Worker productivity, and occupational health and safety issues in selected industries q

Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563 572 www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw Worker productivity, and occupational health and safety issues in selected industries q Ashraf A. Shikdar*, Naseem M. Sawaqed Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 33, Al-Khod 123, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman Accepted 11 July 2003 Abstract The main objective of this research was to identify factors that affected worker productivity, occupational health and safety in selected industries in a developing country. Fifty production managers participated in the study. Fifty-four percent of the managers reported hot environmental conditions, 28% a noisy environment, and 26% a lack of resources and facilities. Managers received worker complaints of fatigue, back pain, upper-body pain, hand and wrist pain and headaches. Management (88%) acknowledged not having knowledge or access to ergonomics information. Ninety-four percent of the companies did not carry out ergonomic assessments. A significant correlation ðp, 0:01Þ was found among productivity indicators and health and organizational attributes. Lack of skills in ergonomics and training, communication and resources are believed to be some of the factors contributing to the poor ergonomic conditions and consequent loss of worker productivity and reduced health and safety in these industries. q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Worker productivity; Ergonomics; Occupational health and safety; Environmental conditions 1. Introduction Improving worker productivity, occupational health and safety (OHS) are major concerns of industry, especially in developing countries. Some of the common features of these industries are improper workplace design, ill-structured jobs, mismatch between worker abilities and job demands, adverse environment, poor human-machine system design and inappropriate management programs. This leads q This manuscripts was processed by Area Editor Mohamed M. Ayoub. * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ968-515-352; fax: þ968-513-416. E-mail address: ashraf1@squ.edu.om (A.A. Shikdar). 0360-8352/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/s0360-8352(03)00074-3

564 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563 572 to workplace hazards, poor worker health, mechanical equipment injuries, disabilities, and in turn this reduces worker productivity and product/work quality and increases cost. Ergonomics or Human Factors application has been found to improve worker productivity, occupational health, safety and satisfaction. This has both direct and indirect effects on the over all performance of a company. It would, therefore, be extremely difficult to attain company objectives without giving proper consideration to ergonomics. Effective application of ergonomics in work system design can achieve a balance between worker characteristics and task demands. This can enhance worker productivity, provide worker safety and physical and mental well-being, and job satisfaction. Many research studies have shown positive effects of applying ergonomic principles in workplaces, machine design, job design, environment and facilities design (Burri & Helander, 1991; Das, 1987; Das & Sengupta, 1996; Das & Shikdar, 1999; Hasselquist, 1981; Rayan, 1989; Resnik & Zanotti, 1997; Schanauber, 1986; Shikdar & Das, 1995). Studies in ergonomics have also produced data and guidelines for industrial applications. The features of ergonomic design of machines, workstations, and facilities are well known (Das & Grady, 1983; Grandjean, 1988; Konz, 1995; Melamed, Luz, Najemson, Jucha, & Green, 1989; Rayan, 1987; Sanders & McCormick, 1992). However, there is still a low level of acceptance and limited application in industry. The main concern of work system design is usually the improvement of machines and tools alone. Inadequate or no consideration is given to the work system as a whole. Therefore, poorly designed work systems are a common place in industry (Das, 1987; Konz, 1995). Neglect of ergonomic principles brings inefficiency and pain to the workforce. An ergonomically deficient workplace can cause physical and emotional stress, low productivity and poor quality of work (Ayoub, 1990a,b). It is believed ergonomic deficiencies are the root causes of workplace health hazards, low level of safety and reduced worker productivity and quality. Although the application has gained significant momentum in the developed countries, it remains unrecognized in developing countries. The application of ergonomics in improving worker productivity, OHS needed to be explored in the Sultanate of Oman. The objective of this research was to conduct a study to identify ergonomic factors that could cause low worker productivity and poor OHS in industries in the Sultanate of Oman. 2. Methodology Investigating ergonomics, worker productivity and OHS in industries involved development of a checklist that included questions regarding: (1) demography of the company, (2) productivity and safety issues, (3) ergonomic issues, (4) environmental factors, and (5) organizational and management issues. The demography of the companies included questions such as number of workers, type of industry, if targets are set and percentage of targets achieved. Regarding productivity and safety issues, managers were asked questions about worker productivity, quality of work, absenteeism and number of injuries. The ergonomic issues included questions regarding worker complaints on health and safety such as back pain, upper-body pain, fatigue, stress, manual material handling, and motivation and training. The environmental factors included questions on the perception of heat and humidity, noise, light, dust and pollution; while the management issues included questions such as safety committees, worker training, hazard analysis and ergonomic knowledge and applications. Checklists were distributed to the production managers of 120 companies in four industrial estates. It was noted the companies in general were not interested in research, but would rather use known techniques that have been proven beneficial in the past, especially those in the areas of machines and

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563 572 565 operations. Telephone calls, reminders and visits were made to convince the managers to fill out the checklist and to guarantee full confidentiality. Fifty questionnaires were returned after completion. The response rate was 42%, which is considered quite a good response. The data was summarized for subsequent analysis. 3. Results and discussions The data on company statistics and frequency of positive or negative response to each question were analyzed using SPSS. Analysis indicates that specific ergonomic problems exist in most of the industries. They include (1) with regard to employees: back pains/backaches, upper-body and neck pains/aches, hand and wrist pain and discomfort, fatigue, stress and dissatisfaction; (2) with regard to work and workplace design: manual materials handling, hand tools, machines, workstations; (3) with regard to the environment: heat, humidity, noise and dust; and (4) with regard to management: training, motivation and OHS programs. Detailed analyses of the results are presented below. 3.1. Industry statistics Table 1 shows the types of industries that participated in the survey. Of the 50 companies surveyed, 20 were located in Rusayal, 5 in Nizwa, 11 in Sohar and 14 in Salalah. Therefore, the sample was considered adequate. It covered all the industrial estates in Oman. It could be seen that majority of the companies were metal, plastic and food manufacturing. The number of employees ranged from 3 to 276. The majority of the companies (84%) employed less than 100 people and 68% employed 50 people or less. The survey indicated that most of the companies (82%) set a daily production target/goal. However, the targets were set based on the company s past experience or requirements. Although, some absenteeism and lost workdays are expected, only 20% of the managers considered that they have lost workdays and 10% considered that they have high absenteeism. Twenty-six percent of the managers considered that they have low worker productivity. Table 2 indicates the general performance of the companies. Of the 82% of the companies setting a daily target, 60% claimed they achieved their target between 80 and 100%. Therefore 40% of the companies do not achieve a target close to the set target. This is in contradiction to the claim that only 26% of the companies have low worker productivity. Table 1 Types of industries surveyed Type of industry No. of companies in each industry % Metal manufacturing 18 36 Plastic manufacturing 9 18 Food manufacturing 9 18 Chemical 7 14 Paper and packaging 5 10 Others 2 4

566 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563 572 Table 2 General performance of companies Performance indicator No. of companies % Set target ðn* ¼ 50Þ 41 82 Target achieved (80 100%), ðn ¼ 38Þ 31 82 Low worker productivity ðn ¼ 50Þ 13 26 High absenteeism ðn ¼ 50Þ 5 10 Lost workdays 10 20 n*; number of companies in sample 3.2. Worker complaints Managers received workers complaints of fatigue, back pain, upper-body and neck pain and hand or arm soreness. In an earlier study (Shikdar, Carlopio, Cross, Stanley, & Gardner, 1993) it was found that operators were unable to work in normal standing or sitting postures due to poorly designed and installed machines, poorly designed tasks, inappropriate work heights and lack of suitable work chairs. It is evident that worker complaints received by managers could be attributed to ergonomic deficiencies. Fig. 1 shows some of the most common worker complaints reported with respect to health and safety. The top two worker complaints were: 28% of the companies received complaints of headache while 18% received complaints of back pains. 3.3. Workplace and organizational attributes As shown in Fig. 2, 16% of the managers considered that they have inadequate facilities and resources. Twenty percent of production managers (20%) indicated having problems with machines, 16% with manual material handling, 16% with motivating workers, and 12% with training workers. With respect to the shop floor environment as presented in Fig. 3, 54% of managers indicated that they have a hot work environment. The temperature in the factory could be as high as 40 8C during the day Fig. 1. Most common worker complaints as reported by managers.

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563 572 567 shift in the summer months. The other major problems reported in terms of environment were excessive noise (28%) and a dusty environment (24%). Excessive noise was considered a sound level above 90dBA most of the time during the work shift. 3.4. Safety and quality related attributes There was a lack of OHS committees in the companies surveyed. Only 14% of the companies claimed that they had OHS committees, although 54% indicated having safety committees. This indicates a lack of workers health consideration. It should be noted here that the majority of the companies declined to provide information regarding the number of injuries over the past few years. About 38% of the managers reported that their workers had injuries over the past five years. With respect to quality, the majority (84%) of the companies had adopted a quality assurance program while 50% had TQM program. Sixty-four percent of the companies indicated they had quality circles and 78% reported having a safety standard in their organizations. These programs indicated attention to quality and safety. 3.5. Ergonomic assessment Fig. 2. Some work and facility related attributes. Fig. 4 shows the types of analysis and assessments carried out in the companies. Managers were asked: if they carried out a systematic hazard analysis that dealt with identification and control of Fig. 3. Some environmental factors.

568 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563 572 Fig. 4. Various ergonomic analysis and assessments. hazards; conducted a task analysis in developing a sound task method; and checked the fulfillment of OHS compliance in their companies. Ergonomic assessment that included identification of ergonomic hazards was seldom conducted in the companies. The companies (94%) did not have any information or access to ergonomics or knowledge and its application for safe use of machinery and work practices. It is a fundamental principle of ergonomics that a machine must be safe in operation and maintenance. However, it often becomes a source of injury. Ergonomically designed equipment and proper safety training can significantly reduce accidents. In most industries equipment is never assessed in terms of ergonomics. These are, obviously, potential hazards and the sources of injuries in industries. In an earlier study it was observed that the application of ergonomics to the design and safe use of machinery was virtually non-existent in small manufacturing industries (Shikdar et al., 1993). Although the managers responses did not indicate a high accident and injury rate, ergonomic deficiencies were clearly significant. Some ergonomics was applied indirectly since the companies had to ensure that they meet OHS regulations imposed by the government. The OHS problems identified in the study were related to ergonomic deficiencies in the system components. Designing out ergonomic deficiencies would reduce accidents and injuries, and thus improve worker productivity and satisfaction. Appropriate application of ergonomic data in the design of the workplace can significantly reduce musculo-skeletal injuries. Lack of ergonomics knowledge and awareness of the employers and employees could have been responsible for the poor acceptance of ergonomics in the workplace. Management did not check the workplaces for unsafe features and did not enforce safety rules, or provide instructions and training for safe performance. Poor ergonomic conditions in industry not only hinder productivity but also affect health and safety of workers and the quality of work and products. 3.6. Analysis of variance and correlations Analysis of variance and correlation procedures were conducted considering the type of industry, problem areas and problems, and ergonomics and safety attributes as the main effects (factors).

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563 572 569 A tree-factor factorial experimental design was considered in the analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure considering the response received from the companies as the dependent variable and the factors representing type of industry, problem area and problem as independent variables. The six types of industries are shown in Table 1. The four problem areas and three ergonomics and safety related attributes were defined in this study as follows: i. PA1 (Performance) problems related to performance, such as low productivity, low worker productivity, poor quality of work, high absenteeism, and lost work days ii. PA2 (Worker health) problems related to worker health, such as complaints of back pain, upper-body or neck pain, hand and wrist pain, headache, fatigue, stress, and dissatisfaction iii. PA3 (Work/facility) problems related to work and facility, such as manual materials handling, hand tools, machines, workstations, workers, worker motivation, facility and resources, and worker training iv. PA4 (Environment) problems related to environment, such as heat, noise, light and dust v. ES1 (Committees/quality) ergonomics and safety attributes related to committees, such as safety committee, OHS committee, quality circle, total quality management, quality assurance, and safety standards vi. ES2 (Assessment) ergonomics and safety attributes related to assessments, such as ergonomics assessment, hazard analysis, task analysis, OHS standards vii. ES3 (Know-how) ergonomics and safety attributes related to know-how in ergonomics, such as ergonomics knowledge, OHS regulations Significant differences were found among the types of industry, problem areas, and safety and attributes areas, and problems and attributes considered. Table 3 presents significance levels ( p-values) for the three main effects. This indicates that industries of different types experience different problems at different levels of significance in terms of productivity, facilities, environment, OHS and ergonomics. Multiple comparison tests on individual treatment means for industry type was conducted using Duncan multiple range test. The test showed, at a significance level of 0.05, that the metal manufacturing industry had more problems than other types of industry. Table 4 shows significantly high correlations between performance indicators and health, facilities and environmental attributes. In other words, companies with higher health, facilities, and environmental problems had more performance related problems such as low productivity, and high Table 3 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results Source df Mean square F P. F R squared Model 222 0.970 6.822 0.000 0.648 Type of industry 6 18.119 127.382 0.000 Problem areas and ES attribute areas 6 7.735 54.382 0.000 Problem and attributes 30 1.220 8.578 0.000 Error 1628 0.142 Total 1850 P. F; Probability that a random F value would be greater than or equal to the observed value.

570 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563 572 Table 4 Correlations between different outcomes Variables PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA234 ES123 PA1 1.000 0.283* 0.603** 0.234 0.482** 20.052 PA2 0.283* 1.000 0.547** 0.454** 0.856** 20.141 PA3 0.603** 0.547** 1.000 0.376** 0.824 20.211 PA4 0.234 0.454** 0.376** 1.000 0.708** 20.292 PA234 0.482** 0.856** 0.824** 0.708** 1.000 20.248 ES123 20.052 20.141 20.211 20.292 20.248 1.000 PA234, problem areas of PA1, PA2, and PA3 combined; ES123, problem areas of ES1, ES2 and ES3 combined; Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level ðp, 0:05Þ; Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level ðp, 0:01Þ: absenteeism. The correlation coefficient between health, facilities and environmental attributes and management, and ergonomic attributes was not significant. This was probably due to the fact that few companies had some ergonomics knowledge and ergonomics training programs and therefore management and ergonomic related issues did not show significant impact on health and facility issues within the companies. 4. Conclusions and recommendations 4.1. Conclusions From this study the following conclusions could be drawn with regard to ergonomic factors affecting worker productivity, and OHS in industries in Oman: 1. Little or no ergonomics was used and practically no ergonomics training was provided to workers. Most of the industries studied used little or no ergonomics information and data. Ninety-four percent of the companies did not carry out an ergonomic assessment. 2. Managers received worker complaints of fatigue (16%), back pain (18%), headache (28%), and upper-body pain (14%). These health problems indicated of ergonomic deficiencies in the work system. 3. Poor environmental conditions, especially noise and heat, were common. Fifty-four percent of the companies reported a hot environment and 28% reported noisy (.85 dba) conditions. Adverse environmental conditions on the shopfloor could aggravate accidents and injuries. 4. A significant difference was found among the types of industries in terms of problem areas, ergonomics and safety attributes and the attributes themselves. Manufacturing industries reported having more problems than other types of industry. 5. There was a significant positive correlation among problem areas and health and organizational problems. This indicated companies who reported more organizational problems also have more performance problems. 6. Most of the companies (94%) either did not have knowledge of ergonomics, access to ergonomics information or they simply ignored it considering resource constraints and costs.

4.2. Recommendations A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563 572 571 Some of the strategies to improve the conditions are: 1. Management must be knowledgeable and aware of the benefits of ergonomics and the prevention of injuries through ergonomic design of work systems. Information on ergonomics should be made available to industries. 2. Employees need to be trained systematically in ergonomics in order to improve not only productivity but also OHS. This would be beneficial to both employees and management. 3. The workplace and work design should be carried out using ergonomic guidelines, acts and recommendations considering the user population. The environment must be given adequate consideration. 4. Strategies should be formulated and implemented in order to introduce ergonomics systematically through ergonomic programs in industry to improve worker productivity, safety and health and environment. Acknowledgements The study was funded through an SQU Internal Research Grant No. ENG/00/02. The authors acknowledge the contribution of Khaled Al-Kindi, Ali Al-Abadi and Khaled Al-Nabhani in data collection. References Ayoub, M. A. (1990a). Ergonomic deficiencies. I. Pain at work. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32(1), 52 57. Ayoub, M. A. (1990b). Ergonomic deficiencies. II. Probable causes. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32(2), 131 136. Burri, G. J., & Helander, M. G. (1991). A field study of productivity improvements in the manufacturing of circuit boards. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 7, 207 215. Das, B. (1987). An ergonomic approach to designing a manufacturing work system. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1(3), 231 240. Das, B., & Grady, R. M. (1983). Industrial workplace layout design: An application of engineering anthropometry. Ergonomics, 26(5), 433 443. Das, B., & Sengupta, A. (1996). Industrial workstation design: A systematic ergonomic approach. Applied Ergonomics, 27(3), 157 163. Das, B., & Shikdar, A. (1999). Participative versus assigned production standard setting in a repetitive industrial task: A strategy for improving worker productivity. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 5(3), 417 430. Grandjean, E. (1988). Fitting the task to the man: An ergonomic approach. London: Taylor and Francis. Hasselquist, R. J. (1981). Increasing manufacturing productivity using Human Factors principles. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting, 204 206. Konz, S. (1995). Work design: Industrial ergonomics (5th ed.). Ohio: Grid Columbus. Melamed, S., Luz, J., Najemson, T., Jucha, E., & Green, M. (1989). Ergonomic stress levels, personal characteristics, accident occurrence and sickness absence among factory workers. Ergonomics, 9, 1101 1110. Rayan, J. P. (1987). A study of safety in man machine systems. In S. Asfour (Ed.), (pp. 505 511). Trends in Ergonomics/ Human Factors, IV.

572 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563 572 Rayan, J. P. (1989). A study of selected ergonomic factors in occupational safety. In A. Mital (Ed.), Advances in industrial ergonomics and safety I (pp. 359 364). London: Taylor and Francis. Resnik, M. L., & Zanotti, A. (1997). Using ergonomics to target productivity improvements. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 33(1 2), 185 188. Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1992). Human factors in engineering and design (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Schanauber, H. (1986). Ergonomics and productivity as reflected in a new factory. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors III (pp. 459 465). Berlin: Elsevier. Shikdar, A., Carlopio, J., Cross, J., Stanley, P., & Gardner, D. (1993). Mechanical equipment injuries in small businesses. In: Ergonomics in a Changing World. Proceedings of the Ergonomics Association of Australia, Australia: Perth, pp. 199 205. Shikdar, A. A., & Das, B. (1995). A field study of worker productivity improvements. Applied Ergonomics, 26(1), 21 27.