THE SCIENCE

How does it work?

Work tasks are analysed in real time using our patented technology to identify at-risk tasks and prevent workplace-related injuries with live feedback and clear simple reports.

The non-invasive sensor technology connects to an iPad or iPhone to allow users to objectively identify risks to workers, take immediate action to modify activities and as a result minimise risk.

Simply start and finish the analysis to get real time risk scores.

Machine Learning

Story about the Australian code of practice

The risk analysis and scoring are focussed on the task being assessed. The neck, back and shoulder actions, movements and postures provide the input into this assessment. The JAS Performance tool shows neck, back and shoulder movement, posture and action contributions to the task risk score graphically as shown at below left. The summary risk score is shown on the body map at below right.
 
The key information regarding body location, movement, action and posture with exposure and consequence risk factors are calculated to provide risk scores.
 
In summary:
  Are multiplied by the consequence factors: 1 – 25 (work safety risk scale is 0.5 – 100)
 
The result is a risk score with the neck, back and shoulders body region sub scores shown.

Summary - JointAction Automated Risk Analysis and Scoring

 
The JointAction Solutions Manual Tasks MSD risk assessment and analysis is based on recognised risk assessment categories to define movements, actions, postures and exposures and durations, are sourced from this Australian Model Code of Practice - Hazardous Manual Tasks 2018 and its predecessor codes, guides and national standard and supporting professional literature and body of knowledge. Please see excerpts and reference material on the following pages.

The categories of the described actions, movement and postures have been sub-categorised for increased accuracy (e.g. differentiating between 20-45, 46-90 and greater than 90 degrees back flexion)

Consequence scoring is pre-populated into the risk assessment and analysis based on directly relevant injury claims information. The work injury claims data is from seven consecutive years in manufacturing (large international owned and operated manufacturing employer including production line process work, maintenance, logistics and warehousing) and agriculture (all national shearing injury claims for consecutive seven years) in Australia and included predominantly physical occupations.

The consequence score weighting method is based on the most widely used consequence and risk scoring method utilised in work safety throughout the world currently and during the past 30+ years, (Practical Risk Analysis for Safety Management, G. F. Kinney and A. D. Wiruth, Safety and Security Department U.S. Naval Postgraduate School 1975).

The exposure rating categories and consequence risk scoring from this method are applied to the task sensor data using standard exposure periods for manual work (in contrast to major hazard/multiple fatality period categories).
 

Academic Studies

JointAction Group was established in 2009 to deliver reductions in WRMSD in consultation with studies done on the impact of movement, posture, forces and other factors in a study with academic leaders from Ballarat University who were examining the impacts on workers in the shearing industry.  Since that time, JointAction Group has assessed thousands of work tasks and found that the process was able to identify an average 23% reduction in risk injury scores prior to the creation of the automated assessment tools.

However, the company has decided to undertake independent pear reviewed analysis to ensure that internally delivered results are statistically valid for claims of risk reduction.  The first step is to verify that sensor technology is as reliable and accurate as human observation.

This involves automated assessments being independently studied by a variety of ergonomists using a variety of methods to validate that the raw movement data is accurate.

The next step is to review the assessments of risk against a set of ergonomic studies to ensure that the consequential score reported by the system is both accurate and repeatable.

Finally, statistical analysis principles are applied to verify that the system is more likely to deliver accurate analysis using sensor data and the injury database than available by human observation and computation.

To achieve the results such that they can be peer reviewed, JointAction Group is working with Melbourne University and Dr David Wilson, author of “A spreadsheet approach to quantitative methods”, to prepare the paper for peer review.
 
Dr Stephen Cowley, a director of JointAction group, and leading academic in work place safety with the New England University and UK based consulting form WorkSafe Solutions Ltd, is leading the study and developing the publication strategy.

We know that the Australian Model Code of Practice - Hazardous Manual Tasks 2018 is widely accepted as a reliable method of analysing WRMSD risk, the question becomes, “Does automating the collection and analysis of work tasks create a better outcome than manually assessed risk analysis?”  The answer is yes.

Benefits of automated risk analysis include:

• Faster, more accurate data collection
• The ability to compare against previous claims data in real time
• Real time reporting for immediate change and verification
• Ability to create “what-if” scenarios by varying data inputs
• Accurate data recording for audit and verification purposes