ARTICLE IN PRESS

0003-6870/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ap

�Correspond

E-mail addr

Applied Ergonomics 36 (2005) 471–480

www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo

Technical note

A multi-level systems approach for the development of tools,equipment and work processes for the construction industry

Joachim Vedder�, Eilıs Carey

Work Science & Ergonomics, Hilti Corporation, FL-9494 Schaan, Liechtenstein

Received 20 February 2004; accepted 9 January 2005

Abstract

Ergonomics is a key issue in the construction industry. Many work tasks and associated equipment and tools are not designed

with ergonomics principles in mind. Often, in the development of power tools for construction, any attention to ergonomics is

restricted to the human–machine interface and handle design. The need for ergonomics intervention in the development process

originates from considerations of safety, health, physical work load, and productivity. It is argued that in each of these respects, the

construction industry has lower standards than other industries and therefore has a need and opportunity for improvement. A

multi-level ergonomics approach is proposed addressing these issues. The approach defines five levels of ergonomics intervention,

from designing individual tools for safety, to designing wider aspects of construction and work flow for optimal productivity. This

holistic approach is illustrated using case study examples of the development of power tools and work methods.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Product development; Product ergonomics; Ergonomics approach

1. Introduction

Construction is dangerous and generates substantialinjury and ill-health, with a link between these, andpoorly designed processes and tools (Haslam et al., 2005).The industry is receptive to innovation at a ‘‘macro’’level, i.e. large-scale changes to building processes, but isconservative with innovation at a ‘‘micro’’ level, i.e.tooling design and low-level methods of installation.There is scope and opportunity for improvement on thissituation. This paper argues the case for a new approachto tool and equipment development, aimed at improvingupon current processes.

Currently, the most significant motivator for ergo-nomics interventions in construction is a concern overhealth and safety, in response to injury and ill-healthstatistics published by public organisations such asOSHA and NIOSH or their equivalents in other

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ergo.2005.01.004

ing author. Tel.: +423 234 3834; fax: +423 234 2379.

ess: vedder@hilti.com (J. Vedder).

countries. Generally, the focus is on reducing accidentsand injuries, with less attention to effects on productivity.From the industry point of view, ergonomics is thereforeliable to be regarded as an additional cost factor ratherthan a benefit. To counter this, a wider ergonomicsapproach is needed, applying ergonomics principles tothe design of tools, equipment and work processes toimprove both work productivity and efficiency, as well asrelated safety and health aspects. Most definitions ofergonomics do usually emphasise physical work load andproductivity issues, alongside safety and health(Schmidtke, 1989; Luczak and Volpert, 1987).

2. Ergonomics in construction

The total construction volume worldwide in 2002 wasof the order of US$2.8 trillion, with the three biggestmarkets being the US, Japan and the European Union.While construction is a very diverse industry, incorpor-ating many different trades, it is characterised by a few

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Vedder, E. Carey / Applied Ergonomics 36 (2005) 471–480472

common features. The products (buildings, tunnels,bridges, etc.) are not mobile, and they are mainly builton-site. Most products are so-called one-off projects.This means each is planned and built individually fromthe scratch, leading to a relatively high level of manuallabour. Automation is limited mainly to the mechan-isation of hard physical work, such as manuallyhandling materials and logistics (trucks, cranes, etc.).Only in a very few specialised areas robotics have beensuccessfully introduced.

Construction work is also distinctive in the high numberof different contractors and subcontractors usually foundworking on a particular project. The coordination of thisparallel and sequential work is often so complex that asmooth work flow is virtually impossible. Bulky, largeand/or heavy materials, including gypsum drywall sheets,long metal pipes and sheet metal roof sections, are oftencarried manually on the construction sites.

As a consequence of the lack of standardisation andautomation, and the extent of subcontracting, there aremajor ergonomics problems in construction that arecommon to the industry worldwide. The challenge ofaddressing these issues is considered in the followingsections.

2.1. Safety and health

The construction industry has a high frequency of sickleave among workers, and subsequently a high rate ofoccupational disease (Vedder and Siemers, 2003; Muller

Overexertion

Sloppiness

Inadequate site safety

Low awareness

Inadequate tool safety

Low quality

Inadequate PPE

Inadequate lighting

Inadequate storage

Acts of God

Conflicts, violence

Causes based on low safety awareness

Other causes

63 %

62 %

59 %

55 %

48 %

45 %

45 %

43 %

34 %

26 %

19 % 4

0% 10% 20% 30% 4

Causes based on physical work load

Fig. 1. Root causes for accidents and occupational diseases in constr

et al., 2003). In the European Union, just 7% of thework force works in construction, yet this sectoraccounts for 15% of all accidents and 20% of allfatalities (Riese, 1995). In United States, the fatality ratein construction is 15.2 per 100,000 workers compared to4.2 in manufacturing, and with an injury rate of 7.9 per100 workers (Department of Labor, 2001). Assuming a40 year work term for the average worker, the currentfatality rate in construction corresponds to a 1:165chance of being killed at work. It is almost inevitablethat an individual worker will experience severalreportable non-fatal injuries over the course of aworking lifetime in construction. The main causes ofaccidents in construction are falling and tripping, motorvehicle accidents, falling objects, and work withpowered tools (see Vedder and Siemers, 2003).

In a study of occupational accidents in Austria,Moser et al. (1999) described certain root causes forconstruction accidents and occupational diseases. Fig. 1shows these root causes ranked by importance. Themost important cause is overexertion, followed byseveral causes that are based on low safety awareness.

Occupational diseases and injuries in different con-struction trades are mainly musculoskeletal diseases(with the main portion being low-back problems),hearing loss, and diseases of the lung and throat.Musculoskeletal disorders accounted for 27% of non-fatal injuries and illnesses in construction in the US in1999 (Department of Labor, 2001). The risk factors formusculoskeletal disorders leading to absence from work

33 %

32 %

35 %

41 %

40 %

44 %

39 %

41 %

48 %

38 %

4 %

4%

4%

6 %

6 %

12 %

11 %

16 %

16 %

18 %

36 %

37 %

0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

very important

important

not important

uction and their relative importance, from Moser et al. (1999).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Breakdown of body posture for observed pipe installation work, from

Muller et al. (2003)

Posture type % of working time

Slightly stressful 20.5

Stressful 15.3

Very stressful 30.7

Extremely stressful 18.7

Movement 14.8

J. Vedder, E. Carey / Applied Ergonomics 36 (2005) 471–480 473

were overexertion while lifting (45% of cases), over-exertion without lifting (32% of cases), bending ortwisting (17% of cases) and repetitive motion (7% ofcases). The trades within construction which had ahigher than average rate of overexertion injuries wereroofing/siding/sheet metal, masonry, carpentry and themechanical trades.

Apart from the negative effects on the individualworker, the safety and health problems also have aneconomic dimension. In Europe, approximately 5% ofthe gross national-construction product is lost becauseof accidents and work-related ill-health (Moser et al.,1999).

The high frequency of accidents and health problemsin the construction industry led to a European directivein 1992, requiring all owners and general contractors toassign a ‘‘Safety-coordinator’’ for each construction site,responsible for all safety and health-related issues,including ergonomics (Council Directive 92/57/EEC).

2.2. Physical workload

The physical workload of construction workersdepends on the task performed. One of the problemtrades in the construction industry is the mechanical andelectrical (M&E) installation of pipes, ducts, cable trays,etc. (Albers et al., 2005). In the M&E trade, a highportion of the work, in particular drilling, is performedoverhead (Muller et al., 2003). The rate of injuries andillnesses for this work is higher than the already highaverage rate for the construction industry (9.7 vs. 7.9cases per 100 workers) (Department of Labor, 2001).Rosecrance et al. (1996) found that 41% of pipe tradeworkers complained about work-related shoulder painlinked to overhead work. A breakdown of posture typesaccording to the TAI work classification system forpostural stress (Frieling et al., 1993), showed that almost50% of the time of pipe workers was spent in verystressful or extremely stressful postures (Muller et al.,2003). The TAI system classifies static working posturesinto 16 types, grouped into four levels of postural stress:slightly stressful, stressful, very stressful, extremelystressful. The extremely stressful postures includeextremely stooped (more than 601 trunk flexion),stooped (201–601 trunk flexion) with arms over head,kneeling with a flexed and twisted back, and kneelingwith the arms over head. The very stressful posturesinclude standing with the arms over head, kneeling,kneeling with a flexed back, kneeling with a twistedback, and squatting with the arms over head. Theclassification ‘‘movement’’ is an additional descriptor toaccount for all dynamic activities. Table 1 gives thebreakdown of the body postures recorded. Experiencedworkers try to alleviate the physical stress fromawkward body postures by integrating movements andfrequent changes of position into their work routine.

Working postures in construction workers are deter-mined by the work system design. The work systemconsists of the work task itself (e.g. overhead pipeinstallation), the available equipment (e.g. ladders,scaffold), the power or hand tools employed (e.g.hammer drill, screw driver) and the organisational anddesign processes that influence each of these. Each of theelements of the work system interact and should bedesigned with the complete work system in mind, toenable a reduction in physical stress for the workers andto optimize their productivity. Specifically, the design ofthe tools used has a significant influence on the overallwork posture and work stress (Feggeler et al., 1992;Albers et al., 2005).

2.3. Productivity

Safety and health as well as work load issues requireergonomics optimisation of any given work system.From the industry standpoint, this optimisation alsoneeds to pay attention to the overall productivity andefficiency of the work undertaken. Due to the specificcharacteristics of the construction industry, productivitycan be less than in other industries. Also the trend forproductivity improvement is lower. Fig. 2 compares theoverall productivity of the construction industry and theautomotive industry. In the construction industry, themain productivity improvements have been achievedfrom the introduction of mechanised equipment, such asvehicles and especially cranes. With regard to manualtasks, productivity in construction has remained con-stant for many years (Al-Arja, 1997).

Productivity studies in construction have shown that,in general, the value-added time in construction iscomparatively low (see Hawkins, 1997). A field study ofmechanical installation work has shown that over 50%of the total time observed on construction sites is non-value-adding time in the categories interruption, dis-turbance, communication and preparation (Mulleret al., 2003), as shown in Fig. 3. Many products whichreduce the load on the workers also lead to a higher levelof productivity (de Looze et al., 2001). However, someequipment designed to increase productivity can bedetrimental to worker safety, such as the stilts used by

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1960 1970 1980 1990

2.5

2.0

1.5

0.5

0.0

ProduktivityIndex

(Automotive Industry1960 = 1.0)

Year

Construction Industry

Automotive Industry

2.17

1.57

+117%

+90%1.0

0.83

Fig. 2. Productivity in construction and automotive industry, from Al-Arja (1997).

22%

7%

12%

27%

3%

12%

8%

7%2% Preparation

Measure

Drill

Workon fastening point

Control

Change position

Communication

Interruption

Disturbance

Fig. 3. Breakdown of working times for installation work activities, from Muller et al. (2003).

J. Vedder, E. Carey / Applied Ergonomics 36 (2005) 471–480474

drywall hangers and plasterers as an aid for reachingduring elevated work. Pan et al. (1999) found thatdrywall workers reported a higher level of perceivedstress and fall potential when wearing stilts as comparedwith using ladders or scaffolds.

Various different approaches exist for the applicationof ergonomics to the concerns of health, safety, physicalwork load and productivity in the construction industry.They range from specific aspects of the design of tools,to consideration of health and safety in the design andprocurement of the overall structure. This paperproposes a multi-level approach, which integrates thevarious routes through which ergonomics input can beof benefit. The approach is structured, acknowledgingthe nature and constraints that exist within the industry.Five levels of ergonomics integration are defined and

presented in the following sections, together withexamples of their application.

3. The multi-level approach

A user-centred and holistic approach to ergonomicstool development entails different levels of analysis,design and intervention (Table 2).

The proposed multi-level approach (Table 2) is bestillustrated using a standard task from construction as anexample: drilling an anchor hole into reinforcedconcrete. In this drilling task, an obvious user need isthe design of the drilling tool with regard to safety andergonomics. This relates to the two basic levels of theapproach: eliminating safety and injury hazards, and

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Vedder, E. Carey / Applied Ergonomics 36 (2005) 471–480 475

reducing work stress. The correct use of the tool inpractice and its maintenance to ensure that it continuesto work properly are elements which need to beaddressed subsequently.

At the third level, analysis of the drilling task in actualsite circumstances identifies further issues to consider.For example, when drilling in concrete, hitting rebarscan lead to major wrist injuries due to sudden rotationof the hammer drill. Further drilling may then benecessary, to locate the hole at another position.Another, often overlooked problem is that electricpower outlets are not readily available in unfinishedbuildings.

With the fourth level, the entire process is analysed.This comprises all tasks performed before and after thedrilling operation, including planning, logistics, the taskof finding the correct location for the anchor hole, theinstallation of the anchor, and the quality inspection ofthe job after completion. Such analyses will lead toadditional areas for improving the overall processefficiency and productivity.

The fifth level analyses the underlying objective of anygiven operation. This analysis can lead to new ways ofreaching the objective, potentially eliminating the

Table 2

Ergonomics multi-level approach for tool and process development

Level Approach

1 Occupational safety design to eliminate accident, injury and

health risks related to a specific job or work task

2 Basic ergonomics design to reduce work stress by optimising

tools and direct working conditions

3 Detailed ergonomics task design to improve overall

ergonomics by optimising the overall task

4 Application context analysis and optimisation to improve

efficiency and productivity for the entire task

5 Process optimisation to improve ergonomics, efficiency and

productivity for the overall process

Fig. 4. Breaker tool with act

original task and replacing it with a different processor application.

3.1. Level 1: occupational safety design

Most safety and health-related issues in constructionarise from the specific working conditions in theindustry. To reduce the injury and health risks toworkers, task and tools should be designed accordingly.Especially in the application of power tools, it isimportant that any potentially incorrect or dangeroususe be prevented by the design of the tool. For electricpower tools, this means, for instance, the electricalisolation of any part of the tool with which the usercould come into contact. The thermal insulation of hotparts is also required. For powered saws, it necessitatesa design so that accidental contact with the moving sawblade is prevented.

Design for health means the elimination or reductionof exposure of the worker to physical agents. In theconstruction industry, they are most often noise,vibration and dust. The reduction of tool vibrationneeds a sophisticated technical design of the tool. Anactive vibration reduction system implemented in abreaker tool, for example, can reduce the vibrationtransmitted to the operator by up to 50%, dramaticallyreducing the impact on the hand–arm system. Fig. 4shows an example of a heavy electric breaker tool withan active vibration reduction system.

A further example of an intervention at this level toincrease the safety of construction power tools is a bandsaw electromechanical safety system, which detectshuman contact with the saw-blade (Nosacka et al.,2002). The power to the saw motor and the travel of theblade are automatically interrupted should such acontact occur.

ive vibration reduction.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Vedder, E. Carey / Applied Ergonomics 36 (2005) 471–480476

3.2. Level 2: basic ergonomics design

The ergonomics design of the tool often relatesdirectly to level 1. At level 2, some of the majorergonomics issues are manual handling, lifting andcarrying, tool interface design (controls, indicators, etc.)and handle design. It is often the case that theseconsiderations are neglected in the design of tools andequipment currently found on construction sites (Ha-slam et al., 2005).

Professional users require tools with a long lifetime,having sturdy and high-quality mechanical designs,which, unfortunately, often leads to increased weight.Light-weight design methods have limitations withrespect to cost and feasibility. Here, a user-centredapproach is used to identify new solutions. Fig. 5illustrates a means of reducing the load that needs to behandled by the worker, without any detrimental effecton tool performance. For cordless tools, the batteryoften accounts for a large component of the totalweight. The illustrated battery adapter allows thebattery to be worn on the belt or placed elsewhere,reducing the tool weight from 4.7 to 2.8 kg, a significantreduction.

The design of power tools should take existingergonomics recommendations for hand tools intoaccount. A study of industrial spray guns, usedfor spray painting, found that several designs didnot comply with ergonomics recommendationswith regard to such characteristics as trigger force,handle length, handle surface characteristics and weight(Bjoring et al., 2000).

Fig. 5. Cordless hammer dril

The use of the claim ‘‘ergonomically designed’’ iswidespread in marketing the literature for constructionpower tools, but often there is only a limited basis forsuch assertions. A comparison of three random orbitalsander tools showed that a new tool, with supposedimprovements in terms of ergonomics, had no benefit interms of muscle activity or wrist motion, while the oldtool was strongly preferred by the subjects (Spielholz etal., 2001). Objective measures of physical stress need tobe used by engineers and designers in the developmentof construction tools, to ensure that real benefits areprovided to the user.

3.3. Level 3: detailed ergonomics task design

A detailed ergonomics task design, as indicated bylevel 3, requires a rigorous analysis of the work task andtool use, as performed under real world conditions. Thisdetailed analysis not only provides a useful temporalbreakdown of the sequence of task elements, but alsoallows identification of typical problems encountered bythe worker. One problem in the previously mentionedtask of drilling is hitting the steel reinforcement bars(rebar) in reinforced concrete. Hitting a rebar can havevarious undesirable consequences, which are costly andhazardous to health and safety, and should be avoided.

Upon hitting a rebar, the hammer drill bit can becomewedged, leading to the tool rotating unexpectedly aboutits longitudinal axis. This often happens too quickly forthe worker to react, and mechanical slip clutches (wherefitted) normally release only after the tool has turnedapproximately 901. The result of it can be significant

l with battery adaptor.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Vedder, E. Carey / Applied Ergonomics 36 (2005) 471–480 477

injuries of the hand, wrist and forearm. A solution tothis problem has been the development of an electro-magnetic clutch, triggered by a sensor detecting astopped drill-bit within milliseconds. The first hammerdrill equipped with such an active torque control isshown in Fig. 6. It eliminates the danger of being injuredwhen the drill-bit gets stuck.

A study of drywall workers by Pan et al. (1999)showed that out of three tasks, hanging drywall on theceiling was perceived as the most stressful task bydrywall workers in terms of physical stress, fall potentialand being struck by an object. To perform this work, theworkers have to fasten drywall sheets to metal studsusing a screw gun with one arm, while supporting theweight of the drywall sheet with the other. The task iscomplicated by the requirement to reach into the pocketor belt for individual screws, then insert these into thetool bit and screw in one at a time. Lifting equipment forsupporting and raising drywall sheets addresses the issueof physical work demands for this activity. A furtherdevelopment to ease this work has been the introductionof a magazined screw gun, where screws are loaded intothe tool in a strip, with an auto-feed mechanism thateliminates the task of reaching for individual screws.

Another study of drywall taping and sanding activ-ities identified that sanding ceiling joints, nails andcorners, were identified as physically stressful tasks, withwrist/hands and shoulders particularly affected (Pan etal., 2000). Use of pole sanders help to overcome theproblems, enabling sanding work to be performed fromground level, instead of on ladders, scaffolds or stilts.When a vacuum is connected to the pole of the tool, alarge portion of the dust produced from sanding isremoved, providing further benefit to the worker.

Elsewhere, de Looze et al. (2001) described caseswhere products had been developed to reduce thephysical work load on workers including scaffolders,bricklayers, bricklayer’s assistants, roofworkers andglaziers. A stepwise participatory approach was usedin the development of several new products, with

Fig. 6. Hammer drill with active torque control (ATC); typical angle of

workers involved in listing the hazards of the work.New products developed for these different tradeworkers were effective in reducing exposure to a varietyof known risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders,including repetitive lifting and working in awkwardpostures.

3.4. Level 4: application context analysis and

optimisation

Another problematic consequence of hitting a rebarintroduces the fourth level of the approach: applicationcontext analysis. When a rebar is hit, often the hole hasto be re-drilled in a different position, taking extra time.In a worst-case scenario, destroying rebars can alsomean that the reinforced concrete loses its structuralintegrity. From an ergonomics perspective, this suggeststhat wider aspects of the task should be examined. In thecase of the concrete drilling, an additional step can beintroduced to alleviate the problem of hitting rebars.Using an electronic detection tool, the locations of therebars can be identified and mapped before the drillingtakes place. This additional measure helps to avoidhitting rebars, thus increasing the reliability and qualityas well as the productivity and safety of the overallprocess.

It has been found useful in level 4 to employ a timestudy analysis approach, similar to that found inindustrial engineering. Due to the difficulty of definingevery activity of interest for a detailed time study of aconstruction task, the authors have found it useful tovideo the work on site, defining task categories andperforming the time analysis subsequently back at thelaboratory.

For drilling anchor holes and fastening installations,such a time study indicated that up to 40% of the timewas spent identifying and marking the correct locationfor holes. Additionally, from the video analysis, it couldbe seen that the marking up operation was ratherunsophisticated, with the tools used being a simple

rotation when drill-bit gets stuck: (a) without ATC, (b) with ATC.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 7. Efficient laser systems for the replacement of traditional methods of measurement.

J. Vedder, E. Carey / Applied Ergonomics 36 (2005) 471–480478

meter stick, water level and plumbs. While these toolshave sufficient accuracy for construction purposes, theiruse is often slow, resulting in an inefficient process.

Considering the optimisation the process exploredpossible use of more modern technology. Appropriate tothe operation are laser measuring devices, which yielddistances with an accuracy of 1.5 mm at the push of abutton, and levelling devices, allowing levelling andaligning over wide distances (Fig. 7). This optimisationmakes the task faster and easier to perform, in turnreducing the physical demands and productivity of theworker.

3.5. Level 5: process optimisation: design for construction

At this level, the analysis goes beyond the immediatework system under consideration. By isolating the realobjective of a given task, the analysis explores othermeans of achieving this purpose. In the fasteningexample, levels 1–4 considered issues surrounding thelocating and drilling of a hole in concrete. However, thehole is drilled to set the anchor, with the anchor neededto fasten something at this point. So the real objective ofthe work process is to create a fastening point.

An alternative process might use a different fasteningtechnique without anchors. Direct fastening with nail-setting tools, for instance, would make the entire drillingtask obsolete, leading to a much higher efficiency andproductivity of the overall process. Another approachwould be to cast-in the fixings in the concrete, although

the cooperation of several parties in the constructiondesign process would be required to implement this. Thechanged process must also be analysed with respect tosafety, health and ergonomics, which illustrate theimportant point that all levels of the proposed approachshould be applied in an integrated manner.

Designing for construction places an onus onarchitects and engineers to consider the health, safetyand ergonomics implications of design decisions. Manyconstruction elements have been increasing in size andweight over recent years, including polyurethane-coresandwich panels and standard building blocks (Berg,1999). Mechanical lifting devices are often used totransport such items, but manual handling is alsocommon (e.g. Bust et al., 2005). In building servicedesign, pipes, ventilation ducts and cable trays aretypically designed to run very close to each other, oreven in the same vertical plane. A study by Zimmer-mann and Cook (1999) found that this proximity of themechanical services resulted in a significantly greaterneed to work in limited space with awkward postures.Designing for construction (or production) was sug-gested as a means of decreasing the presence ofergonomics risk factors in M&E installations. Short-term cost savings and aesthetics often take priority overease of construction. As architects and engineers areforced to take more responsibility for the health andsafety of workers on construction sites, designing forconstruction can be expected to become increasinglyimportant.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Vedder, E. Carey / Applied Ergonomics 36 (2005) 471–480 479

4. Concluding discussion

It is clear from the evidence presented on safety,health, physical workload and productivity that theseshould be matters of concern for the constructionindustry. The proposed multi-level approach providesan ergonomics framework for the refinement of tools,equipment and processes, giving attention to theseconsiderations.

The first two levels of the approach focus on productdesign ergonomics, moving to encompass task analysisand task design in the third level, and optimisation ofthe work process in terms of productivity in the fourthand fifth levels. Application of the earlier levels of theapproach (levels 1–3) have been shown in variousprevious studies to have a positive influence in termsof worker safety and performance (Chervak, 2001;Nosacka et al., 2002; de Looze et al., 2001; Berg,1999). Wider attention to the aspects of the worksystem, as provided by levels 4 and 5, might be expectedto yield further improvements.

In terms of the practical application of the multi-levelapproach, in most instances, the focus of attention willbe on existing work activities, where levels 1–3 are theusual practical starting point. It is important toemphasise the implication from the approach thatconsideration should also still be given to levels 4 and5. Ideally, the development of a new tool or processwill begin with an analysis at levels 4 and 5, wherethe required outcome of the task is defined buthe method of achieving it remains open. Tool orprocess ideas which are generated from this analysiswill then be subject to the earlier levels of the approach,in particular basic ergonomics design and occupationalsafety design.

The multi-level approach does need to be validated ina more complete form than those of the examplesprovided here. In particular, the impact on objectivemeasures, such as musculoskeletal disorder prevalence,needs to be verified, especially for the higher levels(4 and 5), where productivity improvements mightnegatively influence health and safety outcomes.

The need to integrate ergonomics into the technicaldesign process has been argued repeatedly (Haslegraveand Holmes, 1994). The authors’ experience ofapplying the multi-level ergonomics approachdescribed in this paper has yielded a range of productand process improvements. The total-system philosophythat the approach embodies will be very familiar tothe ergonomics community. This familiarity isless widespread for designers, manufacturers andsuppliers in the construction industry, where there is aneed to facilitate progress among these key influencers.It is hoped that the multi-level approach proposed willbe a productive means of making progress in thisrespect.

References

Al-Arja, N., 1997. Analyse der Produktivitatsentwicklung im Bauge-

werbe auf verschiedenen Ebenen (Analysis of the Development of

Productivity in Construction on Different Levels). Technische

Universitat Berlin.

Albers, J., Estill, C., MacDonald, L. 2005. Identification of ergonomics

interventions used to reduce musculoskeletal loading for building

installation tasks. Appl. Ergon., this issue.

Berg, U., 1999. Improvement of working conditions in the masonry

sector. In: Singh, A., Hinze, J., Coble, R.J. (Eds.), Implementation

of Safety and Health on Construction Sites, Proceedings of the

Second International Conference of CIB Working Commission

W99, Honolulu, Hawaii, 24–27 March, pp. 209–212.

Bjoring, G., Johansson, L., Hagg, G.M., 2000. Surface pressure in the

hand when holding a drilling machine under different drilling

conditions. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 29 (5), 255–261.

Bust, P.D., Gibb, A.G.F., Haslam, R.A., 2005. Manual handling

of highway kerbs—focus group findings. Appl. Ergon.,

this issue.

Chervak, S.G., 2001. A comparison study of impact hammers, 2001.

In: Bittner, A.C., Champney, P.C., Morrissey, S.J. (Eds.),

Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety. ISO Press,

Amsterdam, pp. 208–217.

Council Directive 92/57/EEC, 24 June 1992 on the implementation of

minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile

construction sites.

Department of Labor, 2001. Accident statistics for the construction

industry. www.bls.gov/data/.

Feggeler, A., Yoo, J.W., Hornung, V., 1992. Ergonomische gestaltung

von handgefuhrten elektromotorischen arbeitsmitteln (Ergonomic

design of hand-held electric power tools). Bundesanstalt fur

Arbeitsschutz, Dortmund.

Frieling, E., Facaoaru, C., Benedix, J., Pfaus, H., Sonntag, K., 1993.

TAI Tatigkeitsanalyseinventar. ecomed, Landsberg.

Haslam, R.A., Hide, S.A., Gibb, A.G.F., Gyi, D.E., Pavitt, T.,

Atkinson, S., Duff, A.R., 2005. Contributing factors in construc-

tion accidents. Appl. Ergon., this issue.

Haslegrave, C.M., Holmes, K., 1994. Integrating ergonomics and

engineering in the technical design process. Appl. Ergon. 25 (4),

211–220.

Hawkins, G., 1997. Improving M&E site productivity. BSRIA

TN14/97.

de Looze, M.P., Urlings, I.J.M., Vink, P., van Rhijn, J.W., Miedema,

M.C., Bronkhorst, R.E., van der Grinten, M.P., 2001. Towards

successful physical stress reducing products: an evaluation of seven

cases. Appl. Ergon. 32, 525–534.

Luczak, H., Volpert, W., 1987. Arbeitswissenschaft: Kerndefinition—

Gegenstandskatalog—Forschungsgebiete. RKW Verlag, Eschborn.

Moser, P., Bauer, R., Bsandig, G., Czasny, K., Feigelfeld, H.,

Godecke, R., Hartig, R., Pils, P., Schoffmann, B., 1999. Muss

Arbeit die Gesundheit kosten? (Working at the cost of health?).

Verlag des Osterreichischen Gewerkschaftsbundes.

Muller, S., Carey, E., Vedder, J., 2003. Physical and psychological

workload of construction workers in the mechanical and electrical

trades. Proceedings of the XVth Triennial Congress of

the International Ergonomics Association, Seoul, Korea, vol. 6,

pp. 45–48.

Nosacka, S., Gumpenberger, R., Kubit, M., Tran, B., 2002. Band saw

safety system. Bridging Fundamentals and New Opportunities,

Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors

and Ergonomics Society, Baltimore, Maryland, September 30–

October 4, 2002, pp. 715–719.

Pan, C.S., Chiou, S.S., Hsiao, H., Wassell, J.T., Keane, P.R., 1999.

Assessment of perceived traumatic injury hazards during drywall

hanging. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 25, 29–37.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Vedder, E. Carey / Applied Ergonomics 36 (2005) 471–480480

Pan, C.S., Chiou, S.S., Hsiao, H., Becker, P., Akladios, M., 2000.

Assessment of perceived traumatic injury hazards during drywall

taping and sanding. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 25, 621–631.

Riese, U., 1995. Begrussung durch den Vertreter des Bundesminister-

iums fur Arbeits- und Sozialordnung. In: Arbeitschschutz in der

Bauwirtschaft–Sicherheit und Gesundheit bei Bauarbeiten und auf

Baustellen. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz (Ed.). Wirtschaftsver-

lag, Bremerhaven.

Rosecrance, J., Cook, T., Zimmermann, C., 1996. Work-related

musculoskeletal symptoms among constructions workers in the

pipe trades. Work 7, 13–20.

Schmidtke, H., 1989. Arbeitsplatze und arbeitsraume in werkstatt und

betrieb. In: Brokmann, W. (Ed.), Arbeitsgestaltung in Produktion

und Verwaltung. Wirtschaftsverlag Bachem, Cologne.

Spielholz, P., Bao, S., Howard, N., 2001. A practical method for

ergonomic and usability evaluation of hand tools: a comparison of

three random orbital sander configurations. Appl. Occup. Environ.

Hyg. 16, 1043–1048.

Vedder, J., Siemers, M., 2003. Accidents and safety in the construction

industry. Proceedings of the XVth Triennial Congress of

the International Ergonomics Association, Seoul, Korea, vol. 6,

pp. 19–22.

Zimmermann, C.L., Cook, T.M., 1999. Ergonomic design considera-

tions in construction. In: Singh, A., Hinze, J., Coble, R.J. (Eds.),

Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites,

Proceedings of the Second International Conference of

CIB Working Commission W99, Honolulu, Hawaii, 24–27 March,

pp. 361–364.