02/08/2020
This is a published article I wrote way back in 2001 about the effectiveness of A.T. in the workplace. I just found it in my files and thought I'd 're-birth' it.
"The Kines-Tech Project
A Two-year Pilot Program for a group of 96 employees at Fireman’s Fund Insurance Corporation, California
Background
The Kines-Tech Project has been developed over the past several years with the aim of bringing the principles of the Alexander Technique into the corporate workplace. The project originally started in 1993 as a joint venture between Dennis Kocjan (an Alexander Teacher who trained and worked in New York, London, and San Francisco) and myself. Around that time ergonomics was becoming the hot topic. RSI was identified as an increasingly common workplace problem and professional training organizations offering courses on “workplace ergonomics” for human resources and health and safety employees were springing up. After attending some of these courses, Dennis and I began developing a means for taking the Alexander Technique into the corporate environment—not the easiest of challenges.
From the outset, it was obvious that very few companies would be willing to pay for 20 or so private sessions for each employee. Not only would teaching fees alone be considerable but also the cost of 20 lost work hours per employee would have made die prospect an impossible sell. Another consideration was the issue of “compromising the Alexander Technique.” And so it was decided to present this work under another name. We initially came up with “Human Tech” as a name for the project. It later became Kines-Tech, a synthesis of kinesthetic, technique, (as in 'The Alexander....”) and tech (as in high-tech). The project was promoted as being “based on principles o)The Alexander Technique.”
The customary brochure was produced together wide an elementary business plan. We took the idea to market. We had no immediate success. In 1994 Dennis was diagnosed with lymphoma. The project became secondary as Dennis made many life changes in order to deal with his illness. I continued to market the program when I had the time but due to several factors, the idea lost momentum. And Dennis passed away in 1996.
One contact we had made during this time was with a health professional from a large local insurance company, Fireman’s Fund. She had held on to one of our brochures and when one of her client companies expressed a general interest in having ergonomic help beyond basic work-station evaluation, she contacted me. A meeting was set up and although the outcome was not immediately fruitful, I was able to connect with the company’s Loss Control Specialist, Bob Noha, who became instrumental in setting up the Pilot Program four years later.
During this period, I made several local business connections which resulted in training programs for employees of a graphics company and also for Blue Shield of California. The latter was very promising. The initial training workshop was attended by the head of human resources for the San Francisco Bay Area (the person who had commissioned the training) and the employees responded enthusiastically. We discussed future training, the outcome was optimistic and then...the human resources person left Blue Shield. C’est la vie! However, these experiences helped to refine the presentation, course materials and content of the training program.
The Pilot Program
On the basis of this work (together with the feedback from a Wellness program I presented for several years with the San Francisco Ballet Orchestra), Fireman’s Fund Insurance Corporation decided to commission an initial pilot program for 50 employees. The reasons for this decision were probably due to the following:
1. To enrich their current ergonomic program.
2. To have a hands-on safety training program that could meet CALOSHA requirements (the California OSHA ergonomic standards).
3. To reduce medical and workers compensation costs associated with “overuse injury.”
4. To involve employees in modifying work habits and taking more control of their work environment by emphasizing self-help.
5. To help retain quality workers and promote employee goodwill.
6. To address the need for an effective training program that could address the Repetitive Motion Injury epidemic in a practical manner.
After discussions with the company, a format was devised for the pilot program that would help assess the effectiveness of this approach over a period of time. Employee questionnaires, workshops, misuse analyses, individual work, and worksite visits were organized over a one-year period.
After this initial pilot program, the company then decided to double the number of employees in the program (making a total of 96). Therefore, the overall pilot program took approximately two years and was completed in March 2001.
Trainees came from various departments throughout the company. Enrollment in the program was voluntary, however several employees who had work-related muscular-skeletal disorders (WSMD's) were specifically invited to attend. Approximately 25% of trainees in the first pilot group and 30% in the second group had already filed a worker’s compensation claim before taking this training. Indeed, it was originally understood that a large proportion of trainees who were experiencing physical discomfort at work but who had not already filed a claim would probably be attracted to this program. The HR Department expected the program to “flush out early claims," which is a wise expectancy given that claims that go unreported, and therefore untreated, are liable to eventually cost more and to create more discomfort for the employee. Therefore, the expectations and criteria for the success of this preventive program (as opposed to a treatment program) took all this into consideration.
Prior to beginning the training, employees were asked to complete an “Ergonomic Study Questionnaire.” The purpose of this pre-training questionnaire was to determine their current level of physical discomfort due to computer activity (which could then serve as a baseline for comparing future levels), the average amount of time they spent using their computers, and to learn what initial expectations trainees had of the training.
One response that warrants special note is the average amount of time this group of employees spent using their computers each day. It was found to be 6.24 hours. (From my perspective this seemed high but compared to several of my private students, who spent more than 12 hours a day at a computer working for dot-com startups, it might be interpreted as normal in today’s workplace).
Before training began, participants received a package of course materials with information on what they could expect from this training, which would include a group workshop, paired sessions, and work-site evaluations.
Throughout, employee response was enthusiastic and open-minded. At no time did any trainee voice any opinion about the “hands-on” part of the work (no accusations of “new age cuties”).
SELECTED RESULTS FROM THIS STUDY
Appraisal of Initial Training Workshop
Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Strongly Disagree
1. This training program is effective in addressing ‘over-use’ in the workplace. * 78% 21% 1%
2. This program provided me with some practical tools for reducing physical stress at work. 85% 14% 1%
3. This program could be helpful for some colleagues. * 88% 11% 1%
4. The way I use my body at the workstation is important. * 99% - 0% 1%
5. Ergonomic furniture without an understanding of how to use it correctly is insufficient. 89% 11% 0%
6. The parts of the body used in keying-in activity need to be integrated and supported by the whole body.
95% 5% 0%
7. This program has made me more aware of how to use my workstation ergonomic furniture more effectively.
77% 23% 0%
*One person abstained from answering this question.
Results 3 to 4 months into training
These questions were designed to assess how much of the training was being absorbed and implemented at this stage. All participants were asked if they had tried the following procedures. The tabulation of their responses was as follows:
Lying down procedure: 80%
Reviewing the Course Materials: 49%
Applying the stop/inhibition procedure: 87%
Reorganized/slightly modified workstation: 82%
Discovered further mis-use habits: 67%
Participants were asked to explain the following technical terms or procedures:
Mis-use: 80%
Inhibition: 73%
Direction: 47%
Faulty Sensory Awareness: 53%
The better way to tilt the head upwards and downwards: 90%
Lengthening the lower part of the spine in the lying down procedure: 93%
Results 9 to 10 months into training
How often might you apply some ideas from this training?
a. Almost daily: 68%
b. Several times a week: 28%
c. Occasionally: 4%
d. Never: 0%
Has this program helped to minimize physical stress at work?
a. Yes: 65%
b. Somewhat: 34%
c. No: 1%
As a result of this program are you more able to use your ergonomic furniture at work more effectively?
a. Yes: 69%
b. Somewhat: 28%
c. No: 3%
Reported levels of physical discomfort as a result of computer activity—Pre-training, 3 to 4 months after initial KT training and 9 to 10 months after initial KT training.
Pre-Training 3/4 Months 9/10 Months
Tension Headaches 16% 5% 4%
Neck Pain 60% 30% 31%
Shoulder Pain/ Ache 55% 34% 34%
Eye Strain 13% 29% 7%
Upper/ Lower/ Back Pain/ Hip Discomfort
44% 20% 21%
Arm Discomfort/ Pain 34% 18% 10%
Wrist/ Hand/ Finger Pain / Discomfort
51% 30% 26%
Swelling/ Burning/ Numbness/ Tingling/ Loss of Sensation 26% 11% 10%
(Percentages have been rounded off to the nearest number).
John A Baron has his teaching. studio in Sausalito, CA and is the Co-Director of the Alexander Educational Center (AEC) in Berkeley. He has a background in theater and in business and is starting to train graduates of the AEC to become Kines-Tech Trainers.
AmSAT News • Issue 53 Fall 2001
