Evidence-Based Ergonomics. A Comparison of Japanese and American Office Layouts

• Autorzy: Noro K. , Fujimaki G. , Kishi S.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

There is a variety of alternatives in office layouts. Yet the theoretical basis and criteria for predicting how well these layouts accommodate employees are poorly understood. The objective of this study was to evaluate criteria for selecting office layouts. Intensive computer workers worked in simulated office layouts in a controlled experimental laboratory. Eye movement measures indicate that knowledge work requires both concentration and interaction. Findings pointed to one layout as providing optimum balance between these 2 requirements. Recommendations for establishing a theoretical basis and design criteria for selecting office layouts based on work style are suggested.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

evidence based ergonomics design; work style; eye movement

PL

warunki pracy; ergonomia; komputer; projektowanie miejsc pracy; pomieszczenie biurowe

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2003
• Tom: Vol. 9, No. 4
• Strony: 527--538
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 18 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Noro K.

• School of Human Sciences, Waseda University, Japan

autor

Fujimaki G.

• School of Human Sciences, Waseda University, Japan

autor

Kishi S.

• School of Human Sciences, Waseda University, Japan

Bibliografia

• 1.Andersson, M., Berns, T., & Klusell, L. (2000). The TCO “Office Checker” - A tool for ergonomic work place evaluation. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. July 29-August 4, 2000, San Diego, California USA (pp. 1-659-1-662). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
• 2.Benninghoven, A. (2002). Working conditions in callcenters: Successfully and healthy. In H. Luczak, A.E. Çakir, & Ç. Cakir (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference WWDU 2002 world wide work (pp. 188-189). Berlin, Germany: ERGONOMIC Institut fur Arbeits- und Sozialforschung Forschungsfesellschaft.
• 3.Brand, J.L., Hohne, J.J., Ku, Y.T.E., Lee, H.C., Luna, B., & Montgomery, L.D. (2000). Hemodynamic, performance & preference comparisons of three commercially available office chairs. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. July 29-August 4, 2000, San Diego, California USA (p. 3-226). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
• 4.Brunnberg, H. (2000). Evaluation of flexible offices. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. July 29-August 4, 2000, San Diego, California USA (pp. 1-667–1-670). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
• 5.Guimaraes, L.B.M., Fogliatto, F.S., & Belmonte, F. (2000). Analysis of motivational issues in the work environment - A case study from the banking sector. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. July 29-August 4, 2000, San Diego, California USA (pp. 2-309 - 2-311). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
• 6.Guimaraes, L.B.M., & Linden, J.C.S. (2000). Macroergonomic design of a computerized office. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. July 29-August 4, 2000, San Diego, California USA (p. 2-329). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
• 7.Jack, B.A., Roberts, K.A., & Wilson, R.W. (2003). Developing the skills to implement evidence based practice - A joint initiative between education and clinical practice. Nurse Education in Practice, 3(2), 112-118.
• 8.Kestler, E., & Romero, H. (2000). Research using the internet to complete ergonomics assessments of offices. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. July 29-August 4, 2000, San Diego, California USA (pp. 1-473 - 1-476). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
• 9.Kincaid, W.H. (1999). Office ergonomics for maximum performance. Occupational Hazards, 61(5), 85-88.
• 10.Lewis, R.J., Krawiec, M., Confer, E., Agopsowicz, D., & Crandall, E. (2001). Musculoskeletal disorder worker compensation costs and injuries before and after an office ergonomics program. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29(2), 95-99.
• 11.Matarazzo, G., & Graziano, A. (2000). User centered design, training and innovation. Organizational change and development in the municipality of Rome. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. July 29-August 4, 2000, San Diego, California USA (pp. 2-189 - 2-192). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
• 12.Noro, K., & Tanaka, R. (2001). Construction of virtual working environment and evaluation of the workers. In H. Arisawa, Y. Kambayashi, V. Kumar, H.C. Mayr, & I. Hunt (Eds.), Conceptual modeling for new information systems technologies (pp. 81-90). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
• 13.Petrelius, T. (2000). The distance working laboratory. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. July 29-August 4, 2000, San Diego, California USA (pp. 2-4 - 2-7). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
• 14.Pregnolato, F. (2003). Call center - A participatory office. In H. Strasser, K. Kluth, H. Rausch, & H. Bubb (Eds.), Quality of work and products in enterprises of the future (pp. 633-636). Stuttgart, Germany: Ergonomia.
• 15.Robertson, M.M., Robinson, M., & Chen, P. (2000). Office ergonomics interventions: strategies and practices. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. July 29-August 4, 2000, San Diego, California USA (pp. 2-165 - 2-168). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
• 16.Robertson, M.M., & Robinson, M. (2000). Systematic evaluation of office ergonomics training programs. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. July 29-August 4, 2000, San Diego, California USA (pp. 2-709 - 2-712). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
• 17.Steelcase. (1997). Steelcase general catalogue. Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Author.
• 18.Weinstock, M.P. (1994). White-collar ergonomics: Is your office fit for duty? Occupational Hazards, 56(7), 27-30.