Integrating ergonomics into production system development – The Volvo Powertrain case W. Patrick Neumann a, * , Marianne Ekman b , Jørgen Winkel c, d a Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria St., Toronto, ON, Canada M5B 2K3 b The Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden c National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark d Department of Work Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden article info Article history: Received 20 March 2006 Accepted 5 September 2008 Keywords: Production system design Organisational development Human factors intervention Macroergonomics abstract Understanding the barriers and assists to integrating ergonomics into production system design remains a research issue. An action research case study at Volvo Powertrain/Sweden was conducted. Researchers worked collaboratively with the firm in efforts to improve the company’s ability to handle ergonomics in their daily work of improving and developing production systems. Researchers observed and reflected collectively on the change process using field notes and recordings to support their observations. Observed integration barriers included both individual level issues like life events, and organisational aspects such as communication barriers between groups or assignment of tasks to people not involved in decision-making. Observed assists included the ‘political reflective navigation’ (c.f. Broberg, O., Hermund, I., 2004. The OHS consultant as a ‘political reflective navigator’ in technological change processes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (4), 315–326) by the project owner to find new ways to overcome barriers and anchor ergonomics into the organisation. While special ‘ergonomics’ groups did not survive long, progress was observed in including ergonomics in regular design groups. A cross- functional workshop that fostered discussion across organisational boundaries helped shift focus from retrofitting systems to future production systems and improve engagement of engineering teams. Progress was marked by both success and setbacks and full integration appears to require more than 2 years time. It is concluded that support by senior managers should include succession planning for personnel that are key to the change effort. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction 1.1. The challenge of ergonomics Despite decades of ergonomics research, work-related muscu- loskeletal disorders (MSDs), the single most expensive category of work-related health problem (Leigh et al., 1997), remain a large problem for afflicted individuals (Pransky et al., 2000), companies (Oxenburgh et al., 2004), and society (WHO, 1999). Epidemiological research has demonstrated associations between MSDs and both physical and psychosocial workplace factors (e.g. de Beeck and Hermans, 2000; Hoogendoorn et al., 2000; National Research Council, 2001; Buckle and Deveraux, 2002). While many case studies of successful ergonomic interventions exist (e.g. Hendrick, 1996; GAO, 1997; Oxenburgh et al., 2004), systematic reviews have only to a minor degree found the effect of intervention attempts to be generally consistent when evaluated with the rigor of the bio-medical scientific tradition (Westgaard and Winkel, 1997; Silverstein and Clark, 2004). Since few of these intervention studies included process evaluations, it is difficult to determine why many projects had no major impact on disorders. Karsh et al. (2001) have highlighted this problem: ‘‘A pressing problem that has plagued ergonomic intervention research is the lack of understanding as to why seemingly iden- tical interventions work in some instances but not in others. We propose that research pay special attention to various imple- mentation approaches to ergonomic interventions.’’ From an organisational change perspective this is a classic problem. Success rates for ‘organisational culture’ change are reported to be as low as 19% (Smith, 2003). Clegg et al. (2002), in a large international survey, found that 50–75% of implementations of modern manufacturing technologies were not successful. These failures appear to be less a failure of the technical system itself as much as a failure to accommodate the social sub-system * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 416 979 5000x7738; fax: þ1 416 979 5265. E-mail address: pneumann@ryerson.ca (W.P. Neumann). URL: http://www.ryerson.ca/pneumann Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Applied Ergonomics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo 0003-6870/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.09.010 Applied Ergonomics 40 (2009) 527–537