Ergonomics Cost Benefits Case Study
in a Paper Manufacturing Company

This company initiated a comprehensive workplace ergonomics program in 1991. After five years experience, total investment is estimated at $2.5 million and total benefits at $3.5 million, based on reduced workers compensation cost savings plus improvements in productivity. Lost time CTD cases were reduced over 80%. CTD and recordable cases initially increased because of heightened employee awareness, then decreased. Employee discomfort surveys showed a 40% drop in reported pain; the greater results were noted in those areas where improvements have been made, and no change in those areas were tasks had not yet fine addressed. In examples of specific workstation improvements and results are presented, including instances were CTD risk factors were reduced and productivity more than doubled. The implication is that employers should institute practical programs in ergonomics whether or not OSHA promulgates a regulation on CTDs.

Background

Program Description

Key aspects of the company's ergonomics program included the following. Management for various committees, involved employees in all committees, retained a professional ergonomist, provided training at all levels of the organization, instituted a communication network, started evaluating all tasks, instituted annual discomfort surveys, upgraded their medical management program, and made workstation, process, and procedure improvements

The orientation of the process was low-tech and common sense, using the term "Yankee Ingenuity" to make the field of ergonomics more accessible and within the traditions of this long-established New England firm. This phrase also tapped into the workforce's heritage of innovation and creativity. Initial task evaluations were non-quantitative in nature and focused on simple identification of ergonomics issues and brainstorming for possible improvements. As the program evolved, quantitative approaches to evaluating risk factors were introduced in several cases to verify that risk factors were being reduced.

Medical management of CTDs is technically not part of the field of ergonomics, but certainly an integral component of CTD reduction. The company upgraded its existing system to the equivalent of that recommended in OSHA's Ergonomics Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking. The on-site nurse was involved on the corporate ergonomics committee, reviewed jobs with CTDs, and made recommendations for improvements. Employee education focused on early recognition and reporting of symptoms; the approach to treatment was conservative. A myotherapist was retained to provide early, hands-on treatment, and to teach stretching exercises. The medical department was given total control of work activities and restrictions for injured employees.

Results

Total Program Costs Benefits

Total investments in ergonomics over a five-year period is estimated at about $2.5 dollars, including cost of new machinery and equipment. Total benefits over the same five-year period are estimated at $3.5 million, based primarily on workers compensation cost savings plus improvements in productivity. Thus, the Return on Investment (ROI) for this ergonomics program is approximately 40%.

Injury/Illness Data

The following graphs (Figures 1 - 5) show injury and illness trends based on OSHA recordkeeping data:

 

Figure 1. CTD Lost Time Rates (upper extremity repetitive motion disorders) were reduced approximately 80%.

 

Figure 2. Rates of CTD Lost Time Days were reduced dramatically.

 

Figure 3. CTD Recordable Rates initially increased because of heightened employee awareness and a more responsive medical program, then decreased to nearly half of the number of initial cases. Current cases remain "elevated" because of the active medical program.

 

Figure 4. CTD Restricted Workday Rates also rose initially and then decreased, again due to to the effect of an active medical program.

 

Figure 5. Strains and Sprains Rates (back injuries and upper extremity overexertion injuries) were cut approximately in half.

Workers compensation cost savings totaled and estimated $2.8 million over a five-year period. These changes enable the company to switch to a self-insurance system, which entails further financial benefits.

Discomfort surveys have been administered to all employees annually for four years. In general, results show positive changes in those areas where improvements have been made, and no change in those areas where tasks have not yet been addressed. Figure 6 shows an overall decrease of 40% in discomfort scores for the company as a whole. Figure 7 shows one site of the corporation that has not been as active in the ergonomics program as the rest of the company; corresponding discomfort scores are stagnant. Figure 8 shows another site, with increasing discomfort rates in initial years then a rise which correlates to the lack of focus on ergonomics in CTDs in that year.

A conclusion is that the employee discomfort survey can be a valuable tool as part of overall ergonomics tool kit. This type a survey appears to have faced validity, that is, it appears to measure the real trends in the workplace. Survey results are useful for tracking accomplishments and for highlighting areas where additional work needs to be done. As a final comment, in this company the experience has been that the survey has helped management keep a focus on employee concerns, since no one could deny that problems existed in their own work areas.

Figure 6. Company-wide employee discomfort survey score averages.

 

Figure 7. Discomfort scores of inactive site.

 

Figure 8. One site with initial progress reducing discomfort scores, then lapse in focus.

Productivity improvements ranged from 0% to over 200% for specific projects. The average productivity improvement is estimated at about 25%, which is roughly equivalent $700,000.

Other cost savings were also achieved, including reduced errors (and potential loss of customers), less downtime because of medical absences of experienced employees, and related administrative and legal costs. However, these costs are difficult to quantify and estimates are not included in this review.

Workstation Improvements

Examples of specific workstation improvements and results are presented below.

• A machine feeder reduced arm motions from 5000 per day to zero, and output increased from 5000 pieces per day to about 15,000 (300% increase).

• Improvements in a paper counting task reduced finger motions from 45,000 per day to near zero, and productivity doubled.

• A unique device to tie ribbons eliminated much fastidious hand motions and sustained pinch grips, plus increased output over 30%.

• Unconventional tables for a precise, hand-intensive task enabled employees to alternate between sitting and standing, plus eliminated reaches and motions. Modifications in hand tools reduced grasping force.

• Mechanical changes and automation in a packing operation reduced hand motions from approximately 32,000 per day to 3200.

• A variety of other, more standard ergonomics devices were procured: vacuum-assisted hoists, various lift tables, anti-fatigue mats, improved chairs, numerous changes in heights and reaches, and automation.

Discussion

Particular organizational factors that led to the success of this program included:

• The company provided training for all levels of the organization, aimed at each group's required involvement. The focus on training lasted one year, and is considered to the key for the overall success of this program.

• Top management was committed to integrating the tools and perspectives of ergonomics into a way of doing business. Special attention was given to each manager's training and accountability and to include formal ergonomics factors and injury reduction into individual goal-setting and performance evaluations.

• Employees were involved at all levels, including training sessions, suggestions, serving on committees, videotaping, job analysis, administering the discomfort survey, auditing, recommending the improvements, and monitoring progress. This was the first formal effort of the company in employee involvement and has led to other ways in which employees are involved in activities traditionally reserved for managers.

• Professional consultants were involved to provide training, guidance, and analytic tools, but were not relied upon to provide the actual solutions to problem tasks. These outside consultants proved particularly valuable in being able to see changes that were occurring in the organization in the physical plant that company personnel were to close to recognize.

• The importance of good communications was highlighted throughout the program development, including monthly features in the company newsletter. These features included information on specific improvements, reports on status of program development, and results of injury/illness and discomfort survey findings.

• Focus was given to the recognition of individuals and groups that contributed to the effort. Celebrating milestones also contributed to promoting a sense of momentum, especially necessary to change mindsets in an old, established firm.

• Specific aspects of the program were changed as the program evolved, such as structure of committees, approaches to risk factor evaluation, how often meetings were held, and the relative focus between engineering and administrative controls.

Conclusion

The overall conclusion is that this workplace ergonomics program proved effective on a variety of levels, including financial. The implication is that employers should institute practical programs in ergonomics whether or not OSHA promulgates a regulation on CTDs. The most important factors of an ergonomics program are the core elements: corporate commitment to injury/illness reduction; good organization, involvement, and accountability; training at all levels of the organization; effective communications and feedback; a systematic effort to evaluate all tasks in the company; making practical improvements focusing on low-tech workstation modifications; and monitoring progress. Specific approaches to implementing these program elements cannot be required, but left to each employer to make, given its own circumstances.