本研究的目的在以22個工作姿勢下的最大維持時間(Maximum Holding Time, MHT)，檢視OWAS(Ovako Working Posture Analysis System)對各種對不良姿勢的評估結果。如果檢驗結果出現不一致現象，在經由修正後的工作姿勢分級之判別標準及MHT行動等級調整表修正現行OWAS的檢核結果。
本研究的作法是參考Miedema的MHT姿勢矩陣圖，請3名受測人進行22個工作姿勢的擺位，以計測各姿勢的MHT。接著，對各姿勢的MHT進行大至小排列，及界定各工作姿勢的不舒適等級。接著，再比較MHT與OWAS行動等級的差異。比較結果顯示，22個工作姿勢中有8個工作姿勢的檢核結果是一致的，如：25%SH/25%AR姿勢在MHT & OWAS皆判定為AC3等；差1個危害等級的工作姿勢有8個，如：25%SH/75%AR姿勢，OWAS的檢核結果為AC3，MHT的檢核結果為AC4、差2個危害等級的工作姿勢有4個，如：100%SH/100%AR姿勢，OWAS的檢核結果為AC1，MHT的檢核結果為AC3、差3個危害等級的工作姿勢有2個，如：125%SH/100&AR的姿勢，OWAS的檢核結果為AC1，MHT的檢核結果為AC4。最後，再參考Borg-CR10主觀感受評級表之等級2，對靜態姿勢的最大維持時間提出危害警界建議。
綜合上述研究結果，22個工作姿勢中有14個工作姿勢的檢核結果有差異，這些差異的主要原因來自於OWAS檢核表並非以靜態姿勢為唯一的考量因素(包含動態姿勢)，因此造成OWAS在靜態姿勢的危害風險評估結果，出現輕判且與人員實際感受不符現象。另一方面，本研究的MHT評估指標雖然僅以靜態姿勢為唯一考量因素，但確實可反應出工作人員在靜態姿勢的勞累感受。最後，本研究建議將MHT各舒適度等級的時間加入OWAS工作姿勢分級之判別標準，以時間來修正OWAS檢核表在靜態姿勢之危害風險。

The purpose of this research is to review and evaluate the influence of the unhealthy posture by OWAS (Ovako Working Posture Analysis System) analysis which is verified by the MHT (Maximum Holding Time) base on 22 kinds of working postures. If the inconsistency exists between OWAS and MHT, the OWAS evaluated data has to be modified according to the revised grading standards of working posture and MHT action categories.
Refer to the Miedema’s MHT posture matrix, it is calculated with 3 persons and 22 kinds of working postures. Thereupon, make the MHT of all postures in ascending order and define the uncomfortable grading standard of each working posture. Eventually, evaluate the data between MHT and OWAS to review the accuracy of OWAS. The result shows 8 of 22 working postures are consistency, for example, 25%SH (Shoulder Height) / 25%AR (Arm Reach) posture is judged as AC3 category by MHT and OWAS analysis; 8 of 22 working postures, 25%SH/75%AR, are judged as AC3 category by OWAS analysis and AC4 category by MHT analysis; 4 of 22 working postures, 100%SH/100%AR, are judged as AC1 category by OWAS analysis and AC3 category by MHT analysis, and 2 of 22 working postures, 125%SH/100%AR are judged as AC1 category by OWAS analysis and AC4 category by MHT analysis. Eventually, propose the warning level for body discomfort for the MHT of static posture refer to the level 2 defined in rating of perceived exertion scale of Borg-CR10.
Above all, there is different outcome detected in these 14 of 22 postures comes from the criteria of OWAS which considered about not only static posture but also dynamic posture. Therefore, there is miscarriage of justice about the personnel’s evaluating index in this thesis considered static posture as only factor actually reflects the tired feeling of experimental subject in static posture. In conclusion, suggest considering the time of MHT’s each comfortable scale as the criteria of OWAS working posture scale to modify the risk assessment of static posture in OWAS.

中文文獻
1. 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究，1995，「人因工程應用手冊」，行政院勞委會勞工安全衛生研究所八十四年技術手冊，ISOH84-T-002
2. 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究，1997，「工作現場人囚工程檢核表適用性研究」，行政院勞委會勞工安全衛生研究所八十六年度委託研究報告，ISOH86-H329
3. 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究，1998，「肌肉骨骼傷害人因工程檢核表使用手冊」
4. 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究，1998，「房屋建築勞工下背痛危害分析與改善研究」，行政院勞委會勞工安全衛生研究所八十七年度委託研究報告，ISOH98-H315
5. 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究，2001，「人因工程肌肉骨骼傷害預防指引」，行政院勞委會勞工安全衛生研究所九十年度技術手冊，ISOH90-T042
6. 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究，2006，「手腕部肌肉骨骼傷害危害因子暴露調查研究」，行政院勞委會勞工安全衛生研究所九十五年度委託研究報告，ISOH95-H102
7. 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究，2008，「工作現場人因工程危害預防效益研究」，勞工安全衛生研究報告，ISOH97-H315
8. 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究，2008，「人因工程現場不良工作姿勢改善績效評估研究」，潘儀聰，游志雲，ISOH97-H318
9. 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究，2009，「餐飲業從業人員肌肉骨骼傷病危害情形調查」，行政院勞委會勞工安全衛生研究所九十八年度委託研究報告，ISOH98-H318
10. 清華大學工業工程與工程管理系，2012，「工作肌肉骨骼傷害的機轉與危害因子」，游志雲
11. 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究，1997，「重覆性傷害預防對策－現場評估與手部施力基礎資料之建立」，行政院勞委會勞工安全衛生研究所委託研究報告，ISOH87-H124。

英文文獻
[a1] Liang Hui-Wen, Labor investigate yearly report, A brief of WMSDs, Industrial safety scientific and technological quarterly, Council Of Labor Affairs Executive Yuan Taiwan 2003, Vol.50, P.2-6
[a2] Cheng-Lung Lee, MSDs of Construction labourer, Labor Safe and Hygiene News in Brief 1999, Vol.39, 4
[a3] Preventing MSDs in Practice, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 2000.
[a4] Lynn McAtamney and E.Nigel Corlett, 1993, “RULA: a survey method for the investigation of related upper limb disorders“ Applied Ergonomics 1993, Vol.24, No.2, 91-99.
[a5] Karhu, O., Kansi, P., and Kuorinka, I., 1977. “Correcting Working Postures in Industry: A Practical Method for Analysis”, Applied Ergonomics 1977, Vol.8, No.4, 199-201.
[a6] Osmo Karhu, Reino Harkonen, Pentti Sorvali and Pentti Vepsalainen, 1981, “Observing Working Postures in Industry: Examples of OWAS Application”, Applied Ergonomics 1981, Vol.12, No.1, 13-17.
[a7] Graham, B., Nicola, R., 1996. “Working Practices in a Perchery System, Using the Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System”, Applied Ergonomics 1996, Vol.27, No.4, 281-284.
[a8] Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods, Library of Congress Gataloging-in-Publication Data, 2003
[a9] André Klussmann1, Ulf Steinberg, Falk Liebers, Hansjürgen Gebhardt1 and Monika A Rieger, 2010, The Key Indicator Method for Manual Handling Operations (KIM-MHO) - evaluation of a new method for the assessment of working conditions within a cross-sectional study, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 11:272
[a10] Hsieh-Ching Chen, Feng-Ying Lin & Cheng-Lung Lee, Application of the key indicators method in ergonomic interventions
[a11] Hignett, S. & McAtamney, L. 2000. Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Applied Ergonomics 31: 201-205.
[a12] Mathild C. Meidema & Marjolein Douwes, Jan Dul, Recommend Maximum Holding Times for Prevention of Discomfort of Static Standing Postures. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 19 (1997) 9-18.
[a13] Gunnar Borg, Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion, Scand J Work Environ Health 1990; 16(suppl 1): 55-8