Integrating ergonomics knowledge into business-driven design projects: The shaping of resource constraints in engineering consultancy

3.1 Case selection

Both the overall case unit and the embedded cases were chosen on the basis of “purposive sampling” [25], where the selection criteria were information-oriented, since we searched “typical” cases: For the overall case company, we wanted to find an engineering consultancy firm with in house ergonomic competencies. For the embedded case units, we looked for projects where ergonomic knowledge had been involved in the design process or were about to be integrated. The selected case units were 1) the design of a sterile processing plant, 2) a conceptual design plan for a seafood company, and 3) the design of a hospital. See Table 2 for case characteristics.

3.2 Data collection

3.3 Data analysis

The data analysis was based on an inductive approach [28]. Based on several close readings of the transcribed interviews and field notes, the first author systematically coded the data material in categories. The coding process was inspired by the “constant comparative method [29], where coding and analysis processes are combined to allow categories/theory to emerge from data. In this process, all categories were labeled on the basis of interpretations of data material, and in accordance with Thomas [28], all contradictory point of views or findings were included in the categories. Through constantly comparing incidents and rearranging the different categories, new and more saturated categories emerged. Discussions and dialogues between all three authors supported the coding and analysis process, and memos were kept in a separate file to grasp different ideasand categories.

4.1 Maximizing project revenue

Maximizing the revenue from projects was a major barrier for the ergonomists’ involvement in the projects. This was one of the focus points in the consultancy’s performance measurement system. An identified condition was that the engineering designers had the role of being Project Managers (PM) and salespersons. In this role, they were in charge of the design projects, which included staffing, resource allocation and balancing budgets. Both engineering designers and ergonomists frequently reported that financial aspects governed whether or not ergonomists were involved in projects.

Engineering Designer (ED):“In projects where we are extremely pressed, we might consider whether to spend a day on an ergonomist or whether the financial aspects weighed more ...  ”

Ergonomist: “We really want to be a part of projects, but even though a wish exists to include ergonomics, it is the last area that receives any resources. As a result, financial aspects often govern whether we are involved or not.”

Ergonomist: “We [the ergonomists] are looked upon as tax ...   and many [project managers] think: ‘This time I will not pay tax’.”

Once a project had been initiated, the engineering designers’ focus was to deliver the product agreed upon to the client, and at the same time minimize the costs in order to maximize the project revenue.

PM: “There is one total budget and this [allocating more money for ergonomics] means that there is less money for something else.  ...   It is the usual fight in all projects. If I was an ergonomist, I would argue differently and say that ergonomics is the most important aspect in the project, and that’s the way it should be ...  ”

ED: “There is always a time discussion in the house [in the engineering consultancy firm]. I might say, ‘We have to make this tender, do you want to join?’ ‘Yes, I need 25 hours’.  ...   Who should pay for that? Then, the whole discussion starts and somebody will say: ‘That’s a burden on my project. Maybe we should just do it alone, because then I get a better factor [revenue of the project)’. These factor discussions are probably not promoting this [the integration of ergonomics in design projects].”

The ergonomists typically experienced a fight to gain resources and used rhetoric like: “The allocated hours were very limited”; “there are many small kings who do not want to give away hours”; and “they fought until blood was running in the streets”. Many of the ergonomists also experienced time pressure when involved in design tasks. The experienced time pressure was due to the limited amount of resources for ergonomic counseling (time to visit the workspace, talk to users etc.); short deadlines tor the design tasks; and ergonomists being engaged in several other traditional (and smaller) ergonomic tasks at the same time. Only one ergonomist did not talk about resource allocation as a constraint in the project he had been involved in. In the case of the seafood project, he felt that ergonomics had been prioritized in line with the different engineering areas of expertise. A special circumstance in this project was that the client had agreed to allocate extra money for an ergonomist to participate in the design job.

4.2 Payment for ergonomic services

A dilemma revolved around whether to include the ergonomic services in the overall price of projects or to sell it as an extra service. Including ergonomic services in the overall price of projects was not seen as a suitable strategy. If the overall price of projects was increased, it would be harder to compete on price. Both ergonomists and engineering designers reported that the best option would be to sell ergonomics as an extra service; however, this solution was not without challenges. In Denmark, all new buildings and production facilities must comply with existing OHS legislation. This rule constituted a dilemma in the consultancy firm, because all design tasks the consultancy firm engaged in had to live up to OHS legislation – with or without the involvement of ergonomists. Both ergonomists and engineering designers reported that they found it difficult to meet this challenge.

Business unit manager: “We cannot just add it [OHS] to the bill, because we are already saying we are doing that, just without the involvement of ergonomists.”

Ergonomic manager: “Some clients will say: ‘Well, you have to live up to the OHS legislation in the services you deliver. What do we get extra?”’

4.3 The value of ergonomic services

The integration of ergonomic services was constrained by the engineering designers’ doubt about the cost benefits of the ergonomic contributions and the ergonomists’ reluctance to go into cost benefit discussions. Typically, the engineering designers were positive about the potentials of involving ergonomists in design, due to the possibility to improve the quality of projects. At the same time, however, they were unsure about the cost benefits of the ergonomists’ contributions in relation to how and to what extent the ergonomists should be involved. Therefore, they would like the ergonomists to present cost benefit arguments. Many also found that involving ergonomists implied increased complexity of the design projects.

PM: “I don’t think that there is any area where it [the involvement of ergonomists] hasn’t worked well. But I sometimes think that we spend too much money on it.”

ED: “All I am saying is that maybe one should look at what is gained on the bottom line for the money spent on ergonomics. Would it have been okay with less?... It costs extra to say, ‘No, we have to move this.’ Does it really create better working conditions?”

PM: “Ergonomists should be much more specific on why they are worth the price. They are a little scared of money.”

From the perspective of the ergonomists, the benefits of integrating ergonomics into designs seemed more straightforward. The ergonomists believed that their services could contribute to better workplaces for the end users. However, they were reluctant to go into the financial aspects of integrating ergonomics in design. Several ergonomists acknowledged that the ergonomists in general are not good enough at accounting for the cost benefits of integrating ergonomic services into design projects.

Ergonomist: “We think that we can contribute with something that can improve the buildings for the people who are going to use them. For years, we have been trying to make our colleagues understand this.  ...   The main reason they haven’t is that we [the ergonomists] are not communicating properly. We are not accurate enough when it comes to addressing the value of integrating ergonomics in design.  ...   We are still not good enough at arguing for what we can, how to include it, and the difference it makes. Is it a good investment – and why?”

4.4 The role of the client

The ergonomic ambitions of the client and their willingness to pay for ergonomic services constituted a barrier and a facilitator for involving ergonomics in design tasks. Participants reported that clients determined whether or not resources were allocated for ergonomics. For ergonomics to be involved in projects, it was necessary that ergonomics was addressed either in the sales material provided by the client, during the initial dialogues with the client, or once the project had been initiated. The general position among the engineering designers was that it was up to the individual client whether or not to involve an ergonomist in the design projects.

PM: “It is up to the client whether he wants to include it [ergonomics] or not.”

Many participants, both ergonomists and engineering designers, found it problematic that the engineering designers had the main contact with the client. One possible pitfall was that the engineering designer would forget to include ergonomic aspects in the sales process. Another pitfall was if the engineering designers did not have the competencies to sell the ergonomic services.

PM: “The overall challenge is to sell the ergonomic services and to remember to include ergonomics in sales.”

PM: “It is important that the person who is in contact with the client can make clear to the client what he gets and what he doesn’t get. Right now, the building people [the engineering designers] don’t know much about ergonomics, and they are the ones handling sales and the dialogueswith the client.”

4.5 Coping and forming strategies to overcome resource constraints

The ergonomists’ efforts to get resources for engaging in design activities were in practice largely dependent on the individual ergonomist. Strategic or planned efforts turned out to have minor effect, as they were not formally evaluated or followed through. A formal staffing procedure in the engineering consultancy was introduced to ensure cross-disciplinary work. According to the ergonomist involved in the staffing procedure, however, the initiative only had minor effect and did not solve the experienced resource constraints. In the ergonomic department, a growth plan for “integration of ergonomic knowledge in design” was developed and approved by the CEO. Subsequently, however, the ergonomists did not manage to ‘sell’ the plan to prominent design actors, and the initiatives to implement the plan faded out. Finally, we noted that among the ergonomists, there was not much talk about how to make the ergonomic services in design more effective, for instance by introducing uniform ways of addressing ergonomics in design.

In the following, we account for how the individual ergonomist speculated about and developed strategies for acquiring resources both to enter design and become involved in projects.

5.1 Sub-optimization of costs

The design tasks were completed in a client-consultant setting, and in the engineering consultancy we identified a strong focus among the engineering designers on minimizing design costs in order to maximize project revenues. According to Béguin [21] the division between client and consultant can be problematic, especially if the boundaries between the parties are too impervious. Based on the present study, we suggest that with regard to resource allocation and integrating ergonomics in design, the boundaries do appear to be rather problematic. The ‘construction’ of split responsibility between consultancy and client in the design and operation phases respectively leads to a sub-optimization of resources. In the engineering consultancy, this manifests itself in the constant focus on minimizing design costs, which overshadows the focus on optimizing operational costs in theclient organization.

The sub-optimization of resources in design conflicts with the rationale behind integrating ergonomics in design: The benefit of involving ergonomists in design should be seen in a joint consultancy and client organization perspective, because the benefits can be largely linked to increased system performance in the client organization [1–3]. It has previously been found that intra-organizational boundaries can be problematic when attempting to integrate ergonomics in design, for instance in manufacturing companies [30] The challenge for ergonomists engaged in design in a client-consultant setting, however, appears to be to promote ergonomics in a setting where the engineering designers are separated both inter-organizationally and financially from the potential savings of involving ergonomics in design. Engineering consultancies that wish to support integration can consider including ergonomics in the organizations’ strategic goals [2, 31] as well as implementing the strategy, for instance by incorporating ‘the selling of ergonomic services’ as a goal in internal performance measurement systems. We noted that involving ergonomists was regarded more as a project expense rather than an opportunity to increase overall revenue inthe consultancy.

5.2 The key role of engineering designers

The engineering designers were in charge of the design processes, which gave them a key role in relation to integrating ergonomics in design. Their doubt regarding the cost benefits of integrating ergonomic services in design seems to have contributed to shaping the identified resource constraints. A link between key stakeholders perceiving ergonomics to have a low value and scarce resources for ergonomic initiatives has previously been established in the literature [6, 32]. Dul et al. [33] also argue that the integration of ergonomics in design depends on a demand for ergonomics by design actors. We identified that all the engineering designers were positive about the potential of integrating ergonomics in design in the form of increased quality. However, the ergonomists only experienced to a minor degree a ‘pull’ from the engineering designers. Following the argumentation by Dul et al. [33], the “positive expectations” for added value from integrating ergonomics in design obviously did not match the engineering designers’ concerns regarding increased project complexity and increased design costs. It appears that among the engineering designers, OHS is mostly seen as an OHS issue rather than a performance enhancing activity. This aspect has recently been addressed by Theberge and Neumann [34].

In the engineering designers’ key role as project managers, they had the main contact with clients. We hypothesize that this creates challenges for ergonomics being integrated into engineering design practice, because many engineering designers do not have the knowledge or competencies to ‘sell’ ergonomics. One way to promote the ergonomic agenda is to provide ergonomic training for the engineering designers in order to prime them to be able to address the ergonomic agenda in their dialogue with clients.

5.3 Ergonomists lack cost benefit argumentation

The ergonomists were reluctant to go into the cost benefit argumentation and found it hard to argue for the value of ergonomics. One explanation for this finding is that being part of a commercial market was new to the ergonomists, so they needed to learn to how to act in an engineering consultancy’s business-driven design setting. Haslegrave and Holmes [22] argue that design is a commercial discipline where cost benefit argumentation is an incorporated part of the practice. Hence, if ergonomists are not able to meet engineering designers’ requests for cost benefit arguments, this contributes to reinforcing resource constraints. As previously noted, difficulties in arguing for the cost benefits of ergonomics have often been described in the HF literature. According to Tompa et al. [35], the lack of economic evaluations of ergonomic initiatives can partly be ascribed to the ergonomists’ lacking ability to conduct these evaluations. Recently, more evaluation models have been developed, and several evaluations showing the cost savings of ergonomic initiatives have been published [3, 35–37]. Despite the identified difficulties in expressing the cost benefits of ergonomic services, we support previous publications [10, 33], which argue that ergonomists need to be able to enter into dialogue about the cost benefits of ergonomics in order to be able to demonstrate the value of ergonomic services and thus sell ergonomics to main stakeholders. In relation to the identified resource constraints, however, it is a challenge that economic evaluations and cost benefit analyses can be quite time consuming to conduct [35]. In a business-driven setting, it might be difficult to obtain resources to conduct such evaluations. An alternative strategy for ergonomists is to rhetorically link the ergonomic initiatives to system performance goals by using ‘goal hooking’. The underlying idea here is that it might be easier to implement ergonomic initiatives, if system designers can see that it contributes to fulfilling their own goals [6, 31]. It might also diminish the need for cost benefit arguments, if engineering designers can see that ergonomic services contribute to fulfilling theirown goals.

5.4 Competencies to overcome resource constraints

Organizational and strategic initiatives played only a minor role in ergonomists’ coping strategies in relation to the identified resource constraints, as these strategies were either not implemented in practice or not able to overcome the identified constraints. Hence, at the operational level in the engineering consultancy, overcoming resource constraints depended heavily on the individual ergonomist’s ability to act in the setup of engineering design practice. One of the identified strategies among the ergonomists for working around the resource constraints was to identify and pursue the ergonomic ambitions of the individual client. Especially the leading ergonomist in the hospital case was exemplary in his ability to strategize and reflect about how to work around the resource constraints he experienced. Drawing on Broberg and Hermund’s [38] concept of the “political reflective navigator”, we argue that this ergonomist was able to fulfill this role. He was “skilled in political and reflective processes” [38] and succeeded in building alliances that helped him to push the ergonomic agenda. Neumann et al. [30] distinguish between navigating as an internal or external navigator. In the hospital case, an alliance was formed between an internal and external ‘ergonomic navigator’. This alliance proved successful in relation to working around the problematic boundaries of the client-consultant setup and overcoming the constraints related to obtaining resources for ergonomic counseling in projects. A prerequisite for using this strategy, however, is that it is possible to identify an ergonomic navigator in the client organization, and that this navigator has the skills to establish a power base among decision makers.

Finally, we also noted that among the ergonomists, there was not much talk about how to make the provision of ergonomic services in design more effective by for instance introducing uniform ways of addressing ergonomics in design. There was some talk about introducing ‘ergonomic packages’ to support engineering during sales, but this had not been implemented at the time of the study.

5.5 Implications for practitioners

Based on the present study, we argue that possibilities for integrating ergonomic knowledge into engineering design processes in a business-driven setting largely depend on the ergonomic ambitions of the clients as well as the individual ergonomist’s ability to act in relation to design. We hypothesize that engineering consultancies and ergonomists wishing to promote the integration of ergonomic services in design processes can:

Pursue the ergonomic ambitions of clients by 1) teaming up engineering designers and ergonomists in sales, and 2) identifying and creating alliances with stakeholders in client organizations that can promote an ergonomic agenda inside client organizations.

5.6 Limitations

The study has some limitations. Since the findings in this paper are based on a single case study, it can be argued that they cannot be generalized to a larger population [23]. Furthermore, the overall subject of the conducted interviews was “integration of ergonomics into engineering design”, which can be seen as carrying a specific agenda, namely that ergonomics should be involved in design projects. The interviewer was aware of this. As part of the study, it was interesting to learn about different viewpoints as to whether or not ergonomic services should be included in design processes and the challenges this would present. It turned out, however, that all the interviewedengineering designers appeared to be positive about the potential benefits of integrating ergonomics in design processes. This could be because they considered the interviewer (the first author) to be ‘an ergonomist’. Such an effect is known as ‘social-desirability bias’ [39], which refers to the possibility of respondents answering in a way that makes them look better in the eyes of the interviewer.

In further studies, it could be interesting to test whether the finding and conclusions of this paper apply in other similar but also different settings.