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
...