Making the business case for ergonomic improvements isn't easy. One strategy is to follow the examples of safety professionals at other companies who were able to persuade their senior management to invest in ergonomic improvements. Here's a case study you can use.

The Electric Utility Case Study

Members of work crews that worked on overhead distribution lines for a large electric utility in the Midwestern U.S. were experiencing musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Fourteen concerned individuals at the company-eight workers, two supervisors, an engineer, an occupational health nurse and two OHS professionals-formed an ergonomics team to study the problem. For two years, the team worked closely with a local university to investigate the ergonomic risks associated with 32 common tasks performed by the crews. They quantified the level of MSD risk posed by each task and developed ergonomic interventions to address each of those risks.
The team concluded that it would be possible to use low cost-high value ergonomic interventions to significantly reduce or eliminate the MSD risks associated with 19 of the 32 tasks. But the two tasks that the team felt would benefit the most from ergonomic improvements would require a much more substantial investment. The proposed ergonomic intervention would involve distributing battery-operated compression presses and battery-operated wire cutters to each overhead distribution line crew. The proposed price tag: $300,000.

Building the Proposal

The team knew that it wasn't going to be easy to get senior management to spend that kind of money. So they set out to build a solid business case. The starting point was to gather information needed for their pitch to senior management. Ultimately, they decided to build the proposal on the following data:

Cost of MSDs. The team identified 47 severe MSDs that affected line workers during the previous two and a half year period, including injuries to the upper extremities, neck, back and knees. All 47 cases resulted in lost work days or restricted duties for the afflicted workers. The team calculated two types of costs related to these MSDs:

• Injury-related costs. The team determined that the comprehensive medical and workers' compensation costs for the 47 MSDs totalled $478,605 (all of the cited figures are in U.S. dollars).
• Worker replacement costs. All 47 workers who suffered from severe MSDs required long-term or permanent replacements. The cost of replacing 43 of the 47 workers was $308,160, including the costs of hiring and training replacements, associated productivity losses and clerical or processing costs. (There wasn't enough information to calculate the costs of replacing the remaining four workers.)

Total cost of MSDs: $786,765

Effect of ergonomic tools on MSDs. The team found that the use of two tools-the manual compression press and an assortment of manual wire cutters-was causing chronic pain to workers' elbows, shoulders, backs and other body parts. To determine if workers would benefit from using battery-operated presses and cutters, the team conducted a pilot study in which several work crews used the ergonomic tools. The pilot study confirmed that use of the ergonomic tools eliminated or drastically reduced stress to the body parts most vulnerable to MSDs.

Cost of ergonomic tools. A battery-operated compression press cost approximately $2,000 and a battery-operated wire cutter approximately $1,000. Assuming each three-person crew got one of each of the ergonomic tools, the total costs of outfitting a crew came to $3,000. The company had 100 overhead distribution line worker crews. So the total initial cost of providing each crew with the ergonomic tools would be $300,000. (The team conservatively predicted that the battery-operated tools would last five years, although industry experts said such tools can have a useful life of eight to 10 years.)

Projected savings from use of ergonomic tools. The team had to estimate how much the use of the ergonomic tools would save the utility. It provided a conservative estimate based on projections of the reduction in:

• MSDs from use of the ergonomic tools;
• Medical and workers' compensation costs related to MSDs; and
• Replacement costs.

Total estimated savings: $184,255 a year. Based on these estimated savings, the team projected that the ergonomic tools would pay for themselves within four months.

Alternative considered and rejected. Anticipating challenges from senior management, the team considered other alternatives before deciding to propose the new ergonomic tools. Specifically, the team considered a battery-operated tool that could be used for both compressing and cutting and so would be cheaper than separate tools. But such tools weren't simple to set up and their use required extra time because the heads had to be switched. It also considered a power-activated wedge connector as a replacement for the manual compression press. But the wedge connector didn't reduce the stress on workers' shoulders to the same extent as the battery-operated press. So the team rejected these alternatives.

The outcome: Based on the team's presentation of this compelling information, senior management agreed to spend over $300,000 to buy the ergonomic tools. Thus, through hard work and thorough research, the team succeeded in securing a significant commitment of corporate resources to protect workers from the risk of MSDs.

Conclusion

I'll finish the series next week by drawing conclusions from this case study that you can apply to your own safety programs.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top