628
C. B. Chrusciak et al.
employees and offer good working conditions as well as human well-being, flexibility, fair remuneration, benefits, inclusion and diversity among others (Ferreira
2019).
One of the areas that has been concerned with human well-being and the better
performance of the organization’s system as a whole is Ergonomics, which according
to Chrusciak et al. (2019 apud Storey and Rea 1987) is “a set of concepts that help to
maximize the design of the interaction between human beings and machines, systems,
working methods, and environments while taking into account the physical security,
mental capacity and the productive potential of the same workers”, and that in its
macro focus considers the socio-technical system. A socio-technical analysis seeks to
contribute to the understanding of the interactions between the external and internal
environment of the organization, and how adjustments are made to meet the demands
of these interactions. One method that considers the socio-technical system as one of
its premises is the Macroergonomic Work Analysis [MA], proposed by Guimarães
(2002), that aims to identify, monitor and change any situations that compromise the
quality of life at work and which can become a risk to workers’ health and a source
of reduced productivity.
Studies as Leite et al. (2019) point out that MA provides the possibility of finding a
relationship between the cognitive ergonomic demands and the physical pain stated
by workers, which would need immediate intervention as they are a risk for the
worker’s health. Poncini et al. (2019) show that the application of MA revealed
that the high temperature and lack of ventilation in the workplace could cause
greater muscle fatigue, dehydration, physical tiredness, and stress, being a source
productivity reduction.
Another premise of MA is the participatory approach, which proposes the participation of workers in all moments of studies and ergonomic interventions. According
to Nagamachi (1996), “if people in the organization participate in decision-making,
they are able to experience the use of their skills and judgment". As a result, this
kind of situation provides people with a sense of responsibility and commitment to
the organization. Studies by Leite et al. (2019) and Poncini et al. (2019) point out the
importance and effectiveness of employee participation in the application of MA,
presenting more realistic results regarding the employee situation.
On the other hand, there are still few publications that present the benefits of
applying macroergonomics in a participatory way. Guimarães et al. (2019) present
an overview of academic publications in Brazil in ergonomics and demonstrate that
the practical application of ergonomics is small, and considering its macro approach,
it is even less.
Thus, this research aims to contribute scientifically to the area by presenting
an application of a method of a socio-technical and participatory character, MA,
proposing improvements to the work system and the implementation of social
responsibility.
C. B. Chrusciak et al.
employees and offer good working conditions as well as human well-being, flexibility, fair remuneration, benefits, inclusion and diversity among others (Ferreira
2019).
One of the areas that has been concerned with human well-being and the better
performance of the organization’s system as a whole is Ergonomics, which according
to Chrusciak et al. (2019 apud Storey and Rea 1987) is “a set of concepts that help to
maximize the design of the interaction between human beings and machines, systems,
working methods, and environments while taking into account the physical security,
mental capacity and the productive potential of the same workers”, and that in its
macro focus considers the socio-technical system. A socio-technical analysis seeks to
contribute to the understanding of the interactions between the external and internal
environment of the organization, and how adjustments are made to meet the demands
of these interactions. One method that considers the socio-technical system as one of
its premises is the Macroergonomic Work Analysis [MA], proposed by Guimarães
(2002), that aims to identify, monitor and change any situations that compromise the
quality of life at work and which can become a risk to workers’ health and a source
of reduced productivity.
Studies as Leite et al. (2019) point out that MA provides the possibility of finding a
relationship between the cognitive ergonomic demands and the physical pain stated
by workers, which would need immediate intervention as they are a risk for the
worker’s health. Poncini et al. (2019) show that the application of MA revealed
that the high temperature and lack of ventilation in the workplace could cause
greater muscle fatigue, dehydration, physical tiredness, and stress, being a source
productivity reduction.
Another premise of MA is the participatory approach, which proposes the participation of workers in all moments of studies and ergonomic interventions. According
to Nagamachi (1996), “if people in the organization participate in decision-making,
they are able to experience the use of their skills and judgment". As a result, this
kind of situation provides people with a sense of responsibility and commitment to
the organization. Studies by Leite et al. (2019) and Poncini et al. (2019) point out the
importance and effectiveness of employee participation in the application of MA,
presenting more realistic results regarding the employee situation.
On the other hand, there are still few publications that present the benefits of
applying macroergonomics in a participatory way. Guimarães et al. (2019) present
an overview of academic publications in Brazil in ergonomics and demonstrate that
the practical application of ergonomics is small, and considering its macro approach,
it is even less.
Thus, this research aims to contribute scientifically to the area by presenting
an application of a method of a socio-technical and participatory character, MA,
proposing improvements to the work system and the implementation of social
responsibility.