There are three primary reasons upon which any organization makes a decision:

• To make money
• To avoid consequences, such as a fine for not acting in a particular manner
• To do the "right thing"

Fortunately for those advocating ergonomics in their organizations or to their clients, the application of ergonomics principles meets all three of these criteria. Wisely applied, ergonomics will make money by minimizing the costs and consequences of injuries, lost productivity, poor quality and craftsmanship, etc. Applying ergonomics will also protect you from any regulatory consequences being enforced by your governing bodies. In the United States, for example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is actively pursuing citations for related injuries using the General Duty Clause (section 5.a.1 of the OSHAct). And, the economic benefits aside, applying ergonomics principles is "the right thing to do," since it will likely improve the quality of life for all involved. Simply put, applying ergonomics priniciples is good business strategy.

So why is it sometimes difficult to "sell" ergonomics in your organization, or to your clients? Probably because you're having trouble locating and documenting bottom-line business data to support your efforts. That's where ErgoBuyer™ will help. We'll publish articles summarizing ergonomics success stories and provide information designed to help you be an effective advocate for ergonomics. ErgoBuyer™ will also be the preeminent Buyer's Guide for ergonomics products and services. We look forward to your patronage, and your feedback.

In highly competitive business environments, deciding whether to aggressively pursue an ergonomics program can raise many valid questions.

Will it really help make the company more profitable? Will it really reduce the costs and consequences of related injuries? Will it improve our production rates? Will it improve our product quality and reliability? Will it help us avoid citations from government regulators? Is ergonomics good bottom-line business strategy? Is "ergonomics" just another buzz-word?

When Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems (LMTAS) began developing their internal ergonomics program, they had all the same questions. In the end, the initial catalyst to start the program, all other issues aside, was a reaction to the high costs related to cumulative trauma type injuries and disorders. It was simple: they needed to reduce those costs and they knew that applying ergonomics principles would help. As they began their work, however, they soon uncovered other ergonomic concerns and real opportunities for improvement. They had a high percentage of workmanship and quality defects. Medical case management procedures were unclear. Employees were not coming back to work as quickly as they could. Many manufacturing processes were difficult both physically and mentally. In short, they found that there were a lot more cost savings at their fingertips than just those measured in health and safety.

By reviewing their own process data, collecting and applying ergonomics literature and data, tapping the resources available through ErgoWeb®, attending conferences and expositions, and working with experts within and outside their organization, LMTAS discovered substantial bottom-line savings.

Familiarizing themselves with the emerging ergonomics marketplace proved that there had been significant improvements in hand tools and material handling equipment since their current manufacturing processes were first designed. Implementing new hardware and engineering controls where appropriate provided some immediate benefits.

Early in the effort they realized that the ergonomics program would have to be integrated with other company processes. At the time, LMTAS had a suggestion program in place, and they were in the middle of a continuous improvement effort, analyzing reasons for defects, utilizing statistical methods to find ways of improving processes, and so forth. It soon became clear that they were neglecting to ask the most knowledgeable resource - the employees conducting the work. Opening these gates revealed many valuable ideas that had remained dormant to that point. Among their first discoveries, then, was that “People are our most important asset!” This is a typical company slogan, but how many really capitalize on it?

LMTAS also found that the ergonomics program would directly effect the medical processes. At the time, health care providers didn’t know what the physical demands of the work entailed, and Doctors were reluctant to send people back to work. Workers who were kept from work for long periods of time were losing motivation to return, and skills would deteriorate. The solution turned out to be a new approach to medical management, including early detection, better injury management, and better return-to-work strategies.

So, through the process of discovery, LMTAS was implementing many of the elements of an effective ergonomics program. But as is always the case for a competitive business, it became necessary to validate that the ergonomics improvements were paying off. Doing so raised the interest of the "bean counters," and also revealed some surprising results. Although the ergonomics effort began as a reaction to high costs associated with workers’ compensation costs, they soon found that the largest potential payoff lay in improvements in product and process quality and productivity. How the work was designed directly affected these measures, as well as contributing to the health and safety costs.

It's not often that a company is willing to share bottom-line competitive advantage information with the public - and therefore its competitors. I therefore thank Bob Getty, and his employer, Lockheed Martin Corporation for allowing us to publish the following overview of their experience implementing an ergonomics program - yet another LMTAS success.