Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563–572

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Worker productivity, and occupational health and safety

issues in selected industriesq
Ashraf A. Shikdar*, Naseem M. Sawaqed
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 33,
Al-Khod 123, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
Accepted 11 July 2003

Abstract
The main objective of this research was to identify factors that affected worker productivity, occupational health
and safety in selected industries in a developing country. Fifty production managers participated in the study.
Fifty-four percent of the managers reported hot environmental conditions, 28% a noisy environment, and 26% a
lack of resources and facilities. Managers received worker complaints of fatigue, back pain, upper-body pain, hand
and wrist pain and headaches. Management (88%) acknowledged not having knowledge or access to ergonomics
information. Ninety-four percent of the companies did not carry out ergonomic assessments. A significant
correlation ðp , 0:01Þ was found among productivity indicators and health and organizational attributes. Lack of
skills in ergonomics and training, communication and resources are believed to be some of the factors contributing
to the poor ergonomic conditions and consequent loss of worker productivity and reduced health and safety in
these industries.
q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Worker productivity; Ergonomics; Occupational health and safety; Environmental conditions

1. Introduction

Improving worker productivity, occupational health and safety (OHS) are major concerns of industry,
especially in developing countries. Some of the common features of these industries are improper
workplace design, ill-structured jobs, mismatch between worker abilities and job demands, adverse
environment, poor human-machine system design and inappropriate management programs. This leads

q
This manuscripts was processed by Area Editor Mohamed M. Ayoub.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ968-515-352; fax: þ968-513-416.
E-mail address: ashraf1@squ.edu.om (A.A. Shikdar).

0360-8352/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0360-8352(03)00074-3
564 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563–572

to workplace hazards, poor worker health, mechanical equipment injuries, disabilities, and in turn this
reduces worker productivity and product/work quality and increases cost. Ergonomics or Human Factors
application has been found to improve worker productivity, occupational health, safety and satisfaction.
This has both direct and indirect effects on the over all performance of a company. It would, therefore, be
extremely difficult to attain company objectives without giving proper consideration to ergonomics.
Effective application of ergonomics in work system design can achieve a balance between worker
characteristics and task demands. This can enhance worker productivity, provide worker safety and
physical and mental well-being, and job satisfaction. Many research studies have shown positive effects
of applying ergonomic principles in workplaces, machine design, job design, environment and facilities
design (Burri & Helander, 1991; Das, 1987; Das & Sengupta, 1996; Das & Shikdar, 1999; Hasselquist,
1981; Rayan, 1989; Resnik & Zanotti, 1997; Schanauber, 1986; Shikdar & Das, 1995). Studies in
ergonomics have also produced data and guidelines for industrial applications. The features of
ergonomic design of machines, workstations, and facilities are well known (Das & Grady, 1983;
Grandjean, 1988; Konz, 1995; Melamed, Luz, Najemson, Jucha, & Green, 1989; Rayan, 1987; Sanders
& McCormick, 1992). However, there is still a low level of acceptance and limited application in
industry. The main concern of work system design is usually the improvement of machines and tools
alone. Inadequate or no consideration is given to the work system as a whole. Therefore, poorly designed
work systems are a common place in industry (Das, 1987; Konz, 1995). Neglect of ergonomic principles
brings inefficiency and pain to the workforce. An ergonomically deficient workplace can cause physical
and emotional stress, low productivity and poor quality of work (Ayoub, 1990a,b).
It is believed ergonomic deficiencies are the root causes of workplace health hazards, low level of
safety and reduced worker productivity and quality. Although the application has gained significant
momentum in the developed countries, it remains unrecognized in developing countries. The application
of ergonomics in improving worker productivity, OHS needed to be explored in the Sultanate of Oman.
The objective of this research was to conduct a study to identify ergonomic factors that could cause
low worker productivity and poor OHS in industries in the Sultanate of Oman.

2. Methodology

Investigating ergonomics, worker productivity and OHS in industries involved development of a

checklist that included questions regarding: (1) demography of the company, (2) productivity and safety
issues, (3) ergonomic issues, (4) environmental factors, and (5) organizational and management issues.
The demography of the companies included questions such as number of workers, type of industry, if
targets are set and percentage of targets achieved. Regarding productivity and safety issues, managers
were asked questions about worker productivity, quality of work, absenteeism and number of injuries.
The ergonomic issues included questions regarding worker complaints on health and safety such as back
pain, upper-body pain, fatigue, stress, manual material handling, and motivation and training. The
environmental factors included questions on the perception of heat and humidity, noise, light, dust and
pollution; while the management issues included questions such as safety committees, worker training,
hazard analysis and ergonomic knowledge and applications.
Checklists were distributed to the production managers of 120 companies in four industrial estates. It
was noted the companies in general were not interested in research, but would rather use known
techniques that have been proven beneficial in the past, especially those in the areas of machines and
 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563–572 565

operations. Telephone calls, reminders and visits were made to convince the managers to fill out the
checklist and to guarantee full confidentiality.
Fifty questionnaires were returned after completion. The response rate was 42%, which is considered
quite a good response. The data was summarized for subsequent analysis.

3. Results and discussions

The data on company statistics and frequency of positive or negative response to each question were
analyzed using SPSS. Analysis indicates that specific ergonomic problems exist in most of the industries.
They include (1) with regard to employees: back pains/backaches, upper-body and neck pains/aches,
hand and wrist pain and discomfort, fatigue, stress and dissatisfaction; (2) with regard to work and
workplace design: manual materials handling, hand tools, machines, workstations; (3) with regard to the
environment: heat, humidity, noise and dust; and (4) with regard to management: training, motivation
and OHS programs. Detailed analyses of the results are presented below.

3.1. Industry statistics

Table 1 shows the types of industries that participated in the survey. Of the 50 companies surveyed, 20
were located in Rusayal, 5 in Nizwa, 11 in Sohar and 14 in Salalah. Therefore, the sample was
considered adequate. It covered all the industrial estates in Oman. It could be seen that majority of the
companies were metal, plastic and food manufacturing. The number of employees ranged from 3 to 276.
The majority of the companies (84%) employed less than 100 people and 68% employed 50 people or
less.
The survey indicated that most of the companies (82%) set a daily production target/goal. However,
the targets were set based on the company’s past experience or requirements. Although, some
absenteeism and lost workdays are expected, only 20% of the managers considered that they have lost
workdays and 10% considered that they have high absenteeism. Twenty-six percent of the managers
considered that they have low worker productivity. Table 2 indicates the general performance of the
companies. Of the 82% of the companies setting a daily target, 60% claimed they achieved their target
between 80 and 100%. Therefore 40% of the companies do not achieve a target close to the set target.
This is in contradiction to the claim that only 26% of the companies have low worker productivity.

Table 1
Types of industries surveyed

Type of industry No. of companies in each industry %

Metal manufacturing 18 36
Plastic manufacturing 9 18
Food manufacturing 9 18
Chemical 7 14
Paper and packaging 5 10
Others 2 4
566 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563–572

Table 2
General performance of companies

Performance indicator No. of companies %

Set target ðn* ¼ 50Þ 41 82

Target achieved (80 – 100%), ðn ¼ 38Þ 31 82
Low worker productivity ðn ¼ 50Þ 13 26
High absenteeism ðn ¼ 50Þ 5 10
Lost workdays 10 20

n* ; number of companies in sample

3.2. Worker complaints

Managers received workers’ complaints of fatigue, back pain, upper-body and neck pain and hand or
arm soreness. In an earlier study (Shikdar, Carlopio, Cross, Stanley, & Gardner, 1993) it was found that
operators were unable to work in normal standing or sitting postures due to poorly designed and installed
machines, poorly designed tasks, inappropriate work heights and lack of suitable work chairs. It is
evident that worker complaints received by managers could be attributed to ergonomic deficiencies.
Fig. 1 shows some of the most common worker complaints reported with respect to health and safety.
The top two worker complaints were: 28% of the companies received complaints of headache while
18% received complaints of back pains.
3.3. Workplace and organizational attributes

As shown in Fig. 2, 16% of the managers considered that they have inadequate facilities and
resources. Twenty percent of production managers (20%) indicated having problems with machines,
16% with manual material handling, 16% with motivating workers, and 12% with training workers.
With respect to the shop floor environment as presented in Fig. 3, 54% of managers indicated that they
have a hot work environment. The temperature in the factory could be as high as 40 8C during the day

Fig. 1. Most common worker complaints as reported by managers.

 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563–572 567

Fig. 2. Some work and facility related attributes.

shift in the summer months. The other major problems reported in terms of environment were excessive
noise (28%) and a dusty environment (24%). Excessive noise was considered a sound level above
90dBA most of the time during the work shift.

3.4. Safety and quality related attributes

There was a lack of OHS committees in the companies surveyed. Only 14% of the companies claimed
that they had OHS committees, although 54% indicated having safety committees. This indicates a lack
of workers’ health consideration. It should be noted here that the majority of the companies declined to
provide information regarding the number of injuries over the past few years. About 38% of the
managers reported that their workers had injuries over the past five years.
With respect to quality, the majority (84%) of the companies had adopted a quality assurance program
while 50% had TQM program. Sixty-four percent of the companies indicated they had quality circles
and 78% reported having a safety standard in their organizations. These programs indicated attention to
quality and safety.

3.5. Ergonomic assessment

Fig. 4 shows the types of analysis and assessments carried out in the companies. Managers were
asked: if they carried out a systematic hazard analysis that dealt with identification and control of

Fig. 3. Some environmental factors.

568 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563–572

Fig. 4. Various ergonomic analysis and assessments.

hazards; conducted a task analysis in developing a sound task method; and checked the fulfillment of
OHS compliance in their companies. Ergonomic assessment that included identification of ergonomic
hazards was seldom conducted in the companies. The companies (94%) did not have any information or
access to ergonomics or knowledge and its application for safe use of machinery and work practices.
It is a fundamental principle of ergonomics that a machine must be safe in operation and maintenance.
However, it often becomes a source of injury. Ergonomically designed equipment and proper safety
training can significantly reduce accidents. In most industries equipment is never assessed in terms of
ergonomics.
These are, obviously, potential hazards and the sources of injuries in industries. In an earlier study it
was observed that the application of ergonomics to the design and safe use of machinery was virtually
non-existent in small manufacturing industries (Shikdar et al., 1993).
Although the managers’ responses did not indicate a high accident and injury rate, ergonomic
deficiencies were clearly significant. Some ergonomics was applied indirectly since the companies had
to ensure that they meet OHS regulations imposed by the government. The OHS problems identified in
the study were related to ergonomic deficiencies in the system components. Designing out ergonomic
deficiencies would reduce accidents and injuries, and thus improve worker productivity and satisfaction.
Appropriate application of ergonomic data in the design of the workplace can significantly reduce
musculo-skeletal injuries. Lack of ergonomics knowledge and awareness of the employers and
employees could have been responsible for the poor acceptance of ergonomics in the workplace.
Management did not check the workplaces for unsafe features and did not enforce safety rules, or
provide instructions and training for safe performance.
Poor ergonomic conditions in industry not only hinder productivity but also affect health and safety of
workers and the quality of work and products.

3.6. Analysis of variance and correlations

Analysis of variance and correlation procedures were conducted considering the type of indus-
try, problem areas and problems, and ergonomics and safety attributes as the main effects (factors).
 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563–572 569

A tree-factor factorial experimental design was considered in the analysis of variance (ANOVA)
procedure considering the response received from the companies as the dependent variable and the
factors representing type of industry, problem area and problem as independent variables. The six
types of industries are shown in Table 1. The four problem areas and three ergonomics and safety
related attributes were defined in this study as follows:

i. PA1 (Performance)—problems related to performance, such as low productivity, low worker

productivity, poor quality of work, high absenteeism, and lost work days
ii. PA2 (Worker health)—problems related to worker health, such as complaints of back pain,
upper-body or neck pain, hand and wrist pain, headache, fatigue, stress, and dissatisfaction
iii. PA3 (Work/facility)—problems related to work and facility, such as manual materials
handling, hand tools, machines, workstations, workers, worker motivation, facility and
resources, and worker training
iv. PA4 (Environment)—problems related to environment, such as heat, noise, light and dust
v. ES1 (Committees/quality)—ergonomics and safety attributes related to committees, such as
safety committee, OHS committee, quality circle, total quality management, quality assurance,
and safety standards
vi. ES2 (Assessment)—ergonomics and safety attributes related to assessments, such as
ergonomics assessment, hazard analysis, task analysis, OHS standards
vii. ES3 (Know-how)—ergonomics and safety attributes related to know-how in ergonomics, such
as ergonomics knowledge, OHS regulations

Significant differences were found among the types of industry, problem areas, and safety and
attributes areas, and problems and attributes considered. Table 3 presents significance levels ( p-values)
for the three main effects. This indicates that industries of different types experience different problems
at different levels of significance in terms of productivity, facilities, environment, OHS and ergonomics.
Multiple comparison tests on individual treatment means for industry type was conducted using Duncan
multiple range test. The test showed, at a significance level of 0.05, that the metal manufacturing
industry had more problems than other types of industry.
Table 4 shows significantly high correlations between performance indicators and health, facilities
and environmental attributes. In other words, companies with higher health, facilities, and
environmental problems had more performance related problems such as low productivity, and high

Table 3
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results

Source df Mean square F P.F R squared

Model 222 0.970 6.822 0.000 0.648

Type of industry 6 18.119 127.382 0.000
Problem areas and ES attribute areas 6 7.735 54.382 0.000
Problem and attributes 30 1.220 8.578 0.000
Error 1628 0.142
Total 1850

P . F; Probability that a random F value would be greater than or equal to the observed value.
570 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563–572

Table 4
Correlations between different outcomes

Variables PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA234 ES123

PA1 1.000 0.283* 0.603** 0.234 0.482** 2 0.052

PA2 0.283* 1.000 0.547** 0.454** 0.856** 2 0.141
PA3 0.603** 0.547** 1.000 0.376** 0.824 2 0.211
PA4 0.234 0.454** 0.376** 1.000 0.708** 2 0.292
PA234 0.482** 0.856** 0.824** 0.708** 1.000 2 0.248
ES123 2 0.052 20.141 2 0.211 20.292 2 0.248 1.000
PA234, problem areas of PA1, PA2, and PA3 combined; ES123, problem areas of ES1, ES2 and ES3 combined; Correlation
is significant at the 0.05 level ðp , 0:05Þ; Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level ðp , 0:01Þ:

absenteeism. The correlation coefficient between health, facilities and environmental attributes and
management, and ergonomic attributes was not significant. This was probably due to the fact that few
companies had some ergonomics knowledge and ergonomics training programs and therefore
management and ergonomic related issues did not show significant impact on health and facility issues
within the companies.

4. Conclusions and recommendations

4.1. Conclusions

From this study the following conclusions could be drawn with regard to ergonomic factors affecting
worker productivity, and OHS in industries in Oman:

1. Little or no ergonomics was used and practically no ergonomics training was provided to workers.
Most of the industries studied used little or no ergonomics information and data. Ninety-four percent
of the companies did not carry out an ergonomic assessment.
2. Managers received worker complaints of fatigue (16%), back pain (18%), headache (28%), and
upper-body pain (14%). These health problems indicated of ergonomic deficiencies in the work
system.
3. Poor environmental conditions, especially noise and heat, were common. Fifty-four percent of the
companies reported a hot environment and 28% reported noisy (.85 dBA) conditions. Adverse
environmental conditions on the shopfloor could aggravate accidents and injuries.
4. A significant difference was found among the types of industries in terms of problem areas,
ergonomics and safety attributes and the attributes themselves. Manufacturing industries reported
having more problems than other types of industry.
5. There was a significant positive correlation among problem areas and health and organizational
problems. This indicated companies who reported more organizational problems also have more
performance problems.
6. Most of the companies (94%) either did not have knowledge of ergonomics, access to ergonomics
information or they simply ignored it considering resource constraints and costs.
 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563–572 571

4.2. Recommendations

Some of the strategies to improve the conditions are:

1. Management must be knowledgeable and aware of the benefits of ergonomics and the prevention of
injuries through ergonomic design of work systems. Information on ergonomics should be made
available to industries.
2. Employees need to be trained systematically in ergonomics in order to improve not only productivity
but also OHS. This would be beneficial to both employees and management.
3. The workplace and work design should be carried out using ergonomic guidelines, acts and
recommendations considering the user population. The environment must be given adequate
consideration.
4. Strategies should be formulated and implemented in order to introduce ergonomics systematically
through ergonomic programs in industry to improve worker productivity, safety and health and
environment.

Acknowledgements

The study was funded through an SQU Internal Research Grant No. ENG/00/02. The authors
acknowledge the contribution of Khaled Al-Kindi, Ali Al-Abadi and Khaled Al-Nabhani in data
collection.

References

Ayoub, M. A. (1990a). Ergonomic deficiencies. I. Pain at work. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32(1), 52 – 57.
Ayoub, M. A. (1990b). Ergonomic deficiencies. II. Probable causes. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32(2), 131– 136.
Burri, G. J., & Helander, M. G. (1991). A field study of productivity improvements in the manufacturing of circuit boards.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 7, 207– 215.
Das, B. (1987). An ergonomic approach to designing a manufacturing work system. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 1(3), 231– 240.
Das, B., & Grady, R. M. (1983). Industrial workplace layout design: An application of engineering anthropometry. Ergonomics,
26(5), 433– 443.
Das, B., & Sengupta, A. (1996). Industrial workstation design: A systematic ergonomic approach. Applied Ergonomics, 27(3),
157– 163.
Das, B., & Shikdar, A. (1999). Participative versus assigned production standard setting in a repetitive industrial task: A
strategy for improving worker productivity. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 5(3), 417– 430.
Grandjean, E. (1988). Fitting the task to the man: An ergonomic approach. London: Taylor and Francis.
Hasselquist, R. J. (1981). Increasing manufacturing productivity using Human Factors principles. Proceedings of the Human
Factors Society—25th Annual Meeting, 204– 206.
Konz, S. (1995). Work design: Industrial ergonomics (5th ed.). Ohio: Grid Columbus.
Melamed, S., Luz, J., Najemson, T., Jucha, E., & Green, M. (1989). Ergonomic stress levels, personal characteristics, accident
occurrence and sickness absence among factory workers. Ergonomics, 9, 1101– 1110.
Rayan, J. P. (1987). A study of safety in man– machine systems. In S. Asfour (Ed.), (pp. 505– 511). Trends in Ergonomics/
Human Factors, IV.
572 A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 45 (2003) 563–572

Rayan, J. P. (1989). A study of selected ergonomic factors in occupational safety. In A. Mital (Ed.), Advances in industrial
ergonomics and safety I (pp. 359– 364). London: Taylor and Francis.
Resnik, M. L., & Zanotti, A. (1997). Using ergonomics to target productivity improvements. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 33(1 – 2), 185– 188.
Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1992). Human factors in engineering and design (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schanauber, H. (1986). Ergonomics and productivity as reflected in a new factory. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), Trends in
ergonomics/human factors III (pp. 459– 465). Berlin: Elsevier.
Shikdar, A., Carlopio, J., Cross, J., Stanley, P., & Gardner, D. (1993). Mechanical equipment injuries in small businesses.
In: Ergonomics in a Changing World. Proceedings of the Ergonomics Association of Australia, Australia: Perth, pp.
199– 205.
Shikdar, A. A., & Das, B. (1995). A field study of worker productivity improvements. Applied Ergonomics, 26(1), 21 – 27.