Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/332174871
CITATIONS READS
0 1,794
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Dr Nalla Bala Kalyan on 29 June 2020.
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.
Often
Very often
Not at all
Sometimes
Percentage (%)
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all
Percentage (%)
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very often
Total
No. of Respondents
1 2 3 4
5
60
50
40
30
20
10 Percentage (%)
0
No. of Respondents
Rarely
Often
Very often
Not at all
Sometimes
1 2 3 4 5
Often
Very often
Not at all
Sometimes
Total
No. of Respondents
1 2 3 4 5
60
40
Percentage (%)
20
No. of Respondents
0
Not at all Rarely Sometimes
1 2 3
Often
Very often
Not at all
Sometimes
Percentage (%)
1 2 3 4 5
4.7 Respondents’ Opinion towards the Activities with Hand Raised Above Shoulder Height
of the Respondents
Table 4.7
S. No Above Shoulder Height No. of Respondents Percentage (%)
Activities
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
Rarely
Often
Very often
Sometimes
Total
Not at all
1 2 3 4 5
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
Total
Percentage (%)
2
Maintained
0 20 40 60 80 100
100
80
60
40
20 No. of Respondents
0
Percentage (%)
Always Rarely Total
serviced & serviced &
Maintained Maintained
1 2
Often
Very often
Total
Sometimes
Not at all
1 2 3 4 5
4.14 Respondents’ Opinion towards Adjustability of Workstation & Equipments
Table 4.14
S. No Adjustability of Workstation & No. of Respondents Percentage (%)
Equipments
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
5
Very often
Often
4
No. of Respondents
3 Sometimes Percentage (%)
Rarely
2
Not at all
1
Often
Very often
Sometimes
Total
Not at all
No. of Respondents
1 2 3 4 5
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
Rarely
Often
Sometimes
Very often
Total
Not at all
Percentage (%)
1 2 3 4 5
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
40
30
20
10
0 Percentage (%)
No. of Respondents No. of Respondents
Not at all
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Percentage (%)
1 2 3 4
Sometimes
Often
Very often
Total
Percentage (%)
1 2 3 4 5
Often
Sometimes
Very often
Total
Not at all
1 2 3 4 5
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
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 Person Correlation .831 1
for long hrs 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)
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 df Mean square F Sig.
squares
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.
MEANS PLOT
4
Mean of age
3
2
1
0
MEANS PLOT
present posture
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.
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
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.