Slick, fast and easy to carry smart devices have undoubtedly enhanced an engineer’s approach to call-outs. Yet, research and guidance into the ergonomic risks remain thin on the ground. Mark Glover investigates whether a revolution in mobility could have a long-term negative impact...

Digital devices have over the years become more portable. For service technicians this improvement in usability has undoubtedly improved the way in which they work. However, the industry’s swift adoption of these devices has perhaps been too rapid, meaning health and safety guidance is yet to catch-up with the potential ergonomic risks that smartphone and tablet use carries.

I’ve written articles in these pages (and in our recent edition of The Handy Little Book) on health and safety, referencing the potential impact on a lone worker’s wellbeing, given that their work is carried out mostly in isolation. However, another area of the broad H&S spectrum that lone workers or field service engineers are vulnerable too is musculo-skeletal dis-orders (MSDs).

Defined by the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as “any injury, damage or dis-order of the joints or other tissues in the upper/lower limbs or the back", MSDs, according to a study carried out by HSE for the period 2017/2018, shows 469,000 workers are suffering with cases of work-related MSDs, which includes long and short-term conditions. The knock-on result on productivity is 6.6 million working days lost as a result of the condition, the same research reveals.

The study does not uncover the extent to which lone or mobile workers suffer, although the top three industries where workers are most affected include fishing, forestry, agriculture (grouped together), construction and then transportation and storage (also grouped) will arguably include a section of field-based lone workers. The condition is also common for office-based workers who are vulnerable to neck or back issues, brought on by incorrect posture while using computer equipment at a desk.

It shouldn’t be ignored however, that while field service engineers are desk-free, incorrect ergonomic use of tablets and phones – the tool of the trade for most lone workers – carries its own ergonomic risk.

But with rugged tablet and laptop devices now a ubiquitous part of an engineer’s kit why hasn’t there been more attention on their dangers? It’s useful to look more generally at society’s relationship with smartphones and tablets, which are now commonplace in people’s lives.

It is estimated that five billion people in the world own a mobile device, of which, half of these are smartphones. Indeed, the rate at which we’ve adopted them is staggering which is primarily down to their relative ease of use and in-turn part of the reason why they have found their way into engineers and technicians hands who require rugged devices that perform but also offer a practicality. However, it’s this natural uptake both in public and the workplace that, according to one expert, is enabling risks around their ergonomic use to go unnoticed.

Ed Milnes is Founder and Director of Guildford Ergonomics a consultancy firm in the UK that specialises in ergonomics and human factors in the workplace and has contributed guidance and research into the risks of smartphone and tablet use.
“I think there’s a psychological element to it,” he tells me over Skype. “It’s as if it hasn’t come onto people’s radars because we use these devices so much in our everyday lives anyway. We accept them as something that – because they’re always around – they must be safe that there can’t be any inherent risks with them. When you use them day in and day out, almost every day, it does become more of an issue.”


            "It is estimated that five billion people in the world own a mobile device..."


MSD risks are linked to exposure and how long how and how often is spent on activities. In the case of service engineers this does oscilate in line with the complexity and length of a job but as technology advances – with AR soon to play a major role – then engineers will be looking at their tablets and then moving their vision and neck towards the asset and then back to the tablet.
It will, inevitably, place stress on the back and shoulder and other areas.

However, it’s the neck region, Ed tells me, that is most vulnerable to pain when using these types of devices. “The one area that does stand out, where we’re clear that there is an issue is in the neck area and the development of neck pain,” he says. “This is the absolute number one area when it comes to these devices.”

He acknowledges though, given the nature of lone workers, it is difficult to collaborate and collect insightful data. “A lot of the data on discomfort is basically self-reported data, so it’s very subjective. For example, how long people are using the devices for and how often they’re using them. It’s based on people estimating how long they’ve spent on them and very often you get people underestimating.”

Research ambiguity can in part be attributed to the lack of guidance that exists on the topic. HSE who inform legislation around health and safety in the UK, seem to have been caught napping when it comes to specific guidance on smartphone and tablet use. Their L26 guidance document, which advises on Display Screen Equipment was published in 1992 and updated in 1998 but fails to incorporate the mobility trend. “It [the L26] did its best to anticipate the development of things,” Ed sympathises, “but there is no official formal kind of guidance. It’s a real difficulty because you not only have that lack of regulatory clout behind doing anything. But it’s also about the physical aspect. People by the very nature of the work they are doing, are out and about, so they’re not under anyone’s eye.”

Back then to those office workers who receive regular risk-assessments around their display screen equipment (computer, chair etc.). For their mobile colleagues it’s perhaps unreasonable to expect a health and safety manager to attend each engineer’s call-out to ensure they are using a tablet correctly.

Ed does suggest however that companies and management need to incorporate more of a broad-based assessment and take more of an active role in the process, particularly around training, acknowledging the type of work they conduct. “It’s also about the physical aspect,” he explains. “People by the very nature of the work they are doing, are out and about, so they’re not under anyone’s eye. There has to be an understanding on the part of the company, including the health and safety manager who can potentially envisage the workers are going to face and put controls in place; putting devices in place that they can refer to to help them use their own mobile devices more safely.”

“The big thing really is training,” he continues, “which I know is right down the bottom of the hierarchy of control, but ultimately, it’s what you’re left with when everything else doesn’t really stack up as a solution.”

As devices continue to evolve more emphasis will need to be placed on their correct handling. A solution is undoubtedly required which should be driven by concrete guidance.

For now though, employers need to recognise the ergonomic risks associated with the hardware as continued incorrect use could spell greater difficulties for workers’ health later on.