To evaluate the effectiveness of a large set of specific job rotation schemes in reducing the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) to workers.
Background
Job rotation is one of the administrative controls promoted to reduce MSD risk, yet its effectiveness remains uncertain.
Methods
This study evaluated 82 job rotation schemes using ergonomic assessment tools: the Distal Upper Extremity Tool (DUET), the Lifting Fatigue Failure Tool (LiFFT), and The Shoulder Tool (TST), along with surveys assessing body discomfort and psychosocial demands. Outcomes were compared across individual jobs and the entire rotation scheme.
Results
MSD risk was similar across rotation schemes, regardless of the number of jobs in the rotation scheme and the position of the job within the rotation scheme. The risk associated with the overall job rotation scheme was found to exceed the sum of the individual jobs. Significant correlations were found between risk outcomes and body discomfort (DUET: hands and elbows, LiFFT: hips and back, and TST: shoulders). Psychosocial demands, particularly perceived effort, physical demand, and mental workload, increased with the number of jobs in the rotation scheme and were correlated with discomfort.
Conclusion
This study revealed several important and unanticipated insights regarding job rotation practices, including: (1) most sites did not implement standardized rotation schemes, (2) MSD risk was not the only consideration in designing these rotation schemes, even though several companies had conducted ergonomic assessments, and (3) caution should be exercised when considering the broad adoption of job rotation as an administrative control.
Application
Job rotation effectiveness hinges on balancing the risk across multiple body regions and minimizing the number of medium to high-risk jobs. This likely requires a trained ergonomist to identify jobs that provide adequate rest for different muscle groups, rather than merely meeting productivity demands.
AptelM.CailF.GerlingA.LouisO. (2008). Proposal of parameters to implement a workstation rotation system to protect against MSDs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38(11-12), 900–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.02.006
2.
Asensio-CuestaS.Diego-MasJ. A.Cremades-OliverL. V.González-CruzM. C. (2012). A method to design job rotation schedules to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders in repetitive work. International Journal of Production Research, 50(24), 7467–7478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.653452
3.
AssunçãoA.MollaeiN.RodriguesJ.FujãoC.OsórioD.VelosoA. P.GamboaH.CarnideF. (2022). A genetic algorithm approach to design job rotation schedules ensuring homogeneity and diversity of exposure in the automotive industry. Heliyon, 8(5), Article e09396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09396
4.
Bani HaniD.HuangfuR.SesekR.SchallM. C.DavisG. A.GallagherS. (2020). Development and validation of a cumulative exposure shoulder risk assessment tool based on fatigue failure theory. Ergonomics, 64(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1811399
5.
BaoS. S.KapelluschJ. M.MerryweatherA. S.ThieseM. S.GargA.HegmannK. T.SilversteinB. A. (2015). Relationships between job organisational factors, biomechanical and psychosocial exposures. Ergonomics, 59(2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1065347
6.
BoenziF.DigiesiS.FacchiniF.MummoloG. (2016). Ergonomic improvement through job rotations in repetitive manual tasks in case of limited specialization and differentiated ergonomic requirements. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(12), 1667–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.820
7.
BoenziF.DigiesiS.MossaG.MummoloG.RomanoV. A. (2013). Optimal break and job rotation schedules of high repetitive–low load manual tasks in assembly lines: An OCRA–based approach. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46(9), 1896–1901. https://doi.org/10.3182/20130619-3-ru-3018.00625
CarnahanB. J.RedfernM. S.NormanB. (2000). Designing safe job rotation schedules using optimization and heuristic search. Ergonomics, 43(4), 543–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300184404
10.
CarreonM. A.GenerosoS. M. D.VillapandoA. C.GumasingM. J. J. (2021). A study on the effects of job rotation on body discomfort, employee productivity and job satisfaction on selected garment companies. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international conference on industrial engineering and operations management, Singapore, March 7-11, 2021 (pp. 2483–2490). IEOM Society International.
11.
ChristmanssonM.FridenJ.SollermanC. (1999). Task design, psycho-social work climate and upper extremity pain disorders – Effects of an organisational redesign on manual repetitive assembly jobs. Applied Ergonomics, 30(5), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-6870(98)00060-x
12.
ComperM. L. C.da SilvaP. R.de NegreirosA. W.BôasC. C. V.PadulaR. S. (2021). Influence of adherence to autonomous job rotation on musculoskeletal symptoms, occupational exposure, and work ability. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 84(1), Article 103165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103165
13.
ComperM. L. C.DennerleinJ. T.dos Santos EvangelistaG.da SilvaP. R.PadulaR. S. (2017). Effectiveness of job rotation for preventing work-related musculoskeletal diseases: A cluster randomised controlled trial. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 74(8), 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2016-104077
14.
DawalS. Z.TahaZ.IsmailZ. (2009). Effect of job organization on job satisfaction among shop floor employees in automotive industries in Malaysia. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.06.005
15.
DesaiD.CarnahanB.DavisJ.MaghsoodlooS. (2005). Development and validation of an ergonomic job rotation schedule at a manufacturing facility. In IIE annual conference proceedings, Norcross (p. 1).
16.
DiasN. F.TirloniA. S.dos ReisD. C.MoroA. R. P. (2020). Risk of slaughterhouse workers developing workrelated musculoskeletal disorders in different organizational working conditions. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 76(1), Article 102929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2020.102929
17.
DiasN. F.TirloniA. S.ReisD. C. D.MoroA. R. P. (2019). Effect of job rotation on the risk of developing UL-WMSDS in poultry slaughterhouse workers. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 21(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2018-0843
18.
DigiesiS.FacchiniF.MossaG.MummoloG. (2018). Minimizing and balancing ergonomic risk of workers of an assembly line by job rotation: A MINLP Model. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 9(3), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.24867/ijiem-2018-3-129
19.
FrazerM. B.NormanR. W.WellsR. P.NeumannW. P. (2003). The effects of job rotation on the risk of reporting low back pain. Ergonomics, 46(9), 904–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401303000090161
20.
FredrikssonK.BildtC.HaggG.KilbomA. (2001). The impact of musculoskeletal disorders of changing physical and psychosocial work environment conditions in the automobile industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-8141(01)00011-7
21.
GallagherS.SchallJr M. C.SesekR. F.HuangfuR. (2018). An upper extremity risk assessment tool based on material fatigue failure theory: The distal upper extremity tool (DUET). Human Factors, 60(8), 1146–1162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818789319
22.
GallagherS.SesekR. F.SchallJr, M. C.HuangfuR. (2017). Development and validation of an easy-touse risk assessment tool for cumulative low back loading: The Lifting Fatigue Failure Tool (LiFFT). Applied Ergonomics, 63(1), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.04.016
GuimarãesL. D. M.AnzanelloM. J.RennerJ. S. (2012). A learning curve-based method to implement multifunctional work teams in the Brazilian footwear sector. Applied Ergonomics, 43(3), 541–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.08.008
25.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Elsevier Science.
26.
HendersonC. J. (1992). Ergonomic job rotation in poultry processing. In Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety (Vol. 4, pp. 443–450). Taylor & Francis.
27.
HurrellJ. J.McLaneyM. A. (1988). Exposure to job stress-a new psychometric instrument. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 14(Suppl 1), 27–28.
28.
JorgensenM. J.DavisK. G.KotowskiS. E.AedlaP.DunningK. (2005). Characteristics of job rotation in the midwest U.S. manufacturing sector. Ergonomics, 48(15), 1721–1733. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130500247545
29.
MehdizadehA.VinelA.HuQ.SchallJr M. C.GallagherS.SesekR. F. (2020). Job rotation and workrelated musculoskeletal disorders: A fatigue-failure perspective. Ergonomics, 63(4), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1717644
30.
MossaG.BoenziF.DigiesiS.MummoloG.RomanoV. A. (2016). Productivity and ergonomic risk in human based production systems: A job-rotation scheduling model. International Journal of Production Economics, 171(1), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.06.017
31.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2014b). Health hazard evaluation, HETA 2012-0121-3255.
32.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2001). National occupational research agenda for musculoskeletal disorders: Research topics for the next decade (DHHS (NIOSH) publication no. 2001117). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved July 16, 2025, from the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001117/pdfs/2001-117.pdf
33.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2012). Health hazard evaluation, HETA 2010-0014-3168.
34.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2014a). Health hazard evaluation, HETA 2011-0131-3221.
35.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2015). Health hazard evaluation, HETA 2014-0040-3232.
36.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2022). Health hazard evaluation, HETA 2019-0152-3381.
37.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (1993). Ergonomic program management guidelines for meatpacking plants. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA400145.pdf (accessed February 15, 2026).
38.
OttoA.SchollA. (2011). Incorporating ergonomic risks into assembly line balancing. European Journal of Operational Research, 212(2), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.01.056
39.
PadulaR. S.ComperM. L. C.SparerE. H.DennerleinJ. T. (2017). Job rotation designed to prevent musculoskeletal disorders and control risk in manufacturing industries: A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 58(1), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.07.018
40.
RodriguesJ.GamboaH.MollaeiN.OsórioD.AssunçãoA.FujãoC.CarnideF. (2020). A genetic algorithm to design job rotation schedules with low risk exposure. In Technological Innovation for Life Improvement: 11th IFIP WG 5.5/SOCOLNET Advanced Doctoral Conference on Computing, Electrical and Industrial Systems, DoCEIS 2020, Costa de Caparica, Portugal, July 1–3, 2020.
41.
RoquelaureY.MechaliS.DanoC.FanelloS.BenettiF.BureauD.MarielJ.MartinY. H.DerriennicF.Penneau-FontbonneD. (1997). Occupational and Personal risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome in industrial workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 23(5), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.233
42.
Saavedra-RobinsonL. A. (2023). Ergonomic assessment of repetitive work time as a key parameter for job rotation schedules. International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijhfe.2023.128572
43.
SongJ.LeeC.LeeW.BahnS.JungC.YunM. H. (2016). Development of a job rotation scheduling algorithm for minimizing accumulated work load per body parts. Work, 53(3), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-152232
44.
TharmmaphornphilasW.NormanB. A. (2007). A methodology to create robust job rotation schedules. Annals of Operations Research, 155(1), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0219-8
YoonS. Y.KoJ.JungM. C. (2016). A model for developing job rotation schedules that eliminate sequential high workloads and minimize between-worker variability in cumulative daily workloads: Application to automotive assembly lines. Applied Ergonomics, 55(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.01.011
