Work 41 (2012) 2721-2729 2721

DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0516-2721
IOS Press

Ergonomic sustainability based on the

ergonomic maturity level measurement1
Mario Cesar Vidala,*, Carmen Lucia Campos Guizzeb , Renato José Bonfatti c and Marcello
Silva e Santos d
a
Ergonomic Resarch Unit (GENTE/COPPE,) Production Engineering Program, Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
b
Production Engineering Department, Fluminense Federal University at Rio das Ostras Brazil.
c
Health and Environment Department, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
d
Ergonomic Resarch Unit (GENTE/COPPE,) Production Engineering Program, Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.

Abstract. This paper aims at the application of an ergonomic maturity model (EMM), in order to assess the ergonomic sustai-
nability outreach of ergonomic actions. This proposition was motivated by the widespread sensation that the development of
the discipline, its educational devices and related practices depends on the attitude of ergonomics practitioners rather than envi-
ronmental macroergonomic conditions. Maturity modeling in this paper is undertaken as a tool for ergonomic practitioners.
Thus, its foundations were uprooted from diverse fields: Clinic Psychology, Quality Management and Project Management.
The paper brings about a detailled explanation of this ergonomic maturity tool. The empirical part is fulfilled by the examina-
tion – using the EMM – of four emblematic cases excerpted from our research lab ergonomic portfolio.

Keywords: Macroergonomics, Strategy, Maturity, Sustainability, Conversational analysis.

Prologue mentary point of view. The development of Ergo-

Ergonomics has been defined as a scientific dis- nomics as a whole do not depend only on ergonom-
cipline as well as a professional practice [23]. It is, in ists attitudes, but it primarily relies on its general
many countries an academic discipline in engineer- percolation in corporate environments in search of
ing, industrial design, psychology and so on. In these excellence. This excellence must be sustained by
last decades, the ergonomic domain has surely been taking progressive steps both in organizational sys-
thriving. Nevertheless this growth is not as widely tems and in the ergonomic configuration within their
notoceable as expected, even though it was once be- strategies. In order to promote this joint development,
ing considered “work engineering” of the new mille- it was essential to design a tool to assess the actual –
nium [13]. A question remains: since ergonomics is ergonomic – stage of an organization in which we are
that great, why the businness world, operation opera- trying to intervene through ergonomic actions. The
tional engineers and managers are so far from er- process will be explained as we lay the foundations
gonmics issues and its related methods? and the framework of our ergonomis maturity model
The answers have intrigued the ergonomics pro- (EMM).
fessionals world, maybe uneffective in terms of It is followed by an illustrative description of four
translating theory to practice [3], inadequate design emblematic cases drawn from a portfolio made out of
of training programs or maybe even their communi- 25 years of experience in developing Ergonomics
cation style is not suitable for corporate audiences research, practice and education in Latin America by
[11]. Thus we will approach in this paper a comple- the GENTE Lab [21].

1
This paper was developed with partial sponsorship from CNPq and CAPES, brazilian research and education finacing agencies
*
Corresponding author.e -mail: [email protected]. Av Horacio Macedo 2030, Centro de Tecnologia sala G-207 21941-914 Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.

1051-9815/12/$27.50 © 2012 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
2722 M.C. Vidal et al. / Ergonomic Sustainability Based on the Ergonomic Maturity Level Measurement

Strategic approach of ergonomics and Alain Wisner from France. It is also essential to
remind the fundamental motto of Hal Hendrick´s
Wilson [23] has pointed out the gap between paper entitled “Good ergonomic is good economics”.
theory – seen as consistent in terms of research de- However, this “battle” is not limited to Ergonom-
velopment – and ergonomic practice, depicted as ic Conferences, Research Laboratories and Technical
“craftsmanship” when it comes to the way it happens Ergonomic Offices, but it has reached out to the cor-
in the real world. Caple [3] predicts that ergonomics porate world as well. In such context, it is obvious
growth as a scientific discipline depends on the way that the corporate policies and guidelines depend on
its practitioners are able of transferring ergonomic the CEO trend of thinking and the business strategy
findings arisen from the research field into ergonom- of the organization. As exposed by Dul & Neu-
ic application in the companies. These authors syn- mann,[5] In companies, ergonomics is typically
thesize a so called “attitudinal trend” among the set linked to occupational health and safety (OHS) out-
of ideas in ergonomics future development. comes and to a company’s obligation to fulfill OHS
Unfortunately, current events and history have legislation, and therefore may be delegated to health
shown us that the evolution from craftsmanship to an and safety departments who are not connected to
evolved organizational vortex is based on dialectics strategic decision making processes.
between technical progress and social development, A great part of our investigation in Latin America
whose complementary path we propose to enhance in [22], [23], merges into this general finding and its
here. This path is largely influenced by changes in related issues:
organizational and corporate cultures, including its
safety and occupational hygiene aspects. A logical a) Most of the programs prioritize safety over health issues.
argument is that ergonomics is a sociotechnical ap- b) The cases where ergonomics and quality programs are
proach. Therefore, the task of communicating, dis- run together are still much less frequent than expected,
which is more common among Brazilian enterprises than
seminating and placing ergonomics in the core of our
foreign ones.
society seems to be… sociotechnical! c) The creation of a core team, a committee and other
On the other hand, we can easily and fully incor- forms of disseminating alternatives, is still the more ef-
porate the challenge of proposing and disseminating fective strategy.
methods for transferring and/or scaling up ergonom- d) Ergonomics is becoming a managerial matter and this
ics at companies, communities and governments as a seems to be a definite trend for contemporary enterpris-
very much needed issue. We must understand though es.
that the rate in which it will be perceived varies ac- e) Brazilian work enforcement authorities think ergonomics
cording to the current stage of concepts, practices, is the most effective way to regulate work organization
within enterprises.
rites – and myths – of this or that organization. It is
nowadays a common sense that stakeholders will If we are truly convicted that ergonomics is an es-
better respond within their particular cultural setting. sential part of organizations’ strategy, we should also
Finally Freire [7] says that the knowledge is neces- agree that ergonomics should depart from a health
sary, but not sufficient to promote changes. paradigm toward a business one. Recent investiga-
We sustain the need for special knowledge, con- tions [6] dealing with Ergonomics Programs have
cerning the place of ergonomics in the production outlined some noticeable constraints such as lack of
scenario – and its relation to actual improvement of business-approach attitude, lack of focus on quality
the workplace. Fortunately, we are not alone. Jenssen parameters and distancing from current practices of
[14], about ten years ago, in his Nordic experience, project management. Others researchers [1] have
noted that the simple availabilty of ergonomics prin- already expressed it, when dealing with back pain
ciples and methods for operations planning and man- inhibiting program in a furniture industry in USA.
agement rarely produce concrete effects in the real According to this inquiry, more that 50% of inter-
practice. This author underlined the existence of viewed workers pointed out organizational factors as
organizational preconditions, which conveys to a the most impacting ones when it comes to overall
more important role as an organizational agent to an performance. Somewhere between activists and war-
ergonomist. riors, Dul & Neumann [5] list three arenas for pro-
This is an amazing issue, since the essence of this moting ergonomic in the enterprise: the purely cor-
opinion was heard in the 1st. Brazilian congress of porate arena targeting the corporation and its stake-
Ergonomics (Rio de Janeiro, 1974) from a series of holders; the business strategy arena, gathering divi-
invited lecturers, such as Brian Schaekel, from UK
 M.C. Vidal et al. / Ergonomic Sustainability Based on the Ergonomic Maturity Level Measurement 2723

sions like Human resources, Finances, Marketing, be able to deal with three aspects of management:
Industrial engineering and so on; the corporate pol- process, project and permanence.
icies arena, the emblematic example is the TQM Process management has two different sections:
program, adopted by a large set of organizations all Primarily to set up and maintain the tools employed
around the world. Those corporate programs perco- for screening and reporting the current ergonomic
late throughout the various segmented areas of the stage of the various workplaces, equipments, soft-
enterprises and seem to be a very special arena for wares and organizational devices.
ergonomics to gain more significance in the organi- Project management as based on Project Man-
zational culture. agement Institute definition: Project management is the
The mentioned papers of Dul & Newmann also structured set of tools for planning, organizing, securing,
convey a large set of opportunities be be taken into and managing resources to achieve specific goals. A
those arenas. The core of this paper is to deal with project is a temporary endeavor with a defined beginning
particular difficulties of merging Ergonomics Teams and end (usually time-constrained, and often constrained
by funding or deliverables), undertaken to meet unique
and Company Officers´ points of view in the formu- goals and objectives, typically to bring about beneficial
lation and all along the execution of a business con- change or added value.
tract. In other words we will try to approach some Permanence management summarizes the sustai-
issues that are likely to occur no matter how well or nability of the ergonomic structure [26], due to the
poorly managed a contract is. In order to do so, two interdependence and the emerging complexity in the
paths can be outlined: (i) to approach and to suggest strategic dimension of organizations. It also under-
materials and methods in order to minimize the lack lines the singularity of each organizational culture as
of knowledge in raising possibilities by ergonomic well as the eventual differentiation among subsys-
actions, (as referred by Caple and others); (ii) to in- tems of a corporation. This limits the possibilities of
vestigate, prior to the undertaking of ergonomic ac- benchmarking strategies or good practices for differ-
tion, the current sociotechnical stage of organiza- ent enterprises. In other words, to an ergonomic
tions, which led them to specific strategic choices. structure, permanence management aims to avoid
Our choice turned on the second path. loss of momentum and backlash.
Toward a strategic frame for Ergonomics The three targets of ergonomic management per-
The emphasis we preach for dealing with this sub- formed by a recently introduced structure cannot be
ject is poorly presented in current technical literature. taken as a simple matter into a corporation, one rea-
This is not only due to the lack of materials and me- son being the fact many of stakeholders could have
thods, but because we lack a business-oriented for- been waiting for others structures, not exactly the
mulation of Ergonomics as a meaningful discipline. chosen one. We must establish some foundations
The reality of corporations´ life, by means of a related to change management and ergonomics.
process overview within a systemic approach, re- Wisner [26] noted that an organizational innova-
quires an orientation both to its internal functioning tion should take into account the cultural patterns of
as well as its organizational environment. The idea is whoever is receiving it. He proposed the notion of
to enhance continuity between public and corporate “anthropotecnologic island” to refer to the hyper
policies. standardization approach taken by some transnational
The definition of Torma-Krajewski et al. [20] of corporations in order to ensure controlled perfor-
ergonomic process is adequated for our purposes: mances of all their units. Not only this hyper control
(…) an ergonomics process is defined as a formal, syste- proved to be very expensive as a strategy, but the
matic application of ergonomics principles integrated with more detached from the holding, the greater is the
management systems and imbedded in the organizational frequency and diversity of production problems. The
culture. Under this definition, we can sustain that nature of problems was not limited to ethnic va-
even registering some isolated ergonomic actions, the riables, but somewhat related to the cross-cultural
lack of Ergonomics structures produces a break in the field. In this sense, Brown Jr. [2] asked himself how
program sequence, thus impacts the articulation of to structure and manage organizations respecting
isolated projects for a significative change. The cited technological advancement. He noted that, since this
authors [21] underline that this also inhibits the involves changes in the operational level, it is wise to
launch of new ergonomic actions. rely on the – inner – local cultural base. It is empha-
Since it is essential to create organizational struc- sized that organizations are sociotechnical systems
tures for ergonomics in the organization, we should that are also structured as socio-cognitive systems
2724 M.C. Vidal et al. / Ergonomic Sustainability Based on the Ergonomic Maturity Level Measurement

[17]. This means that both decision-making and re- sists of a complete fulfillment of prerequisites of a
liability are linked to technological and organization- lesser stage. In management, maturity was initially
al bases. This is the issue of complexity in ergonom- adopted by P. Crosby [4] who presented the Quality
ics and ergonomics of complex systems. Management Maturity Grid. The scale proposed 5
Useful for risk management, both the complex maturity levels for business processes of the organi-
systems and macroergonomic issues do not fulfill a zation: (i) Uncertainty, (ii) Awakening, (iii) Enligh-
framework for business ergonomics. One solution is tenment, (iv) Wisdom, (v) Certainty. This framework
do not take technological systems and managerial was adopted by the US military procurement office
ones could not be taken by independent parts of a [13] in the development of a tool for selection of
production system [28]. software development providers. Most projects were
falling short on time and overrunning budget and
The content of a maturity approach
financial estimates. It created the need to examine
capacity degrees of service providers.
This so called interdependence enhances a list of
The maturity approach, here, takes a symmetric
opportunities within organizations. Moreover, it out-
disposition. We set our tool set for an initial under-
lines the different desiderata to public policies as
standing of our future and/or current client, in terms
well as a guideline for corporate policies. Thus, it
of his capability in correctly working with ergonom-
delivers something else for coping with local busi-
ics, more precisely with our ergonomic team. The
ness strategies. The new question evolves into the
earlier with address this concern, the less structural
theme of the corporate singularity. The formulation
problems will arise in the course of a contract. This
becomes: where does the singularity factor come
was our lucky bet, some years ago.
from? What kind of tools would be pertinent to ap-
Currently, as defining Ergonomics as change
proach it?
management (processes, projects and permanence)
The Ergonomic Maturity Model (EMM) searches
we finally sustain that the ergonomic maturity as-
for those answers by merging applied and conceptual
sessment is a basic condition for realizing proposi-
ergonomics along with Clinical Psychology and Psy-
tions like those set by Caple following the orientation
cho sociology. Then we revisit the concept of maturi-
of Dull and Neumann.
ty, defined in Project Management practice as a
measure of one’s ability in promoting changes in an
Ergonomic maturity model (EMM)
organization. This all merge into the change man-
agement concept phases (processes, project and per-
There are several maturity models being currently
manence), helping us to establish a framework of
employed – CBP, PMMM, ESI INTERNATIONAL,
critical relationships to ergonomic success.
CMM, PMI - OPM3. None of them have high degree
The next step was to to handle these factors. By
of market dissemination, mainly due to poor broad-
examining Clinical Psychology works [25] we see
casting or communication of findings, results or all of
that maturity is a human property that requires at the
that combined. Their general structure does not vary
same time development and losses (losing less func-
significantly. It is based on a measuring scale in a
tional stages for searching out to more developed
linear and vertically oriented structure (figure 1).
degrees). Winnicot tells us that the information re-
quired to jump up to a higher step of maturity con-

Figure 1: The general capability maturity model

 M.C. Vidal et al. / Ergonomic Sustainability Based on the Ergonomic Maturity Level Measurement 2725

A specific frame for ergonomic maturity was in- organization maturity level: practices, values and
itially created following two movements: (i) “holoph- structures.
rasing” the space problem of each capability level in The organizational practice focuses the economic
terms of a project of change and (ii) unfold each ho- effectiveness avoiding bias that might compromise
lophrase according to the threes dimension of the results for corporate overall sustainability during
Social Ecology (BOOKCHIN, 1980). ergonomic intervention. The organizational values
The effort for holophrasing was initially result of a assess the concrete social responsibility levels in the
through bibliographic research using maturity, organization, to outline one possible set of interven-
change, management, project and sustainability as tion protocols. For instance some forms of participa-
descriptors. This construction is described elsewhere tion and tools can be incompatible to existing forms
[24]. The dimensions of social ecology [ ] taken into of social justice. Finally the themes of Ergonomics
account were social justice, ecologic equilibrium and assess the real sustainability of ergonomic interven-
economic effectiveness. This unfolding operation tions, related to existing structures (table 1).
establishes the three lines of external evaluation of an
Table 1
Themes of interest in Ergonomic Maturity Scales

# Typical Scenery Sustainability Labor culture Ergonomics

Low interaction levels among Poor communication Few or low level of Social No Ergonomic structure
E company’s departments; among stakeholders Responsibility actions and/or instances
Multiple projects, not yet inte- Sensibilization and Con-
Incipient change manage- Social Responsibility actions
D grated through an ideal net-
ment restricted to legal conformity
sciousness Plan in
work; progress
Implementation of an adequate Change management as Social Responsibility going Training Plan for com-
C project management structure; established leadership beyond regulatory dimension mitment
Use of benchmarking actions; Projects related to Excel- Ample Social Responsibility
B lence corporate policy
Ergonomic Program

A Consolidation of best practices Excellence Culture Just Culture Ergonomic Culture

The Ergonomic maturity measured by the existing Four emblematic cases were chosen, from our con-
and/or preempted troubles sulting experience out of more than 20 eligible ones.
The choice of these four cases is not as impregnated
The maturity themes shown in table 1 intend to in logic criteria as we might like, but so is the lack of
enhance an overview of the maturity level in an or- success cases in ergonomic literature. Likewise, the
ganization. The idea is to enrich it with post-facto existence of published texts and technical reports
evaluations of problems brought up during a contract upon difficulties and failures in realizing ergonomics
for ergonomic interventions. intervention is practically inexistent. To overcome it,
Having such matrix on hands professional practi- we decided to examine our own difficult reports, a
tioners of ergonomics would be able to anticipate practice in our consulting methods.
some “near problems”. In consequence they can out- b) Pre-evaluation of maturity level
line a pertinent strategy. The evaluation processes happens in two moments,
with a time gap of three months between the two
Methodology evaluation sessions. Data gathered with a specific
group of practitioners (related to one of the selected
This framework consisted in: (a) choice of repre- case) was confronted with their project manager’s
sentative cases; (b) pre evaluation of maturity level evaluation. The first set of evaluation sessions aimed
using the primary scale (table 1); (c) building a sec- at the classification of the organization-case in an
ondary scale (taxonomy of experienced troubles); (d) ergonomic external maturity level. The four cases
validate the new scale by specialists; and (e) applica- have been classified in terms of external maturity.
tion c) Taxonomy of experienced troubles
a) Choice of representative cases Ipso facto, we asked each group to examine a list
of problems organized by the researchers. It was in-
2726 M.C. Vidal et al. / Ergonomic Sustainability Based on the Ergonomic Maturity Level Measurement

itially built using Crosby´s capability grid. Each de- 14. Informa- 14.1 – Learned lessons database
sideratum of this grid was linguistically translated tion Technolo- 14.2 – Use of ergonomic software
gy 14.3 – Electronic diffusion and broadcast
into an operational problem by the researches. Then,
this conceptual list was displayed to each practition-
er. He/She could agree with an existing attribute, add d) Validation of the trouble matrix
a new one and also suggest discarding others, always The obtained trouble matrix was validated by the
based in the main difficulties in the contract he/she involved project managers. The researchers per-
participated. This effort produced 14 categories, sub- formed a final adjustment in that scale. Table II
divided into 50 aspects. shows the final trouble matrix used in the assess-
ments.
Table 2 e) Application of the trouble matrix for ergonomic
Maturity Trouble Matrix maturity measurement
Maturity Trouble-type in achieving a contract Having a methodological time lapse of three
1. Theme ac- 1.1 - Few knowledge about Ergonomics months, all the participants in the four projects were
ceptation 1.2 - Formal presentation of external team called to a set of assessment sessions.
1.3 - Consciousness program schedule
The items in the list were organized as a chat
1.4 - Presentation of results to high management
2. Training of 2.1.- Aligning training script [23]. This procedure consists of a structured
the Ergonomic 2.2 - Diversity of competences questionnaire, which is not directly presented to the
external team 2.3 - Quantitative evaluation skills inquired. The set of questions compose that conver-
2.4 - Qualitative evaluation skills sation plan. The inquiry consists of a conversation
3. Client man- 3.1 - Clarity of contracts upon the achievement of the contract, individually or
ager training 3.2 - Low price strategy
3.3 - Agile management in small groups (no more than three participants at a
3.4 - Ergonomic Management time). The researchers take notes on the overall con-
4. Process 4.1 - Report writing standards versation. In the end he/she fill up the answers in the
Standards 4.2 - Team structuring (previous vs. on-the-job) questionnaire. This procedure avoids distortions, like
4.3 - Degrees of freedom understood poorly questions, inadequate answers and
5. Organiza- 5.1 - Ergonomic committee?
tional Struc- 5.2 - Facilitation network?
choice of a proposed option instead of an authentic
ture 5.3 - Contents of consciousness program answer. It also allows the possibility of registering
6 . Strategic 6.1 - Ergonomic Project planning answers to not formulated questions, which could be
Planning 6.2 - Task-oriented team added ad-hoc.
6.3 - Cost planning f) Data processing
6.4 - Flexibility of goals
7. Continuous 7.1 - Segmentation of target divisions
Data is obtained by means of Likert Scale logic
Improvement 7.2 - Problem solving meetings (table 3)
8 . Ergonomics 8.1 - Team integration Table 3
Team – 8.2 - Cooperative report writing Scoring the answers
Company’s 8.3 - Conflicts front-team versus back-office
Officers Rela- 8.4 - Relationship team leader- team workers Answers Score
tionship 8.5 - Managerial style of the team leader Option Meaning (points)
9. Corporate 9.1 - Availability of client employees a Very important 10
Governance. 9.2 - Pregnancy of tools in the specific enterprise b Just important 6
10 - Leader- 10.1 - Clear procedures c Low importance 2
ship 10.2 – Interferences of client managers d Not important at all 0
10.3 – Team management
10.4 – Tasks Delegation The entire set of results is then calculated using the
10.5 – Internal Communications indexation formula below:
10.6 – Operational adjustments
10.7 – Recognition by the team leader
11 . Certifica- 11.1 – Knowledge of ergonomic certification
(eq. 1)
tion 11.2 – Skills for promoting ergonomics The results are interpreted according to table 4
11.3 – Certified Professional in teamwork
12 Social Re- 12.1 – Technical support by the team leader
sponsibility 12.2 - Technical support by the contractor
12.3 – Integration Contractor / ergonomic team
13 . Organiza- 13.1 – Client manager supporting
tional climate 13.2 – Convergence internal and external teams
13.3 – Commitment with tactical level
 M.C. Vidal et al. / Ergonomic Sustainability Based on the Ergonomic Maturity Level Measurement 2727

Table 4
Apuration of maturity level Project manager
Lack of lauching meetings
Score Maturity level Lack of autonomy
Imat  1.0 Informal Bad Project planning
1.0 < Imat  2.0 Organized Teamworker
2.0 < Imat  3.0 Structured Insuficient training
3.0 < Imat  4.0 Managed Lack of specific procedures
Imat > 4.0 Optimized Lack of cooperation in the team

Contractors Ignorance on Ergonomics

Fuzzy contracts
Results Low cost strategy
Table 5 synthesizes the results of the application. Interferences of client managers

0 5 10
Table 5
Ocurrences (%)
EMM Application Results

Organization A B C D Figure 3 : Featured constraints when managing ergonomics con-

1. Theme acceptation 16 24 14 28 tracts.
2. Training of the external team 6 12 2 12
3. Client manager training 8 14 2 18 Analysis
4. Processes Standards 8 14 14 18 In all selected cases the ignorance of ergonomics
5. Organizational Structure 22 26 18 36 terminologies and its benefits seem to correlate with
6 . Strategic Planning 0 14 14 16 the lack of certified ergonomists in those companies.
7. Continuous Improvement 0 0 10 10
8 . Ergonomics Team x Company Of-
The more significant problems were related to a bad
ficers Relationship 4 6 20 16 structure in terms of ergonomics dissemination in
9. Corporate Governability 0 0 2 6 those corporations. This would confirm the essential
10 - Leadership 4 4 0 6 annotations gathered in our revision [1], [7], [15],
11 . Certification 0 0 0 6 [29], especially the existence of ergonomic structures.
12 Social Responsibilty 6 6 10 10 The role played by the contract managers is always
13 . Organizational climate 4 4 22 18 relevant as a problem source but mainly in the suc-
14. Information Technology 2 6 12 12 cess of ergonomic actions.
Maturity Level 1.8 2.3 2.4 3,1 In all those cases, process standards and strategic
planning are strongly related to the final maturity
level. It suggests some kind of cardinality between
Contractor the troubles factors and corporate practices. A para-
15% dox appears when finding the case “D”, the best one
when evaluated in terms of ergonomic maturity. In
this case the interference of local managers was most
Team constant. Nevertheless, this was also the case in
Project 20% which the team leader was more significantly poorly
Manager evaluated in terms of his facilitation skills and core
65% competencies. The case “B” corroborates this analy-
sis because the success expressed by the participants
is in good correlation with the team leader evaluation
This analysis ends with the indication of recom-
Figure 2 - Conflict raisers during ergonomic intervention mended ergonomic driven journeys.
2728 M.C. Vidal et al. / Ergonomic Sustainability Based on the Ergonomic Maturity Level Measurement

Table 6 er perspectives. Applied Ergonomics, Volume 38, Issue 5,

September 2007, Pages 557-566
Indications for driven journeys in all cases studied
[8]. Freire, P. – A pedagogy of make questions Paz e Terra, Rio
de Janeiro, 1985.(In portuguese)
Case Maturity Strategic recommendations
[9]. Garcia L.F. (2008) – Childhood, adolesecence or maturity?
To produce action plans for becom- What is your business stage? In:
A Organized ing an structured corporation http://www.administradores.com.br / noticias/ uploaded em
To install a set of indicators for 19/08/2008 - 00:03
B Structured helping ergonomic management [10]. Harrington, H. J. (1997) Total Improve management. Ma-
kron Books do Brasil Editora, São Paulo. (In portuguese)
C Structured To evaluate existing indicators [11]. Harrison P.D., Martins M. R.. Tsai L. W. (2006) - An aplica-
To organize a database of good tion of the PMBooK maturity model. Proceedings of the
D Managed practices and lessons learned XXVI Brazilian Congress on Production Engineering - For-
taleza, Brazil, October 2006, ABEPRO (In portuguese)
[12]. Hendrick, H. and Kleiner, B. (2006) Macroergonomia - Uma
Discussion Introdução aos projetos de Sistema de Trabalho. Rio de Ja-
neiro: Editora Virtual Científica.
[13]. Hendrick, H. (2008) Applying ergonomics to systems: some
The differences between corporations with similar documented lessons learned. Applied ergonomics, vol.39, pp.
corporate maturity degree confirm the difficulty of 418-426.
searching for a number-synthesis for maturity con- [14]. Humphrey, W. S. (1990): Characterizing the Software
sideration. This is the reason why we prefer to refer Process: A Maturity Framework. (62–75) in T. DeMarco et
al. (Eds.): Software State-Of-The-Art: Selected Papers. Dor-
to the notion of levels. Nevertheless, we can see that set House Publishing.
the singularity may not be such a major problem. If [15]. Jensen P.L., Human factors and ergonomics in the planning
we perform a detailed examination using similar ref- of production International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
erences we can obtain relevant recommendations to Volume 29, Issue 3, March 2002, pp. 121-131.
[16]. Mafra, J. R. Economy of Ergonomics: costing methodology.
an optimized organizational (re)design as well as D.Sc Thesis.,COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.(in
enhance some subjects of prospective management Portuguese)
actions. The strongest idea is to use ergonomic ma- [17]. Mussen, P. H.; Conger, J. H.; Kagan, J.; Huston, A. C.
turity models for feeding the ergonomic programs (1990) Development and personality of children. Ed. Harbra,
São Paulo. (In Portuguese).
design. [18]. Pavard B. & Decortis F. (1994) - Communication et
Finally the contribution of ergonomics practition- Coopération: de la théorie des actes de langage à l’approche
ers is widely exposed. Our intention is not only to ethnometodologique. Em: Pavard B. (Org.) Systèmes
fulfill our needs, but we are also looking forward for coopératifs: de la modelisation à la conception. Octarès Edi-
tion, Toulouse
retro feeding the discussion about the future of ergo- [19]. Prado, D. (2010) Maturity in project management. Nova
nomics altogether. Lima (MG). INDG Tecnologia e Serviços Ltda. (in Portu-
guese)
References [20]. Sordi, J. O. (2008) Managing by processes: an approach of
hodiern management. Ed. Saraiva. São Paulo. (In portu-
[1]. Anema, J.R., Steenstra, I.A., Urlings, I.J.M., Bongers, P.M., guese)
Vroome, E.M.M., Van Mechelen, W. - Participatory ergo- [21]. Stevens, S.N. (1999) – Definition of a maturity model -
nomics as a return-to-work intervention: A future challenge? Procedings of the 29th Anual PMI Congress – 1999
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Volume 44, 2003, [22]. Torma-Krajewski, J. Steiner L., Lewis P., Gust P. and John-
pp. 273-281 son K. - Implementation of an ergonomics process at a US
[2]. Bookchin, M. (1995) [1990]. The Philosophy of Social surface coal mine. International Journal of Industrial Ergo-
Ecology, 2nd edition. Montreal, QC: Black Rose Books. nomics, Volume 37, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 157-167
[3]. Brown Jr. O. (1991) – The origins and the concept of Ma- [23]. Vidal, M. C. R., Bonfatti, R. J. - Conversational Action: an
croergonomics. Proceedings of the XIth Triennial Congress of Ergonomic Approach to Interaction In: Grant P. - Rethinking
the IEA. Taylor and Francis, London. com municative interaction. Amsterdam : John Benjamin
[4]. Caple, D. C. - The IEA contribution to the transition of Ergo- Publishing Company, 2003, p. 108-120
nomics from research to practice. Applied Ergonomics, Vo- [24]. Vidal, M.C., Avancinni F. and Campos L.E. P. (2006) Anth-
lume 41, Issue 6, October 2010, Pages 731-737. Special Sec- ropotecnology of ergonomics programs in Brazil. Proceed-
tion: Selection of papers from IEA 2009 ings of the XVI Triennial Congress of the IEA, Maastricht.
[5]. Crosby, P. Quality is Free. McGraw-Hill., 1979. ISBN 0- [25]. Vidal, M.C.; Guizze, C.L.C; Mafra, J.R.; Bonfatti, R Vidal
07-014512-1 J.; Santos, M.S.; Pacheco, R.; Moreira, L.R. (2009) - The er-
[6]. Dul J. and Neumann W. P. - Ergonomics contributions to gonomic maturity of a company enhancing the effectiveness
company strategies Applied Ergonomics, Volume 40, Issue of ergonomic process. XIV Triennial Congress of the IEA.
4, July 2009, Pages 745-752 [26]. Wilson, J.R. (2000). Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory
[7]. Entzel P., Jim Albers J. and Welch L. - Best practices for and practice. Applied Ergonomics, 31, 557-567.
preventing musculoskeletal disorders in masonry: Stakehold- [27]. Winnicott, D.W. (1990) - Home Is Where We Start from:
Essays by a Psychoanalyst W W Norton & Co Inc., London
 M.C. Vidal et al. / Ergonomic Sustainability Based on the Ergonomic Maturity Level Measurement 2729

[28]. Wisner, A. (1985) – Organizational antropotechnological [30]. Zink, K.J., Steimbler U. & Fischer K. - Human Factors,
approach contingencies: an analithical approach. In: Bradley Business Excellence and Corporate Sustainability: differing
G.E. e Hendrick H.W. (Eds.) Human Factors in Organiza- Perspectives, Joint Objectives In: Klaus J. Zink (Editor) Cor-
tional Design and Management. Elesier Science, 1994, 613- porate Sustainability As A Challenge For Comprehensive
617 Management, Springer-Verlag. New York, 2008.
[29]. Woodcock A. & Denton H. The Teaching of Ergonomics in
Schools: What is happening? IEA wbsite,
http://www.iea.cc/ECEE/pdfs/woodcock_teaching_ergo.pdf,
08/23/2011, 01:14:40 PM.