During a recent Risk Control Webinar, industrial engineer and certified ergonomist Tim Pottorff urged employers to rethink how they approach musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), automation, and job design.
He emphasized that organizations focused on controlling Workers’ Compensation (WC) costs achieve stronger long-term results by engineering out risk rather than reacting to injuries after they occur.
Prevention through design and data-driven assessments can help organizations reduce variability, improve outcomes, and protect their workforce, Pottorff said.
Continue reading for an overview of Pottorff’s presentation.
Pottorff began with a candid look at emerging technologies — including exoskeletons, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI). While these tools generate considerable industry enthusiasm, he cautioned that technology alone cannot solve ergonomic risks — a reality that makes understanding the science of injury all the more critical.
While exoskeletons — wearable mechanical frameworks designed to support and augment the body’s movements during physical tasks — show promise in specific applications, Pottorff noted that research is ongoing and implementation challenges remain, including proper fit, metabolic demands, and worker acceptance.
He distinguished between robots, which replicate human functions, and collaborative robots (i.e., “cobots”), which assist workers with tasks such as welding or picking. Automation, he noted, involves applying technology or processes to achieve outcomes with minimal human input.
Employers must evaluate how these tools interact with real-world tasks and human variability before committing to implementation.
The limitations of technology become clear when organizations examine how injuries develop. Pottorff defined “fatigue failure” as the accumulation of stress on tissues over time, comparing the concept to material fatigue and explaining that repetitive exposure below a stress limit can still lead to failure when repeated enough times.
He reviewed several assessment tools designed to quantify risk, including:
These tools rely on objective data to evaluate tasks and identify where intervention is most needed.
Job rotation, often viewed as a straightforward solution, can backfire if not carefully designed.
“Damage per cycle is exponential, not linear,” Pottorff said, explaining that rotating employees through high-risk tasks without a comprehensive assessment can increase overall exposure rather than reduce it.
Quantifying risk through assessment is only valuable if organizations act on what the data reveals. Pottorff argued that the most effective action happens before a facility is built or equipment is ordered. He challenged the common reliance on personal protective equipment (PPE) and administrative controls, advocating instead for engineering solutions during the design phase.
“What we’d rather see is focus on job design, job improvement, and improving the task,” Pottorff said.
He described prevention through design as a proactive approach that addresses hazards early in the process. Reducing variability in processes is key. Training engineers and cross-functional teams to consider ergonomic risk factors during procurement and design decisions can prevent costly retrofits and claims down the road.
Engineering solutions, however effective, only succeed within an organization that supports and sustains them. Beyond tools and technology, Pottorff emphasized the importance of management commitment and employee involvement in any ergonomic program.
“Management support and messaging have to be consistent,” he said, pointing to mixed signals as a common factor that undermines safety initiatives.
He encouraged organizations to communicate results — whether a fix succeeds or fails — and to involve employees in testing and refinement. Training and education, paired with quantitative assessments and sustained follow-through, form the foundation of effective ergonomic programs.
The organizational commitment Pottorff described carries real financial weight. He reinforced the broad economic implications of MSDs, noting that beyond direct claims costs, employers face production disruptions, overtime expenses, and retention challenges.
By integrating ergonomics into equipment design, process engineering, and daily operations, organizations can reduce claim frequency and severity while improving productivity.
For employers focused on managing WC costs, the takeaway was clear: design decisions made today shape injury outcomes tomorrow.
This presentation was part of Captive Resources’ Risk Control Webinar Series — regular installments of webinars to educate the group captive members we work with on topics like workplace safety, organizational leadership, and company performance. The thoughts and opinions expressed in these webinars are those of the presenters and do not necessarily reflect Captive Resources’ positions on any of the above topics.
