TagsHuman Factors And Ergonomics Anatomical Terms Of Motion Occupational Safety And Health Employment Libraries
File Size628.6 KB
Total Pages24
Document Text Contents
Page 1


Page 2

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • •

This booklet was prepared by Judy Village,
Program Leader, Ergonomics, British
Columbia Research Corporation, with the
assistance of the staff at the Vancouver Public
Library (VPL).

Preparation and distribution of the booklet was
funded by Labour Canada, Technology Impact

This project was an effort of a Joint
Management–Union committee, composed of
VPL Management and Canadian Union of
Public Employees (CUPE) Loc. 391
representatives. The project became a success
due to many hours of hard work by staff
members at the VPL and their vision of
improved library design.

Special thanks go to Brian Campbell, Systems
and Planning Director, John Cull, Head
Librarian, Fine Arts & Music Division, and
Heather Inglis, Representative of CUPE Loc.


Page 12


The minimum aisle width to accommodate a
book truck and a person passing alongside is
137 cm (4'6"). To accommodate a person
crouching and another walking past, the
minimum width is 147 cm (4'10").

For shelvers to work safely and efficiently,
and to accommodate the smallest workers,

the maximum recommended height for
repetitive reaches is 163 cm (64 "). If
shelves are higher than this, it is
recommended that the volume of books on
the top shelves be kept to a minimum. The
lowest shelf for a squatting adult should be a
minimum of 30 cm (12") from the ground.

A consistent coding system should be used
throughout the library, preferably using colour
and a back-up coding system, to provide:

directional information about the location
of divisions and facilities

division-specific information to locate
areas of interest

material-specific information to
distinguish from others (classification

Provision for visual aides (signs and labels) on
shelves will help reduce searching time for

should be consulted prior to designing such a
coding system. For example, the use of
colour (as opposed to black and white) has
been shown to reduce searching time from
45-70 per cent. Care should be taken,
however, not to use too many colours and to
make sure the contrast is high. Optimal
character heights, widths and fonts should be
chosen for readability at a maximum
distance of 76 cm (30"). For example, letter
height at a 71 cm viewing distance (28")
should be 0.3 cm (0.1") for non-critical
information and 0.6 cm (0.2") for critical
information. The location of visual aides
(height and frequency) must also be
investigated. Ideally, visual information
should be within the optimal range of eye
motion (122 cm-178 cm, 48-70").

For public-access areas, where the
activities shown in the diagram to
the right are meant lo occur, the
minimum aisle widths are given.
These are based on guidelines
found in reference 2. The use of a
small book truck or cart is
recommended in shelving
procedures, to minimize the
carrying and handling of books
and allow for two-handed shelving
procedures. Closed slack areas
may be designed to be narrower,
since the public will not require

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • •







Page 13

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • •





Equipment Guidelines

These guidelines were developed based on
analysis of lifting tasks with reference to the
NIOSH guidelines on manual lifting.

When measuring the lifting stresses involved in
the handling of a tote box (21" wide) of books
from floor to table height, the following ideal
and maximum loads will help minimize back
injuries due to heavy lifting.




Lifting floor to table
height 4 X per hour to a
maximum of 15 lifts

10.9 kg
(24 lbs)

32 kg
(71 lbs)

Lifting floor to table
height 1 X per hour

13.6 kg
(30 lbs)

41 kg
(90 lbs)

Workers who routinely lift these loads more
frequently or lift more than the ideal load should
use a lifting device such as the one shown.

Wheels of a large diameter, hard
composition, a crowned tread, and good
bearings to reduce pushing forces

Two high-centre wheels, to increase
turning capacity

Handles of appropriate dimensions and
height; for horizontal handles; a height of
91-112 cm (36-44") with 20 cm (8") of
horizontal extension is recommended;
vertical handles may be used for narrow
trucks (truck width less than 51 cm or
20"). They can accommodate a variety of
worker heights.

Book trucks are a fundamental piece of
equipment used in all library settings. Well-
designed trucks can relieve a worker from
physical lifting and carrying of loads. If not
well designed, book trucks can contribute to
heavy lifting. Trucks must be light to push,
maneuverable, have adjustable handholds for
different worker heights, and preferably have
some adjustability in the height of the books,
or ability to rotate lower shelves to the height
of the upper shelf. A library may choose to
have different trucks for different purposes.
Some materials handling tasks can be better
performed using light-weight, highly-
maneuverable carts. Specific design features


Page 23


1. Equipment being evaluated: _________________________________________________

2. Length of time spent using equipment: ________________________________________

3. Location of evaluation trial: _________________________________________________

4. Please rank how simplicity of the use of the equipment, on the scale of 0 to 10

(0 being “very difficult) and 10 being “very easy”)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Very difficult Somewhat difficult Neither easy nor difficult Somewhat easy Very easy

5. What made the equipment easy or difficult to use? _______________________________

6. How significantly did the equipment help reduce physical stress?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Much more stress Somewhat more stress Neither more nor less stress Somewhat less stress Much less stress

7. What made the equipment more or less physically stressful? _______________________

8. Please rank the safety of the new equipment on a scale from 0 to 10.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Very unsafe Somewhat unsafe Neither safe or unsafe Somewhat safe Very safe

9. What made the equipment safe/unsafe to use? __________________________________

10. Please give an overall ranking of the new equipment on a scale from 0 to 10.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Poor Fair Neither good nor poor Good Excellent

11. What did you like about the equipment? _______________________________________

12. What did you dislike about the equipment? _____________________________________

13. Would you recommend that the library invest in this equipment? ___________________

Thank you for evaluating this equipment and sharing your opinion with us. If you would like to

discuss this further, please print your name below _____________________________________


Page 24


This form should be filled out at the end of each day of work, using the alternative job method, and at
the end of an equal number of days, using the traditional job methods. Results will be compiled across
several workers and compared. It is important to keep track of the measurable work flow, as well as
subjective feelings about the work.

1. What job method alteration is being evaluated? __________________________________________

2. Period of evaluation: _______________________________________________________________

3. Measurable work output (e.g., number of book trucks shelved and time per book truck): __________


4. How significant was the reduction in physical stress due to the alteration in methods?

(Please circle on scale)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Much more stress Somewhat more stress Neither more nor less stress Somewhat less stress Much less stress

5. What made the alteration in work methods less or more stressful? ____________________________


6. Please rank the pain, discomfort, or fatigue in the hands, wrists and arms felt at the end of the day.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Severe Intense Moderate Slight Non-existent

7. What did you like about the change in work methods? _____________________________________

8. What did you dislike about the change in work methods? __________________________________

9. Please rank how strongly you would recommend that the library adopt this altered method. (RANK

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Do not recommend Indifferent Strongly Recommend

Thank you for evaluating this work method alteration and sharing your opinion with us.


Similer Documents