Weighting Table Development

Table 5.19. Identification of the critical situations and the involved ETdA dimensions (CAFCP 01).

Ergonomic Factor Critical situation ETdA dimension Workspace Legs space in subsection 1 and 5 Professionals

Lifting Shelves high and conference of products in the checkout Clients and Professionals Restrictivness Conference of orders in the same place where Clients

require information

Existence of a common line for payment and products return

Existence of products left in the corridors for restitution

Clients and Professionals

Postures and Movements

Conference activities made in subsection 1, Clients postures in subsection 3

Clients and Professionals

Lighting conditions Glare Clients

Acoustic environment Alarms and advertising and warnings that pass through the intercom

Professionals and Clients

Table 5.20. Identification of the critical situations and the involved ETdA dimensions (CAFCP 02).

Ergonomic Factors Critical situation ETdA dimension Postures and Movements Clients’ difficulties on operate the shopping trolleys

Back pain related to products replacement tasks Conference of products in the checkout

Clients and Professionals

Accident Risk Special attention to products replacement in the shelves

Clients and Professionals Restrictiveness Existence of products left in the corridors for

restitution

Clients and Professionals Attentiveness Special attention to:

Products replacement on grocery, office media and electrical appliance shelves

Sale registration and payment in front office section

Professionals

Thermal environment Special attention to the percentage of dissatisfied Professionals and Clients.

Clients and Professionals

attended those sections. Only those Clients’ evaluations were considered on the weighting table development, regarding sections 3 and 4 of CAFCP 01.

The decision making process is based on a 3-point coloured scale. Red colour is used to highlight situations that require a short-term intervention. Yellow identifies the situations that required a medium-term intervention and green represents non-critical situations. Regarding these weighting table results, the Analyst identifies the red colours within the table. Sections and corresponding EF are also identified. The two weighting tables designed for CAFCP 01 and CAFCP 02 are provided below, Table 5.21 and Table 5.22, respectively. As an example each ETdA dimension was assigned with a 33% weight.

To perform the Weighting Table of CAFCP 01, the sections were organized taken into consideration the division suggest by the Analyst (see Table 5.4). Results within the table are presented as follows: section 1 includes Gaming 1, Music 1, TV/ photo 1 and Books 1; section 2 includes Gaming 2, Music 2, TV/ photo 2 and Books 2. These two sections, as well as section 5 (SPC), are weighted by the three dimensions. Results of Gaming 3 and Kids’ areas are weighted by Clients’ and Analyst’s dimensions. Postures and movements, job content and attentiveness are assessed by Professionals’ and Analyst’s dimensions. In order to allow a joint analysis of the ETdA variables, and taking into consideration what was mentioned above, a new division of the CAFCP 01 was made by the Analyst, and presented in Table 5.19. The results obtained on the weighting tables regarding kids’ and gaming 3 sections are represented in grey, as these sections are exclusive for Clients’ attendance, being evaluated by the Analyst’s and Clients’ dimensions. It should be highlighted that this analysis is focused on the study of Clients’ dimension influence on the decision. Taking this into consideration, job content and attentiveness will not be considered in this study, as they were only assessed by Analyst and Professionals dimensions. The grey colour was used to identify the two columns related to these EFs as well as to identify the gaming 3 and kid’s sections.

Table 5.21. CAFCP 01 Weighting table (33% of weight).

Results show evidence that the yellow colour is the most prevalent. Restrictiveness is the most critical ergonomic factor (red cells). Regarding this issue, a short-term intervention is required in gaming 1 and 2. It is possible to notice a value of 1.51 in the section Books 2, which is close to the boundary between the yellow and red borderline.

The Weighting value for each situation is obtained according to equation (5.1) and (5.2):

SectionsNoise Lighting Accident risk Thermal env. Workspace Post/mov. Lifting Restrictiveness Decision Job content Attentiveness Physical act. Comunication

Gaming 1 1,94 1,99 2,48 2,52 2,06 1,70 1,64 1,47 2,71 2,60 2,40 2,57 2,41

Gaming 2 1,94 2,66 2,48 2,52 2,06 1,70 1,64 1,47 2,71 2,60 2,40 2,57 2,41

Gaming 3 2,24 2,00 2,52 2,75 2,00 2,87 2,39 2,96 3,00 3,00 2,28 2,40

Music 1 2,21 1,88 2,24 2,41 1,99 2,00 1,90 1,61 2,64 2,34 2,34 2,64 2,28

Music 2 2,21 2,55 2,24 2,41 1,99 2,00 1,90 1,61 2,71 2,34 2,34 2,50 2,41

TV/Photo 1 2,17 2,03 2,42 2,48 2,14 2,06 2,01 1,57 2,75 2,60 2,56 2,64 2,46

TV/Photo 2 2,17 2,69 2,42 2,48 2,14 2,06 2,01 1,57 2,75 2,56 2,45 2,64 2,46

Books 1 2,11 2,03 2,42 2,48 2,14 1,65 2,01 1,57 2,75 2,22 2,22 2,64 2,46

Books 2 2,11 2,61 2,49 2,37 2,14 1,65 1,67 1,51 2,54 2,22 2,22 2,40 2,28

SPC 2,14 2,32 2,49 2,42 2,06 2,32 2,52 1,61 2,74 2,60 2,40 2,64 2,51

Kids' area 2,18 1,96 2,50 2,73 3,00 2,96 2,23 3,00 3,00 3,00 2,28 2,41

Weighting Restrictiveness (Books 2) = ¹

3Ce+¹

3Pe+¹

3Ae=¹

31.82+¹

31.70+¹

31=1.51 Eq. (5.1) Weighting Restrictiveness (Gaming 1, 2) = ¹

3Ce+¹

3Pe+¹

3Ae=¹

31.82+¹

31.60+¹

31=1.47 Eq. (5.2) Regarding the weighted results obtained for Gaming 1 section and taking into account what was presented in Table 5.19 (identification of situations that might cause restrictiveness), a further study was done on this subject. Results of an exploratory analysis made on restrictiveness EF show that 100% of Professionals rated satisfactory this EF while 42% of Clients who usually attend to this section gave a negative evaluation. Clients’ evaluation (Mdn= 121.54) about restrictiveness did not differ significantly from Professionals evaluation (Mdn= 127.39), [U=

5.344, Z= - 0.600, p>0.05, r= -0.04]. The exploratory analysis presented in section 5.4.1 helped in these results’ interpretation. Restrictiveness is assessed through question number 18 in ETdA questionnaire 1 (Annex 6). This question evaluates the existing software in terms of its capability on helping Professionals access the information requested by Clients regarding, for example, the products on stock. Results show that 77% of Clients who usually attend this section are satisfied with Professionals’ training. This suggests that restrictiveness may be related to software performance instead of Professional skills. Indeed, restrictiveness’ evaluation is highly associated to software performance evaluation [F²(12)= 30.371, p<0.001]. This result is expected because in these workstations, the conference of orders is done using the same computer where Professionals do products consulting by Clients demand. This example clearly demonstrates Clients’ importance on the evaluation of the restrictiveness.

Restrictiveness’ results regarding section 2 (book and gaming) can be explained by the existence of stocks left in the passage, near the shelves. Throughout the day, Professionals place them in the shelves. This can be restrictive as it can prevent or hinder the passage of Clients or Professionals.

In this CAFCPnearly 50% of the Clients are male and according to the results presented on Table 5.9, men are more demanding with regard to situations that may cause some restrictiveness.

Therefore, the holistic approach of the problem allowed the identification of situations that might cause restrictiveness.

The weighting table for CAFCP 02 is presented in Table 5.22.

The two ergonomic factors that will be considered to the analysis are signed with an asterisk (*) in Table 5.22, representing a short-term and priority intervention (red colour).

The Weighting value for each item was obtained as indicated in equations 5.3 and 5.4:

Weighting Accidentrisk = ¹

3Ce+¹

3Pe+¹

3Ae=¹

31.89+¹

31.50+¹

31=1.46 Eq. (5.3) Weighting Thermal environmental = ¹Ce+¹Pe+¹Ae=¹2.45+¹1+¹1=1.48 Eq. (5.4)

Table 5.22. CAFCP 02 Weighting table (33% of weight).

The first obtained value is related to the front office section and the second one corresponds to butcher’ section. Taking into consideration information provided on Table 5.20, both Clients and Professionals dimensions can be involved in the identified situations. According to the Analyst evaluation (see section 3, in Annex 7), accident risk on the front office section is related to awkward postures during the conference of products on the payment process. Regarding thermal environment evaluation, results showed that 69% of the Professionals and 36% of the Clients rated negatively this EF. The hypothesis that tests if both dimensions have the same sensation is rejected [U= 274.50, Z= -13.716, p< 0.001, r= -0.9]. In fact, they are not statistically significantly related [Ȥ²(2)= 0.801, p>.05]. On average Professionals’ dimension reported lower classification (Mdn= 68.29) than Clients’ dimension (Mdn= 154.46). It is interesting to observe that the highest standardizing residual’ value within the contingency table, is related to a positive evaluation on Clients’ dimension and a negative evaluation on Professionals’ dimension (Loureiro, Leão and Arezes, 2011). This suggests that, when Clients think that temperature level is “good”, more Professionals than expected consider the temperature as an ergonomic risk factor. Indeed, thermal environmental conditions and the fact that Professionals do not want to use appropriate clothes to face low temperatures may be the reason for Professionals’ negative evaluation. According to results presented on Table 5.10 (see section 5.4.2), supplementary variables did have influence on thermal environment evaluation in opposition to accident risk. In fact, results showed that regular visitors, older Clients and women rated consistently more negatively thermal environment EF. Despite the positive evaluation on this EF from the Clients, these issues should be taken into consideration on the decision-making process, as Clients are integrated on the whole system, and organizations are focused on their wellbeing.

Regarding the medium-term interventions, related to yellow colours presented in Tables 5.21 and 5.22, a priority list of ergonomic intervention is proposed. This list is based upon the following procedure: situations corresponding to weighted values closer to 1.50 are considered to have priority in relation to those presenting weighted values around 2.50.