Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2011, 1, 79 -88
doi:10.4236/ojsst.2011.13008 Published Online December 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojsst)
Total Ergonomics and Its Impact in Musculoskeletal
Disorders and Quality of Work Life and Productivity
Naser Sadra Abarqhouei1*, Hasan Hossaini Nasab2
1Institute of Higher Education and Applied Science, Jihad of Agriculture, Yazd, Iran
2Faculty of Industrial Engineering, University of Yazd, Yazd, Iran
Received September 6, 2011; accepted November 2, 2011; accepted November 10, 2011
Abstract
Studies have indicated the application of ergonomics in improving the quality of work life, reducing muscu-
loskeletal disorders and increasing productivity. On the other hand, there are large differences between de-
veloping and developed countries in applying ergonomics knowledge, the need of applying the science of
culture, especially in developing countries and the third world is vital, but the culture implementation and
pay evaluation of total ergonomics (micro and macro) is low . Therefore, this study has tried using the stu-
dies of society and culture dominated by manufacturing service, a comprehensive and integrated model for
ergonomics interventions to be developed and used in an educational establishment and the effects of ergo-
nomic interventions in a field study in comparison with conditions before the intervention using question-
naire “body mapping” and “quality of work life” to evaluate . Study results showed increased productivity,
improved work life quality and reduced musculoskeletal disorders . So a comparison of performance than the
base year indicated lower costs and increased revenue and expanded with less manpower in data analysis
questionnaire “quality of work life” and “body mapping” which showed that significant difference in confi-
dence interval between the sample and control population is ninety-nine percent and there is reduction of
musculoskeletal disorders and increase in quality of work life. Those indices indicated the positive effect of
interventions ergonomics.
Keywords: Micro Ergonomics, Macro Ergonomics, Quality of Work Life, Musculoskeletal Disorders,
Productivity
1. Introduction
Ergonomic studies have shown systems with weak de-
signing, neglected ergonomic principles and have brought
staff and workers disorders. Not considering to the ergo-
nomic principles at work can provide spiritual and phy-
sical tensions, low productivity and unsuitable work life
quality and effective execution of ergonomic programs
and increasing ergonomic awareness [1]. Nowadays im-
proving productivity has been recognized as one of the
most important cultural and socio-economic develop-
ment alternatives as access to success in speeding pro-
ductivity improvement is one of main conditions of ac-
cess to suitable place in world competition and improv-
ing people’s life [2].
Based on the fourth and fifth country development
program, getting into real economic fact and continuous
growth, at least 8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is
annually increasing the productivity in econo mic growth.
This has been forecast to one third at the end of the fifth
program and improving judiciary and administrative sys-
tem for increasing movement and efficiency, improving
service delivery to people, assuring staff livelihood, in-
creasing indices of work and life environment and spiri-
tual and physical hygiene. These legal necessities have
made sensitive execution organizations and economic
directors of country and provinces by using different tools
and methods to think about providing important princi-
ples in the fourth and fifth development programs in their
economic units and sectors. Since results of different re-
searches have shown logical and positive impact on ap-
plying productivity and total ergonomic knowledge, effi-
cient development, maintaining human rights, welfare,
social security, relative increase of per capita income,
thought innovation and so on1, undoubtedly making cul-
1Refer to Section 2 (research topic literature).

N. S. ABARQHOUEI ET AL. 80
ture and using ergon omics in Iran can help the coun try to
achieve important goals in cultural and socio-economic
programs which have been determined for achieving vi-
sion of country. Unsuitable work life created under un-
suitable work with humans provides imbalance between
social and psychic conditions of staff of organization, only
not considering goals of organization, but also causes de-
crease in productivity, increase in absence, displacing
and leaving work (Figure 1) and finally causes low self-
confidence in labor force. Such conditions affect on qua-
lity and as a result work life in organizations and pro-
duction centers, make work life unsuitable and repeat
events and insecurity [3].
2. Review of Research Literature
The goal of applying ergonomics is to provide a logical
and suitable relationship among staff and their work.
Ergonomics can study workers psychology and physiolo-
gy at work with a complicated system among humans,
tool and environment [1]. Improving productivity is an
easy method for encouraging management in costs, pro-
gramming and using ergonomic intervention and it can
be more effective for a person without ergonomic infor-
mation or a person not working on staff health and safety
section, productivity provides a common language among
stockholders [4]. In spite of many studies in recent dec-
ades about ergonomics, many factors in organizations
cause musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomic costly
diseases [5,6], which show that ergonomic changes have
not achieved the useful effectiveness in producing envi-
ronment [7], thus all attempts of ergonomic researchers
should be coordinated in decreasing ergonomic risk fac-
tors and as a result improving quality of work life prac-
tically and usefully. The conducted researches show that
distributing ergonomics knowledge among staff is for
helping and better execution of service and production
programs. The results of conducted study show that ergo-
nomic uses in designing tools will provide much effect
on psychic health, work satisfaction, increasing efficien-
cy, security and health [8] and as a resu lt it will improve
work life.
An efficient and effective system, which is the base of
a productive system, depends on the manner of service
delivery by human operators. We cannot imagine that
human force is an island among service and production
processes [9]. In an efficient and effective system, more
attention should be given to human force and it should be
tried to decrease human errors meanwhile pr oviding staff
health and safety, and it can be done by choosing suitable
persons and training, designing equipments, work envi-
ronment and tools by considering physical and spiritual
needs and characters of humans, providing methods and
logical agenda [10]. It is clear that by achieving these
Figure 1. Effects of unsuitable work on human body .
goals and providing work welfare for human force work-
ing at service and producing systems, we can observe
increased productivity indices and quality of work life in
service and production organizations. The concept of
quality of life refers to Aristotle era (385 years B.C.). At
that era, Aristotle consider ed “good life” or “doing work
well” in meaning of being happy. The word of quality of
life was used for the first time in 1920 in the book “Eco-
nomics and Welfare” [11]. In 1985 , in northwest of Eng-
land, life quality researches were conducted for the first
time. These researches provided a complete definition of
life quality: a person understands from his or her situa-
tions with respect to living value system and culture and
relationship of these captures with in tended g oals, exp ec-
tation, standards and priorities [11].
Having a healthy and quality life with acceptable life
expectancy and without disease an d inability is a general
right and pre-condition for achieving sustainable deve-
lopment of any country [12].
Potential ability of macro-ergonomics in considerable
improvement of organizational functioning involving hy-
giene, safety, job satisfaction, quality of work life and
productivity has be en considered recently. As it was said
before, introducing and clear show of this potential abi-
lity will cause wide support by us ing and develop ing ma-
cro ergonomics technology [13]. For achieving the suit-
able situation, it is necessary that considerable changes
one made in field of ergonomic research and training and
making culture by moving from a safety and hygiene pa-
ttern of ergonomics to a work pattern of ergonomics
without missing safety and health goals [14]. In this re-
spect, Dempsey (2007) conducted a research under the
title of “ergonomic interventions for preventing muscu-
loskeletal disorders” and understood many obstacles in
way of this study [4].
For optimum design of system with the goal of facili-
tating recognition and access the needs of consumers, it
seems necessary to integrate human factors in start of
design cycle till work life [15]. Human factors engineer-
ing specialists worry about design and relationship be-
tween system items for improving health, safety, comfort
ability, quality of production and decrease in design pro-
blems. The global attention towards human factors engi-
neering is increasing human life quality [16].
If directors are satisfied that improving ergonomics
meanwhile providing professional hygiene and safety
rules simultaneously can help in achieving strategies and

N. S. ABARQHOUEI ET AL.81
goals of organizations, its acceptance among directors
will be easier [14,17]. Thus, relating ergonomics with
organizational strategies can associate management with
a positive motivation for executing ergonomics. The ge-
neral strategies used in model design include:
1) Micro ergonomics strategy concentrated on system
of humans, machine, environment and work and its goal
is to improve work or computer for preventing danger in
daily performance of system.
2) Macro ergonomics strategy focused on organization
and its goal is socio-technical system optimization and
study of effect of organization structure on safety and
human behavior [18,13].
Macro ergonomic is integrated from general principles
of quality management [19] and focuses on needed con-
ditions for improving a system. Macro ergonomic effects
include:
 Effect on number, training and satisfaction of em-
ployees,
 Effect on quality and equipment survival,
 Effect on em p ow ering physical environm e nt ,
 Effect on quality of work life,
 Effect on economic production,
It’s not only an analysis method, but also a method for
designing socio-technical systems by delivering system-
atic characters (common cross of technical fields and
organization) [19]. It is clear that these two strategies
focus on human and system and relationship which will
get shape between these two strategies, and will affect on
strategies and integration of system.
In organizational systems, close relationship with low
level labor force of organization is considered, only im-
portant thing is that relationship among different levels
of an organization can cause exact transmission of ergo-
nomic information to superior directors and as a result it
helps in better determination of production strategies. In
stage of providing process, close relationship among di-
fferent levels of organization management with zero
level staff of organization, all ergonomic physiolo gy and
physical factors are considered and in feedback stage, all
information related to ergonomic risk factors in all or-
ganization levels are transferred to organization superior
directors and this recognition makes directors consider
more programming for improving process of service de-
livery and motivation indices of staff including leaving
work and also other indices including leaving work due
to disease and delays and stop at work are decreased by
considering ergonomic factors [4]. In this respect, staff
participation and management support can have impor-
tant role among different levels of organization for exe-
cuting ergonomic go als.
Participatory ergonomics is a growing branch in macro-
ergonomics and designing organization and management,
and from beginning about three decades ago it has had
growing attraction. In this field, to improve work envi-
ronment conditions, productivity and quality, model of
participatory ergonomics in a small industry was de-
signed and executed in Iran [20]. On the other side, per-
formance evaluation is one of the main duties of each or-
ganization and is one of performance management di-
mensions that in the past has been execute via using fi-
nancial indices [21]. Efficient directors by relying on
control systems and performance measurement in deter-
mining outlines, making strategic decisions and access to
suitable goals conqu er on problems. In these two decades
some issues as determining factors of competitive advan-
tage have been considered including organizational learn-
ing, creating knowledge and innovation capacity [22,23]
and so organization should try for finding total indices of
performance measurement, with more focus on soft per-
formance (human) indices because the weakness or em-
powerment of mentioned indices, are not shown in bal-
ance-sheet [23].
One of soft performance indices not shown in balance-
sheet is effect of ergonomics use in organizations. Since
in present era, human resources are considered as key
factor for organizations success, we can deduce that po-
wer sustainability o f an o rganization d epends o n ph ysical
and psychic health of its staff [24]. By correct use of
control systems and measuring performance organizatio-
nal obstacles can be captured that prevent appearing or-
ganization members ability [25]. In this respect, many
valid ergonomics evaluation methods have been used
with the goal of analyzing work environment (such as
RULA [26], Strain Index [27], REBA [28] etc.). The
considerable point is studies of these uses have been
shaped in industries environment [29-31], but the reality
is that industrial companies with related interior methods
or prepared rules at national level like refusal or accep-
tance measurements are used for evaluation, as a result
the number of research articles which study methods of
using and evaluatin g ergonomics is v ery less [32]. On the
other hand, conducted studies certify this reality that us-
ing ergonomic is effective in improving quality of work
life, decrease in musculoskeletal disorders and increase
in productivity and in attention to high difference of us-
ing ergonomics among developed and developing coun-
tries [9], it’s necessary to make a culture of using this
science specially in developing countries and the third
world and since models of making culture, launching and
evaluating integrated ergonomics, are very few [32], it is
necessary to design total and integrated model based on
the following goals:
1) Measuring ergonomics effect on productivity, de-
crease in musculoskeletal disord er and increase in quality
of work life in organizations via designing and using a

N. S. ABARQHOUEI ET AL. 82
comprehensive and integrated model with logics of “mo-
nitoring”, “insisting” and “sustainability” in culture mak-
ing and using based on management and knowledge su-
pports, staff participation, evaluation, recognition and en-
couragement and communication and information net-
work.
2) Providing basic field for performing applied ergo-
nomic researches.
3) Helping in ergonomics culture extension in world.
4) Delivering performance evaluation model which
can help to distribute culture of using ergonomics in the
third world countries and advanced and developing coun-
tries.
3. Materials and Methods
This research is applied and analysis-descriptive study
and by conducted studies and researches in field of dif-
ferent models of evaluation, emphasis solving models
weak points by using concepts and goals of total ergo-
nomics knowledge, as by using this model we can exe-
cute and evaluate ergonomics in different processes and
work and to measure its effect on productivity, improv-
ing work life and musculoskeletal disorders decrease in
organizations. Delivering model of interventions and
evaluating total ergonomics and its effect on organiza-
tional productivity is done by studying and using con-
ducted concepts and researches in performance evalua-
tion field, micro and macro-ergonomics, relationship be-
tween macro-ergonomics, management and organiza-
tional designing and productivity. In this research by de-
fining and recognizing society studies and launching er-
gonomics based on designed model and using analysis-
descriptive statistics and questionnaire, delivered model
is practically used towards determined goal in frame of a
case study and necessary statistical tests are done.
3.1. Designing and Introducing Model
By considering issues in introduction and reviewing re-
search literature, model designing is done based on five
principles including management support, knowledge su-
pport, staff participation, evaluation, recognition, encour-
agement and communication and information network
with logics of insistence and sustainability in culture
making and launching total ergonomics and is delivered
in frame of Figure 2.
3.2. Method of Model Use
The EO model was used in the experimental training
center. This center, using more that 220 teachers and
employees and 1000 students in different related courses
Figure 2. Model of interventions and evaluation process of
total ergonomics.
like accounting and computer, became interested to exe-
cute interventions programs and ergonomic evaluation
for performance improvement, and after several sessions
got the responsibility for facilitating ergonomic use me-
thod in different sections management and supervision
on project and guiding persons in process. Project under
title “ergonomic interventions” at two stages i.e. micro
and macro ergonomic interventions in framework of de-
signed model, planning and is executed.
3.3. Evaluation of the Total Ergonomic
Interventions
In this research, studying musculoskeletal disorders us-
ing body mapping standard questionnaire [33] is deter-
mined and analyzed. This questio nnaire seeks user ’s dis-
order in five quality dimensio ns form non ergono mic and
ergonomic chairs in 28 questions according to body divi-
sion to 28 parts.
It’s necessary to mention that used qu ality dimensions
in body mapping questionnaire is integrate from SER-
VQUAL2 model that for recogn ition and classification of
people opinions has had the most use in management
[34]. For studying the quality of work life in sample
population (before and after the total ergonomic inter-
ventions), several questionnaires were prepared and de-
livered with the issue of quality of working life. These
questionnaires were taken by Allameh (1999) from the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), based on the Dalton work life quality [35] an d
the present study was based on these questionnaires by
2Servqual model is one of the most famous service quality measuring
methods mention e d i n 1 98 5 .

N. S. ABARQHOUEI ET AL.83
summarizing and considering the following arguments:
1) Questionnaire with Islamic culture governing on
county has been desig ne d.
2) Number of mentioned questions in this question-
naire is more than other questionnaires (77 five-choice
questions).
3) Quality dimensions are as five-choice in answer-
sheet coordinated with Servqual model which is total
questionnaire and used in such researches.
4. Results and Discussion
The first stage of project inclu des process of using macro-
ergonomics. The major goal at the first stage was to im-
prove different systems and processes of service delivery
to students and other trainees including stakeholders and
EO centers staff in view of macro-ergonomics. Systems
and processes like labs, students participation for deliver-
ing suggestions and performing work, evaluating process
of service delivery to students, increasing quality of de-
livering classes, encouraging staff, alternatives for deli-
vering recreational-welfare services, optimizing service
and production section, human resources management
and human force optimization process were considered
in this study. Macro ergonomics interventions process
was started by conducting a three-day workshop and 30
directors and staff participated in it. The workshop was
held for finding a view to EO and regulating different
goals for achieving a special vision of EO. A question-
naire was prepared and participants wanted to mention
an EO vision and at least three main goals for achieving
an understandable vision. The questionnaire were dis-
tributed, completed and collected, and then by summa-
rizing mentioned issues in workshop, EO vision was de-
termined at two items:
1) EO as the biggest and most important skill and
higher education center at regional and national level.
2) Advancing EO in producing and processing products
in framework of training pilots.
Then as in Table 1, delivered goals for achieving vi-
sion were summarized and approved.
For impressive use of staff and students in Ergonomic
Interventions Program (EIP) vi a future workshop was used.
Future Workshop (FW) is a socio-pedagogic method for
identification of a common problem, development of a
vision, ideas and action plan among a group of con-
cerned people. Later on it was spread successfully to the
Scandinavian countries and is now widely used as par-
ticipatory intervention method [10]. Future Workshop is
a well-structured process with five def ined phas es:
1) Preparation phase 2) Experience phase 3) Fantasy
phase 4) Strate gy phase 5) Act i on phase/Foll ow up.
This workshop started its work in the framework of
Table 1. Major goals for achieving vision.
1 Recognizing new technologies in related section and
transferring th e m to students, stakeholders and official
experts in related section.
2 Improving quality of welfare cultural programs for studen ts
and staff by improving methods and new investments.
3 Human resource management (optimizing human force) by
applying, maintaining, training and encouraging staff.
4 Improving c hain of studies of students in discontinuous
expertise till professional PhD.
5 Increasing participation of par ents and students for mater ial,
intellectual and thinking help to EO.
6 Providing necessary background for delivering innovation in
performance a n d t r a i n in g p rogram.
7 Applying and participation of stu dents at EO production and
routine activities.
8 Improving culture of cooperation and p articipation of
students and staff of EO.
9 Developing training courses and admitting more students.
10Cooperation with international and big training centers.
above phases (Figure 3) and studied the problems during
four months and suggested solutions for solving them.
The most suggested approaches are delivered for attract-
ing participation of persons and using their potential ca-
pacities for solving problem and executive policies and
programs delivered in future workshop (Table 2).
The delivered suggestions at macro-ergonomics inter-
ventions stage for ergonomic culture development and
extension and also continuous improvement of processes
and dangers and ergonomic risk factors in EO subsec-
tions were executed. EO superior management agreed
with suggestion of execution of a process of micro ergo-
nomic interventions for improving work situation and
productivity increase as the second stage of ergonomic
intervention process.
Also this stage was started with two-day workshop
like the first stage. 35 persons among staff participated in
workshop. The go al of workshop was to provid e ergono-
mic awareness among participants and teaching methods
of recognizing ergonomic risk factors related to improv-
ing environment and work situation. Workshop was started
by introducing list of ergonomic inspection for increas-
ing productivity, safety and comfort ability [36]. The
project supervisor showed contents of list of ergonomic
inspection including 79 inspections and explained to par-
ticipants how to use it at their work place. Participants
were divided into 7 different groups and each group stu-
died 79 factors and tried to understand why and how to
study factors and according to work experience, how to
adjust to their work and explain it. Also they wanted to

N. S. ABARQHOUEI ET AL. 84
Figure 3. Activity diagram of ergonomics workshop for managers and leaders of instructional groups.
Table 2. Summarizing delivered executive policies and programs at future workshop.
Row Approved executive policies and programs titles
1
Organizing official place with the goal of decreasing musculoskeletal and physic stress via:
 Extracting Iranian anthropometry and using it in designing theater salon, conference salon, computer salon, classes an d et c.
 Recognizing ergonomic r i sk factors, evaluating them and determining solution for problems.
 Determining students and staff safety agendum and executing students i nsurance.
 Programming and executing ergon omic training courses for scientific jury members and staff.
 Forecasting seasonal comm o n sessions a n d discussing about safety standards.
 Introducing successful pat t e r n s a n d e n c o u r a ging about considering ergonomic suggestions.
 Empowering and increasing super vis ion on ergonomic agendum execution.
2 Considering percent of EO income for active staff and students in delivering suggestions and EO income generation.
3 Encouraging staff and students for providing cooperation culture and reminding more to EO.
4 Providing necessary backgrounds to students for executing applied researches needed for related section.
5 Empowering applied scientific relations with related section via opening relation office with industry at EO.
6 Programming for resear ch scientific relations among EO and applied scie nt ifi c ce nt ers in and out of country.
7 Preparing agendum and work plan of university and family cooperation society (university and parents soci ety).
8 Programming for using applied research findings for student's educational programmi ng.
9 Approving and establishing conference salon for using different trainings b y considering ergonomi c principles.
10 Students’ skill based activities towards defining income generating projects and designs.
11 Making relations with research centers and common execution of research projects.
12 Equipping labs to modern tools and establishing specialized labs.
13 Supporting innovations regarding related section in fram ework of growth centers.
14 Providing data bank of world scientific findings in related section.
15 Approving establishment of theater salon by considering ergonomic principles.
16 Providing scientific soc ie t ie s and student foundation at EO.
17 Programming for exchanging students with other countries.

N. S. ABARQHOUEI ET AL. 85
write down the experiences about each studied point and
if they have any executive suggestion regarding these
activities, then different group persons were gathered and
showed acquired results summary to each other and dis-
cussed about decisions for suggested activities and their
priority and also suggested solutions for solving prob-
lems. After wor kshop, members of committee were cho-
sen for preparing agenda or steering committee by pro-
ject supervisor, project coordinator and EO superior ma-
nager.
In this committee three persons were chosen as EO
superior director agents and then steering committee had
a meeting and during some sessions discussed and ap-
proved duties and activities of steering committee and
work teams, the most important actions done and defined
at this stage for work teams, action groups and ergono-
mic group and steering committee are delivered in Table
3. For measuring musculoskeletal disorders of sample
society users’ opinions were taken about intended chairs
and tables thus after using them every two hours, they
wanted to determine amount of disorder in each body
part in five quality dimensions (without disorder, with
less disorder, very less disorder, with much disorder,
intolerable disorder) in body mapping 28 part question-
naire by writing from one to five.
Of 77 distributed questionnaires accidently among so-
ciety persons, 65 questionnaires were completed and
returned and of 133 distributed questionnaires among
society persons with ergonomic interventions, 107 ques-
tionnaires were completed and returned then body map-
ping questionnaire data was summarized that has been
shown in Table 4.
For measuring ergonomic interventions effect on qua-
lity of work life and recognizing sample society opinion
(before and after ergonomic interventions) and classify-
ing their opinion questionnaire of work life quality was
used [35]. This questionnaire seeks person’s opinion in
77 questions and in five qualitative dimensions. It’s ne-
cessary to mention that used qualitative dimensions in
this questionnaire is integrated from servqual model
which has had the most use in management for recog-
nizing and classifying p erson’s opin ion. Person’s opinion
was taken before and after ergonomic interventions in
five qualitative dimensions (very less, less, averag e, high,
very high) thus before executing ergonomic interventions
program of sample society was chosen and then ques-
tionnaire was distributed among 58 individuals of sample
society and 53 individuals of control society. Of which,
51 and 47 questionnaires were completed and returned.
After ergonomic interventions (after 2 years) 57 and 54
questionnaires were distributed among sample and con-
trol society individuals that 49 and 45 questionnaires
Table 3. Executed projects and designs at micro ergonomic
stage.
Sr.
no. Plans and project titles implemented at micro ergonomics stage
1 Designing and executing necessary projects for facilitating trainings execution su ch as teaching classes at suppor ted
forms.
2 Enriching staff work and basis of EO training and different
executive sections by combining parallel and similar works.
3 Extracting Iranian static anthropometry and using it for
optimizing and d esigning approved project.
4 Recognizing ergonomic risk f ac t o rs, evaluating them and
choosing solution for solving er go nomic problems.
5 Holding ergonomic training courses for scientific jury
members and s t a f f once in every three month.
6 Introducing successful p atterns and researches and
encouraging staff for considering ergonomic suggestions.
7 Preparing students and staff safety agendum and executing
student insurance.
8 Forecasting seasonal common sessions and disc us si ng about
safety standards.
9 Designing and installing turn-taking system and food
pre-purchase.
Table 4. Numbers calculated by collecting the community
opinions with the help of sample and control community
body mapping questionnaire qualitative dimensions.
After ergonomic
intervention
(Sample community)
Before ergonomic
intervention
(Control community)
Fi ni Ni Fi ni Ni
Qualitative
dimensions
24.85107265820 65 1304 No Discomfort
2.2621072424.0865 265 Less Discomfort
1.35 1071442.9165 189 Partial
Discomfort
0.4 10743 1.52365 99 Much Discomfort
0.13110714 0.49265 32 Intolerable pain
Ni = Response frequency to qualitative dimension; i; ni = Community mem-
bers undertaking questionnaire with performed ergonomic interventions and
the control community (sample numbers); Fi = Response frequency to
qualitative dimension.
were returned and after summarizing data of question-
naire, necessary computations were done. The results have
been given in Table 5.
Total ergonomic evaluation in this research was done
by two methods:
1) Studying musculoskeletal disorders and work life
quality via body mapping questionnaire and work life
quality study question naire [35].
2) Studying comparison performance before and after
ergonomic intervention in different fields such as train-
ing, sports, culture and finance (number of students, num-
ber of delivered articles, getting research-scientific ho-
nors).

N. S. ABARQHOUEI ET AL. 86
Table 5. Conclusion of statistical data about the quality of work life, before and after the total ergonomic intervention.
Sample and control populations
(Before ergonomic interventions)
Sample and control populations
(After ergonomic interventions)
ni Fi ni Fi Qualitative
dimensions
sample control sample control sample control sample control
Very less 51 47 18.16 11.65 49 45 11.2 8.84
less 51 47 16.84 29.86 49 45 12.37 22.53
Average 51 47 25 26.94 49 45 23.71 34.6
High 51 47 17 12.1 49 45 26.1 13.7
Very high 51 47 6 2,45 49 45 9.62 3.33
Sum
- -
83 83
- -
83 83
ni = Sample size; Fi = Response frequency to qualitative dimension/person.
4.1. Significant Difference Test of Qualitative
Dimensions
For analyzing qualitativ e dimensions of con trol and sam-
ple society, t-test and Chi-Square test were used in the
framework of contingency table for comparing signifi-
cant difference between quality of work life and muscu-
loskeletal disorders and the frequency of their qualitative
dime nsions [37] .
In attention to test results given in Table 6, there is a
significant difference with 99% confidence among all
qualitative dimensions of musculoskeletal disorders of
sample and control society (P < 0.05 and null hypothesis
is refused against alternative hypothesis) shows positive
effect of ergonomic interventions in sample population.
Results of statistical data test related to quality of work
life, given in Table 7 show there is no significant differ-
ence between control and sample society (P > 0.05) but
results of test between data after ergonomic intervention
show that there is a significant difference with 99% con-
fidence between quality of wo rk life of control and sam-
ple population (P < 0.05 and null hypothesis is refused
against alternative hypothesis) which shows positive
effect of ergonomic intervention in sample society. Tests
results certify this reality that ergonomic interventions
had positive effect in increasin g the quality of work life.
4.2. Comparative Results before and after Total
Ergonomics Intervention
Some of the most important 3-year results3 due to total
ergonomic interventions to base year (time of start of
ergonomic interventions; 2007) have been summarized
in Table 8.
In this research, ergonomic interventions process was
started with macro-ergonomic interventions and then at
the second stage simultaneously focus was moved to
Table 6. Statistical comparisons of qualitative data of mus-
culoskeletal disorders of control and sample community.
Test
no. Society and time of testing P value Sig (2-tailed) χ2 Test result
Control society before intervention
1 Sample society before intervention 0.591544 Without
difference
Sample society after intervention
2 Sample society after intervention 8.39996E-07 Meaningful
difference
Control society before intervention
3 Control society after intervention 4.22546E-16 Meaningful
difference
Sample society after intervention
4 Control society after intervention 8.53115E-24 Meaningful
difference
Table 7. Comparison of statistical data of work life quality
(before and after the ergonomic intervention in sample and
control population).
Levine’s Test
for Equality
of Variances
T-test for Equality
of Means Qualitative
dimensions
F Sig.t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Equal variances
assumed
4.482 0.036–7.094
170 0.000 No
Discomfort
Equal variances
not assumed
–6.610 106.9740.000
Equal variances
assumed
16.497 0.0003.510 170 0.001 Less
Discomfort
Equal variances
not assumed
3.076
88.0270.003
Equal variances
assumed
1.166 0.2825.077
170 0.000 Partial
discomfort
Equal variances
not assumed
4.989
127.7520.000
Equal variances
assumed
22.796 0.0006.212
170 0.000 Much
Discomfort
Equal variances
not assumed
5.681 100.6110.000
Equal variances
assumed
23.031 0.0003.187
170 0.002 Intolerable
pain
Equal variances
not assumed
2.85393.9590.005
3Due to considering magazine rules in pages number, some of the most
important results are delivered.

N. S. ABARQHOUEI ET AL.87
Table 8. Comparison of achievements before and after total
ergonomic intervention.
Sr.
no. Achievement Titles
1 Acquiring EO preferred title among 220 state applied scientific training centers at the third festival of applied
scientific comprehensive university in country.
2 500% increase of delivering articles in scientific assembles
and foreign and internal re search scientific publications.
3 Getting permit for launching 18 new courses of studies a t
higher-diploma and expertise as compared to base year.
4 Preparing frame of university and patterns cooperation
society for the first time in higher education of country.
5
Establishing theater salon by cons ide rin g e rgonomic
principles and using Iranian anthropometry.
(In this project, studying anthropometry has been performed
in field of ergonom ic interventions.)
6 Choosing one of EO lecturer s as pr eferred researcher at the
third festival of technology and knowledge.
7 Establishing and using multi-apply conference salon by
considering ergonomic principles.
8 Optimizing human force due to 50% decrease in human
force.
9 15% annual saving of energy cost including gasoil and
electricity.
10 Executing paperless system in o ff ic ia l writings and data
packet.
11 280% EO income increase in 2009 as compared to base year.
12 30% annual increase in personnel income as compared to
base year.
13 Establishing student scientific society with 400 members.
14 Acquiring distinguished researcher title in related section.
15 600% increase in number of students.
micro ergonomic intervention and necessary program-
ming was done. Micro ergonomic interventions in im-
provements were touched more and were deduced sooner
than macro ergonomic changes.
It can be deduced that staff behavior and administra-
tive process and their working method, is not an easy
work among administrative personnel and needs more
time as compared to engineering and physical changes
for getting results.
The most important result of macro-ergonomic chan-
ges is organizational culture change, defined as depend-
ent to values governing the organization including those
which are not written and customary rules, this culture
change is not a sort-term activity but is a calm and con-
tinuous improvement process that needs long-term co-
operation of staff and management simultaneously. As it
was said that major goal of ergonomic interventions is
optimizing system at micro and macro levels. Fortu-
nately, conducted analysis in this research show s po sitiv e
effects of total ergonomic interventions.
5. References
[1] M. Shaliza, K. Shahrul, M. Mohzani, O. Zalinda and S.
Khairanum, “Application of Quality Function Deploy-
ment in Identifying Ergonomics Programs for Malaysian,
The Effect of Ergonomics Applications in Work System
on Mental Health of Visual Display Terminal Workers
Manufacturing Industries,” Proceedings in International
Conference on Technology Management, 4-5 December
2006, University of Technology Tun Hussien Onn, Ma-
laysia, 2006, pp. 275-277.
[2] A. Kazemi, “Productivity and Its Analysis in Organiza-
tions,” Organization of Study and Determining Humanis-
tics Sciences Books of Universities (Samt), Tehran, 1981.
[3] N. S. Abarquoei and S. Ahmad, “Place and Role of Hu-
man Factors Engineering in Agricultural Sector Produc-
tivity,” The 1st National Conference of New Technolo-
gies in Agriculture and Natural Resources, 4-5 March
2009, Rasht, 2008, pp. 2455-2459.
[4] P. G. Dempsey, “Effectiveness of Ergonomics Interven-
tions to Prevent Musculoskeletal Disorders: Beware of
What You Ask,” International Journal of Industrial Er-
gonomics, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2007, pp. 169-173.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2006.10.009
[5] S. E. Mathiassen, “On the Evolution of Task-Based Ana-
lysis of Manual Materials Handling, and Its Applicability
in Contemporary Ergonomics,” Applied Ergonomics, Vol.
37, No. 1, 2006, pp 33-43.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.11.004
[6] P. Leigh, S. B. Markowitz, M. Fahs, C. Shin and P. J.
Landrigan, “Occupational Injury and Illness in the United
States, Estimates of Costs, Morbidity, and Mortality,”
Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 14, 1997, pp.
1557-1568. doi:10.1001/archinte.1997.00440350063006
[7] G. Pransky, K. Benjamin, C. Hill-Fotouhi, J. Himmel-
stein, K. E. Fletcher, J. N. Katz and W. G. Johnson, “Out-
comes in Work-Related Upper Extremity and Low Back
Injuries: Results of a Retrospective Study,” American
Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2000, pp.
400-409.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(200004)37:4<400::AID-AJ
IM10>3.0.CO;2-C
[8] M. Shaliza, S, Kamaruddin, O. Zalinda and M. Mohzani,
“The Effect of Ergonomics Applications in Work System
on Mental Health of Visual Display Terminal Workers,”
European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 31, No. 3,
2009, pp. 341-354.
[9] P. A. Scott, “Global Inequality, and the Challenge for
Ergonomics to Take a More Dynamic Role to Redress the
Situation,” Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2008, pp.
495-499. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.02.014
[10] P. A. Scott, “Ergonomicd in Developing Regions, Needs
and Applications,” CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2009.
doi:10.1201/9781420079128
[11] R. Ford, “Change Your Life Quality (Intellectual Way for
Access to Personal Ability and Financial Independence),”
Translated by Mehdi Garacheh Daghi, Tehran, 2008.
[12] T. M. Reza, T. Fard, M. Tagi, A. Khalili, Hossein, K.

N. S. ABARQHOUEI ET AL. 88
Shaei and Safdar, “Re-Designing Environment and Proc-
esses for Increasing Productivity and Safety,” 1st Inter-
national Conference of Ergonomy and Human Factors,
7-8 May 2008, Tehran, pp. 24-25.
[13] W. Hendrick and M. K. Brain, “Macroergonomics The-
ory, Methods and Applications,” IEA, Mahwah, 2002.
[14] J. Dul and W. P. Neumann, “Ergonomics Contributions
to Company Strategies,” Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 40,
No. 4, 2009, pp. 745-752.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.07.001
[15] L. Cullen, “Human Factors Integration—Bridging the
Gap between System Designers and End-Users: A Case
Study,” Safety Science, Vol. 45, No. 5, 2007, pp. 621-
629. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.01.002
[16] Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES), Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Strategic Plan. Human
Factors and Ergonomics Directory and Yearbook, 1999-
2000. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa
Monica, p. 89.
[17] P. W. Neumann, M. Ekman and J. Winkel, “Integrating
Ergonomics into Production System Development—The
Volvo Powertrain Case,” Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 4, No.
2, 2009, pp. 452-459.
[18] N. Meshkati, “An Etiological Investigation of Micro- and
Macroergonomic Factors in the Bhopal Disaster: Lessons
for Industries of Both Industrialized and Developing
Countries,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonom-
ics, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1989, pp. 161-175.
doi:10.1016/0169-8141(89)90042-5
[19] P. Carayon, “Human Factors of Complex Sociotechnical
Systems,” Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2006, pp.
525-535. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.011
[20] M. Motamedzadeh, “Designing and Participatory System
Establishment, Its Effect on Organization Productivity
and Quality Improvement and Its Comparison with Cus-
tomary Ergonomics by Guiding Prof. Shahnavaz,” Ph. D
Thesis, Tarbiat Moddares University, Tehran, 2003.
[21] W. O. Wing, B. L. Guo, W. Li and D. Yang, “Reducing
Conflict in Balanced Scorecard Evaluations,” Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 32, No. 4-5, 2007, pp.
363-377.
[22] H. I. Lee, W. C. Chen and C. J. Chang, “A Fuzzy AHP
and BSC Approach for Evaluating Industry in Taiwan,”
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2006,
pp. 96-107.
[23] B. Andersen, B. Henriksen and W. Aarseth, “Professional
Practice Holistic Performance Management: An Inte-
grated Framework,” International Journal Productivity
and Performance Management, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2006, pp.
61-78. doi:10.1108/17410400610635507
[24] Ö. F. Sarı, “Effects of Employee Trainings on the Occu-
pational Safety and Health in Accommodation Sector,”
Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1,
2009, pp. 1865-1870. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.329
[25] S. Robert, “Performance Evaluation and Control Systems
for Executing Strategy,” Translated by Mojtaba Asadi,
Aryana in Dastrial Research Group, Tehran, 2006.
[26] L. McAtamney and N. E. Corlett, “RULA: A Survey
Method for the Investigation of Work-Related Upper
Limb Disorders,” Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 24, No. 2,
1993, pp. 91-99. doi:10.1016/0003-6870(93)90080-S
[27] J. S. Moorea and A. Garg, “The Strain Index: A Proposed
Method to Analyze Jobs for Risk of Distal Upper Ex-
tremity Disorders,” American Industrial Hygiene Asso-
ciation Journal, Vol. 56, No. 5, 1995, pp. 443-458.
doi:10.1080/15428119591016863
[28] S. Hignett and L. McAtamneyb, “Rapid Entire Body
Assessment (REBA),” Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 31, No.
2-3, 2000, pp. 201-205.
doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00039-3
[29] P. Drinkaus, R. Sesek, D. Bloswick, T. Bernard, B.
Walton and B. Joseph, “Comparison of Ergonomic Risk
Assessment Outputs from Rapid Uppe r Limb Assessment
and the Strain Index for Tasks in Automotive Assembly
Plants,” Work, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2003, pp. 165-172.
[30] S. Bao, N. Howard, P. Spielholz and B. Silverstein,
“Quantifying Repetitive hand Activity for Epidemiologi-
cal Research on Musculoskeletal Injuries—Part II: Com-
parison of Different Methods of Measuring Force Level
and Repetitiveness,” Ergonomics, Vol. 49, No. 4, 2006,
pp. 381- 392. doi:10.1080/00140130600555938
[31] T. Jones and S. Kumar, “Comparison of Ergonomic Risk
Assessments in a Repetitive High-Risk Saw Mill Occu-
pation: Saw-Filer,” International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, Vol. 37, No. 9-10, 2007, pp. 744-753.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.05.005
[32] C. Berlin, R. Örtengren, D. Lämkull and L. Hanson,
“Corporate-Internal vs. National Standard—A Compari-
son Study of Two Ergonomics Evaluation Procedures
Used in Automotive Manufacturing,” International Jour-
nal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2009, pp.
940-946.
[33] F. Tayarri and J. I. Smith, “Occupational Ergonomics:
Principles and Application,” Chapman & Hall, London,
1997.
[34] J. Van Lwaarden, T. Van Der Wiele, L. Bell and R.
Miller, “Applying SERVQUAL to Websites: An Explo-
ratory Study,” International Journal of Quality Manage-
ment, Vol. 20. No. 8, 2003, pp. 919-935.
[35] M. Allameh, “Developing Work Life Quality Pattern of
Walton Based on Islamic Values,” Ph.D Thesis, Tarbiat
Moddares University, Tehran, 1999.
[36] M. Helander, “A Guide to the Ergonomics of Manufac-
turing,” Taylor & Fra n cis, Boca Raton, 199 5 .
[37] A. Rezai and S. A. Meibodi, “Statistics and Probability,”
Daneshkahi Jahad of Isfahan Technology University, Is-
fahan, 2005.