Keywords

1 Introduction

The automotive industry is one of the catalyst of the country’s development through a high rate of work [1]. In line with this, automotive workers are assets to the nation as they play an important role in ensuring a sustainable growth and market expansion for the industry. However, automotive workers are often exposed to various ergonomics risks due to the nature of their working environment where they are required to deal with machines as well as heavy tools and materials. Moreover, automotive workers are more likely to be involved in repetitive work tasks. Argubi-Wollesen et al. [2] reported that 10% of working processes in the automotive sector involve pushing and pulling with more than 40% of them require the manipulation of heavy objects. Thus, the occurrence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) is high in the automotive industry.

There is a consensus among scholars on the multifactorial nature of WMSDs [3]. The WMSD development is influenced by physical demands of certain tasks, work organizational hazards and psychosocial contexts [4, 5]. Besides, personal factors, such as individual perceptions and other related characteristics are equally important in dealing with risk management [6]. The proactive ergonomics should focus on the counteractive action to overcome WMSDs through early detection and reducing risk factors at work, and identifying relevant risk factors in the future [7].

Therefore, this study aims to identify the dominance of risk factors related to WMSD among production workers using PE approach in an automotive component manufacturer. The findings will contribute to a body of knowledge needed to assist the occupational safety and health (OSH) managers by producing effective WMSD prevention strategies in the workplace for the worker’s well-being, productivity, and organizational sustainability.

2 Materials and Method

2.1 Investigate the Related WMSD Risk Factor

Literature analysis was used to recognize the risk factors associated with MSD. To identify the relevant literature, established studies related to back, neck, shoulder and arm pain risk factors were identified. The risk factors identified from the literature analysis were reviewed based on the tacit knowledge provided by the industry experts. Senior management team members were selected for interview analysis based on their expertise, experience, and convenience.

The group of subject matter experts consists of a manager and above level, including general manager and managing director. Managers were from the production, engineering, and safety health and environment departments. The interview analysis comprised a question and answer session, verbal problem solving, and observation analysis associated with workplace ergonomics risks factors. Then, the potential risk factors were grouped according to the ergonomics domains, namely individual, organizational, physical and psychosocial domains.

2.2 Survey WMSD Risk Factor Analysis

The questionnaire survey was distributed to a mixed group of production workers working in three automotive manufacturers. A total of 110 automotive production workers were approached based on their expertise, experience, and accessibility as respondents. Male contributed 99% of respondents and more than 40% age between 31 and 35 years. Majority of respondents (29%) had been working for more than 15 years.

The concluded list of risk factors from tacit knowledge analysis was presented to the respondents in the form of questionnaires. The respondents were required to respond on whether or not the factors are critical consideration in evaluating risk factors related to WMSD in the automotive production plant using a 5-point Likert scale. The concluded list of risk factors from tacit knowledge analysis was presented to the respondents in the form of questionnaires. The respondents were required to respond on whether or not the factors are critical consideration in evaluating risk factors related to WMSD in the automotive production plant using a 5-point Likert scale.

The mean value of each factor was determined by multiplying the percentage of respondents with the values of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. These values represent the level of agreement: “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “not sure”, “agree” and “strongly agree”, respectively, adding to the resulting factors. The cut-off value (refer Eq. 1) was used and these factors were identified based on the relevant criteria, for which the mean values are greater than or equal to cut-off value.

$$ {\text{Cut}}\text{-}{\text{off}}\,{\text{value}} = \frac{{\sum {mean \,value} }}{number\, of\,factor} $$
(1)

The selected value appeared to be the natural cut-off point as it was found to be the average mean rating value for all factors included in the survey instrument.

3 Results

The results of the literature analysis were reviewed based on the potential risk factors for body pain identified to be the upper back, lower back, shoulders, neck, and arms. The group of SME experts has identified the potential risk factors related to WMSD (see Tables 1, 2, and 3). Each of the risk factors is placed in the appropriate ergonomics domain, including individual, organizational, physical-job task, physical-workplace and equipment, and psychosocial ergonomics.

Table 1. Dominant individual ergonomics-related risk factors
Full size table
Table 2. Dominant organizational and physical-job task ergonomics-related risk factors
Full size table
Table 3. Dominant Physical-workplace and equipment and psychosocial ergonomics related risk factors
Full size table

The reliability analysis of 45 risk factors related to WMSD is shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The Cronbach’s α for the five factors are above 0.7 with the ranged between 0.821 and 0.890. Thus, all studied risk factors are deemed reliable [8]. The survey results for risk factor related to WMSD in each ergonomic domain also presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3. The value of 3.61 appeared as the natural cut-off point as it was found to be the average of mean rating values of all the individual ergonomics-related risk factors. Thus, the five most critical risk factors have presented in Table 1.

Similarly, the respondents rated the factors considered in organizational ergonomics-related risk factors affecting WMSD, and the cut-off value is 3.75 for mean ratings. Hence, the five most important risk factors have shown in Table 2.

The physical ergonomics risk factors were divided into job tasks, and workplace and equipment. The results for job task related risk factors established, and the cut-off value is 3.99 for mean ratings. Consequently, the six most serious risk factors have exposed in Table 3. The results for workplace and equipment related risk factors are summarized and the cut-off value is 3.96 for mean ratings. So, the five most important risk factors have shown in Table 2.

Table 3 displays the dominant psychosocial ergonomics-related risk factors affect WMSD. The value of 3.61 appeared to be the natural cut-off point. Therefore, the five most critical risk factors for psychosocial ergonomics have shown in Table 3. Based on the reliability and descriptive analysis, 26 sub-factors that act as the key to assess the risk factors related to WMSD specifically in the context of the automotive production assembly plant were identified.

4 Discussions and Conclusions

The most critical individual ergonomics-related risk factor is the negligence of workers. Negligence is one of the main causes of body pain, accident, and deadly injuries among industry workers [9]. The results of the study reveal that the high workload, is perceived as the most critical organizational ergonomics-related risk factors affecting WMSD. These findings supported the verdict of Weale et al., [10] workers have a high workload experienced MSD pain in a variety of body regions. Furthermore, frequent work lifting, perceived as the most critical physical-job task related to risk factors. The result of this study supports the finding of others, which found the increments of low back pain intensity are more common among workers performing frequent work lifting and lifting heavy loads [11].

The most severe physical-workplace and equipment related risk factors is poor ventilation in working environments. This finding supports the latest studies which addressed the quality of the environment of a workplace like temperature, ventilation, and noise have influenced the productivity and efficiency of the workers [12]. The finding of the study shows that the most serious psychosocial risk factors is fatigue. Fatigue could lead to work-related disorders and declining in productivity and efficiency [13].

In conclusion, the dominance of risk factors related to WMSD has discovered. Hence, OSH practitioners and engineers can cooperate to minimize or eliminate that risk factors while ergonomics workplace design stage. Finally, WMSD risk can be avoided because of the safe, healthy, and well-being culture created in the organization.