Joel M. Haight

Intervention effectiveness research:: A review of the literature on leading indicators

Abstract Workplace injuries and property damage—and the safety and health programs designed to prevent them—are expensive facets of contemporary industrial activities. Indeed, the National Safety Council estimates that the cost of work place injuries totaled

Ergonomic hand tool and desk and chair development process.

131 billion in 2000, a value equal to the combined profits of the top 13 Fortune 500 corporations in 1999 ( National Safety Council website ). Optimizing intervention strategies to decrease rates of injury and property damage with less costly safety and health programs would contribute to improved productivity and economic vitality in activities that involve such risks. Organizations whose activities involve risk of injury or destruction of property commit human and financial resources to intervention activities intended to prevent accidents, fires, spills, chemical releases, and unplanned shutdowns. The cost of implementing safety related intervention activities can be high if they are not effectively designed and optimally implemented.

Realistic human error rates for process hazard analyses

This paper suggests a practical and simple process consisting of 8 stages: needs assessment, ergonomics guidelines, anthropometry, brainstorming and idea sketch, preliminary model, drafting and rendering, working prototype, and user trials. The feasibility of this process was verified with the development of a modified clamping hand tool and a new student desk and chair. The case studies showed how design difficulties were overcome by integrating ergonomics guidelines in the process.

Kinematic Evaluation of Pulling Carry-on Luggage

While human error has long been recognized as a contributor to process incidents, Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) teams often struggle to agree on the frequency at which human errors might occur. This difficulty in reaching a consensus can be due to the varied backgrounds and experiences of team members, as well as the degree to which they believe human error is inevitable as opposed to simply being a reason for discipline. A process that combines research‐based, quantitative estimates of human error rates with plant experience and intuition is proposed for use during qualitative PHAs. Use of these quantitative estimates within a qualitative PHA is described, along with one facilitys successful implementation of this process.

Management commitment to safety as organizational support: Relationships with non-safety outcomes in wood manufacturing employees

From a kinematic standpoint, the objective of this study was to investigate forward pulling tasks that were rare in ergonomic studies, so handling carry-on luggage was determined as an application. Single-pole and traditional double-pole luggage was selected for the comparison under different conditions of load weights and walking speeds. Single-pole luggage had one curved and longer pole in the handle whereas double-pole luggage had two poles that were straight and aligned in parallel. Five male students participated in the study. Subjects walked on the specially fabricated doublewide treadmill at either self-chosen normal speeds or 20% faster than normal speeds with luggage of 15 or 23 kg load weights. During one stride, the peak angles, peak velocities and peak accelerations often segments including luggage were obtained from three-dimensional planes as kinematic parameters. The result showed that all three independent variables of luggage types, walking speeds, and load weights affected the motions of most segments. Due to a curved and longer pole in the handle, single-pole luggage was tilted more forward and gave more clearance between luggage and the body. This allowed the right leg to move more freely. The load weight of 23 kg carried with luggage caused the trunk to be slightly more flexed than 15 kg and the walking speeds typically affected the motions of the upper and lower extremities. The handle of luggage could be a potential design factor to be considered by luggage designers and other ergonomic evaluation approaches may be necessary for better understanding of pulling carry-on luggage.