Critical Success Factors in the Development and Implementation of Special Purpose Industrial Tools: An Ergonomic Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The variety of different manual tasks performed in industry is infinite. In many circumstances, these tasks are carried out under difficult conditions with ergonomic concerns about the postures, force or repetitions involved. These tasks are sometimes performed using a dedicated special purpose tool, often developed by the workers themselves. These special tools are generally task-oriented only, with very little consideration of basic ergonomics. Therefore, in many cases, the design of a new or improved special purpose tool is one of the solutions that could enhance the ergonomics of the performed task. However, developing and implementing a new or improved tool is not an easy assignment and the ergonomist could face many unexpected challenges and pitfalls. This paper discusses the pitfalls that could compromise these ergonomic interventions and the critical success factors that should be considered. The main difficulties that could arise during such a project include the poor understanding of the user's needs, the hidden constraints related to the requirements of the task to be performed, the construction and testing of the prototypes, and the users’ resistance to change. Critical success factors related to worker participation, needs and constraints analysis, and the implementation of prototypes, are presented. Examples from industrial projects involving the development and implementation of special purpose tools are used to support the discussion. This paper should provide some guidance in this particular field of applied ergonomics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it