Study confirms powered access costs less

New research commissioned by Crown House Technologies, part of the Laing O'Rourke Group - has confirmed that Mobile Elevating Work Platforms (MEWP's) are safer and more productive than other methods of working at height, even for low-level access.

"We were able to provide evidence that MEWP's are safer, more productive and avoid unnecessary strain injury," says Gerry Mulholland, HSE leader at Crown House Technologies, who initiated this rigorous assessment of work at height policies and procedures within the group.

The findings were the result of a complete review of the work at height procedures (up to 4.5metres) for mechanical and electrical installations carried out by the company in 2008.
The research began with a series of seven road shows attended by over 170 people across the UK where the workforce was asked, "What do you want to work from?" The general opinion was that MEWP's were best but were too expensive for low level work."

Ladders, podium steps and towers are responsible for 80% of falls from access equipment.
Falls from height are the primary cause of serious injury in the construction industry. The review found that just under a fifth of all accidents on site are related to access equipment with over 80% related to podiums, mobile scaffold towers and ladders.
The study also looked at the cost of access related accident claims as well as equipment repair, loss and damage. The results showed that such costs were lower on MEWP's than with equipment such as towers that feature non-captive components.

Reviewing the personal injury claims data for a two-and-a-half year period indicate that podium steps account for 41% of claim costs while MEWP's were 11%.
Among the main types of access equipment, step ladders and podium steps cost less to rent than scaffold towers or MEWP's. However feedback from regular users suggested that MEWP's were both safer and more productive.

Armed with the safety and loss information, Crown House set out to formally quantify the MEWP productivity claims. The company undertook a series of time and motion studies using different types of access equipment on two different, but identical projects.
The aim was to record how long typical tasks took with the variety of different equipment.
The researchers reviewed two specific, repetitive installation tasks, using different access equipment. Timings were taken at each stage of the job for each method, including positioning the equipment, erecting the equipment, locking wheels, ascending, installation, dismounting and removal. The researches also reviewed potential risks at each stage for each type of equipment.

MEWP's 300% MORE PRODUCTIVE
The results showed that the potential risks were significantly lower for MEWP's than for either podiums or scaffold towers.
Furthermore, MEWP's were found to be 300% more efficient to use.
"The findings have led us to standardise on the selection of access equipment," says Mulholland. "We have developed a matrix to help users select the most appropriate item of equipment for any typical M&E task we undertake, up to 4.5 meteres working height."

The study by Crown House Technologies makes clear that MEWP's are safer, more productive and therefor more economical to use. This will have a positive impact on improving safety-at-height industry and achieving the overall promise of 'sending every worker home safely everyday'.