We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
  • ::COVID-19 COVERAGE::
  • INDUSTRY PRESS ROOM
  • ABOUT
  • CONTACT
  • MEDIA FILE
  • Create Account
  • Sign In
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Free Newsletters
  • MAGAZINE
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Digital Edition
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletters
    • Mobile Apps
  • TRANSPORTATION
  • MATERIAL HANDLING
  • TECHNOLOGY
  • LIFT TRUCKS
  • PODCAST ETC.
    • Podcast
    • Blogs
      • Analytics & Big Data
      • Best Practices
      • Dispatches
      • Empowering Your Performance Edge
      • Logistics Problem Solving
      • One-Off Sound Off
      • Public Sector Logistics
      • Two Sides of the Logistics Coin
      • Submit your blog post
    • Events
    • White Papers
    • Industry Press Room
      • Upload Your News
    • New Products
      • Upload Your Product News
    • Conference Guides
    • Conference Reports
    • Newsletters
    • Mobile Apps
  • DCV-TV
    • DCV-TV 1: News
    • DCV-TV 2: Case Studies
    • DCV-TV 3: Webcasts
    • DCV-TV 4: Viewer Contributed
    • DCV-TV 5: Solution Profiles
    • MODEX 2020
    • Upload Your Video
  • MAGAZINE
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Digital Edition
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletters
    • Mobile Apps
  • TRANSPORTATION
  • MATERIAL HANDLING
  • TECHNOLOGY
  • LIFT TRUCKS
  • PODCAST ETC.
    • Podcast
    • Blogs
      • Analytics & Big Data
      • Best Practices
      • Dispatches
      • Empowering Your Performance Edge
      • Logistics Problem Solving
      • One-Off Sound Off
      • Public Sector Logistics
      • Two Sides of the Logistics Coin
      • Submit your blog post
    • Events
    • White Papers
    • Industry Press Room
      • Upload Your News
    • New Products
      • Upload Your Product News
    • Conference Guides
    • Conference Reports
    • Newsletters
    • Mobile Apps
  • DCV-TV
    • DCV-TV 1: News
    • DCV-TV 2: Case Studies
    • DCV-TV 3: Webcasts
    • DCV-TV 4: Viewer Contributed
    • DCV-TV 5: Solution Profiles
    • MODEX 2020
    • Upload Your Video
Home » The case for "revergonomics"
basic training

The case for "revergonomics"

October 12, 2009
Art van Bodegraven and Kenneth B. Ackerman
No Comments

Although it's the violations that make headlines, there are plenty of businesses out there that take ergonomics seriously. In recent years, companies from coast to coast have made great headway in establishing ergonomics programs to protect their working associates from costly and devastating injuries.

Traditionally, ergonomics has been all about adapting the job and equipment to the worker. So the focus has been on developing tools and techniques to reduce fatigue, repetitive motion, and physical strain. That approach has obvious merit, and we have yet to exhaust all the possibilities.

But maybe it's time to consider the problem from another perspective—an approach that might be described as traditional ergonomics in reverse. Instead of trying to shape jobs to the workers, why not try better matching workers to the demands of specific jobs? This strategy, which we call "revergonomics," may represent an untapped gold mine in win-win-win job performance. (We are indebted to our former partner Steve Mulaik for coining the term "revergonomics" as well as his support in analyzing the attributes—ergonomic and otherwise—of a high-performing order picker.)

A case in point
Consider the example of order pickers in a modern distribution center. We hire picker candidates who can pass muster on a few rudimentary criteria. We train them on the basics. Then we coach them for improvement. They either make the grade, or they don't. We let go those who don't, hire a gaggle of replacements and begin the cycle all over again.

This is an incredibly expensive, time-consuming, and generally ineffective way to build a high-performing order fulfillment organization. When a facility employs hundreds and hundreds of people—not only as pickers, but also as packers, replenishers, material handlers, folders, baggers, and the like—there are almost untold opportunities to match the wrong people with the jobs.

We think there is a better way. What we're suggesting is that employers pay closer attention to the match between candidates' characteristics—including ergonomic factors—and job characteristics during the screening process. Instead of assessing only general intelligence, arrest records, and evidence of substance abuse, why not also look for the things that will likely lead to real success on the job?

For example, here are some attributes that can make for high-performing order pickers, each of which can be tested and measured: dexterity, hand-eye coordination, spatial awareness, color recognition, oral English comprehension (much more important than written comprehension in day-to-day interaction), technology aptitude, and fitness. There are also physical attributes that may come into play (such as height in a range that allows the person to work easily at low levels—bending and/or kneeling—and at high levels without needing a stool or ladder).

A similar list could be created for other active work assignments in supply chain operations. The point is, fitting the candidates to the jobs is likely to lead to a safer, more productive operation.

Play it safe
Of course, you can't do this arbitrarily. You need to validate the screening tests you want to use. You can do that by looking at and testing existing high-performing employees to ensure their characteristics track with the specific demands of a given position. There's no intent to be discriminatory in this process. Physical size—within reason—does not by itself exclude anyone from meeting any (or all) of the listed criteria. Neither does age. And gender confers no particular advantage or disadvantage. There is every intent to provide appropriate opportunity for individuals of all sizes, shapes, and descriptions by matching them with jobs that they fit—and that fit them. When criteria and screening/testing are even-handedly and fairly applied—and when other positions better suited to an applicant might be offered—this risk and the conditions that might lead to bad publicity or legal challenges are significantly mitigated.

Furthermore, everyone wins. The employee has a more-than-fighting chance at succeeding at the job. Management gets a higher proportion of winners than from random minimal-screening hiring. Shareholders/owners reap the obvious financial benefits of a system that cuts turnover costs and results in a smaller, but more productive workforce.

As for the benefits themselves, it's a slam dunk to get 10 to 20 percent greater throughput from a smaller, more capable workforce, and the payoff can be even greater. Quantifying the savings that result from reduced turnover is tougher, but here's an example of how the numbers might look. Assume it costs $18,000 to source, recruit, and train a new employee (a realistic number, with many industries reporting even higher costs), and turnover of 30 percent in a workforce of 250. Reducing the annual turnover to 10 percent would add nearly a million dollars ($900,000) to the bottom line.

It's about time
A couple of generations ago, we hired warehouse labor to handle pallets and cases on the basis of apparent brute strength. We're suggesting that there's a more effective and enlightened 21st century approach.

In short, we think it's time. Time to do a better job of figuring out what it takes to succeed at order picking or packing, and then hiring people with those inherent traits for the positions. Time to think longer-term about hiring strategies, rather than just focusing on filling an open slot. Time to take better advantage of all that we know about ergonomics to build win-win-win organizational/staffing solutions.

That doesn't mean that we should abandon traditional ergonomics initiatives. There's still more we can do in that department. But maybe it's time to incorporate "revergonomics" into our business vocabulary—and our business practices.

Material Handling Ergonomic & Assist Equipment
  • Related Articles

    The Business Case for Autonomous Mobile Robots In Manufacturing

    the case for contracting

    the case for a lean existence

Art van Bodegraven was, among other roles, chief design officer for the DES Leadership Academy. He passed away on June 18, 2017. He will be greatly missed.
Kenneth B. Ackerman, president of The Ackerman Company, can be reached at (614) 488-3165.

Recent Articles by Art van Bodegraven

Embracing leadership

Rumblings in the DC: The cost of runaway minimum wages

Fun and games in the supply chain

You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Report Abusive Comment

Most Popular Articles

  • Cold chain giant Lineage Logistics buys its own rail operator

  • Biden names dozens of senior leaders to DOT, including FMCSA and FRA

  • Outlook 2021: What’s in store for logistics supply chain?

  • Cushman & Wakefield Brokers Sale of 170 Acres plus Lease for 1MSF Build-to-Suit for Home Improvement Retailer in Commerce City, CO.

  • Thriving in the long haul: interview with Colin Yankee

Now Playing on DCV-TV

Sick agv demo thumbnail

Optimize Load Handling Tasks with Industrial Mobile Robots

DCV-TV 4: Viewer Contributed
Intelligent sensors detect the presence of goods, check for empty shelves, or the correct alignment on the mobile platform towards the freight. The solutions range from simple detection sensors, thorough measuring devices, and 2D LiDAR sensors.

FEATURED WHITE PAPERS

  • Proven Benefits: A Compendium of Slotting Optimization Success Snapshots

  • Bridging Information Gaps in Dock and Yard Operations

  • How Intelligent Sensor Solutions Turn Data Into Action

  • Order picking Solutions: Understanding Your Options

View More

Subscribe to DC Velocity Magazine

GET YOUR FREE SUBSCRIPTION
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • NEWSLETTERS
  • ADVERTISING
  • CUSTOMER CARE
  • CONTACT
  • ABOUT
  • STAFF
  • PRIVACY POLICY

Copyright ©2021. All Rights ReservedDesign, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing