CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Management Theory and PracticeErgonomics and Human FactorsOccupational Health and Safety Management

The rationalisation movement in perspective and some ergonomic implications

Björkman, Torsten·1996·Applied Ergonomics
DOI 10.1016/0003-6870(95)00065-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The paper gives an overview of the Rationalisation Movement from Taylor to the most recent organisation models such as 'Business Process Reengineering'. Special emphasis is put on the estimated implications of the different rationalisation strategies in terms of ergonomics/work physiology. In addition, basic terms and concepts are defined. According to the author, Taylorism, Fordism and Lean Production seem to offer an insufficient potential for good ergonomics. However, more recent organisational models such as 'Time Based Management' and 'Business Process Reengineering', may appear more promising but unfortunately almost no research has been conducted to describe the ergonomics implications of these models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0003-6870(95)00065-8

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lean can threaten autonomy.

    “Lean implementers and researchers should be aware that Lean can increase workload, threaten autonomy, and bring about anxiety.”

    From Lean Thinking in Emergency Departments: A Critical Review (2011) · cites this paper as [95]

  • Lean can bring about anxiety.

    “Lean implementers and researchers should be aware that Lean can increase workload, threaten autonomy, and bring about anxiety.”

    From Lean Thinking in Emergency Departments: A Critical Review (2011) · cites this paper as [95]

  • Lean can increase workload.

    “Lean implementers and researchers should be aware that Lean can increase workload, threaten autonomy, and bring about anxiety.”

    From Lean Thinking in Emergency Departments: A Critical Review (2011) · cites this paper as [95]

  • Undesirable employee effects of Lean are well documented in the broader Lean literature.

    “These undesirable employee effects are well documented in the broader Lean literature [32–39, 94–97] but may not show up in reports on Lean in health care either because of how Lean is implemented in health care or because studies in health care simply do not measure employee effects.”

    From Lean Thinking in Emergency Departments: A Critical Review (2011) · cites this paper as [95]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Björkman, T.
Corresponding author
Björkman, Torsten
Venue
Applied Ergonomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1996-04
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
111-117
ISSN
0003-6870 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0003-6870(95)00065-8
OpenAlex
W2022598504
Cited by
50
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Applied Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ergonomics and Human Factors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety Management
Keywords
scientific management, Fordism, lean manufacturing, business process reengineering, time-based management, work physiology, human factors, organizational models, history of management thought

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review