BOS 3701, Industrial Ergonomics 1 Course Description .docx

BOS 3701, Industrial Ergonomics 1
Course Description
Review of the principles and practices of ergonomics as it
applies to the industrial environment. Demonstrates how to
collect data on users and operators and how to convert the data
to good workplace design.
Course Textbook
Bush, P. M. (2012). Ergonomics: Foundational principles,
applications, and technologies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Course Learning Outcomes
Upon completion of this course, students should be able to:
1. Specify and design ergonomically appropriate industrial
workstations for the industrial and office work
environment.
2. Identify information-centered human factors relating to
visual, illumination, controls, displays, and symbols.
3. Compare, contrast, and assess human body-centered
ergonomic designs for posture, material handling,

repetitive motion factors, heat stress, noise, and vibration.
4. Examine and evaluate organizational or management-centered
ergonomic factors for training, skills, and cognitive
task analysis.
5. Define the ergonomic factors intrinsic in evaluating
accidents, human errors, and safety related incidents.
6. Illustrate and assess the ergonomic factors in computer work
station design.
7. Discuss and identify key components of cost-benefit analysis
in human factors and ergonomic design.
8. Summarize key components in conducting a human factors or
ergonomics related investigation.
Credits
Upon completion of this course, the students will earn three (3)
hours of college credit.
Course Structure
1. Unit Learning Outcomes: Each unit contains Learning
Outcomes that specify the measurable skills and
knowledge students should gain upon completion of the unit..
2. Unit Lesson: Each unit contains a Unit Lesson, which
discusses lesson material.
3. Reading Assignments: Each unit contains Reading
Assignments from one or more chapters from the textbook
or a publication from the NIOSH. Suggested Readings are

provided in the unit study guides to aid students in
their course of study.
4. Learning Activities (Non-Graded): These non-graded
Learning Activities are provided to aid students in their
course of study.
5. Key Terms: Key Terms are intended to guide students in their
course of study. Students should pay particular
attention to Key Terms as they represent important concepts
within the unit material and reading.
6. Discussion Boards: Discussion Boards are a part of all CSU
term courses. Information and specifications
regarding these assignments are provided in the Academic
Policies listed in the Course Menu bar.
7. Unit Assessments: This course contains six Unit
Assessments, one to be completed at the end of Units I-III and
V-VII. Assessments are composed of multiple-choice questions
and written response questions.
8. Unit Assignments: Students are required to submit for
grading Unit Assignments in Units IV and VIII. Specific
information and instructions regarding these assignments are
provided below. Grading rubrics are included with
the Unit IV and VIII Assignments. Specific information about
accessing these rubrics is provided below.
BOS 3701, Industrial Ergonomics
Course Syllabus

9. Ask the Professor: This communication forum provides you
with an opportunity to ask your professor general or
course content related questions.
10. Student Break Room: This communication forum allows for
casual conversation with your classmates.
CSU Online Library
There is a virtual library with resources, including both journals
and ebooks, to support your program and your course at
Columbia Southern University. eResources are accessible 24
hours a day/7 days a week from the CSU Online Library
gateway page. To access the library, log into myCSU, and then
click on CSU Online Library. Resources are organized in
the library by title, but if you click on Research Guides, you
will find eResources arranged by subject.
The Library Reference service is available 7 days a week; you
can reach CSU’s virtual librarians by emailing
[email protected] These professional librarians will be glad to
help you develop your research
plan or to assist you in any way in finding relevant, appropriate,
and timely information.
Librarian responses may occur within minutes or hours, but it
will never take more than 24 hours for a librarian to send a
response to the email address you have provided. Replies to
reference requests may include customized keyword search
strategies, links to videos, research guides, screen captures,
attachments, a phone call, live screen sharing, and meeting
room appointments, as well as other forms of instruction.

Unit Assignments
Unit IV Project
Perform a critical review of the following NIOSH Publication:
Cheung, Z., Feletto, M., Galante, J., & Waters, T. (2007).
Ergonomic guidelines for manual material handling (DHHS
[NIOSH] Publication No. 2007-131). Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-131/pdfs/2007-131.pdf
Click here to access a PDF of the NIOSH Publication No. 2007-
131.
You must specifically summarize and analyze the following
information in the indicated NIOSH publication:
plan
However, you may also discuss any other topics you find
interesting in publication.
The project must include, at minimum, the following
components:
1. Introduction
2. Engineering and Administrative Improvements
3. Proactive Action Plan
4. Improvement Options

5. Summary of your own opinions and comments on what you
learned from the publication.
Instructions
Your answer to this assignment must be three to five pages,
double spaced, and 12 point font (separate title page and
reference page are not included in the page length). CSU
requires that students use APA style for papers and projects.
Therefore, the APA rules for formatting, quoting, paraphrasing,
citing, and listing of sources are to be followed. A
document titled “Citation Guide” is available for you to
download in the Learning Resources area of the myCSU Student
Portal. It may also be accessed from the Student Resources link
on the Course Menu of Blackboard.
For comprehensive information on APA formatting, you are
encouraged to visit the Learning Resources tab in the myCSU
Student Portal. You may also contact the Success Center for
additional assistance by phone at 1.877.875.0533 or by
e-mail at [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
http://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emer
gency_Services/BOS/BOS3701/13G/UnitIV_NIOSH%20handbo
ok.pdf
mailto:[email protected]
Unit VIII Case Study
Select one of the three NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation
Reports listed below, and perform a critical analysis of the

report.
Option 1. Health Hazard Evaluation Report, HETA 2010-0114-
3168. (2012). Ergonomic Evaluation of Surfacing and
Finishing Tasks during Eyeglass Manufacturing – Minnesota.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2010-0114-3168.pdf
Option 2. Health Hazard Evaluation Report, HETA 2010-0008-
3148. (2011). Ergonomic and Safety Climate
Evaluation at a Brewery – Colorado.
Option 3. Health hazard evaluation report, HETA 2007-0098-
3061. (2008). Ergonomic Evaluation of Frank Hangers
at a Turkey Processing Plant - California.
Your case study review must include the following headings per
APA guidelines:
1. Introduction –Provide a description of the selected case.
Describe the issues of the case, and state the purpose
for the paper.
2. Methods – State the evaluation criteria used in the NIOSH
HHE Report.
3. Results – Present the findings from the Health hazard
evaluation.
4. Recommendations – Describe the recommendations for
improvements.
5. Discussion – Review relevant literature on the subject. Does
research support the recommendations of the case?

In addition, are there any other issues of concern?
6. Conclusion – Present your comments on the case. What did
you learn in this review? What more would you like
to have seen discussed in the report? In general, your own
opinions should only be included in this section.
Instructions:
Your answer to this assignment must be four to six pages,
double spaced, and 12 point font (separate title page and
reference page are not included in the page length). The
assignment requires that you use your textbook and at least two
other references and readings which pertain to the topic in
question. CSU requires that students use APA style for papers
and projects. Therefore, the APA rules for formatting, quoting,
paraphrasing, citing, and listing of sources are to be
followed. A document titled “Citation Guide” is available for
you to download in the Learning Resources area of the
myCSU Student Portal. It may also be accessed from the
Student Resources link on the Course Menu of Blackboard.
For comprehensive information on APA formatting and research
databases, you are encouraged to visit the Learning
Resources tab in the myCSU Student Portal. The Success Center
provides APA and writing assistance, and the CSU
Librarians can provide research support.
APA Guidelines
CSU requires that students use APA style for papers and
projects. Therefore, the APA rules for formatting, quoting,
paraphrasing, citing, and listing of sources are to be followed.
Students can find CSU’s Citation Guide in the myCSU

Student Portal by clicking on the “Citation Resources” link in
the “Learning Resources” area of the myCSU Student Portal.
This document includes examples and sample papers and
provides information on how to contact the CSU Success
Center.
Blackboard Grading Rubrics
One or more assignments in this course utilizes a Blackboard
Grading Rubric. A rubric is a tool that lists evaluation criteria
and can help you organize your efforts to meet the requirements
of an assignment. Your professor will use the Blackboard
Grading Rubric to assign points and provide feedback for the
assignment.
You are encouraged to view the assignment rubric before
submitting your work. This will allow you to review the
evaluation criteria as you prepare your assignments. You may
access the rubric in “My Grades” through the “Tools” button
in your course menu. Click the “View Rubric” link to see the
evaluation criteria for the assignment. Upon receiving your
assignment grade, you may view your grade breakdown and
feedback in the rubric.
CSU Grading Rubrics for Papers/Projects, Discussion Boards,
and Assessments

The Learning Resource area of the myCSU Student Portal
provides the rubrics, and information on how to use them, for
Discussion Boards, written response questions in Unit
Assessments, and Research Papers/Projects.
The course writing assignments will be graded based on the
CSU Grading Rubric for all types of writing assignments,
unless otherwise specified within assignment instructions. In
addition, all papers will be submitted for electronic evaluation
to rule out plagiarism. Course projects will contain project-
specific grading criteria defined in the project directions.
To view the rubrics, click the Academic Policies link on the
Course Menu, or access them through the CSU Grading
Rubric link found in the Learning Resources area of the myCSU
Student Portal.
Communication Forums
These are non-graded discussion forums that allow you to
communicate with your professor and other students.
Participation in these discussion forums is encouraged, but not
required. You can access these forums with the buttons in
the Course Menu. Instructions for subscribing/unsubscribing to
these forums are provided below.
Click here for instructions on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and
post to the Communication Forums.
Ask the Professor
This communication forum provides you with an opportunity to
ask your professor general or course content questions.
Questions may focus on Blackboard locations of online course

components, textbook or course content elaboration,
additional guidance on assessment requirements, or general
advice from other students.
Questions that are specific in nature, such as inquiries regarding
assessment/assignment grades or personal
accommodation requests, are NOT to be posted on this forum. If
you have questions, comments, or concerns of a non-
public nature, please feel free to email your professor.
Responses to your post will be addressed or emailed by the
professor within 48 hours.
Before posting, please ensure that you have read all relevant
course documentation, including the syllabus,
assessment/assignment instructions, faculty feedback, and other
important information.
Student Break Room
This communication forum allows for casual conversation with
your classmates. Communication on this forum should
always maintain a standard of appropriateness and respect for
your fellow classmates. This forum should NOT be used to
share assessment answers.
Grading
Discussion Boards (8 @ 2%) = 16%
Unit Assessments (6 @ 8%) = 48%
Unit IV Project = 12%
Unit VIII Case Study = 24%
Total = 100%

Course Schedule/Checklist (PLEASE PRINT)
The following pages contain a printable Course Schedule to
assist you through this course. By following this schedule,
you will be assured that you will complete the course within the
time allotted.
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/common_file
s/instructions/DB/Create_New_Thread_Subscribe.pdf
BOS 3701, Industrial Ergonomics Course Schedule
By following this schedule, you will be assured that you will
complete the course within the time allotted. Please keep this
schedule for reference as you progress through your course.
Unit I Foundational Ergonomics and Systems of the Human
Body
Review:
-Graded): See Study Guide
Read:
ational Ergonomics

Discuss:
Discussion Board question by
Saturday, Midnight (Central Time)
Tuesday, Midnight (Central Time)
Notes/Goals:
Unit II Senses of the Human Body and Measurement of
Environmental Factors
Review:
Read:
uman Body and Measurement of
Environmental Factors
Discuss:
ment on another student’s
Discussion Board response by

Notes/Goals:
Unit III Muscular Work, Nervous Control of Movements, and
Anthropometry
Review:
Read:
Movements
Discuss:
mit your response to the
Central Time)

Notes/Goals:
Unit IV Project
Review:
Read:
tion No. 2007-191: See Study Guide
Discuss:
Discussion Board question by Saturday,
Midnight (Central Time)
student’s

Notes/Goals:
Unit V Workplace and Hand Tool Design and Work-Related
Musculoskeletal Disorders
Review:
nit Study Guide
Read:
-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders
Discuss:
se: Submit your response to the
Discussion Board question by Saturday,
Midnight (Central Time)
dnight (Central Time)
Notes/Goals:

Unit VI Heavy Work and Evaluating Physical Workloads and
Lifting
Review:
Read:
Workloads
and Lifting
Discuss:
Notes/Goals:

Unit VII Information Ergonomics, Controls, Displays, Warning
Labels, Instructions, and Product Liability
Review:
Read:
arning Labels, Instructions, and Product
Liability
Discuss:
ment on another student’s
Notes/Goals:

Unit VIII Case Study
Review:
Discuss:
ent’s
Notes/Goals:

Running Head: NIOSH HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION
Running Head: NIOSH HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION
NIOSH HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION
Name:
Institution:
Introduction
In the year 2007, NIOSH received a health hazard evaluation
request from the Aerospace workers and the international
association of machinists to evaluate the potential ergonomic
hazards that were affecting the workers at the California based
firm Foster Farm deli plant in Livingston. Complaints had been
received from the employees that they were not able to perform
tasks in the frank hanging job. The workers were at risk for
musculoskeletal injury and the risks that were associated with

this condition include repetitive emotions, heavy lifting, and
awkward postures (Jessica & John , 2007).
The NIOSH investigators visited the plant with a main aim of
finding solutions that would help the risks that were faced by
the employees. They walked through the raw and cooked frank
production areas and conducted voluntary interviews with the
workers to better understand their problems. They also had open
conferences with the senior management, and the union officials
that would provide more evidence on the ergonomic problem
that was facing the company (Jessica & John , 2007).
The purpose of this paper is aimed at evaluating is set to
evaluate the health hazards that were facing workers in the
Foster farm deli plant and come up with recommendations that
would be of use to the management team in order for them to
improve the workers conditions in the firm.
Evaluation
The processing plant was added to the foster arms in the year
1959. The farm from the start of its processing in the year 1989,
have not changed much and the entire plant had approximately
2400 workers in the year 2007.the workers had to use the franks
as they were a main component of the farm in its processing
activities. In the raw production of materials, there were link
machines of franks that were used for corn dogs or hot dogs. A
worker at the far end of the machine had to position a rod
through the looped links of the franks, lift the rod on the
conveyor and hang the rod onto a rack that moved through the
oven. With the cooked production, two workers were involved
in the processing where each of the workers had to remove a rod
of cooked franks moving it to the next bin. The working
positions of these two processes had wet floors and workers
could not keep shifting from one area to another.
The NIOSH health hazard specialists observed the workers
hanging and removing the franks in both the cooked and raw
production areas within the farm. They recorded the lift
frequencies of the workers, working heights, and made
measurements to document the tasks of the workers. All this

was done with use of digital cameras that was used for
referencing in their discussions and analysis (Jessica & John ,
2007).
The interviews were conducted from both the former and
current employees of Foster farms. The former employees
included the employees that were involved in tasks of the frank
hanging but they were currently performing other tasks in other
divisions within the organization. The NIOSH specialists
conducted the interviews from a group of 12 employees during
their visit. They were asked to provide their age details, their
duration of employment within Foster farms, their job title, the
hours they worked per week, and whether they experienced
musculoskeletal pain over the past years during performance of
their duties. If they had experienced pain in the past year, they
were asked details of where specifically did they experience the
pain on their body, and the tasks that were associated with the
specific pain (Jessica & John , 2007). Employees from the
interview were also given an opportunity to describe any health
hazard that they experienced in the work environment that
would help the team to come up with more favorable solutions
in helping the company manage health hazard problems within
the firm (Jessica & John , 2007).
On the platform of the work areas in both the raw and cooked
production, the NIOSH investigators reviewed that there were
platforms that had been designed and built for the workers to
stand on during their production. They were ranging from 6” to
9” tall. The platform that was used in the cooked production
during their visit was 19” wide, 17” deep and 6” tall while in
the raw production the platform was 27” deep, 36” wide and 9”
tall. With the use of digital cameras to record the performance
of the workers, the NIOSH investigators used the RNLE, in
categorizing the risk of lifting tasks in both production areas of
the firm. Given certain lifting conditions and the weight of the
material, they were able to get the ratio of the weight handled
by the workers within the farm. The ratio would show the safest
weight that would be handled by the workers. Thus, more

weight would result to more risk exposure on the back injury to
most of the workers within the firm. From the measurements
using the RWL model an l> 3.0 would definitely result to back
injury to the workers and thus their main aim in their evaluation
was to find the simplest way that would not result to injury if
the workers. Their interpretation of the LI was to show how the
back injuries increase with the L1 increasing (Jessica & John ,
2007).
From their cross sectional study of 204 workers working in the
frank hangs, the prevalence of reported back injuries had
increased overtime from the year 2004. Two reach distances
were used in the RNLE calculations using both the compact and
non-compact lifts. The compact lift was considered the best-
case scenario where the workers in the farm held the rods of
frank close to their bodies in lifting the lift. On the non-
compact lift, this was considered the worst-case scenario by the
investigators where the workers almost reached the arm’s length
from their bodies when performing the lifting tasks within the
farm (Jessica & John , 2007).
Results of the evaluation
The RNLE approach was used to evaluate the frank loading job
in the raw production process, as it comprised of repetitive
lifting. From the results of the measurements, the non-compact
lifts that were considered the worst-case scenario for the
workers had L1s almost twice those of the best-case scenario of
the compact lifts. This showed that the workers that were in the
division experienced more back injuries and the firm needed to
do something about the situation. While using the 9” platform,
it was seen that this had improved the condition slightly
reducing the risk that was exposed to the workers. A majority of
the lifts that were calculated in the farm and L1s that were
greater than 1.0 placing the employees at a higher risk of back
injuries (Jessica & John , 2007).
In the cooked production, the NIOSH investigators also used the
RNLE approach in the evaluation of the unloading job of the
tasks that involved repetitive lifting. The platform involved in

this case was the 6” that was smaller compared to that used in
the raw production that allowed the workers to stand in
different areas of the platform. From the observation, the
investigators revealed that the workers straddled on the
platform, only placed one foot, or stood behind the lifts to
unload the different materials. Similar to that of the raw
production, the non-compact lifts had almost twice L1 to that of
the compact lifts that was taken as the best-case scenario. Using
the platform of 6” did not in any way improve the conditions of
the workers, as was the case in the raw production. Majority of
the workers in this scenario at a rate of 87.5 % had L1 of more
than 1.0 meaning that they were at risk of experiencing low
back injuries (Jessica & John , 2007).
Discussion
The Foster farm had experienced work related injuries and
illnesses between the year 2003 and 2006. The management of
the farm had been reluctant in improving the working conditions
of the workers. Four workers in the job title of hang franks had
reported serious injuries within the farm in three consecutive
years from year 2003 to 2005 with the highest number of 2 in
year 2005. Two of the reported injuries involved wrist pains and
shoulder pains with a restriction period of 5 to 12 days.
Conclusion
Form the health hazard evaluation report of Foster farm; I
managed to learn a lot on the process that is involved in
investigating the health hazard problems in a particular farm. I
also learned about the various methods that are used in
measuring the risk exposed to different workers in the farm. I
learnt about the various ways that an organization would utilize
to minimize the risk that is exposed to workers in different work
environments. The workers in the raw and cooked production
were exposed to concurrent risk factors including: heavy lifts,
repetitive motions, awkward postures that resulted to shoulder
and back pains.

Recommendation
The following recommendation would be relevant in improving
the working conditions of workers in the Foster farm in both the
raw and cooked production areas. The most preferred method in
ergo economics is providing engineering controls that redesign
the job tasks and thus reducing the risk that is exposed to the
employees. Administrative controls and policies designed to
reduce the exposure to risks in health hazard conditions within
the organization. Training of workers in ergonomics is also
essential in reducing risk in work environments.
On the engineering part, the farm should lower the conveyor
belt in both the raw and cooked production areas so that it
becomes easier for all workers in the firm. This will highly
reduce the overhead reaching and removing of the rods from the
racks reducing shoulder injuries in the process. The farm should
also raise the floor on which the workers stand in both
production areas. The platforms should also be at least 9” as
this was seen to be more preferable to the workers reducing the
shoulder injuries. There should also be rotation of workers to
avoid fatigue during the performance of the tasks. The
management together with the employees has a role to play in
the ergonomics of the farm. Training is essential to all parties
involved to enhance skills in material handling when lifting
among other health hazard conditions in the farm (Jessica &
John ).
References
Jessica , R., & John , G. (2007). Ergonomic Evaluation of Frank
Hangers at a Turkey Processing Plant. Health Hazard Evaluation
Report, 1-32.
1
5

BOS 3701, Industrial Ergonomics 1 Course Description .docx

BOS 3701, Industrial Ergonomics 1 Course Description .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to BOS 3701, Industrial Ergonomics 1 Course Description .docx

Similar to BOS 3701, Industrial Ergonomics 1 Course Description .docx (20)

More from hartrobert670

More from hartrobert670 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

BOS 3701, Industrial Ergonomics 1 Course Description .docx