The promotion of ergonomics in industrially developing countries
Personal experience
of author in Industrially Developing Countries (IDC) is presented in this
paper. Some key differences between IDC and Industrially Advanced Countries
(IAC) are given.
Relevance to Industry
The IAC approach to
implementing ergonomics research and development projects for commercially
competitive or legislative reasons may not be appropriate to IDCs.
Introduction
The application of
ergonomics in industrially developing countries (IDCs) could bring about major
benefits to productivity and health is not widely shared outside the ergonomics
community.
There are some
fundamental differences between IDCs and IACs which are as follows:
Indigenous Ergonomics
India is the IDC
with the greatest level of ergonomics activity.
Where India may
differ from other countries is the proportionately greater attention paid to
ergonomics in the rural sector, particularly to agricultural production for
both commercial and smallholder farming.
Singleton in 1970
recommended that ergonomics should address health and productivity rather than
consumerism and job satisfaction. Author is still contending on this
recommendation.
Other relatively
advanced IDCs also have professional bodies to represent the subject and its
practitioners, and these organisations may also help serve the ergonomics needs
of other IDCs in their regions. Issues cutting across aspects of working in
IDCs are manual handling, transport and occupational health and safety, in
general.
Jeyeratnam in 1992
contends that in IDCs occupational health services should be provided as a
function of primary health care, whereas in IACs, occupational health lies
within the remit of those responsible for the control of occupational injury
and disease.
ExogenousErgonomics
IACs contribution in
the development or application of ergonomics in IDCs seems to be relatively
rare. Ergonomics, as such, is rarely requested because it is not sufficiently
understood in the IDC (i.e. by the ‘‘customer’’ in demand-led projects) and
senior managers in the funding agencies in IACs do not specify ergonomics, by
name, although they may espouse the principles and welcome the benefits that
ergonomics can bring.
Even international
agencies, such as the ILO and the WHO, which undoubtedly sanction and promote
ergonomics principles rarely use the term ‘‘ergonomics’’. There are, of course
some exceptions, particularly in the ILO, which employs ergonomists, but it is
surprising that ergonomics is not more prevalent in the culture and image of
the ILO.
The five capitals,
collectively known as livelihood assets, are natural, physical, human, social
and financial. By focusing on the use and development of the human capital,
ergonomics and ergonomists should find an entry point to playing a more
prominent in development projects and programmes.
Conclusion
The principles of
ergonomics and its potential to deliver benefits have been accepted and
practised in a small number of Development and Technology Transfer Programmes
but not enough decision-makers are conversant with the breadth and depth of
ergonomics, and the profession is not well recognised by name. The
opportunities for ergonomics to mapon to the livelihoods approach and play a
more prominent role in Development Aid Programmes, particularly through
participatory processes, just be fully identified and taken up with aid
agencies. Otherwise, the profession will remain undervalued as one of the means
of alleviating third world poverty.
Ergonomists must
actively contribute to the debate on whether occupational health and associated
ergonomics issues in IDCs should be considered within primary health care or
elsewhere (e.g. Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour or private sector
organisations).
No comments:
Post a Comment