Omar Paez

The work compatibility improvement framework: an integrated perspective of the human-at-work system

The industrial revolution demonstrated the limitations of a pure mechanistic approach towards work design. Human work is now seen as a complex entity that involves different scientific branches and blurs the line between mental and physical activities. Job design has been a traditional concern of applied psychology, which has provided insight into the interaction between the individual and the work environment. The goal of this paper is to introduce the human-at-work system as a holistic approach to organizational design. It postulates that the well-being of workers and work outcomes are issues that need to be addressed jointly, moving beyond traditional concepts of job satisfaction and work stress. The work compatibility model (WCM) is introduced as an engineering approach that seeks to integrate previous constructs of job and organizational design. The WCM seeks a balance between energy expenditure and replenishment. The implementation of the WCM in industrial settings is described within the context of the Work Compatibility Improvement Framework. A sample review of six models (motivation-hygiene theory; job characteristics theory; person-environment fit; demand-control model; and balance theory) provides the foundation for the interaction between the individual and the work environment. A review of three workload assessment methods (position analysis questionnaire, job task analysis and NASA task load index) gives an example of the foundation for the taxonomy of work environment domains. Previous models have sought to identify a balance state for the human-at-work system. They differentiated between the objective and subjective effects of the environment and the worker. An imbalance between the person and the environment has been proven to increase health risks. The WCM works with a taxonomy of 12 work domains classified in terms of the direct (acting) or indirect (experienced) effect on the worker. In terms of measurement, two quantitative methods are proposed to measure the state of the system. The first method introduced by Abdallah et al. (2004) identifies operating zones. The second method introduced by Salem et al. (2006) identifies the distribution of the work elements on the x/y coordinate plane. While previous efforts have identified some relevant elements of the systems, they failed to provide a holistic, quantitative approach combining organizational and human factors into a common framework. It is postulated that improving the well-being of workers will simultaneously improve organizational outcomes. The WCM moves beyond previous models by providing a hierarchical structure of work domains and a combination of methods to diagnose any organizational setting. The WCM is an attempt to achieve organizational excellence in human resource management, moving beyond job design to an integrated improvement strategy. A joint approach to organizational and job design will not only result in decreased prevalence of health risks, but in enhanced organizational effectiveness as well. The implementation of the WCM, that is, the Work Compatibility Improvement Framework, provides the basis for integrating different elements of the work environment into a single reliable construct. An improvement framework is essential to ensure that the measures of the WCM result in a system that is adaptive and self-regulated.

Estimating the uninsured costs of work-related accidents, part I: a systematic review

Background: Work-related accidents and their associated costs have been a serious concern for management, especially as statistics show that there is no clear relationship between the frequency of injuries and the costs of accidents. Methods: A systematic appraisal of available literature was conducted to identify the best approaches to the classification and estimation of insured and uninsured components of work-related accident costs. The appraisal seeks to identify meaningful components and predictors of the cost of accidents. Results: The selected publications introduced different methods to aggregate the cost of accidents but failed to provide an explanation of the relationship between the nature of accidents and their associated cost. Only three studies explored both insured and uninsured components and only four utilized incidence-based models. Conclusions: There is a need to move beyond linear ratios as predictors of the uninsured cost of accidents. An incidence-based method would best represent the nature of accidents.

Estimating uninsured costs of work-related accidents, part II: an incidence-based model

Background: This is the second of two papers focused on insured costs of workplace accidents. In part I, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify previous models. Although uninsured costs have been identified, there is no reliable method for employers to estimate their cost. Objective: This paper proposes a quantitative model to represent the behaviour of the cost of accidents. It provides a cost range into which the accident is most likely to fall, based on information known at the time of the accident. Methods: A logarithmic distribution is proposed to represent the insured cost as a function of the severity of the accident and the occupation of the workforce exposed. Point estimates for administrative costs and production losses are obtained based on a generic case in order to quantify the equation in terms of monetary value. Results: For a given workforce composition, it is possible to obtain uninsured cost intervals that range from 0–3.5 times the insured costs. The evidence supports a logarithmic relationship between uninsured and insured costs, contrary to the principle of linear ratios. Conclusion: The proposed model requires only basic information about the accident: the severity of the injury and the composition of the workforce exposed. The value added from the model is not only an interval range for the insured costs but also the financial contribution of safety programmes to the workplace that is often ignored by employers.

Financial Assessment of Health and Safety Programs in the Workplace

ABSTRACT In evaluating health and safety improvements for performance improvement, it is necessary to account for both the contributions of a healthy workforce and the resources required supporting it. The Economic Assessment of the Work Environment (EAWE) is a financial framework that helps management forecast the financial benefits of health and safety implementations. The five-step process comprises (1) a health assessment to identify critical elements in the work environment, (2) an action plan to address gaps, (3) performance targets based on internal goals and external benchmarks, (4) transformation of the expected improvements in health and safety into expected performance outcomes, and (5) implementation in stages, starting from individual jobs to entire organisation. EAWE offers a dynamic framework for corporate decision-makers when evaluating health and safety programmes. Further research should explore the bounds of EAWE across different types of organisations and the evolution of performance over time.