SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
(Main)Ergonomics methods - Part 1: Feedback method - A method to understand how end users perform their work with machines
Ergonomics methods - Part 1: Feedback method - A method to understand how end users perform their work with machines
This document describes the "Feedback Method", a method designed specifically to collect the contribution of machinery end-users by reconstructing and understanding how work is actually performed (i.e. the real work). This method can help to improve technical standards, as well as the design, manufacturing, and use of machinery.
By collecting the experiences of skilled users, this method can be used to reconstruct their actual work activities under different operating conditions and with any kind of machine. This helps to identify all the critical aspects having an impact on health and safety, or associated with ergonomic principles. Moreover, it makes it possible to identify some basic elements for defining the standards for machines and for their revision and improvement. It can also improve production efficiency and identify any need for additional study and research.
The method is designed to minimize the influence of the subjectivity of the facilitators and researchers in reconstructing and describing the reality of work, and to maximize the "objective" contribution of the skilled users of the machine.
The method combines a high level of reproducibility, sensitivity, and user-friendliness with low demands in term of resources, which makes it attractive to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.
This Technical Report is addressed to standards writers, designers and manufacturers, employers-buyers, end users, craftsmen and workers, market surveillance and authorities.
Ergonomie - Teil 1: Feedbackmethode - Eine Methode zum Verständnis wie Endnutzer ihre Arbeit mit Machinen durchführen
Dieser Technische Bericht beschreibt die Feedbackmethode, die speziell dafür vorgesehen ist, den Beitrag der Endnutzer von Maschinen durch das Nachvollziehen und Verstehen der Arbeit, wie sie tatsächlich durchgeführt wird (d. h. der tatsächlichen Arbeit), zusammenzutragen. Diese Methode kann die Verbes-serung technischer Normen sowie die Konstruktion, Herstellung und Anwendung von Maschinen unterstützen.
Durch das Erfassen der Erfahrungen sachkundiger Benutzer kann diese Methode dazu verwendet werden, deren tatsächlich auszuführende Arbeitsaktivitäten unter verschiedenen Betriebsbedingungen und an jeder möglichen Maschine nachzuvollziehen. Das unterstützt die Identifizierung aller kritischen Aspekte, die einen Einfluss auf Gesundheit und Sicherheit haben oder mit ergonomischen Grundsätzen verknüpft sind. Zudem ermöglicht es die Identifizierung grundlegender Elemente für die Festlegung von Normen für Maschinen sowie für deren Überarbeitung und Verbesserung. Es kann gleichfalls die Effizienz der Produktion verbessern und die Notwendigkeit zusätzlicher Untersuchungen und Recherchen bestimmen.
Die Methode ist so gestaltet, dass sie den Einfluss der von Moderator und Untersuchungsperson stammenden Subjektivität beim Nachvollziehen und Beschreiben der Arbeitsrealität minimiert und den "objektiven" Beitrag der sachkundigen Benutzer der Maschine maximiert.
Die Methode kombiniert ein hohes Maß an Vergleichbarkeit, Empfindlichkeit und Benutzerfreundlichkeit mit geringen Anforderungen an Ressourcen, was sie attraktiv für Kleinst-, kleine und mittlere Unternehmen macht.
Dieser Technische Bericht richtet sich an Normenersteller, Planer und Hersteller, Arbeitgeber, Einkäufer, Endnutzer, Handwerker und Arbeitende, die Marktaufsicht und Behörden.
Ergonomske metode - 1. del: Metoda povratne informacije - Metoda za razumevanje, kako končni uporabniki opravljajo svoje delo s stroji
Ta dokument opisuje »metodo povratne informacije«, načrtovano posebej za zbiranje informacij končnih uporabnikov stroja prek rekonstrukcije in razumevanja dejanskega izvajanja dela (npr. pravega dela). Ta metoda lahko pomaga izboljšati tehnične standarde ter tudi načrtovanje, izdelavo in uporabo strojev. Z zbiranjem izkušenj usposobljenih uporabnikov je mogoče s to metodo rekonstruirati njihovo dejansko delo v okviru različnih delovnih pogojev in s poljubno vrsto stroja. Tako je mogoče prepoznati vse pomembne vidike, ki vplivajo na zdravje in varnost ali so povezani z ergonomskimi načeli. Poleg tega ta metoda omogoča prepoznavanje nekaterih osnovnih elementov, ki so vključeni v opredelitev standardov za stroje ter njihovo revizijo ali izboljšavo. Izboljša lahko tudi učinkovitost proizvodnje ter prepozna morebitno potrebo po dodatnih študijah in raziskavah. Metoda je zasnovana tako, da v kar največji meri zmanjša vpliv subjektivnosti moderatorjev in raziskovalcev pri rekonstrukciji in opisu realnega dela, ter v kar največji meri poveča »objektivnost« informacij usposobljenih uporabnikov stroja. Metoda združuje visoko raven možnosti reprodukcije, občutljivosti in prijaznosti do uporabnika z nizkimi zahtevami glede virov, zaradi česar je privlačna za mikro, majhna in srednje velika podjetja. To tehnično poročilo je namenjeno standardnim avtorjem, načrtovalcem in proizvajalcem, delodajalcem kupcem, končnim uporabnikom, obrtnikom in delavcem, osebam, ki se ukvarjajo z nadzorom trga ter pristojnim organom.
General Information
Standards Content (Sample)
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
01-marec-2016
(UJRQRPVNHPHWRGHGHO 0HWRGDSRYUDWQHLQIRUPDFLMH0HWRGD]D
UD]XPHYDQMHNDNRNRQþQLXSRUDEQLNLRSUDYOMDMRVYRMHGHORVVWURML
Ergonomics methods - Part 1: Feedback method - A method to understand how end
users perform their work with machines
Ergonomie - Teil 1: Feedbackmethode - Eine Methode zum Verständnis wie Endnutzer
ihre Arbeit mit Machinen durchführen
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TR 16710-1:2015
ICS:
13.110 Varnost strojev Safety of machinery
13.180 Ergonomija Ergonomics
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016 en
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1
TECHNICAL REPORT
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
December 2015
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
ICS 13.110; 13.180
English Version
Ergonomics methods - Part 1: Feedback method - A
method to understand how end users perform their work
with machines
Feedbackmethode - Eine Methode zum Verständnis
wie Endnutzer ihre Arbeit mit Machinen durchführen
This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 17 November 2015. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC
122.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and
United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels
© 2015 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 (E)
Contents Page
European Foreword . 3
Introduction . 4
1 Scope . 6
2 Normative references . 6
3 Terms and definitions . 6
4 General principles . 9
5 Feedback method . 10
5.1 The “Feedback method” steps . 10
5.2 Selection of the machine to be investigated . 10
5.3 Collection of documentation and preparation of a machine dossier . 11
5.4 Identification of companies where the machine is regularly used . 11
5.5 Inspection of work places . 12
5.6 Feedback Method Work Groups and work analysis with skilled users of the machine . 13
5.6.1 Preparation for meetings . 13
5.6.2 Work analysis with skilled end-users of the machine . 13
5.7 Written report of the Feedback Method Work Group results and their validation . 15
5.8 Project overview and final technical report . 16
Annex A (informative) Existing results . 17
Annex B (informative) Inspection form “Combine Harvester” . 22
Annex C (informative) Work phases and tasks/activities “Combine Harvesters” . 30
C.1 Phase 1: Road travel and transport (with mounted cutter bar, or cutter bar trailer) . 30
C.2 Phase 2: Preparation for use, changeover . 30
C.3 Phase 3: Harvesting process . 30
C.4 Phase 4: Maintenance and fault clearance . 30
Annex D (informative) Extract from report of the FMWG “Combine Harvester” - Italy . 32
Annex E (informative) Extract of recommended amendments to EN ISO 4254-7:2009
“Agricultural machinery - Safety - Part 7: Combine harvesters, forage harvesters and
cotton harvesters” from the application of the “Feedback Method” . 33
Bibliography . 35
2
---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 (E)
European Foreword
This document (CEN/TR 16710-1:2015) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 122
“Ergonomics”, the secretariat of which is held by DIN.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN [and/or CENELEC] shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent
rights.
Standardization can release its full potential for growth, productivity and health and safety of citizens
only when all interested parties are adequately involved.
This document has been prepared considering CEN/CLC Guide 17 “Guidance for writing standards
taking into account micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) needs”.
EN 16710 consists of the following parts under the general title Ergonomics methods:
— Part 1: Feedback method - A method to understand how end users perform their work with machines
(Technical Report)
— Part 2: A methodology for work analysis to support design
These present independent methods that can be used to support the implementation of ergonomics
principles, for example as advocated in EN ISO 12100 and the EN 614 series.
3
---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 (E)
Introduction
The importance of involving users in the design of machinery is recognized in most standards that deal
with ergonomic design principles. In fact, i.e. EN 614-1 strongly recommends user involvement because
it helps to identify measures and improvements for future design.
CEN Guide 414, EN ISO 6385:2004, EN ISO 9241-210:2010 and EN ISO 12100:2010 also provide for
feedback from the end-users of machinery, and affirm the need to continue monitoring the effect of the
system in order to safeguard against long-term deterioration in the performance or health of the users.
Collecting users’ experiences by reconstructing their activities, how they perform their work in
different real-life operating conditions, will yield knowledge of the problems that emerge from
common, everyday use and help to identify possible corrections and improvements to harmonized
technical standards and machinery design and manufacture.
In the context of machinery safety, it is widely accepted that end-users possess extensive knowledge of
the equipment they work with every day [15]. Collecting this information as feedback from end-users,
mainly workers, provides a basis not just for improving machinery standards by incorporating
ergonomics principles [17], but also for putting standards to work and monitoring their quality over the
years. Those who can benefit from such knowledge include:
— CEN and ISO and national standardization committees and working groups who can become aware
of the problems relating to the real use of specific machine in different work contexts, and will thus
be able to draw up new or to revise existing standards accordingly;
— designers (who are involved in the design or redesign) and manufacturers enabling them to
produce better, more comfortable and safer machines and to provide precise, clear and exhaustive
instructions for use;
— employers/buyers to help them choose the best available machinery on the market;
— the end users, employers, artisans and workers for training purposes and for defining appropriate
work procedures;
— market surveillance, authorities to enhance their knowledge and improve the efficiency of their
interventions;
— the machinery working group (MWG) chaired by the European Commission, whenever they need to
collect further details on machinery design problems tabled during the MWG meetings.
Studies have shown that the “Feedback Method” described in this Technical Report has a high level of
repeatability, as demonstrated by the results obtained in many different production contexts in seven
different European member states from applying this method to five CE-marked machines
manufactured in conformity with their specific C-standard (see Annex A).
The full participation and support of employees, employers, users and buyers of machinery, technicians
and market surveillance personnel in putting the “Feedback Method“ into practice is key to its
successful application.
Within these studies, a detailed ergonomic analysis of the work with each machine, involving a number
of work groups, yielded a large body of valuable information on the specific characteristics of machine
use in different work contexts and socio-cultural, climatic and microclimatic environments.
Using the standardized method described in this Technical Report, that makes little demand on time
and resources, multiple work groups can easily be set up to collect skilled users’ experiences with a
specific machine and to use this valuable information to:
4
---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 (E)
a) identify failings in the appropriate technical standard or the design rather than in its use;
b) validate the results already obtained;
c) monitor improvements in the work activity and the efficacy of the ergonomic and safety solutions
applied.
The outcomes of the method described in this Technical Report can also be used for evaluating and/or
designing new machinery similar to the one under study.
EXAMPLE When dealing with the roll-over risk of any self-propelled machinery with a driver on board during use
on uneven or lose ground.
The method can be used by workers’ representatives or, more generally, representatives of consumers
and users, to collect evidence for making improvements to various types of machinery, possibly after
the occurrence of unwanted events during the use of a machine, so as to identify the causes and possible
solutions.
Where appropriate, recommendations can then be forwarded to the appropriate CEN/CENELEC
Technical Committees. For example, one important safety recommendation for any revision of
EN ISO 21281 is to standardize the position of the main foot pedals to avoid the risk of confusion and
accidents. Figure 1 shows the differences in pedal layout identified during the application of the
“Feedback Method” to fork-lift trucks.
Manual selector of Right-foot-operated
Left-foot-operated
Foot-operated selector of
direction. Right-foot- selector of direction and
selector of direction.
direction and accelerator
operated (car-like) right-foot-operated
Right-foot-operated
(both left and right feet).
accelerator. accelerator.
accelerator.
A = Accelerator
B = Brake and/or approach at reduced speed
C = Clutch coupling (if present) or approach at reduced speed
Figure 1 — Illustration of the various foot pedal layouts identified in different fork-lift trucks
5
---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 (E)
1 Scope
This Technical Report describes the “Feedback Method”, a method designed specifically to collect the
contribution of machinery end-users by reconstructing and understanding how work is actually
performed (i.e. the real work). This method can help to improve technical standards, as well as the
design, manufacturing, and use of machinery.
By collecting the experiences of skilled users, this method can be used to reconstruct their actual work
activities under different operating conditions and with any kind of machine. This helps to identify all
the critical aspects having an impact on health and safety, or associated with ergonomic principles.
Moreover, it makes it possible to identify some basic elements for defining the standards for machines
and for their revision and improvement. It can also improve production efficiency and identify any need
for additional study and research.
The method is designed to minimize the influence of the subjectivity of the facilitators and researchers
in reconstructing and describing the reality of work, and to maximize the “objective” contribution of the
skilled users of the machine.
The method combines a high level of reproducibility, sensitivity, and user-friendliness with low
demands in term of resources, which makes it attractive to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.
This Technical Report is addressed to standards writers, designers and manufacturers, employers-
buyers, end users, craftsmen and workers, market surveillance and authorities.
2 Normative references
The following documents, in whole or in part, are normatively referenced in this document and are
indispensable for its application. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated
references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
EN ISO 12100:2010, Safety of machinery — General principles for design — Risk assessment and risk
reduction (ISO 12100:2010)
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in EN ISO 12100 and the following
apply.
3.1
end-user feedback
information given back by end-users
3.2
expert
skilled end-user
person who has habitually used the machine under investigation for an extended period; normally he
has received specific training in the use of the machine through professional courses or directly at the
workplace by a tutor, often by the employer or expert co-worker; he is often in charge of training of co-
workers in the use of the machine under investigation; he may be considered expert in the installation,
use and maintenance of the machine
Note 1 to entry: In micro and small-sized enterprises the expert/skilled end-user is often the employer.
6
---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 (E)
3.3
facilitator
person, who leads the “Feedback Method” Work Groups and collects the contributions of the skilled
users of the machinery
Note 1 to entry: The facilitator is competent in leading groups, and in occupational health and safety and the
ergonomics of machinery, or is supported by experts in such disciplines.
3.4
feedback method
specific method designed and applied to collect the contribution of machinery end-users by
reconstructing and understanding the real work, in order to improve technical standards, together with
the design, the manufacture and use of machinery
Note 1 to entry: See also [11].
3.5
feedback method sheet
document used by the facilitator to guide the discussions of the FMWG and to record the collected
information
Note 1 to entry: See 5.6.2.
3.6
feedback method Work Group
FMWG
group composed of five to nine experts/skilled end users, coming from different enterprises, which,
under the direction of a facilitator, provides the reconstruction and understanding of the real work with
a specific machine by means of the “Feedback Method” sheet
3.7
final technical report
synthesis of the results of all the processes of the “Feedback Method” to a specific machine, written by
the researcher from the reports of the FMWG meetings with the help, if needed, of other ergonomists/
technicians/ consultants
Note 1 to entry: The main contents are represented by the critical aspects identified, risks and disorders as well
as by the possible solutions and or any need for further research.
3.8
job
organization and sequence in time and space of an individual's work tasks or the combination of all
human performance by one worker within a work system
[SOURCE: ISO 6385:2004, 2.4]
3.9
machine dossier
collection of technical documentation and data on the machine, so as to be aware of the main safety
issues (i. e. normal and abnormal use, residual risks) and ergonomic requirements as well as health
effects and wellbeing of the end users
Note 1 to entry: Information on the productivity, efficiency and efficacy of the machine is also included.
7
---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 (E)
3.10
real work
work as actually performed by workers
Note 1 to entry: Real as opposed to formal work reflects the difference between the formal/designed
description of the activities and what is really performed at the workplace.
3.11
report of the FMWG meeting
“Feedback Method” sheets compiled by the facilitator/researcher during the FMWG meetings and
validated by each participant
3.12
researcher
person competent in occupational health and safety and ergonomics of the machine, cooperating with
others in the planning, execution and reporting of the “Feedback Method”, including helping the
facilitator to lead the FMWGs
Note 1 to entry: The researcher also contributes to the application of the outcomes from to the standardization,
design, manufacture and use of the machinery studied.
Note 2 to entry: Market surveillance bodies may also benefit from the outcomes.
3.13
safeguard clause
clause in Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC providing for a procedure whereby any measure taken by
a Member State (on the grounds of non-compliance with the Essential Health and Safety Requirements,
and where it is deemed that equipment is liable to endanger persons, animals or property) for the
purpose of withdrawing from the market, prohibiting the placing on the market or restricting the free
movement, of equipment accompanied by one of the means of attestation provided for in the Directive
and therefore bearing the CE marking, must be immediately notified to the Commission by the Member
State, which has taken it
Note 1 to entry: See also [10].
3.14
task
specific activity performed by one or more persons on, or in the vicinity of, the machine during its life
cycle
3.15
technical action
elementary manual action required to complete the operations within the cycle
EXAMPLE Holding, turning pushing or cutting.
[SOURCE: ISO 11228-3:2007, 3.1.4]
3.16
user
person who interacts with a system, product or service
[SOURCE: EN ISO 26800:2011, 1, 2.10]
8
---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 (E)
3.17
work phase
set of tasks required to achieve an intended part of the whole outcome of a work process
3.18
work process
sequence in time and space of the interaction of workers, work equipment, materials, energy and
information within a work system
[SOURCE: ISO 6385:2004, 2.11]
3.19
work task
activity or set of activities required by the worker to achieve an intended outcome
[SOURCE: ISO 6385:2004, 2.17]
4 General principles
EN ISO 12100 requires risk assessments to be based on the experience of users of similar machines and,
whenever practicable, an exchange of information with the potential users. It also provides a schematic
representation of the risk-reduction process that includes a three-step iterative method. Each step
concludes by asking whether the planned risk reduction is obtained.
This question is currently answered at the design stage, whereas a more exhaustive and practical
answer could be provided by the collection of the experiences of actual users, not only of similar
machines, as required in EN ISO 12100:2010, 5.2, but also of the same machines already in use.
This requires a structured and standardized method that can also be used by designers; and used
systematically to add to their knowledge and provide a clear and unequivocal answer.
A number of standards provide for workers to be involved, both in risk assessment and in the design
phase, through the use of prototypes, mock-ups, models and/or laboratory simulations. In simulations,
operator feedback can be obtained in various ways including: group discussions, interviews,
questionnaires, checklists, and observational studies, see EN 614-2.
Although in principle their value is uncontested, the question remains as to whether simulations can
ever capture the complex reality of working with machinery in real life. Simulations with models and
prototypes:
— are often confined to pre-defined environments which cannot reflect the real work environment
with its multiple variables;
— are time-limited, whereas problems from prolonged actual use of machinery may only arise over
longer timeframes;
— are limited to restricted circles of users that are not necessarily reliable and sufficiently
heterogeneous samples of the population of real users;
— using machinery in a laboratory inevitably conditions the ways it is used and the worker’s
responsiveness, thereby rendering his impressions of the machinery unreliable;
— are unable to predict all the possible circumstances that may occur during real use in various
production, social and economic contexts.
9
---------------------- Page: 11 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 (E)
In contrast, the “Feedback Method” uses a different approach that aims at avoiding these shortcomings.
In this approach, the reconstruction and knowledge of working practices is obtained by researchers and
facilitators through a detailed ergonomics analysis of end-user feedback, following a specific procedure
with the participation of skilled end-users working in different companies.
Emphasis is placed on evaluating the working conditions through observation at the workplace and the
need to plan studies to that end with the involvement of workers in the real environment of use. In
reality, only the skilled and experienced end-user, the operator at the workplace, is able to provide
relevant feedback on real work with a machine.
CEN Guide 414, for the drafting of safety standards, raises the question: “Is there sufficient feedback on
the use of the existing safety standard?”. The “Feedback Method” is appropriately designed to collect
users’ input in reply to this question.
The description of work activities identifies omissions or issues that are of high intrinsic value for
depicting what actually happens in daily real work in different workplaces, as described by those most
immediately concerned, skilled machine users. It is important to note that activity descriptions are not
those of one individual skilled worker or even the aggregate of many individual skilled workers but the
collective product of a group of skilled/expert workers interacting with one another, coordinated by a
facilitator.
The work activity may be performed differently in other companies or in other production contexts.
The best results are therefore obtained when the same machine and work activity are analysed by more
than one work group, possibly in different geographical areas and socio-economic contexts. The
description created will need to incorporate this diversity. This enables every user to compare the
acquired knowledge against their specific reality and to update and expand the content in a way
adapted to their working environment.
5 Feedback method
5.1 The “Feedback method” steps
The “Feedback Method” involves the following seven main steps:
— selection of the machine to be investigated;
— collection of documentation, and preparation of a machine dossier;
— identification of companies where the machine is regularly used;
— inspection of workplaces;
— work groups and work analysis with skilled users of the machine;
— written report of the FMWG results and their validation;
— project overview and final technical report.
5.2 Selection of the machine to be investigated
The “Feedback Method” may be applied whenever stakeholders identify a machine and a corresponding
harmonized standard, which merits closer examination and analysis. The principal criteria for selecting
the machine to study are:
— number and severity of accidents;
— lack of safety and ergonomic requirements;
10
---------------------- Page: 12 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 (E)
— number and geographical dissemination of the machine;
— revision or definition of the machine's standard.
The interest and cooperation of the social partners, workers and employers, manufacturers, buyers and
end-users are key requirements for the selection of the machine and the success of the study.
Having selected the type of machine to be studied, it is then necessary to identify the industrial sectors
in which it is used and the type of production to be analysed. It is recommended to start with a single
sector and production type before widening the scope of the study as appropriate.
5.3 Collection of documentation and preparation of a machine dossier
The next step of the “Feedback Method” is to collect any available technical documentation and data on
the machine and its use, so as to be aware of the main safety features (i.e. normal and abnormal use,
residual risks) and ergonomic requirements. In this preliminary phase researchers prepare a “machine
dossier”, that includes:
— relevant harmonized standards;
— safety guidelines elaborated by technical bodies or research organisations;
— accident statistics or records of undesired events associated with the machine (together with any
specific accident investigations);
— any safeguard clauses relating to the machine or the related standard;
— market surveillance data;
— information provided by manufacturer about the territorial/geographical distribution of the
machine and its different models and/or configurations;
— instruction handbooks accompanying the machine;
— other documentation (publications, journals, testimonies, etc.) and materials (films, photographs,
miniature models of the machine, etc.).
The machine dossier may be implemented and updated with any further new information. It is the
source and the reference for all the information presented and discussed in the FMWGs.
For transnational studies, the same dossier may be translated into the different languages. Then it may
be used by each FMWG examining the same machine. In such a way all those participating will have the
same background information and questions to answer.
5.4 Identification of companies where the machine is regularly used
After selecting the machine to be studied it is necessary to identify where this machine is used. It is
recommended that machines used in one region are studied at first and then to widen the scope of the
study to other regions and countries as appropriate. Trade unions and employers’ associations can help
to identify suitable companies willing to take part.
Attention should be paid to the size of companies using the machine. Micro and small-sized enterprises,
where the traditional ergonomic, safety and hygiene approach is difficult to apply, should normally be
included.
11
---------------------- Page: 13 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16710-1:2016
CEN/TR 16710-1:2015 (E)
5.5 Inspection of work places
The active collaboration of all the stakeholders (employers, technicians/staff, company occupational
physician, workers and their health and safety representatives) is essential for the best conduct of the
study. Meetings with the stakeholders of each enterprise, in which the objectives of the study should be
clearly explained and discussed, are appropriate both before and during the workplace inspections.
Workplace inspections are carried out with the cooperation of the stakeholders and include the
observation of: the environment, the workplace and the work process, together with open discussions
with workers engaged in the different jobs and activities performed in the company.
The more relevant phases of the work process are identified with the advice of the stakeholders,
particularly skilled workers, and, if possible,
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.