See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237482842

USING A MANUAL TASKS RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL (ManTRA) TO AUDIT THE

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF INNOVATIVE INTERVENTIONS IN THE
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Article

CITATION READS
1 1,000

7 authors, including:

Marek Plawinski Peter Vi

Georgian College Ontario Canada Infrastructure Health and Safety Association
5 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   152 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Niki Carlan Desre Monique Kramer

University of Waterloo 29 PUBLICATIONS   308 CITATIONS   
16 PUBLICATIONS   151 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

"Awareness to Behavior: Sudbury and Sarnia reducing occupational exposures View project

Sun Safety at Work Canada" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Niki Carlan on 16 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

USING A MANUAL TASKS RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL (ManTRA) TO AUDIT THE
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF INNOVATIVE INTERVENTIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY

Marek Plawinski,
Centre of Research Expertise for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders, Department of
Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1

Peter Vi,
Construction Safety Association of Ontario

Niki Carlan
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Windsor

Desre Kramer,
Centre of Research Expertise for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders, Department of
Kinesiology, University of Waterloo

Philip Bigelow,
Institute for Work & Health

Richard Wells,
Centre of Research Expertise for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders, Department of
Kinesiology, University of Waterloo

Enzo Garritano,
Construction Safety Association of Ontario

Abstract
The purpose of this research was to evaluate various innovations in the construction industry
using a Manual Tasks Risk Assessment Tool (ManTRA) (Burgess-Limerick, 2003).
Innovations were identified using multiple sources including a search of the trade
publications, on-site observations, union advice, expert opinion by safety consultants, and
links with distributors. The ManTRA was used for a quick assessment of the innovative tools,
materials, or practices and their effect on MSD-related risk factors. A total of 18 innovations
were assessed – with all but one indicating a decrease in risk. Due to the inherent definition
of an innovation, however, there were only a limited number of users, resulting in a lack in
statistical power. As a result, the ManTRA was primarily used as a source of analysis to help
inform the qualitative research. Despite the benefits offered by the MANTRA as a quick-
analysis tool, researchers were made aware of its limitations when studying workplace risk
factors.

Key Words: Assessment, Construction, Audit

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A growing range of tools, materials and processes, designed to reduce or prevent injuries,
illnesses or disabilities in the construction industry have been developed over the last few
decades. Despite this increase in availability, the penetration and adoption of these types of
innovations appears to be limited. Workers in the construction industry, which is one of the
most physically demanding sectors, are frequently exposed to heavy manual material
handling, repetitive movements, awkward postures, contact stresses, vibrations and forceful
exertions. As these factors increase in frequency and duration, the risk to workers of incurring
a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD), especially to the back and upper extremity, increases
dramatically (Van der Molen, et. al., 2004). This is true both world-wide and locally in Ontario,
Canada, where within the construction sector MSDs represent 34% of all lost-time injuries
with an average cost estimated at $74,296 per injury (WSIB, 2008).

The penetration and adoption of innovations within the construction industry has been difficult
due to a range of issues that work against tool and material manufacturers and researchers
attempting to get them into the hands of front-line workers (Rinder, et al., 2008). Van der
Molen, et. al., (2005) have covered some of these issues in their description of the
construction sector as a sector known for its “peripatetic workforce, complex projects and
organizational arrangements, fluid and sometimes acrimonious labour-management
relations, and traditional customs and practices on site.” These factors potentially contribute
to a sector that is not conducive to adopting new ideas.

Despite these difficulties, some innovations are getting exposure within the industry and are
replacing or are being used in conjunction with traditional tools, materials and processes.
When asked, a group of stakeholders, which knows the industry well, named relevant
innovations and identified those most likely to prevent MSDs and improve productivity
(Entzel, et. al., 2007). A pilot study conducted by this research team (Kramer et al., 2009),
that looked at diffusion of innovations in the sector also found a potential for workplace
change that could have lead to the prevention of MSDs.

In their ongoing research, Kramer et al. (2009) are studying the process of innovation
exposure, and the diffusion of innovations in the sector. They are using a number of
qualitative and quantitative methods, including the Manual Tasks Risk Assessment Tool
(ManTRA) to help inform their research. The MANTRA was selected for its applicability in
quick audits of innovations, either directly on-site or via video (Burgess-Limerick, 2003). This
paper is a description of the results of this analysis and a comment on the effectiveness of
the tool itself.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

The ergonomist on the research team identified the innovations being used on site, and
observed and surveyed the workers using the innovations. An analysis of the innovation was
also made using an adaptation of the Burgess-Limerick (2003) ManTRA. To this end, an
analysis sheet (Figure 1) was created. The purpose of the sheet was to allow the
researchers to quickly and efficiently analyze and evaluate the potential risk factors
associated with an innovative tool, material or process and compare it to its traditional
counterpart. Whenever possible, both the innovation and the traditional tool, material or
process were evaluated at the same site. Often, this was done by observing another worker
on-site doing the traditional work. Occasionally, if this was not possible, and the worker using
the innovation had been trained in them, he or she would be asked to demonstrate and
explain the traditional method(s). For example, when assessing a rebar tying machine, the
tasks associated with using the machine to tie the rebar were compared to the traditional
method of tying rebar which includes the continuous use of pliers, and a wide range of
dynamic shoulder postures and both static and dynamic back postures (Dababneg and
Water, 2000).

In Search of Innovations - Data Collection Sheet In Search of Innovations - Data Collection Sheet
Date: ___________________________ Location: ___________________________
Date: ___________________________ Location: ___________________________
Company: ___________________________ Type: ___________________________
Company: ___________________________ Trades: ___________________________
Innovation: ___________________________ No. Emp.: 0-5 | 5-20 | 20-50 | 50-100 | 100+
Contact
Info: ___________________________ Trades: ___________________________ Modified Manual Task/Tool Risk Assessment (ManTRA) Scoring Matrix

Current Task Description (Frequency, Duration, Magnitude, Problems, etc.): Current Work Tool/Method/Process:
Body Region Total Time/Shift Task Duration Force Speed Awkwardness Vibration Cumulative Risk
Scores
Wrist/Hand
Shoulder/Arm
Neck
Back
Lower Limbs

Intervention Work Tool/Method/Process:

Body Region Total Time/Shift Task Duration Force Speed Awkwardness Vibration Cumulative Risk
Scores
Wrist/Hand
Shoulder/Arm
Neck
Back
Discription of Innovation (Tool, Method, Process): Lower Limbs

CODING LEGEND
VALUE Total Time/Shift Task Duration Force Speed Awkwardness Vibration
0-2 hours/day <10 min Min. Slow Close to neutral None
1
2-4 hours/day 10-30 min ModMod. dev. from neutral in Minimal
2 one direction
4-6 hours/day 30 min - 1 hr Mod. Mod. dev. from neutral in
Static Moderate
3 >one direction
6-8 hours/day 1 - 2 hours Fast & Near end range of Large Amplitude
4 smooth posture in one direction
>8 hours/day >2 hours Max. Fast & Near end range of Severe
5 jerky posture in >one direction Amplitude

Note: "Task Duration" refers to the continuous duration of the task at any given time.
Note: "Vibration" refers to both whole body and peripheral vibration.

 
Figure 1 – ManTRA audit tool used to evaluate the potential benefits and risks of
innovations found in the construction industry. The first (left) page was used to describe
both the traditional and innovative processes while the second (right) page contained
relevant ManTRA information for their evaluation.

The ManTRA was filled out first by describing the task, and then rating it using the ManTRA’s
five-point scale which considers total duration, task duration, force, speed, awkwardness, and
vibration for a range of individual parts of the body. Because this scale is primarily
descriptive and does not require any measurements other than time, the worker was rarely
interrupted. Once the data had been collected, the “Cumulative Risk Scores” were calculated
which allowed for direct comparison of the relative risk associated with the traditional and
innovative methods for five major segments of the body. In total, 18 innovations were
evaluated using the ManTRA – one ManTRA per innovation. To preserve consistency and
accuracy, all analyses were done by one ergonomist.

For the purpose of this study, the definition used for an innovation was such that very few
instances of the innovation were found in use in the construction sector. As a result, due to
lack of power, it was impossible for a statistical analysis to be done on the results of the
ManTRA. Instead the ManTRA scores were analyzed as percentages to determine risk
levels differences and, potentially, the direction of future research. For the individual
segments of the body, scores were combined and assessed to determine the number and
percentage of innovations that were associated with a risk level that was better (lower
ManTRA score), no different (same ManTRA score), or worse (higher ManTRA score).
Additionally, the body segment scores were also combined and a similar analysis was done
for the combined (full body) scores.

3.0 RESULTS

Table 1 shows the calculated results regarding the 18 innovations analyzed during the study
as well as a combined, or full body, analysis. With respect to the shoulder/arm, back and
lower limbs, the ManTRA scores indicate that the vast majority of the innovations improve
each segment’s evaluated risk. In fact, only one (shoulder/arm) or two (back and lower
limbs) innovations did not improve the risk rating, and none made it worse. Ten (56%) of the
innovations did not change the risk level for the neck according to the ManTRA, and three
(17%) increased the risk level for the hand/wrist. When the scores were combined to assess
the individual innovations on their cumulative effect on the body, all but one (94%) were
predicted to decrease the risk of injury.

Table 1 - Combined ManTRA scores for 18 innovations examined in the construction

industry. The ManTRA analysis tool is designed such that the hand/wrist,
shoulder/arm, neck, back and legs are treated individually. The three right-most
columns give data relating to the number (and percentage) of innovations that were
better (lower ManTRA score), same (equal ManTRA score), and worse (lower
ManTRA score) according to the analysis.
Average ManTRA Score No. Better No. Same No. Worse
Traditional Innovation Difference (Percentage) (Percentage) (Percentage)
Hand/Wrist 17.0 13.4 3.6 15 (83) 0 (0) 3 (17)
Segment

Shoulder/Arm 16.7 12.6 4.2 17 (94) 1 (6) 0 (0)

Body

Neck 10.1 9.4 0.7 8 (44) 10 (56) 0 (0)

Back 14.8 10.9 3.9 16 (89) 2 (11) 0 (0)
Lower Limbs 13.2 9.5 3.7 16 (89) 2 (11) 0 (0)
Combined (Full Body) 71.8 55.7 16.1 17 (94) 0 (0) 1 (6)
 
4.0 DISCUSSION

This paper reports on the outcome of using the Manual Tasks Risk Assessment Tool
(ManTRA) (Burgess-Limerick, 2003) on a number of innovative tools, processes and
materials identified in the construction industry. The ManTRA is a quick and simple
instrument for the analysis of body segments while working. The results of this study indicate
that 94% of the innovations identified would, potentially, reduce the risk of the development of
MSDs, and only one (6%) would not change the overall risk level. This outcome is supported
in Kramer et al.’s current research through surveys filled out for each innovation by workers
indicating that all thought the innovations were worth the money invested in their purchase
(2009). However, although the combined or ‘full body’ scores did indicate how the
innovations affected the risk level of the body as a whole, the researchers will not be relying
too heavily on this data as risk-levels regarding the individual body segments may be
overlooked.
It is not overly surprising, that more than half (56%) of the innovations were identified as
having no impact on the neck compared to the traditional method. The research team’s
ergonomics experience indicates that the majority of innovations in the construction industry
are designed to reduce risks for the ‘major’ MSD-prone areas (hand/wrist, shoulder/arm,
back). Somewhat of a surprise is the potential for 89% of the innovations to have a positive
effect on the risk level for the legs, and 17% to have a negative effect on the risk level for the
hand/wrist (again compared to the traditional tool, material or process). The next phase of
the study will include a more in-depth analysis of these potential effects.

As with all subjective analyses of the kind explained in this paper, researcher bias is a major
concern. The very design of the ManTRA does not allow for a true quantitative appraisal of a
task’s risk levels as the evaluative scores are based on descriptive variables for four of the
six measures (force, speed awkwardness, and vibration; Figure 1 – right page, coding
legend). However, one of the benefits of using the ManTRA within the specter of the
construction industry is the ability to analyze non-cyclical work. Many assessment tools are
designed for factory-type, cyclical work, and are limited in their applicability to the type of
work commonly found in the construction industry (Dempsey, et al., 2005). The ManTRA
appears to be applicable for both open and closed work. This is at least partly due to the
cumulative time and duration measures used in the assessment (Figure 1 – right page,
coding legend).

The data that has been acquired from the ManTRA analyses of the innovations is useful but
limited in scope and applicability. The results shown in Table 1 give direction for future
research into these innovations as to where potential problems may lie with the various tools,
materials and processes. For instance, three (17%) of the 18 innovations studied for the
purpose of this paper are associated with a potential increased risk for the development of
MSDs in the hand/wrist area of the body as compared to the traditional method. As a result,
when a detailed biomechanical analysis of these innovations takes place, a more thorough
examination of the lower arm will be necessary. In this sense, the ManTRA is an adequate
tool for such investigations within the construction industry.

5.0 CONCLUSION

It appears that of the 18 innovations examined in this study using the Manual Tasks Risk
Assessment Tool (ManTRA) (Burgess-Limerick, 2003), a total of 17 should reduce a worker’s
risk of developing MSDs in the construction industry compared to the traditional method. The
ManTRA tool seems to offer a reasonable thumbnail assessment regarding where individual
innovations may positively or negatively affect the body when employed. Additionally, the
construction industry with its non-cyclical work appears to be an ideal venue for the use of
such tools. The results of such tools, however, are limited in their applicability and should be
used solely as an instrument for preliminary data capture. The information attained from this
assessment will assist the researchers in planning their more detailed analyses of each of the
innovations.
 6.0 REFERENCES

Burgess-Limerick, R. (2003). Issues associated with force and weight limits and associated
threshold limit values in the physical handling work environment. Issues Paper 2:
Commissioned by NOHSC for the Review of the National Standard and Codes of
Practices on Manual Handling and Associated Documents.

Dababneh, A., & Water, T. (2000). Ergonomics of rebar tying. Applied Occupational
Environmental Hygiene, 15(10), 721-727.

Dempsey, P. G., McGorry, R. W., & Maynard, W. S., (2005). A survey of tools and methods
used by certified professional ergonomists. Applied Ergonomics, 36(4), 489-503.

Entzel, P., Albers, J., & Welch, L. (2007). Best practices for preventing musculoskeletal
disorders in masonry: Stakeholder perspectives. Applied Ergonomics, 38(5), 557-566.

Kramer, D. M., Bigelow, P., Vi, P., Garritano, E., Carlan, N., Wells, R. (2009). Spreading good
ideas: A case study of the adoption of an innovation in the construction sector. Applied
Ergonomics, 40, 826–832

Rinder, M. M., Genaidy, A., Salem, S., Shell, R., & Karwowski, W., (2008). Interventions in
the construction industry: A systematic review and critical appraisal. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 18(2), 212-229.

Van der Molen, H.F., Koningsveld, E., Haslam, R., & Gibb, A., (2005). Editorial - Ergonomics
in building and construction: Time for implementation. Applied Ergonomics, 36(4), 387-
389.

Van der Molen, H. F., Veenstra, S, Sluiter, J., Frings-Dresen, M., (2004). World at work:
bricklayers and bricklayers' assistants: hazards in the construction industry. Occupational
and Environmental Medicine, 61, 89-93.

WSIB (Workers Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario), (2008). Premium Rates Manuals
2003-2009:http://www.wsib.on.ca/wsib/wsibsite.

View publication stats