What this is
What is a task redesign record?
What is a task redesign record?
A task redesign record documents a specific change made to a specific task to reduce ergonomic risk, together with the original assessment it responds to and the reassessment confirming whether it worked. It holds the before and after evidence for one intervention in one place, not a programme summary.
Who completes it?
Ergonomics, working with engineering, since a redesign reaching an engineering or administrative control usually needs engineering to design, cost and implement it, while ergonomics owns the assessment evidence either side.
Why does the before-and-after pairing matter so much?
A reduction in score only demonstrates that a control worked if both scores were taken under the same method and broadly the same conditions. A before score under load and an after score under a lighter or different task is not evidence of improvement, whatever the numbers say.
Scope
When is a task redesign record required?
This record documents the change itself and the two assessments either side of it. It is not the place to conduct the original assessment or the follow-up reassessment; both of those are separate records this one links to.
Use this template when
- A specific task has been redesigned, an engineering change, a new aid, a workstation modification, an administrative change, to reduce its assessed risk
- An original assessment already exists and identified a problem this redesign responds to
- The change is significant enough to warrant its own before-and-after evidence, rather than a note on the original assessment
- A reassessment has been or will be carried out, and its result needs pairing with the original score
- A linked record needs this one to exist: post control reassessment or a design review depend on the redesign being on file
Do not use it for
- Task Ergonomic Assessment, which is the original assessment this record responds to, not the change made from it
- Post Control Reassessment, which is the reassessment record itself; this record links to it rather than repeating its content
- Cumulative Exposure Assessment, which assesses total load across a shift, not one task's redesign
- Work Rest Cycle Assessment, which addresses recovery time, not a design change to the task
- Ergonomic Cost Benefit Record, which weighs the redesign's cost against the injury and productivity cost avoided, a separate financial case built on this record's evidence
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 11228 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 11228 supplies the assessment methods either side of the redesign; it does not itself specify how a redesign should be recorded. This record exists to hold the two assessments and the change between them to a standard the methods imply but do not name.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 11228-1 | Manual lifting and carrying assessed by a recognised method, providing the comparable score either side of the change | Before |
| ISO 11228-2 | Pushing and pulling assessed by a recognised method where the task involves it | Before |
| ISO 11228-3 | Repetitive handling of low loads assessed by a recognised method where relevant | Before |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Elimination and substitution prioritised over administrative controls and PPE in the hierarchy of controls | What changed |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Consultation and participation of workers in the design of the control | What changed |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitoring and measurement of the effectiveness of implemented controls | After |
| ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Corrective action where the redesign introduces new risk or does not hold | After |
What it does not cover
- Task Ergonomic Assessment, which is the original assessment, carried out before any redesign is proposed.
- Post Control Reassessment, which formally reassesses a task after a control change and is linked from, not duplicated by, this record.
- Cumulative Exposure Assessment, which totals physical load across a whole shift including rotation and overtime.
- Work Rest Cycle Assessment, which assesses whether recovery time is adequate for the load, not whether the task itself was changed.
- Ergonomic Cost Benefit Record, which builds the financial case on top of this record's evidence rather than replacing it.
Global
Task Redesign Record requirements by country
No jurisdiction requires a task redesign record by name. What differs is how strongly the underlying manual handling method is prescribed, which determines how far the before-and-after comparison here can be relied on.
ISO 11228 parts 1 to 3
Defines recognised methods for lifting, pushing and pulling, and repetitive low-load handling.
Using the same ISO 11228 method for both scores is what makes the comparison in this record meaningful.
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, and HSE manual handling assessment charts
Requires avoidance, assessment and reduction of risk from manual handling so far as reasonably practicable.
A control level below engineering with no explanation invites the question of whether reduction went as far as reasonably practicable required.
OSH Act General Duty Clause; NIOSH revised lifting equation as the recognised method
No specific manual handling standard, but recognised ergonomic hazards fall under the General Duty Clause.
A documented redesign with a matched before-and-after NIOSH-based score supports a General Duty Clause defence.
How to complete it
How to complete a task redesign record, step by step
The form prompts for the change and the two scores. The judgement that makes the record useful is whether the comparison between them is valid.
If the original assessment used a different method to the reassessment, the score reduction percentage is not comparable, whatever the form calculates. Note the method used both times and flag any mismatch rather than letting the percentage stand unexplained.
A redesign planned as an engineering control that shipped as an administrative workaround because of cost or schedule should be recorded as what was actually implemented, not what was originally proposed. The gap between the two is itself worth capturing in the description.
A redesign trialled before full install and adjusted afterwards is more likely to still be in place at six months than one installed directly. Recording that a trial happened without recording what the trial changed misses the reason it matters.
The still-in-place-at-six-months field is often left blank because the record was completed and filed at implementation. A redesign that has quietly reverted by month four is the pattern this field exists to catch, and it only catches it if someone returns to fill it in.
What auditors find
Most common task redesign record findings
The redesign itself is usually genuine. The findings concern whether the record proves it worked, and whether it held.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Before and after scores taken under different methods or conditions with no note explaining the difference. | ISO 11228 | Record the method and conditions for both assessments, and flag any mismatch rather than letting the reduction percentage stand alone. |
| Control level achieved not stated, or overstated relative to what was actually installed. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Record the control level as implemented, distinct from what was originally proposed. |
| No trial before full installation, and no explanation of why a trial was skipped. | ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Trial where practicable; where not, record why and what compensating check was used instead. |
| Still in place at six months left blank on a record marked complete. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Schedule the six-month follow-up as its own task at implementation, not an afterthought to the record. |
| New risk introduced by the redesign not assessed or recorded. | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Check for new risk explicitly as part of the after assessment, not only the score on the original hazard. |
| Transferable redesign not linked to a design review or applied to comparable workstations. | Standard-specific | Where marked transferable, raise the design review link so the improvement reaches other workstations rather than staying local. |
Case in point
Case in point: an improvement that did not survive contact with six months
A packing line redesigned a repetitive taping task, replacing a handheld tool with a fixture-mounted one to remove sustained wrist deviation. The before assessment scored the task high risk; the after assessment, taken the week the fixture went in, scored it low, and the record was closed with the score reduction cited in that quarter's ergonomics reporting.
At the six-month check, still in place had not been asked, because the record was already marked complete. An unrelated visit later found operators had removed the fixture on the busiest shift, because it slowed the task when volumes spiked, and were back on the handheld tool at those times. The reduction had been real on the day measured and had not held under production pressure, and nothing in the record would have surfaced that without the six-month field being followed up.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- ERG-052
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- TRD-2026-000
- Scoring
- Score improvement
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 11228
- Links
- Links Post control reassessment, Design review
- Tags
- Ergo, Redesign
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 48
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 6
Header
14 fieldsRecord ID*
Auto sequence. Format TRD-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Area
The area within the site.
Exact Location
Drop a pin for anything hard to find.
Task*
Job ID*
Format JOB-000.
Links to FDN-004 Job Task ID
Before And After In One Place
The evidence that a control worked is a pair of scores under the same conditions. Keeping them together is what makes the next business case easy.
Redesign Description*
Owner*
Source*
Before
6 fieldsOriginal Assessment ID*
Links to ERG-006 Assessment ID
Original Method*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Original Score*
Original Risk Band*
Discomfort Reports Before
Main Problem*
What changed
7 fieldsChange Made*
Control Level Achieved*
- Eliminated4 pts
- Engineering3 pts
- Aid provided3 pts
- Administrative1 pt
- Training only0 pts
Cost
Workers Involved In Design*
- Yes3 pts
- Consulted2 pts
- No0 pts
Trialled Before Full Install*
- Yes3 pts
- No1 pt
Adjusted After Trial
- Yes3 pts
- Not needed3 pts
Implemented Date*
Related records
1 fieldCumulative Exposure ID
Where the redesign addresses a cumulative load.
Links to ERG-049 Assessment ID
After
20 fieldsReassessment ID
Links to ERG-014 Assessment ID
New Score*
Score Reduction Percent*
New Risk Band*
- Low3 pts
- Medium2 pts
- High1 pt
- Very high0 pts
Same Method And Conditions*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Workers Report Improvement*
- Yes3 pts
- Some1 pt
- No0 pts
Discomfort Reports After*
Any New Risk Introduced*
- No3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Significant0 pts
Still In Place At Six Months
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Transferable To Other Workstations*
- Yes3 pts
- No1 pt
Applied Elsewhere
Feeds Effectiveness Review*
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Ergonomics*
Signature*
Engineering*
Second Signature*
ERG-052 · record IDs look like TRD-2026-000 · Links Post control reassessment, Design review
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The redesign is a physical or procedural change. What the record depends on is the comparison holding up and someone returning at six months to check.
Pairs each redesign record with its original assessment and reassessment, and flags a same-method-and-conditions mismatch before the score reduction is reported.
Turns an administrative control level into a defined competency requirement, so training only is a stated choice, not a default.
Schedules the six-month still-in-place check as its own task at implementation and escalates it if unanswered.
Watches for a transferable redesign with no design review raised, and a record left open past its six-month check, before either goes unnoticed.
This template lives in KnowErgo — ergonomics. Task assessment, video posture analysis, rotation and workstation redesign.
Meet KnowErgo→Glossary
Task Redesign Record definitions and key terms
- Same method and conditions
- The check that the before and after assessment used the same recognised method under comparable task conditions, without which a score reduction is not a valid comparison.
- Control level achieved
- Where the implemented change sits in the hierarchy of controls, from elimination down to training only, scored independently of how much the risk score itself moved.
- Hierarchy of controls
- The ranked sequence of control types, elimination, substitution, engineering, administrative, then personal protective equipment, used here to judge the redesign's durability, not just its score.
- Score reduction percentage
- The measured change between the original and new assessment score, valid only where both were taken under the same method and comparable conditions.
- Transferable
- Whether the redesign could reasonably be applied to other workstations doing comparable work, distinct from whether it has actually been applied elsewhere yet.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about task redesign record
Is this one record covering the whole redesign programme, or one per change?+
One per change. Each specific redesign of a specific task gets its own record, sequentially numbered, pairing that task's before and after evidence. It does not summarise the programme; the annual ergonomics review does that.
What if the reassessment hasn't happened yet?+
The after fields are required once the reassessment exists; the record can be raised at implementation with the before evidence and change description in place, then completed once the reassessment ID and score are available.
Does the redesign have to reach an engineering control to count?+
No, but the control level field records honestly wherever it lands. A redesign that lands as an administrative control still gets recorded, and the level achieved is what lets someone later judge whether a stronger control should be pursued.
Who needs to sign this record?+
Ergonomics and engineering both, reflecting that the assessment evidence and the physical or procedural change are two different kinds of accountability that both need to stand behind the result.
What does transferable actually unlock?+
It flags the redesign for a design review, so a fix proven on one workstation is considered for comparable ones rather than being reinvented, or missed, elsewhere.
Why does the record ask about new risk introduced?+
Because a redesign that removes one hazard can introduce another, a fixture that reduces reach but creates a pinch point, for instance, and a record that only tracks the original score would miss it entirely.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Ergonomics and MSD Prevention
Discomfort Report
Lets a worker report aches, pain or discomfort early, before it becomes an injury
Body Part Symptom Survey
Maps where in the body workers are experiencing discomfort, across a team or area
MSD Injury Report
Records a diagnosed musculoskeletal injury, including affected body part and suspected task
Early Intervention Record
Records the actions taken when discomfort is reported, before it becomes an injury
MSD Trend Review
Reviews discomfort reports and MSD injuries across areas and tasks
Task Ergonomic Assessment
Assesses a work task using video, applying the methods you configure such as RULA, REBA or WISHA
More in Ergo Analysis
Cumulative Exposure Assessment
Assesses total physical load across a whole shift rather than one task, including rotation and overtime
Work Rest Cycle Assessment
Assesses whether recovery within and between tasks is enough for the load being carried
Ergonomic Cost Benefit Record
Records the cost of an ergonomic intervention against the injury, absence and productivity cost it avoids
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 11228 parts 1-3 — Ergonomics: manual handling
- ISO 45001:2018 clauses 8.1.2, 5.4, 9.1.1 and 10.2
- Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 and HSE manual handling assessment charts (GB)
- OSH Act Section 5(a)(1), General Duty Clause, and the NIOSH revised lifting equation (US)
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.