Discussion on Workplace Human Factorsâ€Free samples for Students

Question: Discuss About the On Workplace Human Factors? Answer: Introduction: Accidents are spontaneous, and that is the thing that allows them the opportunity to attain the element of surprise and leave devastation in its wake. And this surprising element only allows the accidents to be so overwhelming and terrifying at the same time. There are thousands of external and internal factors associated with our daily lives that have the potential for casing accidents of all scales and magnitudes in both personal and professional settings. While the personal environment can be modified to avoid most of the accidents, the workplace environments is not always in our control to modify. Therefore workplaces are magnets to different magnitudes of accidents which potentially harm the staff and the workplace properties (Hinze, Thurman and Wehle 2013). However, there are some strategic actions that can be taken in order to minimize the risk and aftermath of a potentially harmful accident occurring in the workplace. The theories of human factor can be utilized in this scenario, and can help in articulating the best response for such incidences. Human factor can be defined as the scientific evaluation study that judges the human interaction in accordance with the other elements of the workplace system. This system functions by aligning the theoretical understanding and principles with the practical data and designs to articulate the best set of responses to manage an accident (Kniesner and Leeth 2012). This report will attempt to evaluate a selected accidental event occurring in a workplace and orchestrate a set of strategic response actions with the help of human factor study. Description of the event: As mentioned above there can be various exte4rnal and internal factors that has the potential for causing destructive accidents. The risk of such factors is much more multiplied in case of workplaces. There can be a height risk, chemical exposure risks, electrical shock risk, lock out risks and what not in case of workplaces. All of these risks have the potential to harm the employees and cause some permanent damage to the physical or cognitive health of the employees. The workplace hazard opted out as a case scenario for this assignment is a construction site, where an employee has fallen from three stories height and has sustained major injuries. On a more elaborative note the employee never had the fall protection equipment with him and fell sustaining a fractured rib and broken right leg accompanied with a bleeding injury to his head, this unfortunate situation has the entire staff terrified of resuming work and the entire business operation has been stalled post accident (Levine , Toffel and Johnson 2012). Significant components of the system: The workplace system components associated with this case scenario will be the three overlapping sections of any organizational structure. For example, alike any workplace structure will begin with the organizational lay out. For example it will take into account the workstation design, the facility layout and configuration. Along with that this system component will also include variable like the display, controlling mechanism, feedback and warning system etc. Lastly this sector will also entertain the ambiance or environment where the staffs are supposed to work in. This system component is generally concerned with the noise, lighting, vibration, temperature and the chemical exposure of the workplace (Weaver et al. 2012). The second component of the organizational structure is the management of the workplace concerned, this the section where the organizational decisions like distribution of workload, workplace policies and guidelines that are followed (Salvendy 2012). The job design is also an integral element of this component such as the job responsibility designing, shifting, task management, business process management. Then management related communication and information management is also a part of this section. The last system component related to this event is the staff response to the entire workplace organization, it is associated with the level of knowledge in the staff about working in the construction sites, their perception associated with the safety precautions to take, apart from that other demographics like the age, body shape, body strength and stress is also related to this accident. Along with that the health, fatigue levels and attention of the staff to the work at hand can be important factors associated with the entire construction operation. It can be due to the health related imbalance or the fatigued or stressed condition of the staff which made him to fall from the site and sustain the injury. Similarly his age, health related restriction and decreasing sight can also be one of the prime reasons leading to the fall (McCaughey et al. 2013). (Figure source: Hinze, Thurman and Wehle 2013) Potential human factor issues: The human factor components of the work place system allows for the construction of workplace safety measures that will help developing the safest and most comfortable working conditions for the workplace. The theory of human factors is associated with physical and cognitive ergonomics of the employees and the organizational ergonomics of the workplace. Elements from these three key concepts allow for not only the best and the safest workplace environment for the staff but also allows for the perfect investigation of the workplace accidents or hazardous situations (McCaughey et al. 2013). The component of the physical ergonomics is concerned with the design and characteristics of the workplace products and machinery along with the major design outlet of the workplace where the staff performs all the duties and job responsibilities. A workplace must ensure that the physical ergonomical safety of the workplace is taken care of and the staffs are safe working in that environment (Levine, Toffel and Johnson 2012). The cognitive ergonomics can be described as ensuring excellent mental health and wellbeing of the workplace and ensuring that the job responsibilities or the workplace environment to affect the healthy cognitive responses of the staff. The last theoretical component is the organizational ergonomics which is associated with the socio technical aspects of the organizational structures, such as workplace design, shift timing patterns, participatory design and the workplace environmental dynamics. Standardizing all this factors in accordance with the workplace safe ty strategies will allow for the construction of the workplace environment that will be the safest for the physical and mental health of the staff (Lehto and Landry 2012). In this case scenario, there are a number of issues with the physical and organizational ergonomics of the construction company that had the accident with one of their employees. Considering the physical ergonomics of this situation the construction site might not have adequate fall protection mechanism that could have sustained the chance to fall in this case scenario, further more in the physical ergonomic sector the safety and welfare might not have4 been taken into account while designing the construction layout for the construction work (Kniesner and Leeth 2012). In case of the cognitive ergonomics the expectation and the perception of the staff regarding the job responsibilities and the precautionary measures to be undertaken in this scenario. Furthermore the level of consciousness and the stress can also play a huge part in this situation (Kitaneh and Hamdan 2012). The third and final human factor component is the organizational ergonomics, where the faulty staffing arrangements, night shifts, heavy workload can be the reason to the employees losing consciousness and falling leading to him sustaining the injury. The workplace environment or managerial discrimination of the staff can also be the reason behind the reason of the fall and the investigation taking into consideration all these components the investigation for the fall incident can progress (Hinze, Thurman and Wehle 2013). Human Factors Methods for investigation: The human factor approach to accident investigation has not just theoretical principles and set of well articulated guidelines but also has a number of different tools and technological assistive methods to help the investigation process, and arrive at a reasonable and scientific conclusion (Hassall and Xiao 2015). The step to fall investigation must begin with scouting area where the fall was sustained and investigating the area for any signs to the underlying cause behind it. The workplace strategy needs to be evaluated as well to ensure that will allow the assessor to recognise whether or not there are safety precautions in place for the construction site (Hale, Borys and Adams 2015). The hydro-dynamics of the construction needs also to be measured to ascertain the structural balance of the site and the materials that are being used to ensure that the fall was not due to faulty foundational structure of the construction site. The tools that can be used are questionnaires, hydraulics measurement tool, barricade markers, Warning tags or padlocks, camera or video recorder, PPE, voice recorder, measuring tape, flashlight, sample containers, etc (Fernndez-Muiz, Montes-Pen and Vzquez-Ords 2012). Strengths and weaknesses of these tools and methods: All these tools that are accessible for fall incident investigation are made on the principles of human factor approach to workplace safety and employee welfare. All these tools have their own different strengths and weaknesses. For instance taking into consideration the questionnaires that will be prepared to survey the employee response to the incident will elicit important information about the construction site safety and the working ambiance of the organization (Feng 2013). Moreover this step will also elicit important information whether any kind of safety policies and protective principles are followed in the workplace or not. Interviewing the staff will also elicit vital informant about the recruitment policy in place for the organization and whether the age and health conditions of the staff are taken into consideration while recruiting the staff. Moreover the professional relationship of the staff with the managerial hierarchy of the workplace can also be revealed to ascert ain whether the staffs was overloaded with work and were doing extensive shifts (Dul et al. 2012). The employee who was the victim of the accident will also be questioned to ascertain whether he was conscious at the time of fall and whether the he had any health related restrictions that could have aided in his fall in any manner. The downside to this particular tool is the fact that the response of the rest of the employees and the can be biased and wll teh have the potential to affecting the neutrality of the study and the verdict. The same restrictions are going to be in place for the interviewing the managerial hierarchy and their biased opinion will drag down the possibility of the verdict of the intervention being very neutral (D?jus and Antuchevi?ien? 2013). The hydraulics assessment tool will also be beneficial in assessing the structural foundation of the construction site and will help in determining whether the construction site was safe to work on and will also assess the quality of any precautionary mechanism like guard rails, fall restrains and fall arrest in place in the workplace. Tis device will excellently deduce the cause of the fall and will easily generate the reason why these precautionary mechanisms malfunctioned. The downside to these tools is that it is expensive and will be difficult to operate without trained personnel (Conchie 2013). The rest of the standard investigation tools like barricade marker, yellow tapes and the rest will be beneficial in maintaining the security of the workplace and the order of the entire workplace. The downside to these tools is very significant but the extra expense can be a drawback for these toots (Colley, Lincolne and Neal 2013). Conclusion: On a concluding note, it can be said that there are many reasons why a workplace can sustain an accident of minor and major magnitude. And for a workplace that is a construction site it is even more inevitable. It has to be considered that accidents are not something that can be completely stopped from ever occurring however some safest precautions can be taken to ensure that the frequency of these accidents are minimum and the damage done is as low as possible (Carayon, Alyousef and Xie 2012). The injuries that the victim sustained cannot be overlooked and the responsibility of ensuring g the safety and well being of the staff lies in the hands of the management. Therefore, incorporating the human factor tools into the workplace can help in constructing a workplace environment that is safer for the employees and avoid any accidents that have the potential to harming the employees in any circumstances (Basil et al. 2013). References Basil, M., Basil, D., Deshpande, S. and Lavack, A.M., 2013. Applying the Extended Parallel Process Model to workplace safety messages.Health communication,28(1), pp.29-39. Carayon, P., Alyousef, B. and Xie, A., 2012. Human factors and ergonomics in health care.Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Fourth Edition, pp.1574-1595. Colley, S.K., Lincolne, J. and Neal, A., 2013. An examination of the relationship amongst profiles of perceived organizational values, safety climate and safety outcomes.Safety Science,51(1), pp.69-76. Conchie, S.M., 2013. Transformational leadership, intrinsic motivation, and trust: a moderated-mediated model of workplace safety.Journal of occupational health psychology,18(2), p.198. D?jus, T. and Antuchevi?ien?, J., 2013. Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site.Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,19(5), pp.728-737. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W.S., Wilson, J.R. and van der Doelen, B., 2012. A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession.Ergonomics,55(4), pp.377-395. Feng, Y., 2013. Effect of safety investments on safety performance of building projects.Safety science,59, pp.28-45. Fernndez-Muiz, B., Montes-Pen, J.M. and Vzquez-Ords, C.J., 2012. Safety climate in OHSAS 18001-certified organisations: Antecedents and consequences of safety behaviour.Accident Analysis Prevention,45, pp.745-758. Hale, A., Borys, D. and Adams, M., 2015. Safety regulation: the lessons of workplace safety rule management for managing the regulatory burden.Safety science,71, pp.112-122. Hassall, M. and Xiao, T., 2015. Human Factors and Ergonomics. Hinze, J., Thurman, S. and Wehle, A., 2013. Leading indicators of construction safety performance.Safety Science,51(1), pp.23-28. Kitaneh, M. and Hamdan, M., 2012. Workplace violence against physicians and nurses in Palestinian public hospitals: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research,12(1), p.469. Kniesner, T.J. and Leeth, J.D., 2012.Simulating workplace safety policy(Vol. 6). Springer Science Business Media. Lehto, M.R. and Landry, S.J., 2012.Introduction to human factors and ergonomics for engineers. Crc Press. Levine, D.I., Toffel, M.W. and Johnson, M.S., 2012. Randomized government safety inspections reduce worker injuries with no detectable job loss.Science,336(6083), pp.907-911. McCaughey, D., DelliFraine, J.L., McGhan, G. and Bruning, N.S., 2013. The negative effects of workplace injury and illness on workplace safety climate perceptions and health care worker outcomes.Safety science,51(1), pp.138-147. Salvendy, G., 2012.Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. John Wiley Sons. Weaver, M.D., Wang, H.E., Fairbanks, R.J. and Patterson, D., 2012. The association between EMS workplace safety culture and safety outcomes.Prehospital emergency care,16(1), pp.43-52. Worksafebc.com. (2017).WorkSafeBC. [online] Available at: https://www.worksafebc.com [Accessed 18 May 2017].