The Process

Our aim was to install one type of matting throughout the manufacturing area to eliminate any deviation in test results based on the “comfort level” of the mats used. Included were several difficult areas such as spot-welding and arc welding. Despite these diverse environments, Diamond-Plate 415 was installed in 95% of the facility (all but two of the areas). The second step was to design a questionnaire which assessed the worker’s perceptions of their current work surface (i.e. concrete), overall level of fatigue before and after work, and the fatigue and discomfort level of their legs and feet before and after work. Workers filled out the questionnaire three times a week for two weeks before the matting was installed. After collecting that data, the matting was installed. As a comparison, the workers filled out the same questionnaire during the year long study. The results of the “Worker Perception” aspect of the study are very clear. The participants felt considerably less fatigued before and after work following the installation of anti-fatigue matting. In addition, the “at risk” areas of their bodies such as legs, feet and lower back, were much less uncomfortable when anti-fatigue matting was used.

Worker’s perception is very important, but the unique aspect of this study was that it revealed a strong correlation between the use of anti-fatigue mats and productivity. Before the installation of anti-fatigue matting, the rate of absenteeism and the “lost time” injury ratios were very high. The decreases in absenteeism and lost time injuries resulted in a significant gain in productivity.

Average Absenteeism
Without Matting:          5.2%   
With Matting:               4.0% 

Injury (lost time) Ratio
Without Matting:          > 3 per month
With Matting:               < 1 per month
(note: < 1 = better than average in their industry)

By comparing the statistics of the 12 months prior to the study, to the study period itself, the conclusion is that the installation of anti-fatigue matting resulted in an estimated 2.2% increase in productivity. Roughly half of that was due to lower absenteeism rates and the other half can be linked to decreased down time due to lost time injuries. It’s worthy of note that the Company had an established workforce and during the study period did not implement any other procedural changes that might have affected productivity.

Return on Investment

An effective method of boosting the bottom line is increasing productivity. That is exactly what happened at this test facility. There were substantial “Hard Cost” savings (costs that can be specifically documented). In addition to the Hard Cost savings, there were other cost savings related to the use of anti-fatigue matting. According to the Human Resources department, the turnover rate dropped significantly so less time and effort was spent hiring and retraining. This also impacted on productivity. Savings such as these are called “Soft Cost Savings”. Insurance companies calculate these Soft Costs by multiplying the Hard Cost Savings by a multiplier between 2 and 6. In the following summary, we chose to be conservative and used the lowest multiplier.