International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26 (2000) 425}435

A case study of the use of ergonomics information in a

heavy engineering design process
Narelle Skepper , Leon Straker
*, Clare Pollock
Advanced Personnel Management, P.O. Box 1752, West Perth, WA 6872 Australia

School of Physiotherapy, Curtin University of Technology, Selby Street, Shenton Park, Western Australia 6008, Australia
School of Psychology, Curtin University of Technology, Selby Street, Shenton Park, Western Australia 6008, Australia
Received 20 August 1998; received in revised form 9 September 1999; accepted 9 September 1999

Abstract

The aim of this case study was to investigate the use of ergonomics information in an engineering design company's
design process. Interviews were undertaken with engineers and designers in the company to establish their knowledge of
the design process and use of ergonomics in design. Several of the company's installed designs were also evaluated to
identify if the end product of the design process met ergonomics best practice. The results showed that the engineers and
designers had poor knowledge of both the formal design processes in use in their company and how to apply ergonomics
principles. The installed designs revealed several serious ergonomics problems that could impact on the operators' ability
to work e$ciently and safely. Recommendations included improving the understanding and structure of the company's
design process, improving communication, providing adequate ergonomics resources, improving strategies for identi"ca-
tion of ergonomics issues in designs and improving quality control of ergonomics issues.
Relevance to industry
In the well resourced and safety-aware environment of the oil and gas industry one would expect that ergonomics would
be used to ensure that designs enhance operator e$ciency and safety. The achievement of good ergonomic designs would
also be expected to have substantial economic bene"ts in terms of reduced costs in manufacturing, training and maintenance
(Hendrick, 1997, Good ergonomics is good economics. Ergonomics in Design). This study identi"es minimal understand-
ing or use of ergonomics by international engineers and designers and provides a reminder to all industries to evaluate
how well they are using simple ergonomics principles and information.  2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ergonomics information; Engineering design process; Design evaluation; Communication; Physical ergonomics issues

1. Introduction ing campaigns to denote quality of design and

`Ergonomicsa has become such a well-known
word to the general public, with its use in market-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: #61-8-9266-3634; fax: #61-
8-9266-3699.
E-mail address: l.straker@curtin.edu.au (L. Straker).
ease-of-use, that it is easy for ergonomists to believe
that the fundamental principles of ergonomics are
widely known and applied. One could assume that
in companies whose prime function is design, that
the designers and engineers would have a basic
understanding of ergonomics, or at least utilise
ergonomics principles in their design even if they

0169-8141/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 8 1 4 1 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 7 - 2
426 N. Skepper et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26 (2000) 425}435
cannot articulate what they are doing in ergonom-
ics terms.
This paper describes an investigation into the use
of ergonomics information in an engineering design
company (Company A). Company A designs and
manufactures/modi"es specialised equipment for
use in on-shore and o!-shore gas exploration and
processing facilities operated by a client company.
It employs approximately 400 designers and engin-
eers from around the world. The present investiga-
tion was prompted by a representative of a client
company identifying safety and health issues with
one of the designs supplied by Company A. The
speci"c incident involved a client company em-
ployee sustaining a severe head and neck injury
after striking his head on a low steel structure when
cycling along an access path. Fig. 1 shows an
example of a low steel structure over an access path
at the client company.
This incident prompted the client company to
question Company A on its use of ergonomics
information in their designs. Company A had
a commitment to providing a quality service, and it
also had a contract with this particular client
Fig. 1. An example of a low lying steel structure at the client company's plant. Note worker #exing slightly at knees to avoid head
contact with structure.
company worth many millions of dollars. Com-
pany A thus requested an investigation into how its
employees utilised ergonomics information in their
design process, with the aim of identifying the im-
pact this has on their "nal products.
A design process can be described as a systematic
series of actions that are undertaken to design a
product, system or project. The structure of the
design process is presented di!erently through-
out the literature, for example, di!ering lengths,
detail, terms, order of stages, inclusion/exclusion of
manuals and instructions and the revisiting of pre-
vious stages (Wilson, 1990; Wood, 1990; Meister,
1987; Powrie, 1987; Popovic, 1986; Bailey, 1982;
Konz, 1974). However, the various descriptions
typically include the major themes presented in
Fig. 2.
It has been proposed that the incorporation of
ergonomics information into the design process
directs focus on the user and results in a more
acceptable user interface in the "nal design (Hasle-
grave and Holmes, 1994; Budnick et al., 1992;
McClelland, 1990; Wood, 1990; Bailey, 1982).
Fig. 3 summarises suggestions for how ergonomics
 N. Skepper et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26 (2000) 425}435 427

Fig. 2. A synthesis of the design processes described by Wilson (1990), Wood (1990) Meister (1987), Powrie (1987), Popovic (1986), Bailey
(1982) and Konz (1974). This representation shows a &&waterfall with interationsa model of the design process, which conveniently
captures the main stages in engineering design. However, most real-world design processes are much more complex than this.

information may be introduced into the various
stages of the design process.
The present study therefore aimed to describe the
design process used at Company A and determine
the strategies currently used to incorporate ergo-
nomics information into the design process. It is
possible that even a good design process with good
strategies for the incorporation of ergonomics
might not result in good ergonomic designs. Alter-
natively, designers and engineers may be unable to
articulate the design process that they use or how
they use ergonomics in their design, yet the end
product might still incorporate good ergonomic
features through more intuitive use of ergonomics.
Therefore, the study also aimed to evaluate a
sample of Company A's completed designs for
evidence of ergonomics problems. It was hoped
that the study would help determine the adequacy
of the existing design process in terms of its use
of ergonomics information. If the processes were
found to be sub-optimal, then recommendations
would be made on how to improve the integra-
tion of ergonomics information in the design
process.
428 N. Skepper et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26 (2000) 425}435

Fig. 3. Literature suggestions for incorporation of ergonomics information into the various stages of the design process (Brennan and
Fallon, 1990; Straker, 1990; Wilson, 1990; Wood, 1990; Meister, 1987; Sanders and McCormick, 1987; Bailey, 1982).

2. Methods 1998a,b) to identify ergonomics problems with the

To achieve the study aims a case study design
incorporating two methods of inquiry was used.
Firstly, interviews were conducted with a sample of
Company A's engineers and designers to obtain
their description of the design process and use of
ergonomics information. Secondly, the "rst author
conducted a walk-through evaluation of equipment
designed by Company A and installed at a client
company site. This evaluation utilised a speci"cally
developed ergonomics checklist (Skepper et al.,
installed equipment. Further information on prob-
lems was gained through discussions with client
company operators and managers during the on-
site evaluation.
2.1. Part 1: Design process description
To collect information on the design process and
use of ergonomics, nine engineers and designers
were recruited for interviews. The sample was se-
lected to gain representation from di!erent design
 N. Skepper et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26 (2000) 425}435
teams and di!erent disciplines [mechanical, inlec
(instrumentation and electrical) and structural]. All
interviewees had been working with Company A
for a minimum of 1 yr and had worked on designs
with user issues. Interviews were conducted during
paid time with the agreement of both interviewees
and management. Interviews were conducted in the
interviewees' normal place of work and lasted
about 1 h.
Whilst the sample size was relatively small, given
the number of designers and engineers employed by
the company as a whole, it is likely that the sample
represents the better sta! within the company be-
cause a manager selected the sta! to be approached
for the interviews. Comments from the manager
indicated that he wished to portray his company in
a favourable light and it is therefore likely that he
only selected sta! whom he believed to be good at
their job.
The "rst author conducted all interviews using
a qualitative approach. The interviewees were
asked to describe their typical design process, their
understanding of ergonomics and their strategies
for incorporating ergonomics into their designs us-
ing a series of questions developed by the authors
and re"ned in pilot testing. Interviewees' comments
were recorded in handwritten notes and by the last
interview no new themes were emerging suggesting
the sample was su$cient. Data was conceptually
analysed by the authors.
2.2. Part 2: Operational design assessment
Samples of Company A's operational designs
were selected to evaluate the e!ectiveness of current
design processes. These designs had been construc-
ted and installed in one of the client company's oil
and gas processing facilities over 1000 km from the
Company A's design o$ces. Designs were selected
on the basis that they could have ergonomics issues
that would a!ect their operation and that they were
accessible to the researcher.
An ergonomics checklist, developed with refer-
ence to the literature, was used to structure the
expert walk-through evaluation of operational de-
signs. The checklist had 22 items under 7 major
headings: general, work environment, equipment,
work practices, physical and psychological task
429
demands, organisational issues and employee char-
acteristics. Operational control issues were not
included. Further details of this checklist are
available in Skepper et al. (1998a).
One operational design was observed at length
and a client company operator and mechanical
designer interviewed. Ten other operational designs
were brie#y observed along with brief discussions
with "ve other client company and Company A
operators and managers. Information collected
was recorded in handwritten notes, collated and
analysed to answer the study questions.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. The Company A design process
Company A had a recommended design process
available to sta! on an intranet, however the inter-
viewees were unaware of its existence and reported
a poor understanding of the design process actually
used. Fig. 4 compares a compilation of the inter-
viewees' understanding of the design process ac-
tually in use (left) with the formally documented
corporate design process (right).
The design processes had one major di!erence,
the exclusion of the conceptual design stage in the
formal design process. Wood (1990) highlights that
although the design process is not prescriptive, it
can be considered to pass through three primary
stages, including speci"cation, conceptualisation
and prototyping. The design process described by
Company A's engineers and designers could there-
fore be said to be more suitable than the formal
process proposed by the company.
In addition to their lack of knowledge of the
formal design process the engineers and designers
interviewed did not have a clear understanding of
the roles of engineers and designers from other
disciplines. For example, one interviewee was not
aware of the process engineers' role and outlined
that he thought they `gave the conditions to the
electrical engineersa, and was not sure of their
background quali"cations.
Company A engineers and designers predomi-
nantly work with colleagues of the same discipline,
only coming together with other disciplines in
430 N. Skepper et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26 (2000) 425}435
Fig. 4. A comparison of the interviewee and documented design processes at Company A.
meetings organised by the project manager. This
may contribute to the apparent misunderstanding
of roles. It may also explain the poor commun-
ication between the engineers and designers of dif-
ferent disciplines. Organisational change may be
required to improve this. For example, an inter-
viewee from a mechanical designing background
described the structural engineers' role as `com-
pleting the process and instrumentation diagramsa,
but was unaware of their exact input in the design
process.
The interviewees and the sta! involved in the
on-site discussions recognised that there were com-
munication problems between Company A, the
client company operators and the installation con-
tractors. An on-site interviewee stated that `the
lack of as-built diagramsa meant that the engineers
from Company A were not aware of the true state
of the asset and this a!ected their designs. `Alter-
ations done on sitea involved `shooting from the
hipa and this was where `most mistakes were
madea. These problems were associated with the
geographical separation of engineers and designers
from operators and installers and with the timing of
design and installation. Company A engineers and
designers are based in a city over 1000 km from the
client plant, thus communication between engin-
eers and designers, operators and installers had to
take place by telephone, fax or brief visits to the
plant by the engineers usually in the early stages of
the design process. The cost of the site visits was
quite high and therefore discouraged by manage-
ment. Physical separation reduced the chance
for feedback from operators to engineers and de-
signers, with the additional problem that installa-
tions which required the plant to shut down were
usually conducted overnight or on weekends when
the engineers or designers responsible for the design
were not even available on the telephone.
The engineers and designers also commented
that they lacked accurate and up-to-date design
drawings of the client company plant on which to
base their designs. The plant is a very large process-
ing facility that is continually being worked on for
general maintenance and modi"cations. At any one
time there may be 300 design projects in various
stages of completion. Sometimes these design pro-
jects overlap or have some impact on each other.
Besides the large number of designs, there is a vari-
able time delay between design and installation (up
to six months). The interviewees highlighted the
fact that there could be changes to the plant, in-
cluding installation of other structures that interact
with a proposed design, that are not considered in
the design process as they are not shown on avail-
able design drawings. Following installation of the
designs, interviewees reported that additional
structures could be added to the design which may
impact on the engineering or ergonomic integrity of
the design. Often designs are modi"ed slightly on
 N. Skepper et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26 (2000) 425}435
installation without consultation with the original
designers and engineers.
Hence, although engineers and designers may
have detailed drawings of what the plant should
look like, these may not re#ect reality. Company A
is supposed to ensure installers promptly provide
up-to-date detailed drawings to be given back to
the client company at the close of a design project.
This is to ensure that the client has accurate details
of its plant. However, this stage of the design pro-
cess tends to receive low priority and considerable
delays occur. As one engineer stated, the `reality
wasa a lot of `priority worka had come in the mean
time and the `close outs got lefta.
3.2. Company A's use of ergonomics
The interviewees were asked to describe what
they understood to be meant by the term `ergo-
nomicsa. Eight out of nine interviewees were not
aware of the term ergonomics but likened it to what
one interviewee called `good industrial standardsa.
The interviewees' responses outlined examples of
using ergonomics information in designs, for exam-
ple `accessibilitya to equipment, `user-friendly
gaugesa, maximising `dial and "gure sizea so that
they are easier to view and considering `user com-
forta. This demonstrated that they had a broad
understanding of what ergonomics is. However,
limited evidence could be found that this know-
ledge had been applied to Company A's designs.
Furthermore, when the engineers and designers
provided examples of designs with ergonomics
issues, the majority of these issues were of a phys-
ical nature. No issues relating to cognitive, environ-
mental and organisational aspects of ergonomics
were highlighted. This may be due to a lack of
understanding of the breadth of ergonomics issues
or a perception that only physical issues would be
of relevance to the products designed by the com-
pany. Interviewees were asked to describe their
strategies for including ergonomics into their de-
signs. The answers indicated that they had poor
or unclear strategies. The stated strategies were:
the use of the client company and Company A
speci"cations; a piping `codea (a technical speci-
"cation which did not contain speci"c ergonomics
information); some Australian Standards; their own
431
experience; HAZOP (HAZard and OPerability) re-
views; and anthropometric data.
It appears from the responses of the interviews
that the strategies rely heavily on the use of speci-
"cations, codes and standards. Interviewees and on
site Company A employees reported that the speci-
"cations used by the client company were lengthy,
making identi"cation of speci"cations suitable for
each design time consuming. Company A's speci-
"cations are based on those supplied by the client
company and are therefore equally problematic.
Various Australian Standards could provide broad
guidelines for designs, although it is unclear if the
appropriate standards were utilised.
One of the interviewees also identi"ed that the
majority of engineers and designers did not
have site based experience and therefore may not
be aware of the issues of the client company's oper-
ators, thus making it di$cult to make e!ective use
of their own experience.
HAZOP meetings are currently located at the
end of the detailed design stage. The late placement
of the HAZOP reviews in the design process is
likely to delay the communication of important
safety information into designs. The interviewees
highlighted the fact that the majority of the money
had been spent by the end of this stage and also
suggested that placement this late in the process
may increase costs, if there are alterations to
drawings. Inclusion of the HAZOP's earlier in
the design process, for example after the conceptual
design stage, would identify hazards prior to the
design reaching its "nal drawing. The inclusion of
a HAZOP employee in the initial `kick-o! a meet-
ing may assist with identi"cation of potential ergo-
nomics and safety issues that can be included in the
design speci"cations.
The designers and engineers had reported that
they would incorporate ergonomics into their de-
signs through the use of anthropometric data.
However, upon further questioning, their use of
anthropometric data revolved around their using
the `average mana for determining clearance
heights. That this `classica error of ergonomics
(described by Pheasant (1986) as one of the most
common designer fallacies) was evident amongst
a group of designers and engineers working in
a high safety-aware environment is perhaps the
432 N. Skepper et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26 (2000) 425}435

most worrying aspect of the results. It goes some
way to explain the origin of the design faults which
triggered this investigation in the "rst place (where
a structure was placed too low across a clearway
resulting in an employee cycling into it). It certainly
appears that the engineers and designers have an
incorrect understanding of anthropometric data
and may be introducing errors into their designs
even though they believe that they are taking ergo-
nomics into account. This may be a case where
a little knowledge of ergonomics is more dangerous
than no knowledge at all.
None of the strategies suggested by the engineers
and designers included the involvement of the user
in the design process, even though this is a well-
recognised strategy for good ergonomics in designs
(Wilson, 1990; Wood, 1990; Meister, 1987; Bailey,
1982). The employment of user-focussed strategies
by engineers and designers may increase the chance
of ergonomics information being included in
designs.
The interviewees did recognise that ergonomics
information would be most cost e!ective if included
in the initial stages of the design process. However,
cost minimisation appeared to be a major focus in
Company A's design process which may have im-
pacted on the time allowed to apply ergonomics
information. To ensure adequate use of the strat-
egies discussed, engineers and designers would
need to have a good understanding of what ergo-
nomics is and the cost/bene"ts of using ergonomics
information in designs.
Discussions with management and sta! indicated
that ergonomics resources, including texts, know-
ledgeable employees or ergonomics consultants,
are not widely available within the company. This
has meant that engineers and designers have not
had adequate access to sources of information with
which to improve the application of ergonomics
information in their designs.
whether there were no cognitive, environmental or
organisational issues within Company A designs or
if the people organising the site visit did not show
these to the researcher because of a narrow concep-
tion of ergonomics problems. Examples of the
physical mismatches include inadequate clearances,
lack of or inadequate access to valve handles, re-
duction in the diameter of a ladder cage to accom-
modate proximal structures, poor positioning of
instruments and trip hazards in walkways. Illustra-
tions of two of these mismatches are shown in
Figs. 5 and 6.
The interview results suggested poor use of
design processes and ergonomics. This may have
just been due to the inability of interviewees to
verbalise their design work. However, the survey
con"rmed that it was not just an inability to ver-
balise and it was poor use of design processes and
ergonomics.
This study has also identi"ed that Company A
had poor quality control measures which did not
ensure designs considered the user. This sample of
engineers and designers did not understand their
company's formal design process. Both the formal
process and the one actually used were #awed due

3.3. Assessment of operational designs

The on-site evaluations of Company A's designs

installed for the client company indicated that there
were many ergonomics problems. Nine out of the Fig. 5. Inaccessible valve handle which has resulted in another
11 designs assessed on the site visit had physical handle having to be installed further down the pipe at additional
ergonomic mismatch issues. It is unclear as to expense.
 N. Skepper et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26 (2000) 425}435
Fig. 6. Awkward positioning of instruments making it di$cult
to obtain quick and accurate readings. Horizontal shielding has
been added to reduce sunlight on gauges, but resulting glare
from re#ective pipe is considerable.
to the lack of direction, time, and the resources to
include ergonomics in the designs. The fact that the
designs were being produced at such a physical and
temporal distance from their use, with poor docu-
mentation and communication with the installers,
makes this design task especially di$cult. Under
these circumstances the use of good design pro-
cesses and use of ergonomics is especially impor-
tant and may assist with reducing the long-term
costs of the designs.
4. Recommendations
From the investigation it was clear that Com-
pany A had not systematically used ergonomics
information in their design process and that this
had resulted in sub-optimal designs. The main
problems appear to be a poor understanding of the
design process; poor communication at Company A
and between Company A, the client company and
the installation contractors; inadequate ergonomic
resources; limited strategies for identi"cation of
433
ergonomic issues in designs; and poor quality con-
trol methods for ensuring identi"cation of ergo-
nomics issues.
Whilst the failings outlined above re#ect poorly
on the designers, the fact that poor design know-
ledge, resources and implementation have been
allowed to exist to such an extent must be at-
tributed back to the management attitudes and
structures.
The recommendations which follow focus on
providing solutions for the speci"c issues identi"ed
in the research. However, adopting these recom-
mendations would also re#ect a change in attitude
of management towards the resources they pro-
vide to their designers and their belief in the appro-
priate relationship between the designers and the
users.
4.1. Improve the understanding and structure of
Company A's design process
The poor understanding of the design process
could be addressed by reviewing and documenting
the current design process and circulating this
document to engineers and designers for comment.
Following this process, engineers and designers
should be educated on the chosen design process to
ensure consistency, highlighting the proposed roles
for each discipline engineer and designer in the
process.
Company A's adopted design process should en-
sure more formal links are established with the
client company's operators to assist with the inclu-
sion of ergonomics information in designs.
4.2. Improve communication
Communication problems at Company A and
between Company A, the installation contractors
and the client company operators could be ad-
dressed by structuring Company A's design process
to enforce liaison with these parties. One way of
ensuring that communication is improved would
be to involve the client company operators in Com-
pany A's `kick-o! a meetings. Regular telephone or
mail contact with the client company operators
should be encouraged throughout the design
process.
434 N. Skepper et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26 (2000) 425}435
Communication could also be improved by in-
volving an in-house ergonomics specialist in each
project's `kick-o! a meeting. This may assist with
the identi"cation of potential ergonomics and
safety issues that can be included in the design
speci"cations.
A further suggestion for improving communica-
tion may be an increase in the Company A engineer
presence on site. This would allow the engineers
increased possibilities for feedback from installa-
tion contractors and the client company operators
and enable direct observation of the state of the
processing facility. Following the completion of
the conceptual design stage the engineer should
ensure that the state of the processing facility had
not changed prior to proceeding to the detailed
design stage. This could be achieved either by tele-
phone contact with the client company or by visit-
ing the site.
Communication may be further enhanced by in-
volving Company A engineers in the installation of
the design. The engineer involvement would also
ensure that changes were not made to designs
which alter the ergonomic and engineering prin-
ciples applied. It would also provide them with
direct feedback if the design needs to be altered in
the installation stage. The engineer could work
with the installation contractors to promptly com-
plete the "nal drawings for the client company
operators.
This study has also highlighted the necessity for
the inclusion of ergonomics training in engineering
undergraduate studies and in design trades to
increase engineers' and designers' knowledge and
application of ergonomics information in designs.
4.3. Provide adequate ergonomics resources
Improved access to ergonomics resources for en-
gineers and designers would assist with the applica-
tion of ergonomics information in designs. Suitable
ergonomics resources for Company A's needs
would include ergonomics texts, appropriate stan-
dards, an ergonomics resource person or the use of
ergonomics consultants. Employees should be in-
formed of the availability of these resources and
instructed in how to use them to incorporate ergo-
nomics information into their designs.
4.4. Improve strategies for identixcation of
ergonomics issues in designs
To improve the identi"cation of ergonomics
issues in designs it is recommended that either an
ergonomics resource person be appointed at Com-
pany A or an ergonomics consultant is used. The
role of this resource person could include identi"ca-
tion of ergonomics issues in the designs. This could
be achieved via their involvement in the `kick-o! a
meetings and `HAZOPa reviews or in their assis-
tance with the identi"cation of appropriate stan-
dards and speci"cations applicable to the various
stages of the design process. They could also assist
with the training of engineers and designers in the
practical use of ergonomics information, including
the application of anthropometric data. The re-
source person could also collate user-focussed data
applicable to Company A's designs for the client
company and coordinate the prompt completion of
the "nal drawings.
4.5. Improve quality control of ergonomics issues
The inclusion of ergonomics information in de-
signs could be achieved by including a follow-up
evaluation as the "nal stage of Company A's design
process. One suggestion could be to include ergo-
nomics sign o!s in the checklists used by engineers
and designers. In addition to this, design proced-
ures could include the review of all installation,
operation and maintenance instructions and man-
uals prior to the equipment being delivered to site.
This could ensure that engineers do not miss vital
details that may impact on the installation and
operation of their designs.
Training in cost estimation should be provided
to ensure engineers and designers are adequately
budgeting for the inclusion of ergonomics informa-
tion in their designs for the client company.
The client company's role in the quality control
of Company A's use of ergonomics information in
their designs may include provision of ergonomics
guidelines in the speci"cations for the design. They
could also review the design plans at each stage for
ergonomics issues associated with the operators'
use of the design. In addition to this they could
liaise closely with the ergonomics resource person
 N. Skepper et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26 (2000) 425}435
at Company A informing them of the future plans
for the asset and how this may impact on the
designs that Company A are currently working on.
5. Conclusions
The main aims of this study were to determine if
Company A adequately considered ergonomics
information in their designs and, if not, to provide
recommendations to improve the inclusion of ergo-
nomics information in future designs.
Based on the information gained, there is strong
evidence to suggest that Company A did not have
adequate methods in place to ensure that ergonom-
ics information is included in their designs for the
client company. The implications of continuing to
design in the current manner include an increased
risk of injuries to the client company's operators
and the need for designs to be reworked. The po-
tential costs of injuries, redesign and downtime of
the processing facility could cost the client com-
pany millions of dollars.
It could be argued that this case study is a one-
o!, that it is not surprising to "nd bad designs or
companies that fail to adequately include ergonom-
ics in their designs. However, this is not an insigni-
"cant company, it is a major contractor employing
sta! from around the world. The company
produces designs for a substantial multi-national
company working in an industry that prides itself
on its attention to safety and health issues. The
apparent entrenched failure to incorporate ergo-
nomics adequately in designs should be a reminder
to ergonomists that we still have a long way to go
before we can assume that even the most basic
ergonomics issues are readily understood and
utilised by all designers and engineers.
References
Bailey, R.W., 1982. Human Performance Engineering: A Guide
for System Designers. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli!s, NJ.
Brennan, L., Fallon, E.F., 1990. The contribution of CAD to the
enhancement of the ergonomist's role in the design process.
435
In: Karwowski, W., Genaidy, A.M., Asfour, S.S. (Eds.), Com-
puter-Aided Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, London, pp.
501}511.
Budnick, P.M., Bloswick, D.S., Brown, D.R., 1992. Integrating
industrial ergonomics into the design process: accommodat-
ing the design engineer. In: Kumar, S. (Ed.), Advances in
Industrial Ergonomics and Safety, Vol. IV. Taylor & Fran-
cis, London, pp. 11}18.
Haslegrave, C.M., Holmes, K., 1994. Integrating ergonomics
and engineering in the technical design process. Applied
Ergonomics 25 (4), 211}220.
Hendrick, H., 1997. Good ergonomics is good economics, Ergo-
nomics in Design, Vol. 5 number 2, suppl. p. 1}4.
Konz, S., 1974. Work Design: Industrial Ergonomics, 2nd
Edition. Grid Publishing Co., OH.
McClelland, I., 1990. Marketing ergonomics to industrial
designers. Ergonomics 33 (4), 38}39.
Meister, D., 1987. Systems design, development and testing. In:
Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors. Wiley,
New York, pp. 17}42.
Pheasant, S.T., 1986. Bodyspace } Anthropometry, Ergonomics
and Design. Taylor & Francis, London.
Popovic, V., 1986. Integration of the user in the design process.
In: Morrison, D., Hartley, L., Kemp, D. (Eds.), Trends in the
Ergonomics of Work. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual
Conference of the Ergonomics Society of Australia and
New Zealand, Western Australia, pp. 89}94.
Powrie, S.E., 1987. Design models and design practice: an over-
view. In: Megaw, E.D. (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics.
Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 123}128.
Sanders, M.S., McCormick, E.J., 1987. Human Factors in En-
gineering and Design, 6th Edition. McGraw Hill, New York.
Skepper, N., Straker, L., Pollock, C., 1998a. A heavy engineering
design checklist. Ergonomics Australia Online. URL: http://
www.uq.edu.au/eaol/oct98/checklist.html. Ergonomics Society
of Australia, Canberra.
Skepper, N., Straker, L., Pollock, C., 1998b. Is ergonomics
information used in the engineering design process? In: Im-
plementing Change: The Role of Standards. Proceedings of
the 34th Annual National Conference of the Ergonomics
Society of Australia, Melbourne.
Straker, L.M., 1990. An aid for designing consumer product
evaluations. In: Ergonomic Design for the consumer.
Proceedings of the 26th Annual National Conference of the
Ergonomics Society of Australia, Adelaide, pp. 95}100.
Wilson, J.R., 1990. A framework and a context for ergonomics
methodology. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, E.N. (Eds.), Evalu-
ation of Human Work. A Practical Ergonomics Methodo-
logy. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 1}29.
Wood, D., 1990. Ergonomists in the design process. In: Ergo-
nomic Design for the Consumer. Proceedings of the 26th
Annual National Conference of the Ergonomics Society of
Australia, Adelaide, pp. 125}132.