Ergonomics Assessment on Manual Handling Activity

To Decrease Accident Cost

Sritomo W.Soebroto1, Adhitya Sudiarno1, Tita Anindhita1
1

Ergonomics & Work Design System Laboratory - Industrial Engineering Department

Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Surabaya, Indonesia
Ph : +6231-5939361, Fax : +62315939362, email: m_sritomo@ie.its.ac.id

Abstract - Productivity is essentially a tool to measure both

the effectiveness and efficiency of the nation/state in terms of
producing goods and services. We all understand the
importance of productivity, therefore, various efforts and
ways need to be done to improve productivity in various
sectors. In terms of improving competitiveness, the national
industry must be able to not only increase the total
productivity but also would be able to improve quality,
safety, reduce costs and satisfy customers in a timely fashion.
In a more specific context, the industry should pay more
attention to matters relating to global norms and standards
which became the main requirements of inter-state business
such as occupational safety and health through the
application of principles and rules of OSH, and other
sensitive issues such as human rights, working shift
arrangements, minimum wages, environmental and other
industrial relations.
This research is conducted to analyze accident cost by
considering operators working posture; and initiated to
identify manual handling activity by using Quick Exposure
Checklist (QEC) in order to find the cause of injury and also
give some improvement recommendation to the company.
The recommendation for manual handling activity is
analyzed with the help of Mannequin Pro V10.2. Also, the
implementation will be compared with existing condition in
order to measure its effect with accident cost. The
comparison between existing condition and improvement
condition can be seen through simulation with the help of
Ventana Simulation. Implementation of the improvement
scenario can reduce the moment for working posture to the
significantly number (average almost 30%).
Keywords - Ergonomics assessment, manual handling
activity, working posture, Quick Exposure Checklist.

I. INTRODUCTION
Manual handling operation is one of the most
common of ergonomics problems in industry. This
activity covers more than lifting heavy weights and
affects more than the back. Some risks in manual
handling activity can possibly cause work injury, and
eventually lead the injury into working loss time which
cause the company to pay accident cost. Working posture
of operators while they perform their job plays an
important role on the cause of operators getting injured. It
will give consequences that resulted in low productivity,
quality, safety & health, and other serious problems.
Therefore, it needs ergonomic evaluation, assessment and
also interventions to improve the effectiveness, efficiency,

comfort, health and safety. The main concern of this

research is to evaluate and improve the working posture
of manual handling. One of the manufacturing industry
missions is to serve employees professionally for welfare
gain with integrity and humanity under the healthy and
prosperous company. To fulfill its mission, company
management needs to assess the risk of operators while
performing the job. Manual handling operation is one of
the most important parts of ergonomics [1, 2].
According to US Labor Department, 1991 [3], back
injury is one of the most common accidents which has
happened in many kind of industry and has caused
working loss time among the workers. Meanwhile,
according to Anindhita et. al. [4], in Indonesia
approximately 25% of injuries that have happened were
because of manual handling operation. This occurrence
convinces the statement that back injury is strongly
connected with manual handling operation. Some risks in
manual handling activity can possibly cause work injury,
and eventually leads the injury into working loss time.
The length of time people will be away from work
following an injury depends on the type of injury they
receive. According to Labor Force Survey, 2001 [5], over
a half (52,8%) of all people who are injured are off work
for one or more days and nearly a quarter (23,1%) of all
people who are injured will be off work for more than one
week. The lost of time because the workers are not able to
perform their duty is a major loss for the company.
II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Some phases which are conducted in this research are
an initial phase, a data collecting phase, a data processing
phase, an analysis phase, and also a conclusion and
suggestion phase. The initial phase is a phase to collect
information in order to define, identify, and formulate a
problem which includes some sub phases as follows:
a. Pre-observation. This phase is the first phase of
research which observes the real condition of the shopfloor at the field of study. In this phase, every factor that
influences manual handling activity will be analyzed in
order to make a qualified research method.
b. Problem identification. The main activity in this phase
is to identify the problem which happens in the field. The
real condition is compared with the ideal condition, thus
gap between real and ideal condition can be found.
c. Literature review. This phase is the phase to make
some reviews that are relevant with the identified

problem. Theories [6, 7] which are studied in order to

guide this research are ergonomics, manual handling
activity, Quick Exposure Checklist (QEC), working loss
time, accident cost, system dynamics, and also previous
research.
d. Field review. In this phase, the real problems in the
field are observed. The observation includes the process
of manual handling, operators condition while doing
manual handling operation, and also companys policy
about health and safety.
The data collecting phase is the process that has
already been done in the previous phase. Data are
obtained in several ways, using companys data,
questionnaires, and interviews. Some data which are
obtained from companys data are: company description,
job description, shift work, number of operators, and
companys policy about health and safety. Some data
which are obtained by questionnaires are work condition,
working posture and movement, and Quick Exposure
Checklist [8, 9]. Some data which are obtained by
interviews are accidents, working loss time, and accident
cost.
The data processing phase is a phase to obtained data
that will be processed qualitatively and quantitatively
based on the literatures. Next, the data will be used in the
process of improvement. This phase consists of several
steps such as calculate working posture and movement
based on QEC, calculate accident cost, and accident rate.
All data that have been processed will be modeled in a
system dynamics to find the correlation between all
entities in existing condition. Of course, the model needs
to be verified and validated before the evaluation of work
system will be done. The evaluation of work system
consists of evaluation of working posture and movement,
evaluation of accident cost, and evaluation of accident
rate. The evaluation of work system will be used as a
basic reason for modeling improvement condition by
using system dynamics. Improvement condition is
modeled by changing the workload of operators.
Workload can be changed by applying improvement
working posture and movement to operators.
The analysis phase is a phase on which after all data
have been processed, and the results are analyzed for
some critical factors which have relevancies with the
problems and alternative solution.
The conclusion and suggestion phase is the last phase
of this research to take conclusion and give some
suggestions as a result of the research. Conclusion which
is taken is the answer of the existing problem. Besides
that, some suggestions will be given as a feedback which
is related to the research.
III. DATA COLLECTING AND PROCESSING
Collected data, whether qualitative or quantitative,
will be processed in this phase in order to fulfill the
necessities of making the improvement.

3.1. Working Environment.

As an overview, in the manufacturing industry of field
study, employees work for 40 hours per week with five
days of working. Every employee (below from
supervisor) has responsibility to do two morning shifts,
two afternoon shifts, two night shifts, and two days off
respectively. Each shift consists of eight hours working.
Morning shift starts from 06.55am to 03.05pm, afternoon
shift starts from 02.55pm to 11.05pm, and night shift
starts from 10.55pm to 07.05am.
There are two observed departments in this research,
to represent overall manual handling activity which
happen in the company [4]. Both departments have
different working environment, because there are also
differences of manual handling activity. In particular,
working environment affects the risk of performing
manual handling activity. The company can control the
risk of manual handling injuries through good design of
all plant, equipment, containers, work practices, and also
the working environment. A wider perspective about what
kind of manual handling activity observed can be viewed
through these figures:

Fig. 1. Working Posture for Manual Handling Activities

of Department A

Through Figure 1, it can be seen that operators prepare

empty rack and put filled bottles inside the rack. Besides
those two activities, operators are also responsible to put
autoclaves inside the machine. Actually, there are several
ways to perform working posture, but chosen working
postures are shown on those figures above. Those figures
are chosen because they are often performed by operators.
The main manual handling activity in another Department
can be viewed through this figure 2.
3.2. Working Posture Assessment.
Working posture assessment is a method to find which
body segment needs to be investigated. This assessment is
strongly needed because working posture can affect
operators workload. Physical load is assessed by using
QEC which is able to analyze four body segments,
namely back, shoulder/arm, wrist/ hand, and neck. The
assessment can be conducted manually or automatically.

In this research, working posture is calculated by using

QEC 2003 software.

Fig. 2. Working Posture for Manual Handling Activities of

Department B

In total, there are 24 workers in sterilization

department who work in three different shifts. Each shift
has 8 workers who work for 8 hours per day. The score
from three different shifts are summarized in order to find
QEC score in the end. Table 1 shows the result of QEC
score in Department A. Total score for QEC in this
department is 107,67. Meanwhile, Table 2 shows the
result of overall assessment from QEC in Department B.
The score from three different shifts are summarized in
order to find QEC score in the end. Based on the aim of
the research, body segments (back, shoulder/arm,
wrist/hand, neck) are the segments to be considered. Total
Total score for QEC in this department is 96,17.
Table 1. QEC Score for Department A

Table 2. QEC Score for Department B

3.3. Variable Identification for Modeling

Variable identification is necessarily needed to find
affected factors to accident cost. Accident cost is not only
affected by money (such as operator cost and replacement
cost), but also by the accident itself [10]. Based on the
data collecting and interview, the data of accident cost in
both department are in average U$ 200. It has been stated

that there are three factors which are affected accident,

namely physical workload, mental workload, and resting
time. Physical workload is affected by four factors,
namely hand/wrist load, back load, neck load, and
shoulder/arm load. Meanwhile, mental workload is
affected by two factors, namely stress level and work
pace.
Besides accident, other factors which affect accident
cost are replacement cost and operator cost. Replacement
cost is a variable to describe the cost for replacing sick
operator. Replacement cost is affected by time factor and
replacement cost factor. On the other hand, operator cost
is affected by absence rate and also operator cost factor.
Operator cost is basically the amount of salary for sick
operator. This is the condition when an operator is being
away from work because of his/her sickness while the
company is still responsible for paying his/her salary.
3.4. Accident Cost Factor.
Accident cost is affected by three factors, namely the
accident, replacement cost, and also operator cost.
Replacement cost is affected by two factors, namely
replacement cost factor and time factor. There are three
aspects which build replacement cost, namely main
salary, meal cost, and transportation cost [10]. Main
salary of operator in both Department A and B varies
from U$ 110 to U$ 250 per month. Also, there is also a
similarity for meal cost and transportation cost in those
departments. The amount of meal cost and transportation
cost is U$ 210 per month and U$ 60 per month
respectively. There are two factors which build time
factor, namely loss variable and loss time. Loss variable is
a converted hours for an operator who works overtime to
replace a sick operator. The calculation of loss variable
for the two departments is similar. Based on data, it can
be inferred that the converted hours for one shift is 15.5
hours while the usual hours for one shift is 8 hours. It
means that if the sick operator is absent for a day, the
company has to replace him/her with another operator for
3 shifts or equal to 46.5 hours. Moving on to loss time
which defines as a period of time when sick operator is
being replaced by another one. The number of loss time
between Department A and B is not similar, in average
about 1.3 days per year.
Operator cost is affected by two factors, namely
absence rate and operator cost factor. Absence rate is
affected by absence factor which is a period of time when
sick operator is absent and can not perform his/her job
properly. The data for absence factor is similar to the data
for loss time, in average around 1.3 days per year too.
There are five aspects which build operator cost factor,
namely family cost, presence allowance, transportation
cost, meal cost, and also main salary. All factors which
build operator cost factor for Department A and
Department B are similar. Main salary of operator in both
departments varies from U$ 110 to U$ 250 per month.
Meanwhile, the amount of presence allowance
transportation cost, and meal cost is U$ 65, US 60, and
U$ 210 per month. On the other hand, family cost is the

amount of money which is expensed by the company for

operators family member. For each member, consist of a
wife and two children, the company pays U$ 35 per
month. So, each operator gets maximum U$ 105 per
month for family cost.
3.5. Model Verification and Validation.
In this phase, both verification and validation are
tested to initial model that has been made. Verification is
a process of ensuring that the model behaves as intended.
A model can be inferred as verified if there is no error
while running the model. There are two steps of
conducting verification, namely syntax checking and unit
checking. The aim of syntax checking is to find whether
the formulation inside the variable is suitable or not.
Meanwhile, unit checking is a way to find whether the
unit in the simulation is suitable or not. If there is no error
in both steps, it can be concluded that the initial model is
verified. After completing verification process, the next
phase is to validate the model.
After the model is verified, the next step of simulating
the model is to validate the model. Validation is a process
of ensuring whether the model is suitable or not with the
goal of simulation. Also, validation process is useful for
measuring how the significant level which is given to the
model affects the simulation. There are two methods of
conducting validation, namely black box method and
white box method. Black box validation is conducted by
comparing actual accident cost with simulated accident
cost from year 2006 to year 2008. Model simulation is
valid when E1 or the value of validation is less than 0.1.
Validation process is conducted twice for this simulation,
which is the one for Department A and the one for
Department B. Validation process for Department is
shown on Table 3, meanwhile validation process for
Department B is shown on Table 4 as follow:
Table 3. Validation Process for Sterilization Dept.

Table 4. Validation Process for Molding Dept.

Based on the calculation, it can be inferred that the

value of E1 is less than 0,1. It means that the model is
valid through black box validation. White box validation
is conducted by brainstorming with the company to
compare the simulation model and actual situation in the
shop floor. Brainstorming is conducted with the
management of to ensure whether the simulation model
can represent actual condition or not. The validation is
done not only by checking the variables, but also by
checking the correlation between one variable and others.

So, the simulation is not only based on the judgment of

the researcher, but also based on the opinion from the
company management. The result of white box validation
stated that the simulation can represent the actual
condition in the shop floor. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the simulation model that has been made is valid
through white box simulation.
IV. ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND RESULT
After collecting and processing the data, the next
phase is to analyze and interpret collected data. The data
will be analyzed, so the improvement on manual handling
activity can be made based on the data. And also, there
will be a comparison between existing condition and
improvement condition to compare how significant the
change has made.

4.1. Working Posture Analysis.

QEC is basically an observational tool developed for
practitioners to assess exposure to risks for work-related
musculoskeletal disorders and provide a basis for
ergonomic intervention. QEC is also useful to find which
body segment need to be improved. Based on the
calculation of QEC in Department A and Department B,
both departments share the same 5 6 scale score.
Department A scored 107.67; while Department B scored
96.17. From the result, it can be seen that working posture
in Department B has the lower risk than working posture
in Department B. Still, further investigation on which
segment affects the risk the most is necessarily needed.
The total score of QEC for Department A is 107.67.
The score represent scale 5 6 which is the same scale as
the four body segments. The higher score means the
riskier for the job. Actually the QEC score for four
observed body segments is in the same scale, but based on
the observation back segment might be the one which
have the higher risk of all. It is possible, because when
operators perform the job, the back is often in a
moderately flexed or twisted or side bent. And even, two
operators said that their back are often excessively flexed
or twisted or side bent. Those two operators scored above
50 for the back score.
Back score is not only affected by the posture when
operators perform the job, but also by the back movement.
Manual handling activity in Department A forces
operators to remain their back position in a static position
most of the time. If there are lifting, pushing/pulling, and
carrying tasks (for example, moving a load), the
movement of the back is frequent (around 8 times per
minute), and sometimes infrequent (around 3 times per
minute or less). Meanwhile, according to National
Standard for Manual Handling (1990), work activities
should be varied so that the operator does not spend a
long time holding the same posture or position. And also,
the operator should not have to bend down a lot or twist
around to do their job.
The total score of QEC for Department A is also
affected by the posture for the head/neck. When operators

perform their job, the head/neck is often bent or twisted.

Furthermore, four operators said that their head/neck are
continuously bent or twisted. Those two operators scored
above 18 for the head/neck score. So, when the job is
done more often, faster, or over a longer period of time,
the risk of injury also increases. Even though it is
suggested to have various position of working, the
operator should not have to make any sudden, jerky, or
hard to control movements. These actions can cause the
discomfort or pain, because operators perform their job in
an awkward position.
Meanwhile, the total score of QEC for Department B
is 96,17. The score represent scale 5 6 which is the same
scale as the four body segments. Actually the QEC score
for four observed body segments is in the same scale, but
shoulder/arm segment might be the one which have the
higher risk of all. It is possible, because during operators
perform their job, the load are carried on their shoulder.
And also, when the task is performed, operators hands
are at about chest height, even three of all operators said
that their hands are at or above shoulder height. Those
three operators scored above 52 for the shoulder/arm
score. A convince statement by National Standard for
Manual Handling (1990) said that there is an increased
risk whenever the load is below mid-thigh height or above
shoulder level. And also, there is an increased risk if a
load has to be place very accurately or carried over a long
distance.
Besides the shoulder/arm position, something that
really needs to be concerned is about the load. Based on
the QEC, the weight which is handled manually by
operator in this job is very heavy (more than 20 kg).
Furthermore, most of the operators said that sometimes
they have difficulty keeping up with this work. Only 4 of
19 operators said that they never have difficulty keeping
up with this work. Usually the heavier the object is the
greater the risk of injury during manual handling.
However, weight should not be considered separately
from the other factors listed here. For example, an
operator is more at risk of injury from carrying a bulky
object which cannot be carried close to the body than
carrying a smaller object of the same weight. Operator
will also be at a greater risk of injury when moving an
object from an awkward position, in this case a low and
small hole, than moving an object of the same weight
located in an easy to reach position.
4.2. Comparison of Working Posture.
Improvement of working posture can be done by
improving all aspects which relates to physical workload.
Improvement can be done by reducing the workload on
the back, neck, shoulder/arm, and also hand/wrist. Based
on biomechanics, the load on each body segments is
affected by the force and moment which happen in the
segment. Therefore, the aim of improving the working
posture is to reduce the force and moment in each
segment. This analysis is done with the help of biomechanic software called Mannequin Pro V10.2.

There are two working postures which will be

compared in each department. Working posture A in
Department A is when operators prepare empty rack and
put filled bottles into empty racks. When operators
perform their job, their back posture is bent a little. If an
operator continuously performs the job in this position, it
will increase the risk of getting injured. Therefore, as it is
shown on Figure 3, improvement position has a straight
back posture. If the improvement position is applied in
actual situation, it will reduce the moment in some parts
of body area. In existing work posture, the moment for
arm/shoulder segment and hand/wrist segment does not
change significantly. Meanwhile, in neck segment and
back segment, the moment decreases significantly. The
moment in neck segment before working posture is
improved is 33,8 LbF.in, then it changes to 15,4 LbF.in
when the posture is improved. The same thing happens in
back segment while the moment decreases from 238,9
LbF.in to 64,1 LbF.in.

Fig. 3. Comparison of Working Posture A in Department A

Moving on to the second posture of Department A,

working posture B in this department is when operators
put the racks into the autoclaves. When operators perform
their job, their back posture is bent. The back segment is
burden when operators continuously perform the job. So,
as it is shown on Figure 4 an improvement has made in
order to decrease the risk of back injury. In improvement
position, operators back does not bend. Even better, this
improved position has reduced the force for the back from
71,8 LbF to 62,5 LbF. Furthermore, significant decreasing
does not only occur on the force of back segment, but also
on the moment of back segment. The value of moment on
back segment changes from 371,8 LbF.in to 201,1 LbF.in.
It means that if improved position is applied in the actual
condition, it can lower the risk of the back getting injured.
The change of moment value also occurs on neck
segment, shoulder/arm segment, and also wrist/hand
segment, but the change is not as significant as what
happens on the back segment.
As an overview for all moment changes on working
posture A and working posture B, Table 5 shows the
details about them. The force and moment which are
shown on table is the sum of total force and moment in all
body segments.

Fig. 4. Comparison of Working Posture B in Department A

Table 5. Working Posture Comparison in Department A

On the table above, it can be seen that the moment for

working posture A has decreased 26% from what it used
to be. Meanwhile, the moment for working posture B has
decreased 23% from what it used to be. In average, it can
be concluded that the moment for working posture in
Department A has decreased 24%.
Working posture A in Department B is when
operators perform their job, their back posture is bent. The
back segment is burden when operators continuously
perform the job. Therefore, as it is shown on Figure 5 an
improvement has made. In improvement position,
operators back does not bend. This statement is
convinced by the result of Mannequin Pro V10.2 with the
significant decreasing of moment in back segment. It
decreases from 724,5 LbF.in to 230,6 LbF.in. As well as
the back segment, the moment on neck segment also
decreases from 71,8 LbF.in to 64,9 LbF.in. Unfortunately,
improved working posture has made the moment on
shoulder/arm and wrist/hand increase a little. Moment
reduction on back segment has probably made the
moment on shoulder/arm and also wrist/hand increased.
It might be because the moment from back segment is
transferred into both segments.

reduce the risk of operators being injured because of

wrong working posture, an improvement has been made
for this job. The comparison between existing working
posture B and improvement working posture B in
Department B can be seen on Figure 6.
Improved position of working posture B causes a
dramatic decrease on some parts of body segment. The
most significant changes are on the shoulder/arm segment
and back segment. In existing posture the moment of the
back segment is 340,8 LbF.in, while in the improvement
position the moment of the back segment is 78,8 LbF.in.
For the shoulder/arm segment, in existing posture the
moment for left and right shoulder/arm is not equal.
Themoment for left shoulder is 366,9 LbF.in, while the
moment for right shoulder is 72,2 LbF.in. Now that the
working posture has been improved, the moment for left
shoulder/arm is 72,2 LbF.in, while the momen for right
shoulder/arm is 73,5 LbF.in.

Fig. 6. Comparison of Working posture B in Department B

As an overview for all moment changes on working

posture A and working posture B, Table 6 shows the
details about them. The force and moment which are
shown on the table is the sum of total force and moment
in all body segments.
Table 6. Working Posture Comparison in Department B

On the table above, it can be seen that the moment for

working posture A has decreased 35% from what it used
to be. Meanwhile, the moment for working posture B has
decreased 69% fro what it used to be. In average it can be
concluded that the moment for working posture in
Department B has decreased 52%.

Fig. 5. Comparison of Working Posture A in Department B

Second posture of Department B is when operators lift

and place 25 kg polyethylene sack on their shoulder, so
they can carry them into another place. Considering that
operators carry heavy load on their shoulder and the
position is not suggested. It may be harmful if operators
perform this job continuously over period of time. To

4.3 Causal Loop Diagram Analysis.

Causal loop diagram describes interaction in a model
among variables which is drawn through cause tree
diagram. Not every aspect in causal loop diagram is
assessed. The main concern of this research is to analyze
the accident cost and physical workload. Accident cost is
affected by three main factors, namely the accident,
operator cost, and also replacement cost. Accident rate is
the possibility of accident happens in a period of time.
Meanwhile operator cost is the amount of salary for sick

operator. The last factor is replacement cost which is

described as the amount of money which is expensed by
the company for replacing sick operator.
Operator cost is affected by absence rate and operator
cost factor, while replacement cost is affected by
replacement cost factor and also time factor. Actually,
both absence rate and time factor have the same meaning.
It describes the period of time when operators are being
away because of their sickness. So, it can be concluded
that absence rate means the period of time when sick
operator is not able to do their job properly. Meanwhile,
time factor means the period of time when other operators
should replace sick operators. Operator cost factor affects
operator cost as well as absence rate. It can be seen that
there are five factors which affect operator cost factor.
Those factors are family cost, main salary, meal cost,
presence allowance, and transportation cost. All factors
which affect operator cost factor is gathered based on the
interview with supervisor in
Department A and
Department B. It can be seen that there are three factors
which affect replacement cost factor, namely main salary,
meal cost, and also transportation cost. These three factors
also become the factors which affect operator cost factor.
Similar to operator cost factor, all factors which affect
replacement cost factor is gathered based on the interview
with supervisor in Department A and Department B.
4.4. Analysis of Improvement Scenario.
Improvement scenario is made based on existing
condition which has been captured before. Improvement
scenario is created by changing the physical workload of
operators. Department A and Department B have different
scenario in order to minimize the accident cost. Both of
scenarios are based on the comparison of working posture
while operators perform manual handling activity.
Based on the analysis through Mannequin Pro V10.2,
it can be seen that improvement working posture on
Department A can reduce the moment for 24%. When it is
simulated through system dynamics, the fraction of every
segment in physical workload is reduced for 24%. So, it
can be seen on Figure 7, when the improvement scenario
is applied, there will be a reduction in physical workload.
The trend of the graph might be up and down, still
improvement scenario has reduced the value of physical
workload.

Fig. 7. Physical Workload Scenario for Department A

Fig. 8. Accident Rate Scenario for Department A

The same thing happens to accident rate scenario as it can

be seen on Figure 8. The figure shows that the rate of
accident decreases if the improvement scenario is applied
to the company. As a comparison in year 2006 2008, the
rate of accident for existing condition is 2.92; 2.791; and
2.373 respectively. Meanwhile in the same year for
improvement condition, the rate of accident is 2.208;
2.110; and 1.772 respectively.
The last variable to be compared is accident cost.
Even though the trend between existing condition and
improvement condition is the same, there is a slight
decrease between them. As it is shown on Figure 9, from
the year 2006 to 2008 the value of accident cost for
existing condition in average is about U$ 248.40.
Meanwhile, for improvement condition, the value of
accident cost for improvement condition in the same year
in average is about U$ 223.80.

Fig. 9. Accident Cost Scenario for Department A

The same as improvement scenario for Department

A, there are two working postures to be assessed in
Department B. Based on the analysis through Mannequin
Pro V10.2, it can be seen that the improvement working
posture on Department B can reduce the moment for 52%.
When it is simulated through system dynamics, the
fraction of every segment in physical workload is reduced
for 52%. It can be found that there is also a change in
accident rate, because of the decrease of physical
workload. In existing condition, the rate of accident varies
from 1.75 to 1.5 per year. Meanwhile, in improvement
condition the rate of accident decreases is predicted
between 1 and 2 accidents per year in 2006 2016. For
the accident cost, even though the trend between existing
condition and improvement condition is almost the same,
there is still a slight decrease between them. From the

year 2006 to 2008 the value of accident cost for existing

condition in average is about U$ 253; meanwhile, for
improvement condition, the value of accident cost for
improvement condition in the same year is about U$ 198.

V. CONCLUSION
This phase will conclude some analysis, discussion
and result which ergonomics risk assessment on body
segments for manual handling activity is conducted in two
departments namely Department A and Department B,
with the help of Quick Exposure Checklist (QEC).
Based on the total QEC score for both departments, it
can be concluded that manual handling activity in
Department A (107.7) is riskier than manual handling
activity in Department B (96.17). The risks of manual
handling activity in two observed departments are because
of the way operators perform the job. Manual handling
activity in both Department A and Department B affects
back posture the most. It can be seen from the moment
back posture. In existing working posture A of
Department A, the moment of back posture is 238,9
LbF.in, meanwhile the moment of back posture for
working posture B is 371,8 LbF.in. In existing working
posture B of Department B, the moment of back posture is
724,5 LbF.in, meanwhile the moment of back posture for
working posture B is 340,8 LbF.in. There are two
recommendations which are made for each department.
These recommendations are expected to reduce the risk of
operators getting injured. In average, it can be concluded
that the moment for working posture in Department A has
decreased 24%. And the moment for working posture in
molding Department B has decreased 52%. The
improvement of working posture in Department A and
Department B has also caused a change on their accident
cost.
Based on the simulation, it can be concluded that
physical workload, accident rate, and accident cost affects
each other. If the value of physical workload increases,
then the number of accident rate increases too.
Furthermore, the accident cost also increases. The change
of working posture does not only affect accident cost. It
can be considered affect other factors, for example
productivity of the worker.

REFERENCES
[1] Manual Handling of The Regulations. SI 1995/1986.
Adelaide: Safework SA, 1995.
The Manual Handling Operations Regulations. SI 1992/
2793. London: Crown Copyright, 1992.
[3] National Safety Council. Accident Facts. Chicago: National
Safety Council, 1993.
[4] Anindhita, Tita, Evaluation and Improvement on
Manual Handling Activity to Decrease Accident Cost (Case
Study: Sterilization and Molding Department of PT Otsuka
Indonesia). Final Project in Industrial Engineering Dept. of
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Indonesia, 2009.
[2]

[5] Health Safety Executive. Self - Reported Work - Related

Illness in 2001/2002 : Result from a Household Survey.
London: HSE Books, 2003.
[6] Kroemer, K. H. E., Kroemer, H. B. & Kroemer-Elbert, K.E.
Ergonomics How to Design for Ease and Efficiency. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall International Inc., 1994.
[7] Wickens, C. D. et. al. An Introduction to Human Factor
Engineering. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley International
Publisher Inc., 1998.
[8] David, G., Woods, et. al. The Development of The Quick
Exposure Check (QEC) for Assessing Exposure to Risk
Factors for Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders.
Journal of Applied Ergonomics, 59, pp. 57 69., 2007.
[9] Li, G. & Buckle, P. Quick Exposure Checklist (QEC) for
The Assessment of Workplace Risks for Work - Related
Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs). New York: CRC
Press LLC., 2005.
[10] Haefeli, K., Haslam, C. & Haslam, R. Perceptions of the
Cost Implications of Health and Safety Failures. London:
Health and Safety Ergonomics Unit for Health Safety
Executive., 2005.