| Contents | Chapter 1 |
Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 |
Computers Byte Back - Chapter 6, Survey Results and
Analysis
Chapter 6
Survey Results and Analysis
| 6.1 Introduction |
| |
| The purpose of this chapter is to present the results from the OOS
survey and to extract the significant features, both quantitative and qualitative,
from the results. First, each section of the survey is analysed on its own,
then some aspects of the data are compared to see if they are correlated
in any way. Finally, overall conclusions from the results of the survey are
drawn.
Note that, as previously stated, some of the replies to the survey
were incomplete (i.e: several questions, or even whole sections, had not been
answered), but there were also some respondents who failed to answer some
parts of some questions. Hence the sample size for each statistic in the
following sections may vary.
|
| |
| 6.2 Business Understanding
(Section 1) |
| |
| The purpose of this section was to discover the basic background of
each organisation. It was hoped that information gained from this section
would enable useful comparisons to be made with data gleaned from the other
four sections. For example, the financial data requested in this section
was intended to be used in comparison with amounts given in other sections
of the survey, such as the amount of money an organisation had spent on ergonomic
equipment. |
| |
| 6.2.1 Analysis
of results |
| |
| Most respondents were willing to answer the questions relating to their
employees' computer use, but few were willing to divulge their organisation's
net profit and average salary. The most common reasons given for not supplying
the financial data concerned "confidentiality" (despite the fact that the
respondents were informed that their answers would be completely |
33
| anonymous and confidential) and misunderstanding (several organisations
declined to answer the financial questions as they did not see how the data
would relate to OOS, one respondent sarcastically asked "What relevance does
salary have on OOS? The less paid, the greater the complaints?"). Because
fewer than half of the respondents answered the financial questions, it was
decided that the figures that were gleaned from these questions would not
be used as part of the analysis, as there was no way of showing they were
representative of the sample. |
| |
| Of the 129 respondents who answered the questions regarding the number
of employees in their organisation, it was found that the number of employees
involved with computing ranged from one to 5000. The data also revealed
that not all organisations were solely involved with IT - although IT was
still a significant aspect of employment in all of the organisations. |
| |
| Just over half (51.4%) of the employees worked more than 20 hours a
week on a computer - a significant amount of time, while only a minority
(1.6%) spent more than 40 hours a week using computers. These results are
significant, as it is believed that more one of the factors leading to OOS
is prolonged use of the computer's keyboard [Arndt, 1986; Khilji and Smithson,
1994; Guinter et al, 1995]. |
| |
| Table 1: Amount of hours spent on computers by
employees |
|
Amount of time employees generally spent on a computer per
week (n=129)
|
| Less than 1 hour a week |
17.8% |
| Between 1 and 5 hours a week |
6.5% |
| Between 5 and 10 hours a week |
7.8% |
| Between 10 and 20 hours a week |
16.5% |
| Between 20 and 30 hours a week |
26.3% |
| Between 30 and 40 hours a week |
23.5% |
| Over 40 hours a week |
1.6% |
| 6.2.2 Conclusions |
| |
| Although the number of respondents to the survey was low, the organisations
that did reply represent a diverse range of organisations. Hence the results
from this survey will, as previously stated, provide a snapshot of the understanding
of OOS today. |
| |
34
| 6.3 Office Environment
(Section 2) |
| |
| This section of the survey had two main objectives. The first was to
ascertain what hardware/furniture organisations were purchasing to help
prevent OOS, and if their purchases were in line with OSH's recommendations.
It must be remembered that, if an organisation does not follow the guidelines
contained in OSH's code, then they could be found by a court to be in breach
of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. The second objective was
to discover the costs of such purchases. |
| |
6.3.1 Details
of Ergonomic Equipment
Computer Screens (refer to page 16) |
| |
| The OSH code mandates that computer screens should be adjustable for
both brightness and contrast, as well as in height and tilt. Almost 90%
(89.6%) of the respondents said that their screens were adjustable for brightness
and contrast, with the remaining 10.4% saying that most of their screens were.
However, only 59.7% of the respondents said that all of their computer screens
were adjustable in height, with 26.1% saying that none of their screens were
adjustable in height. Most respondents though, had screens that were adjustable
in tilt. These results showed that most organisations followed, to differing
degrees, OSH's recommendations regarding computer screens. |
| |
| Telephone head-sets (refer to page
15) |
| |
| OSH also recommends that telephone headsets are provided for computer
users who often talk and type on the telephone at the same time. Two thirds
of the organisations (65.6%) provided head-sets to operators who were required
to use telephones and their computers at the same time - but 23.0% said
they did not (note that the remaining 11.5% of the respondents stated that
they only provided some of their employees with telephone head-sets).
Hence just under a quarter of the employees (who used the keyboard and the
telephone simultaneously) in the respondents' organisations were at an increased
risk of developing OOS. |
| |
| Adjustable lighting (refer to page
14) |
| |
| The ideal healthy computing environment should allow the computer user
to have control over the lighting of the room. The majority of the respondents
(80.6%) stated that their lighting could not be adjusted, with only
11.5% of the respondents stating that their lighting |
35
| was actually adjustable (7.5% said that only some of their computer
rooms had adjustable lighting). Thus a potential 80.6% of the organizations
surveyed increased the risk of OOS in the workplace by not having adjustable
lighting. |
| |
| Chairs (refer to page 15) |
| |
| OSH recommends (among other things) that computer chairs need to be
adjustable for seat height, backrest angle, backrest height and be able to
swivel 360° [OSH, 1995 (a)]. Table 2 below shows what percentage of the
respondents met all four of these conditions, as well as the percentages
of those who only met some of the conditions. These results show that most
organizations have chairs that are suitable for computer use. |
| |
| Table 2: Chairs corresponding to OSH's recommendations
for computer users chairs |
| |
|
Percentage of respondents meeting OSH's recommendations for
computer operators' chairs (n=134)
|
| All conditions met |
88.8% |
| 3 conditions met |
9.0% |
| 2 conditions met |
0.7% |
| Only 1 condition met |
0.7% |
| None of the 4 conditions met |
0.7% |
| Copy-holders (refer to page 15) |
| |
| Although copy-holders are considered an essential component of a computer
workstation, only 58.8% of the respondents stated that they made copy-holders
available to all computer users (see Table 3 below). |
| |
| Table 3: Provision of copy-holders to computer users |
|
Percentage of respondents providing copy-holders to computer
users (n=131)
|
| Provide to everyone |
58.8% |
| Provide to some of the employees |
37.4% |
| Do not provide copy-holders |
3.8% |
| Wrist-rests (refer to page 17) |
| |
| Despite the fact that the use of wrist-rests has not been proven to
prevent OOS, 59.7% of the organisations still made wrist-rests readily available
to their staff members (see Table 4 on the following page). |
36
| Table 4: Provision of wrist-rests to computer users |
| |
|
Percentage of respondents providing wrist-rests to computer
users (n=134)
|
| Provide wrist-rests to everyone |
59.7% |
| Do not provide wrist-rests |
40.3% |
| 6.3.2 Ergonomic
Keyboards (refer to page 16) |
| |
| Although the efficacy of ergonomic keyboards is still widely unproven,
the survey revealed that 73.5% of the organisations were using at least
one ergonomic keyboard in their operations. One respondent stated that
their organisation had been advised not to use ergonomic keyboards by Dr.
Turner (author and co-author of several prominent publications on OOS).
In accordance with the literature, the most common ergonomic keyboard in use
was Microsoft's Natural Keyboard (75.3%). A minority of the respondents
(31.1%) used a mixture of Microsoft's Natural Keyboards and other ergonomic
keyboard brands (including Cherry and Compaq). It is interesting to
note that 24.7% of the respondents could not name off-hand the brand-name
of the ergonomic keyboard/s their organisation used. |
| |
| Table 6 below show statistics pertaining to those organisations (97
in total) that stated that they used at least one ergonomic keyboard.
These figures show that usually only a minority of the staff use ergonomic
keyboards. |
| |
| Table 5: Amounts of ergonomic keyboards to the organisation
(compared to the total number of the keyboards in the organisation) |
| |
|
Percentage of ergonomic keyboards out of the total number
of keyboards in the organisation (n=97)
|
| 0-25% |
76.3% |
| 25-50% |
12.4% |
| 50-75% |
6.2% |
| 75-100% |
2.1% |
| Unknown |
3.1% |
| Table 6: Statistics relating to the figures contained in Table
5 |
| |
|
Statistics relating to the percentage of ergonomic keyboards
in the organisations (n=97)
|
| average |
14.5% |
| standard deviation |
17.1% |
| minimum |
0.5% |
| maximum |
75.0% |
37
| When asked if the ergonomic keyboards were useful, 61.9% of the respondents
replied "yes". A further 20.6% said they were not useful, while 17.5%
of the respondents were unsure whether their ergonomic keyboards were useful.
When asked to comment about the usefulness of the ergonomic keyboards, the
general consensus was that ergonomic keyboards were only "useful" for some
people (usually those who had requested them). Several managers commented
that ergonomic keyboards were only truly useful for touch-typists, and many
of their staff who had tried them did not like them. A number of managers
also questioned whether ergonomic keyboards offered any advantage over traditional
keyboards. |
| |
| When asked if they felt the purchase of ergonomic keyboards was cost
effective, only 52.6% of the respondents replied that they were. A
further 19.6% said that they felt that the purchase was uneconomical.
Just over a quarter (27.8%) of the respondents were unsure. |
| |
| These results show that an organisation should only consider purchasing
ergonomic keyboards if employees wish to use them. Even then, the
organisation should trial the keyboards before deciding to purchase them,
as the usefulness of ergonomic keyboards is subjective and still widely debated. |
| |
| 6.3.3 Purchases of
ergonomic equipment |
| |
| Almost two thirds (65.9%) of the respondents said that their organisation
had either purchased, or was intending to purchase ergonomic equipment for
their workplace. Another purchased, or was intending to purchase ergonomic
equipment, nor were they intending to. Another 31.1% said that they
had neither purchased ergonomic equipment, nor were they intending to. The
remaining 3% of the respondents stated that they were unsure about the purchasing
of ergonomic equipment in their organisation. Of the organisations that
had purchased ergonomic equipment, the purchases contained every type of
ergonomic equipment imaginable: including gel wrist supports, chairs,
foot-rests, desks, anti-glare screens, monitor arms, large monitors, voice
command software and cordless mice. |
| |
| Several respondents were confused by the ergonomic equipment questions.
One respondent was adamant that "ergonomics is the study of the man/machine
[sic] interface, not a brand of equipment". Another respondent questioned
the integrity of ergonomics, saying "ergonomics is too subjective to be
considered a science or worthy of too much consideration". |
38
| Of the 87 respondents who had purchased ergonomic equipment, the majority
(92.0%) felt that the equipment was useful. A small percentage (2.3%) believed
their ergonomic equipment was not useful and 5.7% were unsure as to the
usefulness of their ergonomic equipment. |
| |
| 6.3.4 Costs of
ergonomic equipment |
| |
| The amounts organisations had invested in ergonomic equipment ranging
from $500 to $100,000. The most any organisation had spent per employee
on ergonomic equipment, totalled $860, the least was $1.67. Note however,
that these figures may be misleading, as fewer than half of the respondents
(only 36.8%) could detail the costs of their ergonomic purchases (see Table
7, Table 8, and Table 9 below for more details). |
| |
| Table 7: Total amount spent on ergonomic equipment |
| |
|
Amounts spent on ergonomic equipment (n-32)
|
| Description |
Total Amount |
Amount spent per employee |
| Minimum Amount |
$ 500 |
$ 1.67 |
| Maximum Amount |
$ 100,000 |
$ 857.14 |
| Average Amount |
$ 12,956 |
$ 89.68 |
| Standard Deviation |
$ 21,744 |
$ 172.25 |
Table 8: Amounts spent on ergonomic equipment in 1996
|
Amounts spent on ergonomic equipment in 1996 (n=48)
|
| Description |
Total Amount |
Amount spent per employee |
| Minimum Amount |
$
0 |
$
0 |
| Maximum Amount |
$ 65,000 |
$ 833.33 |
| Average Amount |
$ 8,817 |
$ 74.25 |
| Standard Deviation |
$ 15,041 |
$ 149.71 |
39
Table 9: Amounts budgeted for ergonomic equipment
in 1996
|
Amounts budgeted to be spent on ergonomic equipment in 1997
financial year (n=54)
|
| Description |
Total Amount |
Amount spent per employee |
| Minimum Amount |
$
0 |
$
0 |
| Maximum Amount |
$ 60,000 |
$ 500 |
| Average Amount |
$ 7,046 |
$
54 |
| Standard Deviation |
$ 12,518 |
$ 107 |
6.3.5 Conclusions
Most respondents had purchased (or were intending to purchase) some ergonomic
equipment. The types of equipment varied greatly, as did the costs involved.
Generally, the organisations that had purchased equipment had followed the
recommendations found in OSH's code. Some recommendations, however,
were widely ignored. In particular, many organisations had unsatisfactory
lighting and did not make wrist-rests, copy-holders or telephone headsets
available to all the employees. This indicates that, although the organisations
were willing to purchase the more obvious types of ergonomic equipment (such
as chairs) they were less willing to spend money on other, less obvious,
types of ergonomic equipment.
The majority of respondents who had purchased ergonomic equipment felt
that it was useful; although for one particular item - the ergonomic keyboard
- opinion was divided.
It was hoped that the amount spent on purchasing ergonomic equipment could
have been compared with the organisations' annual profit and average salary,
to give an indication of the importance the organisation gave to ergonomic
equipment (however, this was not feasible, due to lack of data). The
results however, did show that the amounts spent on ergonomic equipment varied
greatly - but were generally very low when compared with the number of employees.
More importantly, these results showed that most of the respondents were unaware
of the costs of ergonomic equipment - indicating a lack of awareness and
control of the OOS issue. The general impression gained from the comments
in this section was that either ergonomic equipment was purchased on an ad
hoc basis, or was included in a budget that the respondents did not have
ready access to.
40
| 6.4 Education of
Employees (Section 3) |
| |
| No matter how much money an organisation spends on ergonomic equipment,
employees can still adopt dangerous working methods that will increase the
likelihood of developing OOS. To augment the use of ergonomic equipment
an organisation must also educate their employees about the risks of OOS.
Note also that OSH [OSH, 1995(a)] states that it is the employer's obligation
to provide education on OOS to their employees, hence it would be expected
that all employers would have education programmes in place. |
| |
| 6.4.1 Analysis
of OOS education in organisations |
| |
| The survey found that 90.2% of the organisations had procedures in
place for educating their employees about the risks of OOS. This implies
that a potential 10% of the organisations have no education procedures in
place - placing the employees at a greater risk of developing OOS. |
| |
For the organisations that did offer education programmes, the preferred
methods of education were (in order of preference) training, notices, booklets,
guidelines, contact with health staff, seminars and other methods (as shown
in Figure 5). It is interesting to note that the order of preference
of education methods mirrors exactly those found in Khilji and Smithson's
survey [Khilji and Smithson, 1994]. Apart from the traditional methods
of education, some organisations also used videos, specialist visits (one
organisation in particular is visited by Precious McKenzie
) and OOS software. |
|
| Figure 5: Preferred methods of OOS education |
Precious McKenzie, known for his diminutive stature, was
an international medal winning weight-lifter for New Zealand in the 1980s.
41
| Of those organisations that educated their staff, 38.2% made at least
one aspect of the education compulsory. Of these, 90.0% paid their
staff to attend the compulsory education. However, it was interesting
to note that only 49.6% of the organisations trained their new staff in methods
for preventing OOS, and only 49.6% included the costs of educating their staff
about OOS in the organisations' annual budget. These figures indicate
that not all organisations take the education of their employees seriously
(for instance, by not treating education as a sufficiently important expense
to place in a budget). Table 10 below reflects this, showing that the
amounts spent on education were generally low. |
| |
| Table 10: Amounts spent on OOS education per year
per employee |
| |
|
Amounts spent on OOS education per employee per year (n=39)
|
| Description |
Total Amount |
Amount spent per employee |
| Minimum Amount |
$
0 |
$
0 |
| Maximum Amount |
$ 30,000 |
$
231 |
| Average Amount |
$ 4,745 |
$
39 |
| Standard Deviation |
$ 7,235 |
$
57 |
| 6.4.2 Conclusions |
| |
| This section revealed that, although most employers educate their employees
about OOS, the amount of effort devoted to education is not always high.
This conclusion was echoed in some of the comments made by some respondents
regarding education of employees. For instance one respondent said
"I employ adults, not children" - indicating that education was the employees'
prerogative, not the employers'. This is not to say that all organisations
did not have well developed methods of education; for instance, one respondent
stated that they used "professional specialists to deal with staff and management". |
| |
| 6.5 Management Awareness
of OOS (Section 4) |
| |
| While both OOS education and ergonomic equipment are important ingredients
in the prevention of OOS, another aspect that is equally important is the
manager's attitude towards OOS. A manager who believes OOS is a figment
of the imagination is not someone who is going to take serious measures
to prevent a disease that they do not believe exists. To |
42
| prevent OOS, a holistic approach is required - the managers' views
on OOS form part of this approach. Hence this section of the survey
attempted to discover the manager's perspective on OOS. |
| |
| 6.5.1 Analysis
of Results |
| |
| One of the causes of OOS is stress - and it is widely accepted that
if an organisation monitors employees keystrokes as a measure of productivity,
then an employee will be placed in a stressful situation. Only 4.0%
of the organisations surveyed said that they monitored key-strokes, and
were thus increasing their employees' chances of developing OOS. The
author attempted to ascertain whether there was a correlation between those
organisations who monitored key-strokes and the number of OOS cases, but
was unable to due to the small sample size (only two respondents that stated
their organisations counted key-strokes were also able to give the incidence
of OOS in the organisation - making correlation analysis meaningless). |
| |
| In conjunction with the New Zealand Health and Safety in Employment
Act 1992 (the HSE Act), OSH has published a set of guidelines pertaining
to computer use. Under the HSE Act, if an organisation is found to
be negligent in maintaining a safe working environment for computer operators
they can be prosecuted (as has occurred already - ANZ being a notable case,
see Section 4.3.2). The survey showed that the majority of the respondents
(82.3%) knew of the OSH guidelines. The author investigated the possibility
that those organisations who did not know about the guidelines. The
author investigated the possibility that those organisations who did not
know about the guidelines had a higher than normal incidence of OOS, and
found that there was no definitive correlation between the two. In
fact, many of the organisations that did not know about the OSH guidelines
did not have any incidence of OOS (See Section 6.7.1). |
| |
| Just under half of the respondents (49.1%) reported that no cases of
OOS had been reported in the last financial year (1996) and 53.8% of the
respondents said that none of their employees had OOS at the present time.
In total, 0.8% of the employees involved with the survey had OOS. If
we analyse this in human terms, we find that 228 people (out of 30,117)
have OOS at the present time. This is almost half that of the previous
year (the total number of OOS cases in the 1996 financial year was 443).
The survey did not reveal why the number of OOS cases had dropped considerably
over just one year. Possible reasons for the drop include: many of those
with OOS in 1996 no longer work for the organisation or that many |
| |
43
| of those with OOS in 1996 no longer have OOS in 1997 (note that because
1997 had not finished at the time of the survey, the figure of 228 cases
may be misleading). The reasons for this decrease are an avenue of
future research. |
| |
| One manifestation of management's awareness of OOS is a health and
safety policy relating to computing. The survey found that 62.6% of
the organisations had such a policy. This result is similar to Khilji
and Smithsons's [1994] figure of 67%. Generally, this policy formed
part of the organisation's general health and safety policy, but 2.6% of
the respondents stated that they had a separate OOS policy regarding computer
use. Paramount to the success of a policy is that it is continually
changing to reflect the current understanding of OOS. The survey revealed
that most policies had been updated within the last few years, and were to
be updated in the near future (see Table 11 and Table 12). |
| |
| Table 11: Year when OOS policy was last updated |
| |
|
Last time the policy was updated (n=77)
|
| 1997 |
39.0% |
| 1996 |
33.8% |
| 1995 |
3.9% |
| 1994 |
1.3% |
| unknown |
22.1% |
Table 12: Details of when OOS policy is planned to
be updated
|
Policy to be updated within the next year (n=77)
|
| Yes |
59.7% |
| No |
19.5% |
| unsure |
20.8% |
| A policy is not much use if it is unsuccessful. Most respondents
(80.5%) believed that their policies were successful. But 15.6% stated
that they were unsure whether their policy was successful. A minority
(3.9%) of the respondents believed their policy to be unsuccessful. |
|
| The literature stresses that those most affected by the policy, the
employees, should have some input into the creation of the policy;
62.3% of the organisations stated that employees were involved in the policy
making process. |
44
| Khilji and Smithson [1994, p.104] state that a "key element of such
a policy is the allocation of responsibility for preventative action", and
33.6% of the respondents claimed that a person had been given such a responsibility.
This figure is relatively low when compared with Khilji and Smithson's estimate
of 88% but it must be remembered that their survey was conducted solely over
large organisations - organisations that would be more likely to be able to
afford to pay someone to fulfil such a task. |
| |
| When asked how they viewed OOS, the majority of respondents (65.8%)
said they saw it as a serious illness (see Figure 6 below), with a further
21.4% seeing it a minor illness. Of the remaining replies (12.8%),
there was a diverse range of responses - ranging from "rubbish" to "a hazard". |
| |
The majority (92.6%) of the organisations encouraged employees to inform
management if they developed OOS symptoms. (It is widely agreed that
early detection of OOS increases the chances of the disease being cured).
In conjunction with the OSH guidelines, over 80.5% of the organisations
encouraged their staff to take micro-pauses, and 83.7% of the organisations
encouraged their staff to take hourly breaks away from the computer.
This figure reveals that a potential 20% of the organisations were placing
their employees at an increased risk of developing OOS, as rest breaks are
tantamount in the prevention of OOS.
Figure 6: Graph showing
the make-up of managers' views of OOS
| 6.5.2 Conclusions |
| |
| Overall, the attitudes of respondents ranged from full acceptance:
"OOS is viewed as extremely serious within our company"; misunderstanding
"There appears at times for other causes (stress etc) to be overlooked and
the issue classed as OOS"; scepticism: "Probably |
45
| totally unrelated to our use, we don't suffer from inability to see
because we use our eyes, inability to walk because we use our legs" to complete
denial that OOS exists: "[OOS is] a modern fad". |
| |
| Some respondents also criticized OSH, for example "[The OSH] guidelines
on OOS, symptoms etc are so vague as to be meaningless. If these were
firm and definitive recommendations we would consider implementing them".
and "There is no ideal, in spite of all OSH has to say, it's a complete load
of twaddle...". |
| |
| Thus this section revealed that, despite the wide publicity OOS has
gained in recent years, there are still many organisations that do not understand
OOS, nor take it seriously. The survey also revealed that many organisations
did not have an OOS policy in place - indicating that their approach to OOS
is ad hoc. There are still organisations who are unaware of the OSH's
guidelines (note that if these organisations were taken to court for breaching
the HSE Act, their ignorance of the guidelines would not be taken as an excuse).
Even amongst those who were aware of the guidelines, there were still
those who did not follow them. In particular, there are still organisations
who do not encourage their employees to take breaks from the keyboard - despite
the fact that it is widely accepted that periods of continuous typing increases
the chances of developing OOS. Hence due to their manager's disbelief
of OOS, many employees are placed at an illegal, and increased risk of developing
OOS. |
| |
| 6.6 Preventative
Software (Section 5) |
| |
| There are two main types of preventative software, the first reminds
the computer user when it is time to take a break (break software), the
second shows the user exercises and techniques they can use to prevent or
alleviate OOS (exercise software). Both types of OOS software are described
in Section 3.3.7. |
| |
| 6.6.1 Analysis
of Survey Results |
| |
| Over a quarter (27.5%) of the organisations had break software and
26.9% said that they used exercise software. Very few organisations
could detail the costs of this software (of the costs given, the costs ranged
from nothing to $5,000), but in all cases the business paid for |
46
| the software. Approximately half of the organisations who had
the software said that they felt it was effective (see Table 13 and Table
14), although many were unsure. |
| |
| Table 13: Effectiveness of break software |
| |
|
Answers to the question: "Do you feel your break software
is effective" (n=36)
|
| yes |
61.1% |
| no |
16.7% |
| unsure |
22.2% |
Table 14: Effectiveness of exercise software
|
Answers to the question: "Do you feel your exercise
software is effective" (n=35)
|
| yes |
51.4% |
| no |
11.4% |
| unsure |
37.1% |
| When the respondents were asked how many of their employees used OOS
software, the majority were unable to give figures. For those who
were, the numbers given ranged from zero to "everyone in the organisation".
As it was the IT manager who answered these questions, it must be remembered
that their perception of OOS software may differ greatly from the employees'
view - hence the accuracy of these figures may be questioned. |
| |
| Most organisations utilized off-the-shelf software packages (including
Oosie Micropause, RSI Manager, Stop Drop Flop, Floppy Ergonomist and WorkPace)
- but two organisations had actually written their own software. |
| |
| 6.6.2 Conclusions |
| |
| Generally, both types of software were used by a small number of employees
- or not at all. Several respondents stated that their organisations
had purchased OOS software, but their employees found it was "inconvenient"
and did not use it. The survey also revealed that there is a low level
of interest in OOS software (8 out of the 138 organisations were either trialing
the software at the time of the survey, or were hoping to implement it some
time in the future) but some organizations are still unaware of its existence
(6 out of the 138 stated that they did not know OOS software existed). |
| |
| Some respondents felt that OOS software was unnecessary, for example
one manager said |
| |
[We do not use OOS software], neither
do we encourage the use of software to encourage people to i.) brush their
teeth ii.) wash their hands after going to the toilet iii) eat their
fruit and veg 5 times a day etc etc...
|
| |
47
| But it was encouraging to note that some respondents realized that
OOS software is only one component of the OOS prevention solution:
"[OOS] software is not as effective as individuals recognizing their own
pressure points and developing avoidance techniques." |
| |
| 6.7 Correlation analysis |
| |
| To further analyse the survey data, and investigate interrelationships
between data, correlation analysis was carried out using the statistical
package SPSS. As the data was ordinal, an appropriate statistical test
for relationships in such data was used (Cramér's V). |
| |
| 6.7.1 Incidence
of OOS compared with the organization's knowledge of OSH's guidelines |
| |
| The first relationship analyses was that between the incidence of OOS
and the organisation's knowledge of OOS. To prepare the data for analysis,
two columns of data were created. The first column contained a 1 if
the organisation knew about the OSH guidelines, or a 0 if the organisation
was unaware of OSH's guidelines (this column was named "KNOW"). The
second column contained a 1 if the incidence of OOS was 'high' in the organisation
(for this analysis 'high' was defined as an incidence of OOS over 1%), and
0 if the incidence of OOS was low (for this analysis 'low' was defined as
an incidence of OOS less than or equal to 1%) - this column was called "RATE".
The results from this analysis are shown below. |
| |
| KNOW*RATE Crosstabulation |
|
Count
Table 15: Cross-tabulation of the incidence of OOS
within organisations and the organisation's knowledge of the OSH code.
48
Symmetric Measures
| |
Value |
Approx. Sig |
| Nominal |
Phi |
| Measures |
Cramér's V |
|
Contingency |
|
Coefficient |
|
|
|
|
| N of Valid Cases |
|
|
|
|
Table 16: Statistical analysis of the correlation
of the incidence of OOS within organisations and the organisation's knowledge
of the OSH code.
| The results in Table 15 show that, of the 95 organizations involved
with the analysis, 18 did not know about the OSH code, and the remaining
77 did. The table also shows that 61 of the organisations had a low
incidence of OOS, with the remaining 34 having a high incidence of OOS within
the organisation. |
| |
| Table 16 shows that the correlation (as determined by Cramér's
V) is negligible. Note that a brief explanation of Cramér's V is
given in Appendix D. Thus, with the data at hand, we find that there
is no significant correlation between the incidence of OOS within an organisation
and their knowledge of the OSH code. |
| |
6.7.2 Incidence
of OOS compared with whether or not an organization has an
OOS policy |
| |
| The second relationship analysed was that between the incidence of
OOS and whether or not an organisation has an OOS policy. To prepare
the data for analysis, two columns of data were created, as for the previous
analysis. The first column contained a 1 if the organization had an
OOS policy or a 0 if the organisation did not have an OOS policy (this column
was named "POLICY"). The second column contained a 1 if the incidence
of OOS was "high" in the organisation (for this analysis 'high' was defined
an an incidence of OOS over 1%), and 0 if the incidence of OOS was 'low'
(for this analysis 'low' was defined as an incidence of OOS less than or
equal to 1%) - this column was names "RATE_OOS". The results from this
analysis are shown on the following page. |
49
POLICY*RATE_OOS Crosstabulation
Count
Table 17: Cross- Tabulation of the incidence of OOS within organisations
and the existence of an OOS policy within the organisation.
Symmetric Measures
| |
Value |
Approx. Sig |
| Nominal |
Phi |
| Measures |
Cramer's V |
|
Contingency |
|
Coefficient |
| |
|
| N of Valid Cases |
|
|
|
|
Table 18: Statistical analysis of the correlation
of the incidence of OOS within organisations and the existence of a policy
within the organisation.
| The results in Table 17 show that there is a significant correlation
(as determined by Cramér's V) between the incidence of OOS within
the organisation and the existence of an OOS policy. This shows us
that organisations that have an OOS policy are more likely to have a high
incidence of OOS (i.e: an incidence over 1%) than those who do not have an
OOS policy, and vice versa. This could be due to the fact that an organisation
that has an OOS policy makes its employees more aware of OOS and its symptoms,
ensuring that every case of OOS is recorded - whereas employees in an organisation
without an OOS policy may be less aware of the symptoms of OOS and fail to
notify management that they have OOS. |
| |
| Note that these results may be misleading as it could be the case that
organisations that have OOS cases may develop an OOS policy as a reactionary
approach, rather than as a |
| |
50
| preventative measure. If this was the case, then we could not
conclude that the existence of an OOS policy has a direct effect on the incidence
of OOS. |
| |
| 6.7.3 Other correlations |
| |
| The size of this dissertation, and limitations in terms of the sample
size, does not allow for in-depth correlation analysis of the survey data.
There are many other potential relationships that could be analyses in future
work. Some of these are listed below. |
| |
- The potential correlation between the average number of hours worked
by employees with the number of cases of OOS. The purpose of this comparison
would be to investigate if those who type for longer periods have an increased
risk of developing OOS.
- The correlation between the age of the organisation compared with
whether or not they have an OOS policy (assuming that an older organisation
will utilize older methods of management - and will be less likely to believe
that an OOS policy is important).
- The potential correlation between whether or not an organisation
has an education programme with the number of cases of OOS. The purpose
of this comparison would be to investigate if those organisations that educate
their employees have a lower or higher incidence of OOS (compared with those
organisations that do not educate their employees about OOS).
|
| |
| 6.8 Overall Conclusions |
| |
| Although most respondents were aware of the risks of OOS and had taken
measures to avoid OOS (including education, the purchase of ergonomic equipment
and the purchase of OOS software), the survey revealed that there were many
aspects of OOS prevention that were still being overlooked. Many respondents
followed some of OSH's guidelines, but failed to follow others. Despite
the overwhelming evidence that OOS exists (the survey supported this, by showing
that OOS does exist in many organisations), some of the surveys revealed that
there is still a level of scepticism among IT managers regarding OOS. |
| |
| One trend was extremely obvious amongst the survey - only a small percentage
of the organisations keep records specific to OOS. This was especially
true when it came to detailing costs incurred in preventing OOS. On
average, fewer than half of the respondents |
51
| could answer questions referring to costs. If an organisation
is to justify its spending on OOS prevention, it needs to keep account of
the costs involved. If it does not, money will be "thrown at the problem"
in an ad hoc fashion, and there will be no quantitative methods of analysing
their effectiveness. The following chapter summarizes the results from
the survey and the literature review and suggest further avenues of research. |
52
| Contents | Chapter 1 |
Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 |
