbacks enabled the reader to understand how to handle ergonomic risk under different circumstances. Therefore, defining solutions through the lens of OSHA regulations effectively reduced the number of injuries because employers had to enact the OSHA regulations.

 One aspect of the article that stands out is workforce satisfaction to workplace safety and productivity. This way, risk assessment can be improved by applying simulation and modeling mechanisms such as digitizing activities and later anticipating the risks before they occur (Shamsan et al., 2020). Once a threat is defined and highlighted, risk reduction approaches are then formulated and executed to reduce the risks. How the article presents the scoring system is also familiar and relatable to the reader. A recommended scoring system assists in the decision-making process due to its evaluation capabilities. In simpler terms, the article does not shy away from exploring numerous score systems meant to define and mitigate ergonomic risk factors in the current workplace environment.

 In identifying the ergonomic risk elements, the article suggests that process mapping is the best procedure for defining actions and fundamentals. Identification of ergonomic risks gives an opening for collecting information and presenting this information in a visual representation manner (Shamsan et al., 2020). Process mapping is used in the ergonomic evaluation and identifies actions and processes that negatively impact other workers. The workplace is seen as a collective section that harbors ergonomic risks. The dissemination of risk exposures is typically assessed based on associated risk factors such as vibration and posture. Various sections within the workplace are presented as parts of ergonomic risks.

Conclusion

In summary, the article defines ergonomic risks through the mapping process. The risk scores assist in prioritizing ergonomic risks and designing the workplace based on the scoring system. This way, it gives the entire ergonomic risk assessment framework for mitigating risks and ensuring the risk factors contained from deteriorating further. Each ergonomic risk is number in terms of percentage, from 0-100. The risk scores are further divided into colors to distinguish risks and simplify the decision-making process. This framework and scoring system can be applied in various working environments to reduce ergonomic risks by measuring the workplace's present values. Software are used to predict ergonomic risks factors are facilitate the impact of each risks factor based on the sources and previous occurrence. Hardware devices are used to measure the actual value of the ergonomic risks factors which can then be used in the development of the risks.

 

 

 Reference

Shamsan, A., Qasem, A. G., & Aqlan, F (2020). Development of a Scoring Methodology for Ergonomic Risk Assessment in the Workplace. In Proceedings of the 5th NA International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Detroit, Michigan, USA, August (pp. 10-14).