Page 84

www.rsisinternational.org

MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025

Identification of Ergonomics Implementation Challenges Faced by

Engineers in Malaysian Manufacturing Industries

Radin Zaid Radin Umar

, Nazreen Abdullasim

, Nadiah Ahmad

, Fatin Ayuni Azli Lee

Faculty of Industrial and Manufacturing Technology and Engineering, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia

Melaka

Faculty of Information and Communication Technology Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.923MIC3ST25007

Received: 12 August 2025; Accepted: 20 August 2025; Published: 24 October 2025

ABSTRACT

The implementation of effective ergonomics programs worldwide has proven to enhance both work

performance and worker well-being. However, in Malaysia, there is limited documentation on ergonomics

practices in workplaces, with existing publications being relatively outdated and lacking recent updates from

researchers. This study aims to identify and analyze the challenges faced by engineers in the Malaysian

manufacturing industry when implementing ergonomics programs. The research involved a systematic

literature review and interviews with twenty engineers experienced in ergonomics improvement initiatives.

The thematic analysis of the literature highlighted four major challenges: 1) limited awareness, knowledge,

education, and practical experience in operational ergonomics, 2) insufficient resources and management

support, 3) inadequate technical support, and 4) the absence of specific standards or regulations within the

legal framework. Additionally, the thematic analysis of interviews with engineers revealed four key

challenges: 1) limited documentation and references for ergonomics, 2) restricted exposure and practical

experience in ergonomics, 3) workers' resistant behaviors and attitudes towards ergonomics, and 4) delayed

consideration of ergonomics during the design process. These findings provide valuable insights for engineers

in the Malaysian manufacturing sector, offering guidance to address common challenges in implementing

workplace ergonomics.

Keywords: Ergonomics Implementation, Ergonomics Program, Engineers, Challenges, Manufacturing

Industries

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, researchers have agreed that implementation of well-conducted ergonomics intervention programs

at the workplace can improve productivity and human performance as well as reduce the likelihood of work-

related musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) injuries [1] – [5]. Implementation and integration of ergonomics in

the workplace, particularly in the manufacturing sectors, has been discussed by many researchers [6] – [10] .

However, there has been limited information related to the topic of ergonomics implementation in Malaysian

manufacturing sector. Ali et al. in one of the earliest studies involving Malaysian small and medium sized

industries reported low ergonomics awareness and knowledge among Malaysian engineers [11]. Similarly,

Yeow and Sen claimed that ergonomics implementation in Malaysia is still in its infancy stage [12]. After

close to a decade, the issue seems to be prevailing as low level of ergonomics knowledge among Malaysian

engineers was still mentioned by several researchers [13] – [15]. Review of recent literatures indicate the

publication on the topic of ergonomics implementation in Malaysia is relatively outdated and has not been

revisited by researchers in years.

Engineers are one of the most important stakeholders in the ergonomics implementation program at workplace

[16] – [18]. Engineers are generally involved in overall workplace design and layout in the early stage of

manufacturing setups, as well as responsible for optimization and improvement processes when facilities are in

Page 85

www.rsisinternational.org

MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025

operation. The way in which engineering design process is carried out has a significant impact on the

ergonomics of the workplace [19]. However, there has been limited documentation and recent knowledge in

investigating specific challenges to implement ergonomics from engineers’ point of view. The aim of this

manuscript is to identify and analyze ergonomic implementation challenges, particularly faced by engineers in

Malaysian manufacturing industries. The outcomes would provide knowledge, reference, and guidance on

common challenges faced by manufacturing engineers to implement ergonomics in the workplace.

METHODOLOGY

The study employed qualitative methods to analyze the data. Interviews, observations, and document reviews

are three well-established types of qualitative data sources [20] – [23]. The study involved three major

activities: Step 1) conducting a literature review from online databases, Step 2) interviewing engineers, and

Step 3) analyzing data through thematic analysis.

In Step 1, existing publications were systematically searched in online databases, including Google Scholar,

Elsevier’s Scopus, Taylor & Francis, Springer, Mendeley, and others. The keywords used included

“ergonomics,” “implementation challenges,” “implementation issues,” “awareness,” “knowledge,”

“engineers,” “technical team,” “manufacturing industry,” and “Malaysia.” Boolean operators "AND" and

"OR" were applied to refine the literature search. Relevant findings from the literature were documented,

organized, and compiled before being screened for redundancy and alignment with the specific scope of the

research. The literature review selection process is summarized in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 A flow chart of literature review selection process

In Step 2, the method employed to investigate ergonomics implementation challenges was through semi-

structured interviews. Twenty engineers (mean years of experience = 4.05 years, SD = 2.8 years, range of

experience = 1–12 years) directly involved in ergonomics implementation in the manufacturing industry were

recruited through convenience sampling. The engineers came from various manufacturing sectors, including

automotive, semiconductor, electrical, solar, plastic, rubber, aircraft, and metal fabrication industries. As part

of the selection criteria, participants were required to have at least one year of work experience in the

manufacturing sector and direct involvement in workplace ergonomics programs. The sample was considered

heterogeneous due to potential variances in the manufacturing sectors and differences in years of professional

experience. The sample size used aligns with other qualitative studies involving heterogeneous participants

[24] – [27].

The interview sessions began with a brief introduction to the study and the collection of participants' consent.

Demographic information and sensitizing questions about participants' roles and involvement in previous

Page 86

www.rsisinternational.org

MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025

ergonomics programs were asked to prepare them mentally for the primary questions. Primary questions

focused on the challenges faced during ergonomics implementation as manufacturing engineers, followed by

concluding discussions. The audio recordings were transcribed in preparation for analysis.

In Step 3, data from the literature review, audio recordings, and research notes were extracted and analyzed

using the thematic analysis method. Thematic analysis is a technique used to identify themes and significant

patterns within a dataset related to the research question [28]. Key actions and concepts from the data were

identified through coding and indexing, which involved recognizing theories, concepts, repeated words, and

similar findings. The coding process was adapted from the method described by Saldana [29].

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Thematic analysis from Literature Review

Analysis from 13 reviewed publications revealed a limited focus on the specific implementation challenges

faced by engineers; instead, most publications emphasized the general challenges of implementing ergonomics

in the workplace. In total, four themes and 21 codes were generated regarding general ergonomic

implementation challenges. The themes were, 1) Limited operational ergonomics awareness, knowledge,

education, and practical experiences, 2) Lack of resources & support from management, 3) Limited technical

support such as ergonomics specialist or trained personnel for guidance and direction, and 4) Absence of any

clearly stated standard or regulation within legal framework.

The first theme, extracted from 10 publications, highlights the issue of limited operational ergonomics

awareness, knowledge, education, and practical experience. Ali et al. in an older study reported that among

Malaysian engineers, none had taken ergonomics or human factors engineering courses during their tertiary

education [11]. Some engineers believed ergonomics was only relevant to product design, and many struggled

to connect ergonomics with industrial health. Despite the passage of more than a decade, low ergonomics

knowledge among engineers remains a persistent issue, as reported by several researchers [12]-[15].

Beyond engineers, studies also reported a general lack of awareness and knowledge among workers, managers,

and safety practitioners, posing challenges to effective ergonomics implementation [30], [31], [12], [15].

Mustafa et al. concluded that the most significant challenge in implementing ergonomics programs among

managers, human resource officers, engineers, and safety practitioners was the lack of information, education,

or training [32]. Another study found a positive correlation between the number of ergonomics training hours

and the level of ergonomics awareness and practices [31]. A lack of training may lead to misunderstandings

about the importance of ergonomics. Loo and Richardson noted that most Malaysian managers associate

ergonomics with safety and health issues, viewing it as a costly investment rather than a performance-

enhancing measure [12]. Some researchers attributed this to the lack of demand for universities and colleges to

develop comprehensive ergonomics programs or modules [12],[30].

The second theme centers on the lack of resources and management support, identified in seven publications.

Ahasan reported that managers of Malaysian small-medium industries (SMIs) typically do not associate

ergonomics with productivity or profit, prioritizing it less than larger companies do [14]. Yeow and Sen

similarly found that many managers perceived ergonomics as expensive rather than worthwhile investment

[12]. Loo and Richardson explained that SMIs, which usually operate with limited capital, focus primarily on

production and allocate minimal budgets for ergonomics [13]. The limited in-house knowledge and awareness

force companies to rely on third-party professionals, but tight budgets often prevent SMIs from hiring experts.

Abdul Aziz et al. identified tight production schedules and heavy workloads as additional challenges that

hinder flexibility in adopting ergonomics practices [33]. Even when consultants are hired, the need for follow-

up studies to evaluate the impact of ergonomics interventions is often overlooked, as management fears that

experimental processes may reduce production output or affect product quality [34].

Yeow and Sen emphasized that management support and teamwork are essential for the success of ergonomics

programs [12]. In one case study at an electronic manufacturing plant, ergonomics initiatives succeeded

Page 87

www.rsisinternational.org

MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025

because management provided necessary resources, hired safety practitioners, and encouraged worker

feedback. In contrast, another case study in a similar manufacturing production setting found that despite

promising results from preliminary interventions, management's reluctance to allocate funds prevented larger-

scale improvements [35]. Poor understanding of ergonomics among management was cited as a key reason for

this resistance. Deros et al. highlighted that management plays a crucial role in creating awareness and

fostering a culture of ergonomics to mitigate risks in the workplace [36]. Mustafa et al. noted that 40% of

industrial practitioners in their study attributed the lack of pressure from management as a significant barrier to

implementing ergonomics programs, with 18% identifying financial constraints as a major issue [32].

The third theme, extracted from three publications, focuses on the limited availability of knowledgeable

technical personnel, such as ergonomics specialists or trained practitioners, to guide workplace ergonomics

programs. Loo and Richardson reported a scarcity of ergonomists and human factors specialists in Malaysia

[13]. Ahasan added that many ergonomics practitioners in Malaysia are not certified professionals [14].

Tamrin et al. pointed out the absence of established competency standards and professional certifications for

ergonomics practitioners in Malaysia [30]. The unclear recognition process for ergonomics qualifications

creates challenges for aspiring practitioners, hindering career growth and limiting the supply of experts.

Additionally, ergonomics is not widely included in the curricula of higher education institutions, and

collaboration between academia and industry remains limited. Without sufficient awareness and demand at the

corporate level, universities have struggled to promote ergonomics education effectively [13], [30]. As a result,

the ecosystem needed to develop future ergonomists and specialists is underdeveloped, further constraining the

availability of technical expertise for implementing ergonomics programs.

The final theme relates to the absence of standards or regulations within the legal framework for ergonomics

implementation in workplaces. Currently, there is no clear legislative mandate requiring ergonomics programs,

with only general provisions loosely defined in the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 and the Factories

and Machinery Act 1967 [30]. This situation is compounded by lax government enforcement, particularly

concerning labor, safety, and health issues [13]. The abundance of cheap labor, along with the presence of

foreign and contract workers who are hesitant to report problems due to fear of job loss, further exacerbates the

issue [12]. Although the Department of Occupational Safety and Health published an ergonomics risk

assessment guideline in 2017 [37], the guideline is not legally binding. Moving forward, formal recognition of

ergonomics through professional certifications and upgrading ergonomics programs to 'industrial codes of

practice' or 'regulations' within the legal framework could enhance the infrastructure for effective ergonomics

implementation.

Thematic analysis from Interview Session

The analysis of interview content generated a total of four themes and nine codes related to the ergonomics

implementation challenges faced by engineers in manufacturing industries. The four themes representing the

main challenges are: 1) limited ergonomics documentation and references for engineers, 2) limitations of

ergonomics exposure and practical experience 3) worker’s unconstructive behaviors and attitude towards

ergonomics, and 4) late considerations of ergonomics in the design process.

The first theme addresses the scarcity of documentation, references, and knowledge specifically tailored for

engineers' internal use. Among 15 participants (75% of the sample), it was revealed that ergonomics programs

were predominantly driven or overseen by occupational safety and health (OSH) teams rather than engineering

or production teams. In Malaysia, ergonomics generally falls under the OSH team’s purview due to provisions

in the OSH Act of 1994, which mandates that employers create a work environment aligned with employees'

physical and psychological needs. However, the participants noted that engineering teams are engaged

throughout ergonomics identification, assessment, and improvement efforts. Engineers rely on the OSH team

for ergonomics documentation, but these materials are often written from a safety perspective, focusing on risk

factors and incident-based investigations. As a result, the content primarily addresses compliance with legal

requirements, offering limited insights into productivity and efficiency. Four engineers expressed frustration

over the absence of clear documentation outlining specific roles and responsibilities in past ergonomics

programs, leading to disagreements among engineering team members about whether ergonomics

Page 88

www.rsisinternational.org

MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025

implementation fell within their job scope. They emphasized that the lack of defined roles, coupled with

limited ergonomics guidance and references from an engineering perspective, hindered their ability to

contribute effectively to ergonomics implementation.

The second theme concerns the limited exposure to ergonomics and practical experience among engineers. Ten

engineers (50% of the sample) reported that they had never attended formal ergonomics training or short

courses, despite expectations from the OSH team for their involvement in ergonomics programs. Those who

did receive training indicated that the contents covered were largely theory-based, safety-oriented, and not

specific to their industry. A further challenge arose from the limited experience of some ergonomics program

participants, who struggled to offer practical solutions that did not negatively impact production rates. Three

engineers reported that some safety and health officers (SHOs) overseeing ergonomics programs lacked

engineering or technical-related postsecondary education and experience. As a result, the ergonomics

interventions proposed by these SHOs were often impractical, costly, and failed to consider engineering

constraints. Since engineers are accountable for production outputs, they were frequently left to manage the

implementation of these impractical solutions, adding to their frustration.

The third theme relates to unconstructive behaviors and attitudes among workers toward ergonomics. Eight

engineers (40% of the sample) noted that their ergonomics interventions were often undermined by workers

who preferred to take shortcuts. Some workers resisted changes, having grown accustomed to work methods

that had become ingrained habits, despite the fact that the new ergonomics methods were both safer and more

efficient.

The final theme involves the late consideration of ergonomics in the design process, identified by seven

engineers (35% of the sample). One issue raised was the tendency to overlook space requirements and

clearances during the design stage, particularly for non-routine maintenance tasks. Limited accessibility for

maintenance teams to repair, replace, or install components led to poor work postures and forceful manual

exertions, as tight spaces made it difficult to use assistive load-handling devices. Additionally, engineers

highlighted challenges with imported equipment and machinery. Ergonomics requirements specific to the local

population were often not included in the tender specifications, and the Factory Acceptance Test (FAT)

process did not account for ergonomics considerations. This oversight resulted in anthropometric mismatches

that were only discovered during the operational stage, by which time corrections were expensive and difficult

to implement.

DISCUSSION

There are several similarities and differences between the thematic data on ergonomics implementation

challenges identified from the literature review and the interviews. For starters, limited ergonomics knowledge

was highlighted in both sources. The interviews with engineers associated this challenge with a lack of

documentation and references tailored specifically for engineers. Engineers also linked limited ergonomics

knowledge to workers' unconstructive behaviors and attitudes toward ergonomics. A study among Nigerian

engineers identified the absence of ergonomics content in engineering curricula as a major barrier to promoting

human-centered design in Nigeria [38]. Similarly, Soares reported that in Latin American countries, including

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru, the lack of postgraduate programs at the master's and

doctoral levels, except in Brazil, contributed to slow progress in ergonomics practices [39]. In Indonesia,

Wignjosoebroto found that a low education level among factory workers negatively impacted ergonomics

implementation in the workplace [40]. Workers also displayed poor attitudes toward ergonomics programs and

feared raising issues with management out of concern for job security. Many studies cited a lack of training as

a significant challenge to effective ergonomics implementation [41] – [43].

Another similarity between the literature and the interview findings is the critical role of management in the

ergonomics implementation process. Wignjosoebroto reported that poor management attitudes were a primary

challenge to successful ergonomics implementation in Indonesian workplaces, as management tended to

underinvest in safety and health due to the availability of cheap labor [40]. Similar challenges were highlighted

in other studies, where poor management and worker attitudes hampered ergonomics efforts. Yazdani and

Page 89

www.rsisinternational.org

MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025

Wells in a review of 88 papers across various sectors, summarized 11 common barriers to implementing

ergonomics interventions for preventing musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) [44]. These barriers included a lack

of time, resources, communication, and management support; resistance to change; changing work

environments; fear of job loss or loss of authority; and process deficiencies. Another recurring issue was the

timing of ergonomics activities. When ergonomics is introduced late in the design phase, workers often

experience safety and health difficulties [45]. Early incorporation of ergonomics can facilitate the early

identification of human interaction problems, enabling design modifications before the facility is

commissioned [46] – [47].

One notable difference between literature and the interview findings relates to the role of education in

ergonomics practice. Sirat et al. found that formal education levels (e.g., PMR, SPM, degrees, or postgraduate

qualifications) had no significant impact on the adoption of safety culture or ergonomics [31]. This may be

because occupational ergonomics programs in Malaysia are predominantly driven by Safety and Health

Officers (SHOs), and becoming an SHO does not require tertiary-level academic [30]. However, the

interviewed engineers provided a different perspective, emphasizing that ergonomics, as an interdisciplinary

field, requires high-level critical thinking to address challenges effectively. Several engineers noted that while

SHOs may be capable of identifying and assessing ergonomics concerns, most lack the knowledge and skills to

contribute meaningfully to problem mitigation and control.

Another noteworthy point related to implementation challenges is the role of authority to promote ergonomics

programs at workplaces. The Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), from Malaysian’s

Ministry of Human Resources have already embarked in program to educate industries and enforce

ergonomics program in Malaysia. Several guidelines on manual material handling, as well as ergonomics risk

assessment process have been introduced to encourage ergonomics program implementation in workplaces

[37],[48]. This agrees with a publication by Dul et al, which specifically identify authorities and regulators as

‘system influencers’ in effective ergonomics implementation [47]. Wignjosoebroto in another publication also

pointed out the need of regulation and enforcement by authorities to foster ergonomics program, although the

authors cautioned that there is a risk to economic growth, especially in developing countries as foreign

investors may opt to relocate to other countries with a more relaxed legal requirement [40].

While this study provides meaningful insights into the challenges of ergonomics implementation faced by

engineers in the Malaysian manufacturing sector, several limitations should be acknowledged. The findings are

based on qualitative data from a specific group of engineers, which may not fully reflect the broader spectrum

of experiences across different industries or organizational contexts. Additionally, the study focused primarily

on identifying challenges and did not explore in depth the strategies currently used to overcome them. Future

research could expand on these findings by incorporating quantitative methods to explore the extent and

impact of the challenges identified. It would also be beneficial to investigate successful case studies of

ergonomics integration and to explore sector-specific needs, tools, and guidelines that can better support

engineers in their roles. Such efforts would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding and practical

advancement of ergonomics implementation in the workplace.

CONCLUSION

There has been limited documentation summarizing the challenges of implementing ergonomics programs in

workplaces, particularly in the Malaysian manufacturing sector. A total of eight themes related to ergonomics

implementation challenges were identified through literature review and interviews with engineers. The themes

identified from the literature review are: 1) limited operational ergonomics awareness, knowledge, education,

and practical experiences, 2) lack of resources & support from management, 3) limited technical support such

as ergonomics specialist or trained personnel for guidance and direction of ergonomics program, and 4)

absence of standard or regulation within legal framework with regards to ergonomics implementation in the

workplace. In contrast, the themes identified from interviews with engineers include: 1) limited ergonomics

documentations, references, and knowledge, especially for internal use by engineers, 2) limitation of

ergonomics exposure and practical experience, 3) unconstructive behaviors and attitude towards ergonomics,

and 4) late considerations of ergonomics in the design process. The outcomes of this study are intended to

Page 90

www.rsisinternational.org

MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025

provide engineers information, a point of reference, and directions on typical difficulties with implementing

ergonomics in the workplace, especially in Malaysian manufacturing sector.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Malaysian Government, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) and

Ergoworks Sdn. Bhd. (EWSB) for supporting this study. The study was funded by the research grant

PJP/2024/FTMK/PERINTIS/SA0047.

REFERENCES

1. M. Leber, M. Bastič, L. Moody, and M. S. Krajnc, "A study of the impact of ergonomically designed

workplaces on employee productivity," Adv. Prod. Eng. Manag., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 107–117, 2018.

2. K. Sweeney, M. Mackey, J. Spurway, J. Clarke, and K. Ginn, "The effectiveness of ergonomics

interventions in reducing upper limb work-related musculoskeletal pain and dysfunction in

sonographers, surgeons and dentists: A systematic review," Ergonomics, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 1–38, 2021.

3. C. S. García, A. C. Marroquín, I. A. Macassi, and J. C. Alvarez, "Application of working method and

ergonomic to optimize the packaging process in an asparagus industry," Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol.,

vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 14–23, 2021.

4. G. Susana, "Improve of worker performance and quality of anchovy with ergonomic hybrid solar

dryer," ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1662–1667, 2018.

5. M. Zare, N. Black, J. C. Sagot, G. Hunault, and Y. Roquelaure, "Ergonomics interventions to reduce

musculoskeletal risk factors in a truck manufacturing plant," Int. J. Ind. Ergon., vol. 75, p. 102896,

2020.

6. M. Brito, A. L. Ramos, P. Carneiro, and M. A. Gonçalves, "Integration of lean manufacturing and

ergonomics in a metallurgical industry," Int. J. Occup. Environ. Saf., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 21–31, 2018.

7. [T. Cimen, A. Baykasoğlu, and S. Akyol, "Assembly line rebalancing and worker assignment

considering ergonomic risks in an automotive parts manufacturing plant," Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput.,

vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 363–384, 2022.

8. L. A. Hadidi, A. Kolus, and M. AlKhamis, "Quality improvement through ergonomics intervention at

chemical plant," Facilities, vol. 37, no. 5/6, pp. 266–279, 2019.

9. W. Shin and M. Park, "Ergonomic interventions for prevention of work-related musculoskeletal

disorders in a small manufacturing assembly line," Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 110–

122, 2019.

10. S. Iranzo, A. Piedrabuena, D. Iordanov, U. Martinez-Iranzo, and J. M. Belda-Lois, "Ergonomics

assessment of passive upper-limb exoskeletons in an automotive assembly plant," Appl. Ergon., vol.

87, p. 103120, 2020.

11. Y. Ali, K. C. Chew, and M. Z. Razak, "Development of knowledge-based ergonomics software for

small and medium sized industries in Malaysia," in Proc. Malaysian Ergonomics Conf., Penang,

Malaysia, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 45–50, 2001.

12. P. H. P. Yeow and R. N. Sen, "Quality, productivity, occupational health and safety and cost

effectiveness of ergonomic improvements in the test workstations of an electronic factory," Int. J. Ind.

Ergon., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 147–163, 2002.

13. H. S. Loo and S. Richardson, "Ergonomics issues in Malaysia," J. Soc. Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 61–65,

2012.

14. R. Ahasan, "Who does what in human factors/ergonomics in Malaysia?," J. Hum. Ergol., vol. 43, no. 2,

pp. 97–95, 2014.

15. R. M. Yusuff, Z. Baba, S. Z. M. Dawal, and E. Tan, "Malaysian ergonomics standards-its development,

awareness, and implementation-a review article," Iran. J. Public Health, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2016.

16. S. J. Guastello, Human factors engineering and ergonomics: A systems approach. Boca Raton, FL,

USA: CRC Press, 2023.

17. X. Sun, R. Houssin, J. Renaud, and M. Gardoni, "A review of methodologies for integrating human

factors and ergonomics in engineering design," Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 57, no. 15–16, pp. 4961–4976,

2019.

Page 91

www.rsisinternational.org

MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025

18. J. Village, M. Greig, S. Zolfaghari, F. Salustri, and W. P. Neumann, "Adapting engineering design

tools to include human factors," IIE Trans. Occup. Ergon. Hum. Factors, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2014.

19. O. Broberg, "Integrating ergonomics into engineering: Empirical evidence and implications for the

ergonomists," Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 353–366, 2007.

20. R. Dingwall, Context and method in qualitative research. London, U.K.: Sage, 1997.

21. M. Huberman and M. B. Miles, The qualitative researcher's companion. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA:

Sage, 2002.

22. J. Mason, "Linking qualitative and quantitative data analysis," in Analyzing Qualitative Data. London,

U.K.: Routledge, 2013, pp. 103–124.

23. H. F. Wolcott, "Writing up qualitative research 3rd edition," Qual. Health Res., pp. 91–103, 2002.

24. J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2016.

25. S. L. Dworkin, "Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews," Transformat. J.,

vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1319–1320, 2012.

26. S. Kvale and S. Brinkmann, Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing.

London, U.K.: Sage, 2009.

27. B. Marshall, P. Cardon, A. Poddar, and R. Fontenot, "Does sample size matter in qualitative research?

A review of qualitative interviews in IS research," J. Comput. Inf. Syst., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 11–22,

2013.

28. V. Clarke and V. Braun, Thematic analysis: A practical guide. London, U.K.: Sage, 2021.

29. J. Saldana, The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, U.K.: Sage, 2021.

30. S. B. M. Tamrin, M. S. S. Mohamed, and N. Y. Guan, "KD1-4 challenges in establishing the

professional ergonomist certification scheme in Malaysia," Jpn. J. Ergon., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 42–47,

2017.

31. R. M. Sirat, J. M. Rohani, N. Ahmad, A. M. Shaharoun, and H. Haron, "Education level, working

experiences and ergonomics training effect on ergonomics awareness and practices," Int. J. Eng.

Technol., vol. 7, no. 3.24, pp. 12–17, 2018.

32. S. A. Mustafa, S. Kamaruddin, Z. Othman, and M. Mokhtar, "Ergonomics awareness and identifying

frequently used ergonomics programs in manufacturing industries using quality function deployment,"

Am. J. Sci. Res., vol. 3, pp. 51–66, 2009.

33. F. Abdul Aziz, N. Razali, and N. Jaafar, "An investigation of low ergonomics risk awareness, among

staffs at early product development phase in Malaysia automotive industries," IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater.

Sci. Eng., vol. 114, no. 1, p. 012096, 2016.

34. P. H. P. Yeow and R. N. Sen, "Productivity and quality improvements, revenue increment, and

rejection cost reduction in the manual component insertion lines through the application of

ergonomics," Int. J. Ind. Ergon., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 367–377, 2006.

35. P. H. P. Yeow and R. N. Sen, "Ergonomics improvements of the visual inspection process in a printed

circuit assembly factory," Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 369–385, 2004.

36. B. M. Deros, D. D. I. Daruis, and I. M. Basir, "A study on ergonomic awareness among workers

performing manual material handling activities," Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 195, pp. 1666–1673,

2015.

37. Dept. Occup. Saf. Health (DOSH), Guidelines on ergonomics risk assessment at workplace 2017.

Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Human Resources, 2017.

38. S. O. Ismaila and T. M. Samuel, "Human-centered engineering: the challenges of Nigerian engineer," J.

Eng. Des. Technol., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 195–208, 2014.

39. M. M. Soares, "Ergonomics in Latin America: Background, trends and challenges," Appl. Ergon., vol.

37, no. 4, pp. 555–561, 2006.

40. S. Wignjosoebroto, "Indonesia ergonomics roadmap: where we are going?," J. Hum. Ergol., vol. 36,

no. 2, pp. 91–98, 2007.

41. C. Falck and M. Rosenqvist, "What are the obstacles and needs of proactive ergonomics measures at

early product development stages? – An interview study in five Swedish companies," Int. J. Ind.

Ergon., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 406–415, 2012.

Page 92

www.rsisinternational.org

MIC3ST 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

Virtual Conference on Melaka International Social Sciences, Science and Technology 2025

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIII October 2025

42. Shikdar and S. A. Al-Araimi, "Ergonomic conditions in small manufacturing industries," Sultan

Qaboos Univ. J. Sci., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 61–70, 2001.

43. O. J. Sealetsa and A. Thatcher, "Ergonomics issues among sewing machine operators in the textile

manufacturing industry in Botswana," Work, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 279–289, 2011.

44. A. Yazdani and R. Wells, "Barriers for implementation of successful change to prevent musculoskeletal

disorders and how to systematically address them," Appl. Ergon., vol. 73, pp. 122–140, 2018.

45. R. Z. Radin Umar, M. N. Khafiz, N. Abdullasim, N. Ahmad, and J. Dahalan, "Conceptual architecture

development of virtual reality–motion capture system to analyze accessibility and clearance in front-

end engineering design process: An exploratory study," in Proc. SympoSIMM 2021: Intell. Manuf.

Mechatron., Singapore: Springer, 2022, pp. 347–360.

46. S. Aromaa and K. Vaananen, "Suitability of virtual prototypes to support human factors/ergonomics

evaluation during the design," Appl. Ergon., vol. 56, pp. 11–18, 2016.

47. J. Dul, R. Bruder, P. Buckle, et al., "A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the

discipline and profession," Ergonomics, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 377–395, 2012.

48. Dept. Occup. Saf. Health (DOSH), Guidelines for manual handling at workplace 2018. Putrajaya,

Malaysia: Ministry of Human Resources, 2018.