Assessing the Compatibility of Work System Factors Through an Integrative Model: A Case Study

• Autorzy: Wallace S. , Shoaf C. , Genaidy A. M. , Karwowski W.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Work Factor Compatibility (WFC) theory proposes that human performance is dependent on the interaction of various components (e.g., physical and mental task demands, physical environment, social environment) of the work system and integrates multiple human performance perspectives into a single mathematical model. Work Factor Analysis (WFA) is a comprehensive survey administered to employees to determine the WFC index. WFA also provides recommendations for targeting specific work system areas for improvement. Preliminary testing oft he tool was conducted at a manufacturing operation of a Fortune 10 company. Results are discussed and recommendations for further study are made.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

human performance; work improvement; workplace assessment

PL

środowisko pracy; stanowiska pracy; organizacja pracy; projektowanie miejsc pracy

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2003
• Tom: Vol. 9, No. 1
• Strony: 27--35
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 12 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Wallace S.

• Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Nuclear Engineering, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA

autor

Shoaf C.

• Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Nuclear Engineering, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA

autor

Genaidy A. M.

• Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Nuclear Engineering, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA

autor

Karwowski W.

• Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Louisville, KY, USA

Bibliografia

• 1.Ackoff, R. (1994). The democratic corporation. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
• 2.Genaidy, A.M., Karwowski, W., & Shoaf, C. (2002). The fundamentals of work system compatibility theory: An integrated approach to optimize workplace performance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(4), 346-368.
• 3.Genaidy, A.M., Karwowski, W., Succop, P., Kwon, Y.-G., Alhemoud, A., & Goyal, D. (2000). A classification system for characterization of physical and non-physical work factors. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 6(4), 535-555.
• 4.Hackman, J., & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
• 5.Hackman, J., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: A test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
• 6.International Labour Office. (1986). Psycho-social factors at work: Recognition and control (Occupational and Health Series, No. 56). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
• 7.Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY, USA: HarperCollins.
• 8.Kuorinka, I., & Forcier, L. (Eds.). (1995). Work related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs): A reference book for prevention. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
• 9.Shannon, H.S., Robson, L.S., & Sale, J.E.M. (2001). Creating safer and healthier workplaces: Role of organizational factors and job characteristics. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 40, 319-334.
• 10.Shoaf, C., Genaidy, A.M., Haartz, J., Karwowski, W., Waters, T., Hancock, P.A., et al. (2000). A cybernetic model for assessment of work related musculoskeletal hazards and risks. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1(1), 34-61.
• 11.Shoaf, C., Genaidy, A.M., & Shell, R.L. (1998). A perspective on work system analysis: Classification and evaluation of methods. Ergonomics, 41(6), 881-898.
• 12.Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 27-41.