CEN/TR 16710-1:2015

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-marec-2016
(UJRQRPVNHPHWRGHGHO0HWRGDSRYUDWQHLQIRUPDFLMH0HWRGD]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
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

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.

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

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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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]
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.
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;
— 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.
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, by direct observation.
During the inspection, data and information are collected on forms containing the following items:
— general company data, sector, number of employees;
— description of the working environment (noise, vibration, dust, illumination, microclimate,
chemicals, etc.) where the machine under investigation is used and of the relevant working
methods and procedures;
— characteristics of the machines used in the company (manufacturer, model, year of manufacture,
maintenance, safety devices);
— risk assessments relating to the machine;
— description (with the help of the workers or by direct observation) of the work process and of the
job;
— identification of the main work phases and of the single activities/tasks. All the work phases should
be considered, not only those directly observable, including the installation and preparation of the
machine before its use, up to its storage at the end of the work shift, as well as planned and
unplanned maintenance;
— information on near-misses and accidents which have occurred in the company relating to the use
of the machine in question;
— information about the training provided for the workers assigned to operate the machine.
The inspection form should be designed to reflect the specific characteristics of the machine to be
studied and, for multicentre studies, translated into the languages of the various participating countries.
If needed, some items may be added to the “basic” form to collect regional differences in the use of the
machine. Annex A shows an example of such a form, designed and used for collecting information
during a specific study.
If possible, during the inspection, it is also appropriate to collect films, photographs, etc. of the
machinery, the environment, the workplace and of the individual activities / tasks performed by the
machine operator and coworkers. If needed, and if the available resources allow, further inspections or
more detailed investigations may be conducted to collect more information through the use of suitable
tools and methods selected from the relevant disciplines (e.g. ergonomics, occupational health and
safety, cognitive psychology).
The information and documentation collected during the workplace inspection will be included in the
machine dossier. It enables the researchers to understand better the context where the machinery
operates and its functions. It also facilitates the ergonomics analysis of the work, the reconstruction of
the real-work and activities, and the identification of the more critical aspects of the use of the machine.
Elaboration of the collected data will also enable the accurate description of the sample of companies
involved and the machine studied.
5.6 Feedback Method Work Groups and work analysis with skilled users of the machine
5.6.1 Preparation for meetings
FMWGs are formed of five to nine users. The choice of users should be made from skilled users of the
machine (workers, technicians, artisans or even employers of the micro and small sized enterprises).
These should be those who use and/or maintain the machine. The number of participants in each group
should be limited to facilitate the dialogue and the comparison, and to allow everyone to contribute
actively. Participants in any one group should have experience of the same specific use of that machine.
At least three different companies should be involved, in order to minimize the influence of working
practices in any individual company. This selection should enable a job reconstruction to be formulated
which is representative of the daily tasks involved in that use across different working contexts.
The facilitators of the FMWGs should be:
— those who have worked on the machine dossier and have performed the inspections in the
companies;
— knowledgeable about relevant machine standards;
— competent in leading work groups.
For each type and use of machine analysed it is preferable to form more than one FMWG in order to
compare the results and to strengthen their validity.
For a successful meeting it is necessary to:
— prepare the meeting place and equipment needed;
— collate documentation and other material (taken from the machine dossier) in order to supply the
workers with the base information (existing technical standards, important residual risks indicated
by the manufacturers, description of the most important accidents, etc.) and the necessary
information for the development of the group job;
— identify the main work phases to be analysed by the groups – all the work phases to be analysed
should be taken into account.
NOTE The identified work phases can change with the uses of the machine and can be defined from
information collected during the inspections.
5.6.2 Work analysis with skilled end-users of the machine
The FMWG activity is based on two preliminary steps:
— The participants are provided with the collated documentation and other material.
— Each work phase is split into elementary operational tasks, from the set-up of the machine to the
maintenance and cleaning operations.
NOTE Normally, no more than four hours are necessary for such a meeting.
Thereafter the facilitators introduce the job ergonomic analysis through which the group will
reconstruct in detail the work activities and then carry out a systematic analysis of each work
activity/phase.
For each work phase, the tasks/activities are identified, and for each of them the following elements are
recorded:
— Operating Procedure;
— Competence required for the execution of the task;
— Critical aspects: hazards/risks; disorders/diseases/injuries;
— Solutions and suggestions for prevention and need of further research.
These are recorded using the FMWG sheet, as shown in Table 1. It is important to note that the
facilitators leading the discussion should allow the workers to act as key players in evaluating their own
working environment. Their role consists of supplying information, speeding up the participants’
contribution to the reconstruction of the phases of the job and the activities associated with each phase,
and guiding the end users’ evaluations of the safety and health issues, any critical aspects of their work
with the machine, and any possible preventive action. The description should be as detailed and
unbiased as possible, paying particular attention to those operations which the documentation,
experience and knowledge have clearly shown as hazardous.
The FMWG analysis is based on a detailed and meticulous description of each activity and their
temporal and spatial sequence.
The facilitators should encourage the active participation of all the participants. They should ask the
group to characterize and define the necessary competence for the execution of the single tasks, the
current problems and risks and suggestions for practical improvements. The group should not just
consider health and safety issues but also explore opportunities for improving the effective and efficient
use of the machine.
Suggestions for improvement should be addressed primarily to the search for possible improvements
to the machine itself (design, manufacture). However, attention should also be paid to the related
aspects of organizational choices, of operating procedures and/or of the “correct” behaviour of the
single workers. Opportunities for the promotion of health and wellbeing through better design of
machinery and tasks should also be considered.
It will be necessary to guide the group to deepen the analysis of how they perform the single activities
since the participants will tend to simplify the description because, although for them this may be well-
known and banal information it may not be apparent to those without their level of knowledge and
experience.
It will be useful, to facilitate the participation and the analysis, to describe the dynamics of any
accidents or incidents which have occurred (these can be drawn from the experiences of the companies
visited during the inspections, the FMWG participants, or their colleagues), or to show images or movies
of other incidents or dangerous situations.
When descriptions of unexpected operating modalities or unforeseen hazardous situations emerge
during the FMWG activity, they should be recorded in detail.
Table 1 — “Feedback Method” Work Group sheet
Critical aspects:
Operating
Sequence Solutions, suggestions
hazards/risks;
Procedure
of tasks/ Competence for prevention; need of
disorders/diseases/
a
activities further research
injuries
1) [Detailed description [Information about [Identification of: (1) the [Identification of
of each action, the competence critical aspects affecting solutions/suggestions on

procedure and required for: (1) the health and safety of how to eliminate or
method of executing optimal execution of workers or limiting the minimize the identified
each task/activity, the task/activity efficient performance and problems, hazards and
with information on and each action (use reliability of tasks and risks and apply the
the equipment used, of equipment; actions; (2) every hazard relevant ergonomic
safety devices and choice, use, and and risk; (3) intrinsically principles to: machines,
personal protective handling of safe machinery and equipment, safety devices,
equipment (PPE).] materials); (2) the equipment; (4) awkward PPE, work procedures,
organization and postures, incorrect work work organization,

disposition of work/ practices, environmental environment, etc.;
workplace and conditions (microclimate,
Guidance on: Training,
layout and dust lighting, layout, etc.);
Inspection, Instruction
environment; (3) (5) fatigue, complaints,
handbooks.
understanding and occupational diseases,
Proposals for further
applying the accidents or injuries; (6)
research to find new
instruction work related stress or
solutions]
handbook] problems linked to
organizational aspects
(rhythm, shifts, etc.).]
2)
a
Each column should be completed for each activity in the work phase.
The annotations on the sheet – readable and concise – should reflect as much as possible the discussion
within the FMWG, and clearly represent the connections (rows in Table 1) between the work tasks, the
necessary competence to carry out such tasks, the critical aspects and suggestions for improvement. If
there is not complete consensus, the majority opinion should be reported. The minority opinion should
also be noted.
The facilitator’s and researcher’s knowledge and opinions should not be recorded on the form if not
discussed and verified by the FMWG in all the aspects (from the description of the tasks to the
suggestions for improvement). The facilitator’s and researcher’s point of view can be reported in the
final report, although the fact that this is the contribution of the facilitators and researchers and not of
the end-users should be noted. In this way it is possible to avoid or reduce the common mistake of
attributing to workers statements that represent the thinking of the researchers.
5.7 Written report of the Feedback Method Work Group results and their validation
At the end of the process, the facilitators and researchers transfer the results onto a “readable copy” of
the sheet and deliver it to every participant for their validation and/or for any corrections/additions.
(an example of this is shown in Annex D). This further step, that could seem superfluous, is important
for at least two reasons:
a) The end users who have participated should have the opportunity to verify:
— that the outcome is an unbiased report of the argument;
— that their contribution has been understood;
— and that it has been understood in a correct way.
b) The more reticent users and those who don’t feel themselves sufficiently involved have a further
opportunity to supply their contribution, to propose observations or to suggest additions.
The additional indications that users provide through this process will be adopted and marked in the
final report.
5.8 Project overview and final technical report
The final phase of the “Feedback Method” consists of the drafting of the project overview and the final
technical report. The project overview describes all the different project phases (including the methods
and the materials used in the research, the activities carried out and the collected information: data on
the machine, general statistics of accidents, their gravity, eventual prevailing dynamics, etc.) and
outcomes, from the assembling of the machine dossier to the consolidation and validation of the FMWG
report.
It should describe:
— the sample of participating companies;
— the data collected concerning the working environments;
— the activities carried out;
— the characteristics of examined machinery.
The activities carried out in the FMWG with the end-users will be described and in the report will be
unbiased in reporting the matters discussed. Afterwards the facilitators and researchers will draft a
synthesis of the FMWG reports, to facilitate action.
In conclusion, starting from the suggestions for prevention emerging from the FMWGs, the researchers
will write up a table of synthesis within the technical report, where the risky situations characterized
and any suggestions for prevention will be indicated.
It is clearly at the discretion of the researchers who they chose to share this report with. However, it is
structured in such a way that its content is addressed to:
— standard setters, to become aware of the problems relating to the real use of specific machines in
different work contexts and thus to draw up new or to revise existing standards accordingly (see
also Annex E);
— designers and manufacturers, to produce better, more comfortable and safer machines and to
provide precise instructions for use;
— employers, users and workers for training purposes and for defining appropriate work procedures;
— inspection bodies to enhance their knowledge and improve the efficiency of their interventions and
advice.
This report therefore becomes the centrepiece of the job carried out and constitutes a technical
synthesis of the contributions made by users both during the inspections and within the FMWG
discussions.
Annex A
(informative)
Existing results
In 1997 th
...