The Affect of Technology and Automation on Workers - Illinois State ...

A similar, but less dramatic split was also found in the reduction <strong>of</strong> frequency <strong>and</strong> loss
severity from the use <strong>of</strong> technology. <strong>The</strong> results are illustrated in Exhibit 8. Again,
additional analysis is required, especially <strong>of</strong> those organizations at either end.
Percent Attaining
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Exhibit 8- 8 Reduced Frequency <strong>and</strong> Severity <strong>of</strong> Losses
+,
+ %-, %% %+
,
Extent <strong>of</strong> Improvement
%. /-
,
/% /+
,
19
/. 0-
,
* 0-
,
8.6 Lack <strong>of</strong> Measurement
Another interesting finding was the lack <strong>of</strong> organizations actually measuring
improvements on items rated as “important”. Remarkably, <strong>of</strong> those organizations
measuring results (<strong>and</strong> that leaves out a number <strong>of</strong> organizations) only half <strong>of</strong> the
organizations measured their improvement in return-to-work results. For those 50
percent <strong>of</strong> companies measuring improvement in return-to-work, more than one in five
reported improvements exceeding 16 percent. Following the adage, “what gets
measured gets done”, the lack <strong>of</strong> measurements may turn out to be a primary reason
that some peer group organizations perform better than others. <strong>The</strong> following list
indicates the percentage <strong>of</strong> respondent organizations measuring the given item. This
relationship between what is measured <strong>and</strong> the benefits attained deserves more study.
<strong>The</strong> following indicates the percentages <strong>of</strong> respondents measuring the various items.
*