Investigation of Human Factors Michael Stephen Fitzgibbins Central Queensland University AINV20008 (HT1, 2017) Introduction: Accidents are spontaneous, and that is the thing that allows them the opportunity to attain the element of surprise and leave devastation in their wake. The element of surprise can allow the accidents to be both overwhelming and terrifying at the same time. There are thousands of external and internal factors associated with our daily lives that have the potential to cause accidents of all scales and magnitudes, in both personal and professional settings. While the personal environment can be modified to avoid a lot of these accidents, the workplace environment however, is not always in our control to modify. Therefore, workplaces are magnets of different magnitudes of accidents which potentially harm the staff and the workplace properties (Hinze, Thurman and Wehle 2013). However, there are some strategic actions that can be taken in order to minimise the risk and aftermath of a potentially harmful accident occurring in the workplace. The theories of human factors can be utilised in this scenario, and can help in articulating the best response for such incidences. Human factors can be defined as the scientific evaluation study that judges the human interaction in accordance with the other elements of the workplace system. This system functions by aligning the theoretical understanding and principles with the practical data and designs to articulate the best set of responses to manage an accident (Kniesner and Leeth 2012). This report will attempt to evaluate a selected accidental event occurring in a workplace and orchestrate a set of strategic response actions with the help of a human factor study. Description of the event: As mentioned above there can be various external and internal factors that have the potential for causing destructive accidents. The risk of such factors is multiplied in areas around the workplace There can be a height risk, chemical exposure risks, electrical shock risk, lock out risks a vast array more. All of these risks have the potential to harm the employees and cause some permanent damage to the physical or cognitive health of the employees. The workplace hazard opted out as a case scenario for this assignment is a construction site, where an employee has fallen from three stories high and has sustained serious injuries. The employee was not using, and had not been provided with any fall protection equipment and when he fell, sustained a fractured rib and broken right leg, which was accompanied by a bleed injury to his head. This unfortunate situation has the entire staff terrified of resuming work, and business operation has stalled post-accident (Levine, Toffel and Johnson 2012). Significant components of the system: The workplace system components associated with this case scenario will be the three overlapping sections of any organizational structure. Any workplace structure begins with the organizational lay out, it will take into account the workstation design, the facility layout and configuration. Along with that, this systems component will also include variables such as the display, controlling mechanism, feedback and warning system. This sector will also entertain the ambiance or environment where the staff work. This systems component is concerned with the noise, lighting, vibration, temperature and the chemical exposure of the workplace (Weaver et al. 2012). The second component of the organizational structure is the management of the workplace. This section is concerned with the organisational decisions, such as distribution of workload, the workplace policies and guidelines that employees follow (Salvendy 2012). The job design is also an integral element of this component and includes the job responsibility planning, delegation of shifts, task management and business process management. Management related communication and information management is also an integral part of this section. The last system component related to this event is the staff response to the workplace organisation. This system is associates itself with the knowledge of staff regarding their roles on and around the construction sites, staff perception associated with safety precautions, and also other demographics such as age, body shape, body strength and personal stress that relate to this accident. In addition to this, the health, fatigue levels and general attention of the staff to the work at hand can also be important factors associated with the entire construction operation. It can be due to the health-related imbalance or the fatigued and/or stressed condition of the staff member that caused the fall and sustain the injuries. Similarly, his age, health related restrictions and decreasing sight can also be one of the prime reasons that lead to the fall (McCaughey et al. 2013). (Figure source: Hinze, Thurman and Wehle 2013) Potential human factor issues: The human factor components of the work place systems allow for the construction of workplace safety measures that will help developing the safest and most comfortable working conditions for the workplace. The theory of human factors is associated with physical and cognitive ergonomics of the employees and the organisational ergonomics of the workplace. Elements from these three key concepts allow for not only the best and the safest workplace environment for the staff but also allows for the perfect investigation of the workplace accidents or hazardous situations (McCaughey et al. 2013). The component of the physical ergonomics is concerned with the design and characteristics of the workplace products and machinery along with the major design outlet of the workplace where the staff performs all the duties and job responsibilities. A workplace must ensure that the physical ergonomical safety of the workplace is taken care of and the staff are safe working in that environment (Levine, Toffel and Johnson 2012). The cognitive ergonomics can be described as ensuring excellent mental health and wellbeing of the workplace and ensuring that the job responsibilities or the workplace environment to affect the healthy cognitive responses of the staff. The last theoretical component is the organizational ergonomics which is associated with the socio technical aspects of the organisational structures, such as workplace design, shift timing patterns, participatory design and the workplace environmental dynamics. Standardising all these factors in accordance with the workplace safety strategies will allow for the construction of the workplace environment that will be the safest, for the physical and mental health of the staff (Lehto and Landry 2012). In this case scenario, there are a number of issues with the physical and organisational ergonomics of the company. Considering the physical ergonomics of this situation, the construction site might not have had adequate fall protection mechanism that would have supressed the chance of a fall. Furthermore, in the physical ergonomic sector the safety and welfare might not have been taken into account while designing the layout for the construction site (Kniesner and Leeth 2012). In case of the cognitive ergonomics, the expectation and the perception of the staff regarding the job responsibilities and the precautionary measures to be undertaken in this scenario. Furthermore, the level of consciousness and the stress can also play a huge part in this situation (Kitaneh and Hamdan 2012). The third and final human factor component is the organizational ergonomics, were the faulty staffing arrangements, night shifts, long hours, early start times and heavy workloads can all be reasons the employee fell and sustained the injuries. The workplace environment and managerial discrimination could be the reason behind the fall and the investigation should take into consideration these components when investigating the incident (Hinze, Thurman and Wehle 2013). Human Factors Methods for investigation: The human factor approach to accident investigation does not just have theoretical principles and a set of well-articulated guidelines, but it also has a number of different tools and technological assistive methods to help the investigation process, and to arrive at a reasonable and scientific conclusion (Hassall and Xiao 2015). The step that must be taken to investigate the fall must begin with scouting the area where the fall was sustained and investigate the area for any signs that lead to the underlying cause(s) behind it. The workplace strategy needs to be evaluated as well to ensure that will allow the assessor to recognise whether or not there are safety precautions in place for the construction site (Hale, Borys and Adams 2015). The hydro-dynamics of the construction site also needs to be measured to ascertain the structural balance of the site and the materials that are being used, to ensure that the fall was not due to faulty foundational structure of the work site. The tools that can be used are questionnaires, hydraulics measurement tool, barricade markers, warning tags or padlocks, camera or video recorder, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), voice recorder, measuring tape, flashlight, sample containers, etc. (Fernández-Muñiz, Montes-Peón and Vázquez-Ordás 2012). Strengths and weaknesses of these tools and methods: All of the tools that are available for fall incident investigation are made up of the principles of human factor approach to workplace safety and employee welfare. All of these tools have their own different strengths and weaknesses. For instance, taking into consideration the questionnaires that will be prepared to survey the employee response to the incident, they will elicit important information about the construction site safety and the working ambiance of the organization (Feng 2013). Moreover, this step will also elicit important information about any kind of safety policies and protective principles that are/were followed in the workplace. Interviewing the staff will also elicit vital information about the recruitment policy in place for the organization and whether the age and health conditions of the staff were taken into consideration while recruiting the staff. Moreover, the professional relationship of the staff with the managerial hierarchy of the workplace can also be reviewed to ascertain whether the staff were overloaded with work and whether or not they were doing extensive and excessive shift loads (Dul et al. 2012). The victim (employee) of the accident will also be questioned to ascertain whether he was conscious at the time of the fall and whether he had any health-related restrictions that could have aided in his fall in any manner. The downside to this particular tool is the fact that the response of the employees can be biased and have the potential to affect the neutrality of the study and also the verdict. The same restrictions are going to be in place when interviewing the managerial hierarchy and their biased opinion will drag down the possibility of the verdict of the intervention being very neutral (Dėjus and Antuchevičienė 2013). The hydraulics assessment tool will also be beneficial in assessing the structural foundation of the construction site and will help in determining whether the construction site was safe to work on and will also assess the quality of any precautionary mechanism like guard rails, fall restrains and fall arrests in place on the worksite. This device will deduce the cause of the fall and will generate the reason why these precautionary mechanisms malfunctioned. The downside to these tools is that it is expensive and will be difficult to operate without trained personnel (Conchie 2013). The remaining standard investigation tools, such as barricade markers and yellow tapes will be beneficial in maintaining the security of the worksite and the order of the entire workplace. The downside to these tools is very insignificant but the extra expense can be a drawback (Colley, Lincolne and Neal 2013). Conclusion: It can be said that there are many reasons why a workplace may sustain an accident of minor or major magnitudes, unfortunately for a construction site accidents are often inevitable. It has to be considered that accidents are not something that can be completely stopped from occurring, however some safety precautions should be taken to ensure that the frequency of these accidents are minimal and the damage that is done is as low as possible (Carayon, Alyousef and Xie 2012). The injuries that the victims sustain cannot be overlooked and the responsibility of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the staff lies in the hands of the management, and all worksite employees. Therefore, incorporating the human factor tools into the workplace can help in constructing a workplace environment that is safer for the employees and can help avoid any accidents that have the potential to harm the employees in any circumstances (Basil et al. 2013). Mind Map: Bibliography: Basil, M., Basil, D., Deshpande, S. and Lavack, A.M., 2013. Applying the Extended Parallel Process Model to workplace safety messages. Health communication, 28(1), pp.29-39. Carayon, P., Alyousef, B. and Xie, A., 2012. Human factors and ergonomics in health care. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Fourth Edition, pp.1574-1595. Colley, S.K., Lincolne, J. and Neal, A., 2013. An examination of the relationship amongst profiles of perceived organizational values, safety climate and safety outcomes. Safety Science, 51(1), pp.69-76. Conchie, S.M., 2013. Transformational leadership, intrinsic motivation, and trust: a moderated-mediated model of workplace safety. Journal of occupational health psychology, 18(2), p.198. Dėjus, T. and Antuchevičienė, J., 2013. Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(5), pp.728-737. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W.S., Wilson, J.R. and van der Doelen, B., 2012. A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), pp.377-395. Feng, Y., 2013. Effect of safety investments on safety performance of building projects. Safety science, 59, pp.28-45. Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M. and Vázquez-Ordás, C.J., 2012. Safety climate in OHSAS 18001-certified organisations: Antecedents and consequences of safety behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, pp.745-758. Hale, A., Borys, D. and Adams, M., 2015. Safety regulation: the lessons of workplace safety rule management for managing the regulatory burden. Safety science, 71, pp.112-122. Hassall, M. and Xiao, T., 2015. Human Factors and Ergonomics. Hinze, J., Thurman, S. and Wehle, A., 2013. Leading indicators of construction safety performance. Safety Science, 51(1), pp.23-28. Kitaneh, M. and Hamdan, M., 2012. Workplace violence against physicians and nurses in Palestinian public hospitals: a cross-sectional study. BMC health services research, 12(1), p.469. Kniesner, T.J. and Leeth, J.D., 2012. Simulating workplace safety policy (Vol. 6). Springer Science & Business Media. Lehto, M.R. and Landry, S.J., 2012. Introduction to human factors and ergonomics for engineers. Crc Press. Levine, D.I., Toffel, M.W. and Johnson, M.S., 2012. Randomized government safety inspections reduce worker injuries with no detectable job loss. Science, 336(6083), pp.907-911. McCaughey, D., DelliFraine, J.L., McGhan, G. and Bruning, N.S., 2013. The negative effects of workplace injury and illness on workplace safety climate perceptions and health care worker outcomes. Safety science, 51(1), pp.138-147. Salvendy, G., 2012. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. John Wiley & Sons. Weaver, M.D., Wang, H.E., Fairbanks, R.J. and Patterson, D., 2012. The association between EMS workplace safety culture and safety outcomes. Prehospital emergency care, 16(1), pp.43-52. Worksafebc.com. (2017). WorkSafeBC. [online] Available at: https://www.worksafebc.com [Accessed 18 May 2017]. Zelnick, J.R., Gibbs, A., Loveday, M., Padayatchi, N. and O'donnell, M.R., 2013. Health-care workers’ perspectives on workplace safety, infection control, and drug-resistant tuberculosis in a high-burden HIV setting. Journal of public health policy, 34(3), pp.388-402.