Abstract
Though there might exist not a few differences between cyclic works and atypical works, many researchers have applied the same assessment techniques that used for repetitive works, which may result introduce bias in their conclusions. This research aimed to verify whether there exist non-negligible work characteristics and/or dissimilarity among works with different work nature and whether one of the most prevalent assessment techniques for assessing ergonomic hazards of musculoskeletal disorders, REBA, can be applied to atypical works. For a general hospital, an automobile repair shop, and two auto-part assembly plants which manufactures quite different parts, a questionnaire survey and field investigation and ergonomic assessment were carried out and analyzed statistically with reference to the 3rd Quantification technique. The results showed that there exist remarkable difference between physical factors in cyclic works and atypical non-cyclic works. As for repetitive work, body posture was significant factors affecting on musculoskeletal disorders while atypical works seemed to have none which implied that the necessity of taking psychosocial factors into account for assessment of hazards. Complain rate in repetitive works was highest shoulder, back, and neck or wrist in sequence. However, there existed no consistent trend in complain rate in atypical works. And, though weight of manufacturing objects was a common factor that can partly explain musculoskeletal complain, time duration was significant in atypical work whereas repeatability and body posture were significant in repetitive works. As being the results, to summarize, it could be said that application of conventional ergonomic assessment techniques regardless of repetitiveness would be fruitless, and that the necessity of a unique methodology focused on atypical non-cyclic works should not be neglected.