Computers & Industrial Engineering 47 (2004) 223232

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Ergonomics, and occupational health and safety in the oil industry: a managers response*
Ashraf A. Shikdara,*, Naseem M. Sawaqedb
a

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 33, Al-Khod 123, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman b Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mutah University, Amman, Jordan Received 7 October 2003; accepted 13 July 2004 Available online 12 September 2004

Abstract The main objective of this research was to investigate ergonomics, occupational health and safety problems of an oil industry in a developing country. Fifty-six industrial unit managers participated in the study. Forty-eight percent of the managers received worker complaints of back pain, 36% of fatigue, 32% of upper-body pain, 48% of stress and 46% of dissatisfaction. Fifty-seven percent of the managers reported a hot environment, 36% a noisy environment, and 41% a lack of resources and facilities. Sixty-two percent had no knowledge or access to ergonomics information, while 64% of the managers did not carry out an ergonomic assessment of their units. A signicant correlation (p!0.01) was found among ergonomics and safety indicators and average injury rates. Lack of skills in ergonomics, communication and resources are believed to be some of the major factors contributing to the poor ergonomic conditions and consequent increase in health and safety problems in this industry. q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ergonomics; Occupational health and safety; Environmental conditions

1. Introduction Improving worker productivity, and occupational health and safety (OHS) are major concerns in industry, especially in developing countries. Some of the common problems are improper workplace design, ill-structured jobs, mismatch between worker abilities and job demands, adverse environment,
*

This manuscript was processed by Area Editor M.M. Ayoub. * Corresponding author. Tel.: C968-515-352; fax: C968-513-416. E-mail address: ashraf1@squ.edu.om (A.A. Shikdar).

0360-8352/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2004.07.004

224

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 47 (2004) 223232

poor humanmachine system design and inappropriate management programs. This leads to workplace hazards, poor workers health, mechanical equipment injuries, disabilities, and in turn 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 overall performance. It would, therefore, be extremely difcult to attain a 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 studies have shown positive effects of applying ergonomic principles to the workplace, in machine design, in job design, and in environment and facilities design (Burri & Helander, 1991; Das, 1987; Das & Sengupta, 1996; Das & Shikdar, 1999; Hasselquist, 1981; Resnick & Zanotti, 1997; Ryan, 1989; 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, facilities are well known (Chapanis, 1979; Das & Grady, 1983; Grandjean, 1988; Konz, 1995; McLeod, 1995; Melamed, Luz, Najemson, Jucha, & Green, 1989; Murrel, 1965; Ryan, 1987; Salvendy, 1987; Sanders & McCormick, 1992; Wilson & Corlett, 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. Inadequate or no consideration is given to the work system as a whole. Therefore, poorly designed work systems are common place in industry (Das, 1987; Konz, 1995). Neglect of ergonomic principles brings inefciency and pain to the workforce. An ergonomically decient workplace can cause physical and emotional stress, low productivity and poor quality of work (Ayoub, 1990a,b). It is believed that ergonomic deciencies in industry are a root cause of workplace health hazards, low levels of safety, and reduced worker productivity and quality. Although ergonomics applications have gained signicant momentum in developed countries, awareness remains low in developing regions. Ergonomics technology, if properly applied, can eliminate or reduce OHS problems in the workplace and enhance performance. Lower injuries mean lower medical and compensation costs, less loss of wages and workdays, and nancial benet to the company. The application of ergonomics in improving OHS needs to be explored for the oil industry in desert environments. Work in the oil industry involves diverse activities including work in rigs, workshops, and ofces. Heat stress as a potential safety and health hazard has been recognized in the literature and guidelines for exposure have been formulated (Hancock & Vasmatzidis, 1998). A signicant proportion of workers in the oil industry in hot arid areas, such as the Arabian Gulf, are exposed to heat stress. As a standard schedule, an 8 h work shift is adopted in ofces, while a 12 h work shift is adopted on rigs. The normal ofce work schedule is 8 a.m.4 p.m., 5 days a week; where as the schedule in the desert/rigs are from 6 a.m.6 p.m. and 6 p.m.6 a.m., shift work, with normal breaks. It is generally more effective to examine work conditions on a case-by-case basis when applying ergonomic principles to solve or prevent health and safety problems. There are no specic ergonomics studies of the oil industry in desert environments in the literature, as far as the authors are aware. The main objective of this research was to investigate ergonomics, and OHS problems in the oil industry in a desert environment in the Sultanate of Oman.

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 47 (2004) 223232

225

2. Methodology The selected oil company was located in the Sultanate of Oman. It was a large company engaged in all activities of oil production from exploration to sales, and it was representative of oil industries in the country. The company was comprised of about 100 operating units, commonly known as assets. A unit/asset was a section or department responsible for a specialized job, such as a rig, workshop, exploration, mechanical maintenance, etc. Depending on the unit, the workers were engaged in various tasks. For example, workers in the rig would be involved in drilling, laying pipes, maneuvering pipes and casings, etc. Each unit was managed by a team leader, supervisor or section head who was considered a manager in the study. The managers were graduates in their respective elds. Only a few managers had little or some experience in ergonomics through university courses or short courses, while some others gained some knowledge through information booklets. Two occupational hygienists in the heath, safety and environment department of the company, were responsible for ergonomics. The government laws on occupational health and industrial safety require all employers to provide a safe work place for their employees. There are written organizational policies concerning health and safety and environment that should be implemented. Safety training is provided to all employees. However, this had no component of ergonomics in it. Some ergonomics information is available in both Arabic and English in the form of booklets and in the company website. No short courses on ergonomics were available in the company. Consultants are available when necessary from overseas. Medical problems due to injuries are handled by company clinics. There is an injury reporting and investigation procedure. The company covers all expenses, including wages for the days the employee is not working due to injury. A medical board decides on the amount of compensation. The methodology for investigating ergonomics, and OHS in the selected industry involved development of and conducting a checklist that included questions on: (1) demography of the unit, (2) OHS issues, (3) ergonomic issues, (4) environmental factors, and (5) management issues. The total number of injuries for each unit over a 3-year period was provided by the company. Details on each category and severity of injury were not available for the study. The questionnaire on demography of the units included questions such as number of workers, types of jobs, and if targets are used or achieved. Regarding safety issues, the managers were asked questions about their workers 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, motivation and training. An example of a typical health related question was do you receive complaints of back pain from you employees?. The environmental factors included questions on the perception of heat and humidity, noise, light, dust and pollution; while the management issues included questions on awareness and knowledge of safety committees, worker training, hazard analysis, ergonomics and OHS regulations. A sample environment related question was of do you have problem with noise in your asset? type. Checklists were distributed to the managers of 96 units (commonly known as assets) of the participating oil industry. It was noted that the managers in general were not interested in research, but would rather use known techniques that have been proven benecial in the past, especially in the areas of machines and operations. Telephone calls, reminders and visits were made to convince the managers to ll out the checklist with a guarantee of full condentiality.

226

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 47 (2004) 223232

Fifty-six questionnaires were returned after completion. The response rate was 58%, which was considered good. The data was summarized for subsequent analysis.

3. Analysis of results The data were analyzed in terms of frequency of positive or negative response to each question. Analysis indicated specic ergonomic problems exist in most of the assets of the company. They include (1) with regard to employees: back pains/backaches, upper body and neck pains, 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 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. Demography of the assets (units) Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the assets. The number of employees ranged from 3 to 256 in the assets with a mean of about 21 employees and a standard deviation of 39. Majority of the employees were local and comprised 78% of the total employees. The employees in the assets were not unionized. Communication was conducted in Arabic, English and Hindi depending on the need. 3.2. Worker health complaints The injury rate was about 25 injuries per 100 employees per year, which was considered high by the management (Table 1). Fig. 1 shows the human related complaints received by managers of the assets. Forty-eight percent of asset managers received complaints of work stress while 46% received complaints of dissatisfaction and 38% of headache. Complaints of back pain, upper-body and neck pain and hand and wrist pain were reported in 48, 32 and 25% of the assets, respectively. Worker fatigue was reported in 36% of the assets. These are clear indications of ergonomic deciencies in the assets surveyed. Analysis of the number of complaints or injuries and severity of injuries per worker in each category was beyond the scope of this research as these statistics were not available with the managers.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the assets surveyed Variables No. No. No. No. of employees of employees (Omani) of employees (non-Omani) of injuries (last 3 years) Min 3 0 0 1 Max 256 179 77 59 Mean 20.88 16.30 4.57 16.05 SD 39.28 30.17 10.70 16.00

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 47 (2004) 223232

227

Fig. 1. Some major worker complaints in the assets.

3.3. Task and management related problems With regard to tasks and management related attributes (Fig. 2), 38% of the managers surveyed indicated that they have inadequate facilities or resources, 20% reported on problems with management, and 23% on workstation problems. Only 2% of the managers reported problems with hand tools, 4% with manual materials handling, and 9% with machines. These indicated that managers consider their assets have well-maintained tools and equipment, although 38% of the managers indicated having inadequate facilities and resources. Manual material handling was not considered a major problem as the workers received training and perhaps they were unable to recognize this as a source of back pain. Fortyone percent of the managers reported on problems in motivating employees in their assets. 3.4. Environmental problems There was a clear indication of environmental problems in the participating assets. Fig. 3 shows the major environmental problems. Hot and humid environmental conditions appeared to be a major

Fig. 2. Problems related to task and organizational aspects.

228

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 47 (2004) 223232

Fig. 3. Major environmental problems.

concern. Fifty-seven percent of the managers indicated they have problems with hot and humid conditions, 48% with dust and 36% on high noise levels, while 14% complained of pollution. These ndings were not unexpected for a desert environment. However, they show the magnitude of the problem. Workers could be exposed to a temperature as high as 45 8C in the oilrigs while the ofces are air-conditioned (Shikdar, 2004; Shikdar & Sawaqed, 2003). There are specic company policies regarding exposure to noise levels, heat, manual handling and toxic chemicals. For example, the noise level standard for 8 h exposure is 85 dBA. There were a limited number of inspectors responsible for OHS. 3.5. Ergonomics related problems As shown in Fig. 4, most of the assets (75%) carried out task analysis and hazard analysis (71%). However, only 36% indicated conducting ergonomic assessment (EA) of their assets and 38% indicated having knowledge of ergonomics. Although ergonomics information was available to the managers, it was not evident that they used a formal EA procedure. Forty-six percent of the managers indicated that

Fig. 4. Ergonomics, OHS and other issues.

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 47 (2004) 223232

229

they comply with OHS regulations of the government and the company. More emphasis was placed on ofce environment and design. Since it is a requirement to provide a safe workplace, ergonomics needs to be considered in all work and facilities design. However, it could not be ascertained if the managers accessed the information. The results indicated that ergonomics was not widely applied in the workplaces. This is probably due to lack of awareness and skills in ergonomics, and communication and resource constraints. Ergonomics and OHS are the responsibility of both staff and management. If managers lack knowledge in ergonomics and staff were not trained in ergonomics they would not be able to implement it. Although managers are not expected to be specialist in ergonomics, they should, in order to improve health and safety in their units, have at least a working knowledge of ergonomics and be able to implement it. 3.6. Problems comparison and correlations To compare among assets in terms of problems, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted using managers response as the independent variable. The three problem areas, and two ergonomics and safety related attributes as dened below were considered as the main effects (factors) in the analysis. i. Worker health (WH)problems related to WH, such as complaints of back pain, upper body or neck pain, hand and wrist pain, headache, fatigue, stress, and dissatisfaction ii. Work and facility (WF)problems related to WF, such as manual materials handling, hand tools, machines, workstations, workers, worker motivation, facility and resources, and worker training iii. Environment (ENV)problems related to environment, such as heat, noise, light and dust iv. EAergonomics and safety assessment attributes related to assessments, such as ergonomics assessment, hazard analysis, task analysis, OHS standards v. Ergonomics knowledge (EK)ergonomics and safety attributes related to know-how in ergonomics, such as EK, OHS regulations The ANOVA revealed signicant differences among problem areas and ergonomics and safety attributes with p-values as shown in Table 2. The results indicated that there was a signicant difference among the problem areas and problems of different assets. In other words, the assets did not have the same level of problems in terms of WH, WF, environment, and ergonomics and safety related attributes. A correlation analysis with the survey attributes and average injury rate (AVINJ) was conducted to identify if there was any relationship among these variables. The results showed highly positive and
Table 2 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results Source Model Problem area Problem Error Total df 120 4 23 1224 1344 MS 19.561 5.423 2.077 0.235 F 83.501 23.076 3.253 POF* 0.000 0.000 0.000 R2 0.664

*POF, probability that an F value would be greater than the observed value.

230

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 47 (2004) 223232

signicant (p!0.01) correlations between average number of injuries suffered by the individual assets and problems related to WH, work and facilities, environment and ergonomics and safety related attributes. Table 3 shows the correlation parameters between average number of injuries and individual problem areas. The correlation coefcient between injuries and human related problems was highly signicant (p!0.01) indicating that WH related attributes, such as complaints of stress, fatigue, headache, pains, etc. may have contributed to these injuries. A signicant correlation (p!0.05) was found among injuries and environmental problems. Stated otherwise, environmental problems may have contributed to these injuries. The correlation coefcients between injuries and task and organizational problems and between injuries and other problems were not signicant. A signicant correlation was found between EK and access to ergonomics information with injuries. Assets who had knowledge of ergonomics and complied with OHS regulations reported fewer numbers of injuries. The environment showed a signicant correlation (p!0.05) with human related complaints. Therefore, an improvement on the application of ergonomics and OHS standards and environment will have positive impact on reducing injuries in the company.

4. Conclusions and recommendations 4.1. Conclusions From this study the following conclusions could be drawn with regard to ergonomics, OHS in the oil industry in the desert environment: 1. There was a signicant positive correlation among ergonomics, OHS problems and AVINJ rates of the assets. Stated otherwise, the assets who had more ergonomics and OHS problems also had higher
Table 3 Correlations among the variables Average injury (AVINJ) Average injury Worker health Work and facility Environment WHCWFC ENV Ergonomic assessment Ergonomic knowledge EACEK 1.000 Worker health (WH) 0.487* 1.000 Work and facility (WF) 0.402* 0.442* 1.000 Environment (ENV) 0.271 0.139 0.267 1.000 WHCWFC ENV 0.584** 0.861** 0.793** 0.617** 1.000 Ergonomic assessment (EA) K0.408* K0.778** K0.239 K0.295 K0.392* 1.000 Ergonomic knowledge (EK) K0.397* K0.218 K0.420* K0.189 K0.285 0.181 1.000 EACEK

K0.569** K0.826** K0.494* K0.248 K0.475* 0.774** 0.787** 1.000

*Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level, **correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level.

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 47 (2004) 223232

231

2.

3.

4.

5.

injury rates. Sixty-two percent of the managers acknowledged having no knowledge or access to ergonomics information and data. Sixty-four percent of the assets did not carry out EAs of their workplaces. Managers received worker complaints of fatigue, back pain, headache, and upper body pain in 36, 48, 38 and 32% of the assets, respectively. Forty-eight percent of the assets received complaints of stress. These complaints are indications of ergonomic deciencies in the work system in the oil industry. Work in the oil industry, especially in a desert region, could be characterized by diverse schedules, long hours, and hot environment. Thirty-eight percent of managers indicated problems in motivating workers. Poor environmental conditions, especially noise and heat, were common to many of the assets. Fifty-seven percent of the assets reported on the hot environment, 36% reported on noisy conditions (O85 dBA) and 48% on dust. Adverse environmental condition would aggravate accidents and injuries. The majority of the asset managers (62%) either did not have knowledge in ergonomics, access to ergonomics information or they simply ignored it considering resource constraints and costs.

4.2. Recommendations Some of the strategies to improve the above conditions as evident from the study are stated below: 1. Managers must be knowledgeable and aware of the benets of ergonomics, and the prevention of injuries through ergonomics implementation. They should be trained in ergonomics to acquire skills in implementing it in the workplace. 2. Employees need to be trained systematically in ergonomics in order to improve ergonomic conditions and OHS and hence improve human performance. This would be benecial to both employees and management. 3. The work and workplace design should be carried out using ergonomic guidelines, acts and recommendations considering user population. The environment must be given adequate consideration. 4. Strategies should be formulated and implemented to introduce ergonomics systematically through ergonomic programs in the oil industry in order to improve worker productivity, safety, health and environment. 5. Effective implementation of specic written policies concerning health and safety must be ensured through inspection, periodic reporting and enforcement of government laws.

Acknowledgements The study was funded through SQU Internal Research Grant No. ENG/00/02. The authors acknowledge the contribution of Mr Moutaz Al-Riyami and Mr Hilal Al-Sabari in the data collection process.

232

A.A. Shikdar, N.M. Sawaqed / Computers & Industrial Engineering 47 (2004) 223232

References
Ayoub, M. A. (1990a). Ergonomic deciencies: I. Pain at work. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32(1), 5257. Ayoub, M. A. (1990b). Ergonomic deciencies: II. Probable causes. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32(2), 131136. Burri, G. J., & Helander, M. G. (1991). A eld study of productivity improvements in the manufacturing of circuit boards. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 7, 207215. Chapanis, A. (1979). Quo vadis, ergonomia. Ergonomics, 22, 595605. Das, B. (1987). An ergonomic approach to designing a manufacturing work system. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1(3), 231240. Das, B., & Grady, R. M. (1983). Industrial workplace layout design: An application of engineering anthropometry. Ergonomics, 26(5), 433443. Das, B., & Sengupta, A. (1996). Industrial workstation design: A systematic ergonomic approach. Applied Ergonomics, 27(3), 157163. 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), 417430. Grandjean, E. (1988). Fitting the task to the man: An ergonomic approach(4th ed.). London, UK: Taylor and Francis. Hancock, P. A., & Vasmatzidis, I. (1998). Human occupational and performance limits under stress: The thermal environment as a prototype example. Ergonomics, 41, 11691191. Hasselquist, R. J. (1981). Increasing manufacturing productivity using human factors principles. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society25th Annual Meeting , 204206. Konz, S. (1995). Work design: Industrial ergonomics(4th ed.). Scottsdale, AZ, USA: Holcomb Hathway. McLeod, D. (1995). The ergonomics edge: Improving safety, quality and productivity. New York, USA: Wiley. 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, 11011110. Murrel, K. F. H. (1965). Ergonomics: Man and his environment. London, UK: Chapman and Hall. Resnick, M. L., & Zanotti, A. (1997). Using ergonomics to target productivity improvements. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 33(12), 185188. Ryan, J. P. (1987). A study of safety in manmachine systems. In Asfour (Ed.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors, IV. Ryan, J. P. (1989). A study of selected ergonomic factors in occupational safety. In Anil Mital (Ed.), Advances in industrial ergonomics and safety I (pp. 359364). London, UK: Taylor and Francis. Salvendy, G. (1987). Handbook of human factors. New York, USA: Wiley. Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1992). Human factors in engineering and design (7th ed.). New York, USA: McGraw Hill. Schanauber, H. (1986). Ergonomics and productivity as reected in a new factory. In Karwowski (Ed.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors III (pp. 459465). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Shikdar, A. A. (2004). Identication of ergonomic issues that affect workers in oilrigs in desert environments. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 10(2), 169177. Shikdar, A. A., & Das, B. (1995). A eld study of worker productivity improvements. Applied Ergonomics, 26(1), 2127. Shikdar, A. A., & Sawaqed, N. M. (2003). Worker productivity, occupational health and safety issues in selected industries. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 45, 563572. Wilson, J. R., & Corlett, E. N. (1992). Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology. Philadelphia, USA: Taylor and Francis.