Page 8 - Occupational Health & Safety, November/December 2019

RISK MANAGEMENT
Belief Versus Fact: The Effectiveness of Job Rotation as Strategy to Reduce Musculoskeletal Disorders
Mounting research shows that both job rotation strategies are, at best, ineffective in reducing MSDs in the workplace.
BY BLAKE MCGOWAN At a recent conference, this profound state- ment struck me: Management makes deci- sions mainly based on beliefs and supports those beliefs with facts. This means that decisions are made based on past patterns of success and failure, rather than on logical, definable rules and information. As safety professionals, we should pride ourselves on making data-driven decisions based on science and research. Unfortunately, some implemented programs have mixed or negative re- sults, one being the effectiveness of job rotation as a strategy to reduce musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)
in the workplace.
Job rotation is defined as a technique that moves
workers between two or more jobs in a planned man- ner to reduce their risk of developing a MSD. Within the hierarchy of safety controls, it is considered to be an administrative control.
There are many perceived benefits of job rotation:
■ Increases worker versatility
■ Exposes workers to different experiences and
skills
■ Provides workers with a broader understand-
ing of the entire manufacturing process
■ Provides a flexible and knowledgeable workforce
■ Reduces worker boredom and monotony
■ Enhances job satisfaction
■ Cross-trains workers
■ Reduces absenteeism
■ Improves morale
■ Improves worker retention
■ Reduces work stress and MSDs
Most of these benefits are related to worker perfor-
mance, satisfaction, and versatility. But the question we should be asking is, “What’s the benefit or impact it has on worker safety?”
Job rotation is commonly believed to be an ef- fective strategy to reduce MSDs. In fact, some safety professionals use it as their primary strategy to reduce worker exposure to forceful exertions, awkward pos- tures, high frequencies, and vibration in the work- place. It is the core of their ergonomics program.
We can realize the benefits of job rotation if we use it correctly. Unfortunately, it’s often misused. It should be a temporary (short-term) solution until engineer- ing controls can be put in place.
Implementing job rotation typically includes these steps:
■ Identify problematic jobs through employee surveys
■ Quantify MSDs for all jobs and assign a risk rating for each (high, moderate, or low)
■ Identify engineering controls for high-risk jobs
■ Identify jobs in the potential job rotation schedule
■ Schedule jobs to reduce back-to-back, high- risk jobs
■ Schedule jobs to reduce back-to-back, high- risk demands on the same body part areas
■ Determine best sequence of jobs
■ Determine ideal length of rotation schedule
■ Deploy job rotation schedule
■ Implement engineering controls that address
high-risk jobs
■ Stop job rotation schedule
However, mounting research shows that both
short- and long-term job rotation strategies are, at best, ineffective in reducing MSDs in the workplace. At worst, job rotation may even increase MSDs in the workplace.
To help safety professionals better understand the impact of job rotation strategies on reducing MSDs, I contacted several leading researchers on this topic. They were gracious to provide a summary of their work [listed in alphabetical order].
Kermit Davis, Ph.D., Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Health at the Uni- versity of Cincinnati and current President of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES)
“In the manufacturing industry, job rotation is widely utilized as a potential control for ergonomic stressors across multiple jobs. The rotation schemes were often set up based on administration reasons (e.g., jobs in the same area or having similar seniority) and around existing break schedules. The effective- ness of these approaches is not understood and may spread the risk across more workers.”
Jack Dennerlein, Ph.D., Professor in the Depart- ment of Physical Therapy, Movement & Rehabilita- tion Science at Northeastern University
“In theory, job rotation seems to be a logical way to reduce physical stress on the body; however, differ- ences in physical exposures between jobs are often small relative to the known risk, or the technique sim- plyreplacesoneriskwithanother.Theapplicationof job rotation measures needs to incorporate many dif-
8 Occupational Health & Safety | NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2019
www.ohsonline.com