SECTION III Service Systems
9.5 Justifying Ergonomics Initiatives — Case Studies
9-14 Occupational Ergonomics: Design and Management of Work Systems
managers about direct and indirect costs that they understand will go a long way toward securing buy- in for ergonomic interventions.
A new twist to the cost benefit puzzle that needs to be explored and incorporated in more benefit presentations is the “values based” approach. Whether we like to admit it or not, corporate values have a very powerful influence on what gets done or does not get done in organizations. Without a clear understanding of what those internal value systems are, both organizationally as well as individually, the ergonomist may find himself or herself with what appears to be a fiscally sound intervention proposal that goes nowhere. The ability to appeal to values when the more traditional approaches to salesmanship have failed is what will differentiate the ergonomist of the future.
• All of the nursing homes implemented all or part of the improvement strategy. The total injury incidence rates were reduced compared to the previous year’s rates. Two of the six facilities were taken out of the Tennessee assigned risk pool and were able to return to the competitive insurance market for pricing quotes. (Benefit: Generally the competitive market results in lower premiums, thereby reducing operating expenses and improving cash flow.)
• Two other facilities have current experience modifiers of 0.85. This means that because they are approximately 15% better than the industry average, their workers’ compensation insurance premium earns a 15% credit. (Benefit: Reduced operating expenses. Possibly translating into better allocation of funds to facilities and staff improvements that benefit the nursing home customers, i.e., more value-added services or reduction in charges resulting in more competitive market position.)
• Subsequent interviews with CNAs have suggested greater job satisfaction, as a great deal of the difficult portion of their job has been reduced due to implementation of mechanical lift equipment.
(Benefit: Improved employee morale.)
Vehicle Subassembly Plant Ergonomics Success Story
This case study took place in a vehicle subassembly plant that essentially attached vehicle bodies to a preassembled chassis. Operation began early in 1987 and by November that year they hit the production level of 95 units per day. As the operation began to grow through 1989 so did the incidence of back injuries and cumulative trauma disorders.
Late that year the corporate parent company began a TQM initiative and started to identify work processes that had opportunities for improvement. In the 1st quarter of 1990 the lost time frequency rate at this location approached 19.4. Local management saw ergonomics as an area of importance and decided to address these issues using the corporate TQM approach. At that time they developed an ergonomics problem-solving team and allocated $100,000 for ergonomic improvements.
Soon after team formation each member received 2.5 days of ergonomics training. The teams initially were focused on reactive problem solving using loss analysis as a guide to direct them to problem areas.
Specific solutions at this stage included:
• Work tables
• Carts
• Platforms
• Floor mats
By June of 1990 the team began to use proactive techniques to address ergonomic issues by identifying problem tasks through observation of risk factors, conducting task analyses, and requesting employee feedback. Through this process the team determined that supervisory training was needed. A training plan to train all supervisors was created and implemented. At the end of 1990, another $100,000 was allocated for ergonomic improvements.
9-16 Occupational Ergonomics: Design and Management of Work Systems
Early in 1991, ergonomics was considered to be a critical work process consideration and became part of the 1995 vision statement. After the supervisory training was conducted, supervisors were integrated into the teams and employee feedback was incorporated into the problem-solving efforts. At this time the ergonomics team had implemented many solutions including:
• Rivets squeezers
• Improved tooling and fixturing
• Ergonomic seating
• Powered pallet movers
• Hydraulic lift tables
• Overhead cranes and hoists
• Vacuum manipulators
The ergonomics process was now integrated into the business operation and the team began to measure and monitor results of the interventions. Administrative controls were considered in those tough areas where the engineering controls were not completely addressing the issues. In the paint department, for instance, a job rotation process was piloted and later implemented. In addition, a formal medical case management process was implemented which facilitated employee return to work and conservative medical treatment. Preliminary results indicated that the frequency rate had decreased to 9.57. A pre- sentation was made to senior management with these results and another $100,000 was allocated for the 1992 budget.
Through 1992 employee and supervisory training continued and more strides to involve employees in the process were made. Job rotation was embraced by management, and initial rotation strategies were expanded to include 85% of the production area. By the end of 1992 over 90% of all repetitive bending, twisting, and heavy lifting was eliminated. Lost time frequency continued to fall to a level of 5.89 and for the first quarter of 1993 reached the lowest level since the inception of the ergonomic efforts.
Management was very pleased with these results and allocated an additional $85,000 for the 1993 budget.
Measured Results (loss data collected on 12/31/92)
• Back injuries per year were reduced from 85 to 11
• Upper extremity CTDs per year were reduced from 105 to 54
• Lost workdays were reduced from 1,402 to 476
• Lost time frequency reduced from 19.39 to 4.4 (data as of 3/93; see Table 9.8) Other Tangible and Intangible Benefits Which Were Cited but not Quantified
• Increased quality
• Increased productivity
• Decreased inventory levels
• Decreased scrap
• Decreased turnover/absenteeism
• Increased morale Keys to Success
• Extremely strong senior management support
• Identified as a critical work process
TABLE 9.8 Cost Benefit Analysis (1989 to 1992 as of 1992 year end)
Loss Area Ergonomic Expenditures Total Savings Return on Investment
All Injuries $300,000 $657,618 119%
Back Injuries $160,000 $349,315 118%
back. Ergonomic interventions may also offer value to many of the traumatic injuries reported on the OSHA 200 log. Estimates indicate that up to 25% of the OSHA recordable injuries have root causes that are ergonomic related.
This case study illustrates the importance of return to work processes as part of an overall ergonomics program. Return to work efforts become more complex when the employee injury is cumulative in nature.
In these cases it is essential that the employer not only provide the employee with exemplary medical care but identify and control those workplace factors that were likely causes of the injury. In return-to- work scenarios such as this, controlling the injured employee’s exposure to those job-related risk factors can be either engineering or administratively based.
This specific case involved an employee who was diagnosed with chronic carpal tunnel syndrome. The employee was a computer operator who performed keying up to 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. After a trial of conservative treatment, the employee’s symptoms persisted. Electrodiagnostic evaluation indicated that there was significant median nerve pathology, and surgical intervention was recommended. Post- surgical response was poor and the patient was later diagnosed with reflex sympathy dystrophy (RSD).
The employer was very cooperative with the employee up to the diagnosis of RSD. At that time the treating physician gave the employee permanent work restrictions that included a maximum of 1 hour of keying a day. It was felt that this restriction would continue as long as the employee had pain. At this time the employer made the decision to terminate the employee because they did not have any jobs that this employee was qualified to do with this keyboarding restriction. After the employee’s 26 weeks of short-term disability was completed, the termination process was initiated.
The employer’s insurance provider was informed of this decision and contacted management of the employer to discuss this case. The carrier felt this course of action would put the employer at legal risk and increase the eventual costs of this claim. The carrier carefully evaluated the financial impact of this decision and prepared the two scenarios that are diagrammed in Table 9.9 for the employer.
As can be seen from the data the employer would save up to $255,294 if they accommodated the employee. In this case these figures helped convince the employer to consider providing the employee with alternative productive duty. In fact the employer did create a job for the employee that did not require extensive keying and that the employee was qualified to perform. At the time of this report, the TABLE 9.9 Comparison of Two Approaches to a Chronic Workers’ Compensation Case
Type of Cost
Scenario 1 — Terminate Employee after 26 Weeks of STD
Scenario 2 — Accommodate the Employee
Saving Realized by Accommodating the
Employee Workers’ Compensation Expenses
(Projected Medical and Indemnity
$86,125 $48,711 $37,414
Short-Term Disability Minus Any WC Offsets $6,932 $5,532 $1,400
Projected Long Term Disability $116,480 0 $116,480
Potential Legal Exposure (ADA, Wrongful Termination, Retirement Settlements)
$100,000 0 $100,000
Total $309,537 $54,243 $255,294
9-18 Occupational Ergonomics: Design and Management of Work Systems
employee was still experiencing pain from the CTS and RSD but remained gainfully employed and, most importantly happy to contribute to the employer where he/she had provided many years of loyal service prior to the injury.
References
1. Ford, Henry, Crowther, Samuel, 1922, My Life and Work, Garden City Publishing Co., Inc., Garden City, New York.
2. Alexander, David, C., 1995, The Economics of Ergonomics: Part II, Proceedings from the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.
3. Riggs, J. L., 1982, Essentials of Engineering Economics, McGraw-Hill, New York,.
4. Ossler, C. C., 1984, Cost Benefit and Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Occupational Health, Occupational Health Nursing, January.
5. AMA Management Handbook, 2nd Edition, copyright 1983, AMACOM, New York, NY
6. Oxenburgh, M., 1991, Increasing Productivity and Profit through Health and Safety, CCH Interna- tional, Chicago, IL.
7. Keeney, Ralph L., Creativity in Decision Making with Value-Focused Thinking, Sloan Management Review/Summer 1994.
8. Connor, Patrick E. and Lake, Linda K., 1988, Managing Organizational Change, Praeger Publishers, New York.
9. Deal, Terrance E., Kennedy, Allen A., 1982, Corporate Cultures — The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Addison — Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA.
10. Waterman, Robert H. Jr., 1987, The Renewal Factor, Bantam Publications 11. Peters, T. and Waterman, R., 1988, In Search of Excellence, Warner Books.
12. Shank, John, Govindarajan, Vijay, Strategic Cost Analysis of Technological Investments, Sloan Man- agement Review/Fall 1992, pp. 39-51.
13. Hayes and W. Abernathy, Managing Our Way to Economic Decline, Harvard Business Review, July- August 1980, pp. 66-77.
14. Wyatt, R.S. and Booth, C., Reducing Employee Back Injuries in Skilled Nursing Facilities, 1993 Internal Thesis, Travelers Indemnity Company.
0-8493-1801-7/03/$0.00+$1.50 10-1
© 2003 by CRC Press LLC