Saskia Baltrusch

217 Chapter 8 Due to the above, the luggage handlers perceived current external devices as a hindrance, rather than as a support. In addition, two of them complained about shoulder problems due to the device’s inflexible behaviour. One luggage handler shared his experience with working with robots that load big containers automatically. He had to control the robot and in case of mistakes, sorting the suitcases by hand: He acknowledged that the robot reduced loading on his back, but also remarked the problem of not having a continuous work rhythm. While standing at the control board his muscles get cold. When intervening in the process to sort suitcases he starts lifting with cold muscles. (Roel, Luggage Handler) The process coordinator was aware of the limitations discussed in the focus groups. With regard to the device being too slow, he talked about a “ perceived speed of work […], in which the sense of speed is reduced when using such a lifting device”. (Martijn, Process Coordinator) He reported that measurements have been done to compare lifting speed with and without using the lifting device. Results showed that lifting with the device is not slower than without, provided that there is “[…] an acceptable distribution of luggage over time […]” (Martijn, Process Coordinator) He also addressed the inflexible and static behaviour of the lifting device: “[…] such a lifting device is actually a really static thing, it’s hanging there and it can be moved to that side or the other side and that’s pretty much it.” (Martijn, Process Coordinator) Whereas the work of the luggage handler is rather dynamic : 8