La pyme innovadora

As was the case with the other system factors, human resource risks fall into two categories – residual risks and entropic risks. The primary source of residual risk is incomplete KSAs. It is not possible for an individual to have a comprehensive set of competencies to deal with every situation that may arise in the workplace. As a result of this natural inadequacy, from time to time, workers will use technology inappropriately or make the physical environment degrade or deviate from standardized work practices. People, based on these limitations, will also make incorrect judgements including failing to appreciate the severity of risks. In some cases an error of judgement may result from having the required KSAs but failing to apply them. In other cases, lack of information may be the root cause of this error. It should be noted that this residual risk is not always about the quality of the choices that an individual makes in a given situation. In some cases, the employee’s decision may be reasonable and rational yet still result in an incident. This is because the worker is constrained by cognitive limitations which mean that he is unable to assess all the possible consequences of an action prior to the event. It is only with hindsight that all relevant information may be revealed, which if known at the time, may have led to a different choice of response and prevented the incident.

Human resources also have a residual risk because of the limitations of the human body. When other system factors place excessive demands on the worker this greatly increases the probability of an accident. For example, in severe climatic conditions the body suffers to an extent that may be life-threatening. As explained in earlier chapters, the use of technology also places demands on the worker. Continuous use of computers, for instance, can lead to repetitive strain injuries, back or neck pain and eye discomfort. Processes which are physically demanding such as manual handling also stretch the limitations of the human body.

This residual risk is therefore derived from the mismatch between the person’s physical capacity and other system factors.

Human resources 157 In addition to residual risk, the workforce is also subject to entropic risk which causes fluctuations in human resources quality. New employees are a significant source of this risk. They increase the level of residual risk by diluting the performance and safety level of the firm’s human resources as a whole, and have a higher probability of introducing entropy in the form of deviations from safe practice when they interact with other system factors. This tendency stems from their lack of workplace-specific competencies. The extent of the degradation created will depend on the applicability of the new employee’s previous experience and current competencies and also the speed at which he bridges the gap through learning. The length of this ‘catch-up’ period varies from employee to employee and depends on the learning curve, as illustrated in Fig. 6.2.

The figure shows that when the new employee commences, the human resources system factor drops in the level of safety and performance then gradually rises with his learning. Once the new recruit is familiar with the workplace and assimilated into the culture, the system factor is returned to the original level of quality. The implications of Fig. 6.2 for the firm are two-fold. The first is that it shows the importance of accelerating new incumbents’ learning curves through training. The second is to treat new recruits, regardless of age, as potential hazards. When these employees start, for example, the supervisor should advise other workers that this group represents an increase in residual risk because of their incomplete KSAs, and that they have the potential to cause entropic risk to rise.

Increased monitoring and support is required to prevent hazards from being introduced when these individuals interact with other system factors.

Young, inexperienced recruits present an even greater level of threat to organizational systems because they have a higher degree of residual risk. Their KSAs and level of safety consciousness are well below that of experienced workers, which explains the higher rate of accidents among young workers, particularly males, who tend to be more risk tolerant.

The LTI rate from males aged 15 to 24 in Western Australia in 1996–1997 was 7.7 compared to other male workers who had a rate of 5.9.⁸ This

Safety and performance

level

New employee commences Time

Human resources system factor New employee’s learning curve

Figure 6.2 The effect of a new employee on the human resources system factor

158 Productive Safety Management

pattern of high incidence was not evident for young female workers, who had a rate of 2.2 compared to other female workers with a rate of 2.6.

Interestingly, the duration and severity rates for young male workers were much lower than for other groups of workers. This appears to indicate that their level of residual risk in terms of their physical capacity to recover from injury is lower than for employees who are older.

Regardless of their level of competency or age, workers can have accidents as a result of degradation. A highly skilled worker, for instance, will be less capable of performing duties safely when suffering fatigue from working excessively long hours. Although the employee may have a low level of residual risk because of his well-developed competencies, the vulnerability to deterioration is similar to other less skilled workers.

A major source of entropic risk in human resources, therefore, is fatigue.

This condition can be defined as follows:

Fatigue is a physical condition that can result when an individual’s physical or mental limits are reached. This can happen following:

• physical exertion;

• mental exertion; or

• inadequate or disturbed sleep.⁹

Workplace-related factors that contribute to fatigue include shifts and schedules, the type of work, commuting, and increased exposure to other hazards. In the earlier chapters on technology and the physical environment, it was explained that the greater the demand that these system factors impose on the worker, the greater the probability of an incident. Severe conditions require the worker to manage the risks involved.

This taxes the individual’s capacity to cope with these demands and to remain vigilant. These additional pressures, therefore, cause fatigue or a reduction in the operator’s ability to work safely, which is also affected by the duration of activity. The longer the worker has to manage his behavior to prevent a hazard from translating into an injury, the more likely it is for an incident to occur. This was shown in Figure 3.11 in which the degradation of other system factors caused a severe deterioration in the worker’s functionality.

The quality of the physical environment and technology therefore affects worker fatigue. Processes also have an impact, particularly the way in which work practices are structured, for example, the duration between breaks, the length of the shift, and the variety of tasks. Repetitive tasks can lead to boredom and induce loss of alertness. Some firms use job enrichment strategies to address this problem, which involves rotation and multiskilling to keep the employee stimulated and to prevent consistent exposure to the same set of hazards. The nature of the work can be a significant source of weariness in sectors such as the transport industry, in which workers drive for long hours, under pressure, to reach the destination. This has resulted in high fatality rates with 102 fatal truck crashes occurring in Western Australia over a 3-year period in the late 1990s,¹⁰ which is very high given that this state’s population is only about 1.5 million. Of these, 15 were likely to have been due to fatigue. There were a further 488 crashes which resulted in serious injury and 55 of

Human resources 159 these were tiredness-related. Other studies have found a higher level of significance with fatigue being a contributing factor in 25 to 30 per cent of fatal truck crashes. In response, the Western Australian State Government developed a ‘Code of Practice for Commercial Drivers’ to manage these risks, which covers issues such as operating standards for work and rest and measures for the management of fatigue.

Shift work is a further cause of fatigue that can reduce the worker’s level of safety and performance. Approximately a quarter of Australian workers are on shift work.¹¹ Research has shown that this type of work system has negative health and social effects, including interference with family life, higher occurrences of health symptoms such as respiratory problems, high blood pressure and stomach ulcers, and more frequent use of medications and drugs. Shift work interferes with circadian rhythms or the body clock. The time of highest risk is in the middle of the night, around 3.00 a.m., when the basal metabolism is at its lowest. At this time, the body has a tendency to ‘shut-down’ and therefore alertness is greatly reduced and this leads to an increased probability of human error.

A further problem with shift work is that when extra hours are worked prior to or at the end of the session, this increases the worker’s exposure to hazards at a time of least resistance. In addition, when the employee is required to recommence work at the standard time of the next shift, this reduces the recovery period. If, for example, a mechanic in a plant workshop is on nightshift for five nights from 11.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m., the recovery time between shifts is 16 hours. If, however, he works overtime of 2 hours, this time is reduced to 14 hours. The more overtime encroaches into recuperation time, the greater the risk associated with fatigue.

Government regulators have been aware of the risk factors inherent in shift work and extended work hours. Legislation has been enacted to regulate work hours including the Mines Regulation Act 1946 (Western Australia). This Act includes provisions limiting the number of consecutive hours and shifts worked, for example, section 39 states:

Hours of employment underground

39. (1) A person shall not be employed to work underground – (a) for more than 7¹/₂ hours in any day unless he is a skipman

or platman carrying out his duties as such on a normal working day;

(b) for more than 6 shifts in any week; or (c) for a 6^th shift without his express consent.¹²

A further concern with the length of shifts has been the severity and duration of exposure to airborne contaminants and other substances. A number of models has been developed to adjust the occupational exposure standards for longer work rosters. These models provide guidelines for the reduction of time exposed to these hazards, the main ones being the Brief and Scala, OSHA and the pharmacokinetic models. The use of these techniques is beyond the scope of this book, however, the key point is that most exposure standards have been developed for conventional workshifts, that is, five consecutive 8-hour work days followed by 2 days off.¹³ When shifts are extended, exposure is also greater, and therefore, the worker receives a higher dose. The implication is that either the time

160 Productive Safety Management

of contact has to be reduced or the concentration of the hazard has to be reduced to keep the dose below the exposure limit.

Shift work and extended work hours induce both physical and mental fatigue. Some activities such as manual handling only cause physical tiredness. By definition, manual handling is any activity that requires the use of force to lift, lower, carry, move, hold or restrain a person, animal or thing.¹⁴ This activity can cause a degradation of the worker’s capacity to operate safely and efficiently and, in turn, increases the probability of harm. Manual handling injuries (MHIs) may result from:

• gradual wear and tear caused by frequent or prolonged periods of manual handling activity

• sudden damage caused by intense or strenuous manual handling or awkward lifts

• direct trauma caused by unexpected events.¹⁵

The first source of injury – gradual wear and tear – is an entropic risk of this activity. It causes the physical functionality of the worker to deteriorate with each subsequent lift or move. The second is an entropic risk which is a catalyst; it results from sudden damage. The final source occurs through the interaction with other system factors, for example, the physical environment, which causes the worker to slip while moving or carrying an object.

There are a number of factors which affect the risk of injury from manual handling and many of these relate to human resources risk factors including person-specific characteristics such as age, physical dimensions and any disabilities the worker may have. These characteristics determine the level of residual risk that a person has in relation to the task. A strong healthy male worker, for example, will have a lower level of residual risk in relation to this type of task than a female worker of small build. Behaviors can also influence whether risk translates into an actual injury. In particular, these behaviors include deviations from safe manual handling techniques such as sudden unexpected or jarring movements, awkward movements and holding static postures for a long time.¹⁵

The worker’s familiarity with the task and the level of training received also affects the likelihood of MHIs. These are determinants of the worker’s competence to perform such tasks safely. The nature of the interface between human resources and other system factors is a further variable.

For example, how long and how often the task is required to be performed are process characteristics which affect the worker’s rate and level of degradation. If the employee has the pace of work set by a production line then there are no opportunities to adjust the work rate to fit the condition of the employee at any given time. The way work is organized therefore influences the level of risk. For instance, if one person performs all the manual handling tasks instead of sharing these tasks among employees¹⁵ the risk to that worker will be higher.

The design and layout of the physical environment and technology also contribute to the rate at which the worker experiences fatigue from these activities. It is, for example, more difficult to carry objects up and down stairs or in confined areas in which the object cannot be put down if the worker feels strained. The primary issue in the interfaces between

Human resources 161 human resources and other system factors is whether the employee has control to adjust organizational conditions to fit his person-specific capacity.

If there is no avenue for minor modifications to such factors as the pace of the task and work conditions, then there is no way of compensating for the employee’s state of degradation, particularly in relation to manual handling.

Physically demanding duties therefore increase the rate of entropic risk in human resources. The proportion of MHIs to all lost time injuries and diseases has risen. By way of example, 29.4 per cent of injuries were attributed to this activity in Western Australia in 1995–1996 compared to 27 per cent in 1988–1989.¹⁴ Figure 6.3 illustrates the trend in MHIs and total LTIs during the period. In male workers 54.6 per cent of these injuries were caused by lifting and carrying, 43.3 per cent by handling which did not involve lifting, and 2.1 per cent by repetitive movement. MHIs have a very significant impact on productivity because of the high duration rates associated with these injuries. For male workers in 1994–1995, an average of 28.4 working days were lost for lifting and carrying, 31.6 for nonlifting handling, and up to 48.5 days for repetitive movement MHIs.¹⁴ Of MHIs 89.6 per cent resulted in strain or sprains, 4.4 per cent with musculoskeletal disease and 3.7 per cent were hernias.

The importance of managing the risk associated with manual handling becomes particularly evident when the costs are considered. In this study, the overall average cost of MHIs was estimated to be $A9100 for male workers and $A10 in 125 for female workers.¹⁴ Figure 6.4 illustrates the average costs incurred by sample business sectors. Not surprisingly, industries such as utilities (electricity, gas and water), construction and mining have high average costs. Interestingly, government administration was also in this upper group suggesting that manual handling is a significant risk factor in these office environments.

Total lost time injuries and diseases 35

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Total LTIs MHIs

Year

1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96

Thousands

Year 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96

% MHIs 27 27.8 30 29.6 30.4 30.2 29.7 29.4

of total

Reproduced courtesy of Worksafe Division, Department of Consumer and Employment Protection, Western Australia (www.safetyline.wa.gov.au). Refer to Ref. 14.

Figure 6.3 Manual handling and other injuries in Western Australia – 1988–1989 to 1995–1996

162 Productive Safety Management

There are guidelines for manual handling issued by government regulators, which indicate that the risk of back injury increases for loads of more than 4.5 kg while in a seated position and more than 16 kg in other positions.¹⁵ As the weight increases the percentage of healthy adults who can lift safely decreases. The guidelines also suggest that no one should lift objects over 55 kg. The physical abilities of the worker have to be considered and the risks minimized as far as practicable using the hierarchy of controls. Where possible the need for manual handling should be eliminated, however, if it cannot, then alternative methods of moving goods such as the substitution of manual handling for mechanized handling may be considered. The last resort is to implement work practices that reduce the frequency of lifting and loads involved, when alternatives to manual handling cannot be implemented.

Human resources have variable levels of residual risk as a result of their physical attributes and this affects the rate of fatigue or degradation when carrying out manual handling tasks. Some groups of individuals are therefore better able to cope with the demands of these duties than others. Similarly, individuals have varying abilities to cope with work-related stress. Stress is the psychological equivalent of physical fatigue.

The difference is that the body recovers more quickly from muscular strain than it does mental strain.

In the broader sense, psychological stress can be defined as an emotional state that is experienced in situations where the person perceives an imbalance between the demands placed on him and the ability to meet these demands.¹⁶ A more precise definition is given to work stress. It is:

. . . the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities, resources or needs of the worker.¹⁶

Figure 6.5 illustrates two models of job strain/stress. Karasek’s model

Figure 6.4 Manual handling injuries in Western Australia – 1994–1995 – average cost by industry

Communication Retail trade Property and business Health and community Finance and insurance Manufacturing Cultural and recreation Construction Electricity, gas and water

Females Males

Average cost per MHI ($000)

Industry

0 5 10 15 20 25

Reproduced courtesy of Worksafe Division, Department of Consumer and Employment Protection, Western Australia (www.safetyline.wa.gov.au). Refer to Ref. 14.

Human resources 163 looks at the combined impact of the level of job demand against the

Human resources 163 looks at the combined impact of the level of job demand against the