Anti-Fatigue Mats Can Increase
Productivity |
 |
The word “ergonomics” is
defined as “the natural laws
of work”. Optimal performance,
which many of us define as productivity,
is the ultimate goal of ergonomic
design. The implementation of
ergonomic concepts offers tremendous
value
to any company, and can be realized
with the creation of comfortable,
healthy and safe work environments.
We know that standing workers
are less fatigued and feel
less discomfort
at the end of the day if they
stand on anti-fatigue mats.
This has
been proven time and time again.
To take this one step further,
it is logical to assume that
comfortable workers will
be more productive.
However, until recently, no
studies have been conducted
to investigate
this theory. Driven by our
customers desire to justify
the purchase
of anti-fatigue mats, we decided
to conduct a long-term study
to test that very premise.
|
 |
Number
of Employees:
175 in manufacturing and assembly
Number of shifts: 2
Location:
Small town (< 5,000)
Empoyee tenure:
Average of 4 years
Employee Age:
Average 41, Mean 35
|
|
|
The
Wearwell® Productivity Study
In 1998 we were introduced
to a regional company that
had a
significant
accident rate and a high level
of absenteeism. We offered
to provide their workers
with Wearwell® anti-fatigue
mats in exchange for their participation
in a long-term study. The test
was primarily designed to determine
if the use of anti-fatigue matting
could be linked to increased productivity.
We also anticipated correlations
between the use of anti-fatigue
mats and reductions in standing
fatigue because this had already
been proven time and time again
in other research. The participating
company was a manufacturer of commercial
ovens. It was the largest and “best” employer
(in terms of wages and bene.ts)
in a 30-mile radius. The company
faced several difficult issues,
specially a high injury rate
and a high rate of absenteeism,
especially
on Mondays when it often reached
10%. From the outset, we were
hopeful that the use of anti-fatigue
matting
would moderate these issues. |
|
Average
Absenteeism Rates:
Before Mats: 5.2%
(10% on Mondays)
After Mats: 4%
Injury (lost time) Ratio*
Before Mats:
> 3 per mth
After Mats: < 1 per mth
* < 1 = better than average
in their industry
|
|
|
The Process
Our ultimate goal was to install
one type of matting throughout
the manufacturing area to
eliminate any deviation in
test results
based on the “comfort level” of
the mats used. Unfortunately,
there were several dif.cult areas
such as spot-welding and arc
welding. Despite these diverse
environments, Diamond-Plate SpongeCote
No. 415 was installed in 95%
of the facility (in all but two
of the areas). The second step
was to design questionnaire which
assessed the worker’s
perceptions of their current
work surface
(i.e. Concrete), overall
level of fatigue before and
after
work, and the fatigue and
discomfort level of their
legs and feet
before and after work. Workers
filled out the questionnaire
three times a week for two
weeks
before the mats were installed.
After collecting that data,
the mats were installed.
As a comparison,
the workers filled out the
same questionnaire during
the year
long study. The results of
the “Worker
Perception” aspect of the
study are very clear. The participants
felt considerably less fatigued
before and after work following
the installation of anti-fatigue
mats. In addition, the “at
risk” areas of their bodies
such as legs, feet and lower back,
were much less uncomfortable when
anti-fatigue mats were used. Worker’s
perception is very important, but
the unique aspect of this study
was that it revealed a strong correlation
between the use of anti-fatigue
mats and productivity. Before the
installation of anti-fatigue matting,
the rate of absenteeism and the “lost
time” injury ratios were
very high. |
| The
decreases in absenteeism and lost
time injuries resulted
in a significant gain in productivity. By comparing the stats of the twelve
(12) months prior to the study
- July 1, 1998 to July 1, 1999,
to the twelve (12 months) of the
study - July 2, 1999 to July 1,
2000, the logical conclusion is
that the installation of anti-fatigue
mats resulted in an estimated 2.2%
increase in productivity. Fifty
percent of the 2.2% increase in
productivity was due to lower absenteeism
rates. And the other 50% can be
linked to decreased down time due
to lost time injuries. It’s
worthy of note that the company
had an established workforce and
did not implement procedural changes
that could be linked to increased
productivity. |
|
Cost Savings Related
to the use of Anti0fatigue
Mats
|
Hard
Costs |
| Increased
Productivity |
$300,000 |
| Reduced
Insurance |
$60,000 |
| Total
Cost Savings: |
$360,000 |
The
substantial decrease in absenteeism
increased the average daily
unit production.
|
|
|
ROI - Return on
Investment
“Soft Cost Savings”.
Insurance companies calculate
these “Soft Costs” by
multiplying the Total “Hard” Cost
Savings by a multiplier between
2 and 6. In this case, Tennessee
Mat chose to be conservative
and used the lowest multiplier,
ie 2. The calculation for Soft
Cost Savings is as follows:
|
|
Total Results
Summary
Investment
$10,000
Lower
rate of absenteeism:
Average 23%
Increased
Productivity:
2.2% increase
Total hard
Cost Savings:
$360,000
Total Soft
Cost Savings:
$720,000
|
|
|
Hard
Cost Savings of $360,000.00
x 2 = $720,000.00 Soft Cost
Savings
Not all companies
have such dramatic results,
but virtually all would tell
you
that anti-fatigue mats make
a very positive
impact on their employee’s
morale and performance. |
|
