## 4 Results
### Management Implications  
The results of the top five fault modes are: \"F17\" (unsafe distance) > \"F10\" (wrapped/ clamped) > \"F4\" (fall on same level) > \"F12\" (highway incident) > \"F17\" (overexertion). \"F17\" (unsafe distance) is the most important risk, and the main reason might be that the person cannot clearly recognize either the danger situation or his own work scope, according to the interviewee. For example, the crane driver asks you to help with hooks, lanyards, etc., and then you enter the unsafe range of the crane operation. Sometimes, you take the initiative to direct or help and enter the unsafe range but are not delegated to do it. In addition, \"F10\" (wrapped/clamped) is the top-2 important risk. To improve efficiency in the warehouse facility, the power equipment seems to be running faster and faster when it is processing some added-value activities. Therefore, the accidents of limb injury from both \"F10\" (wrapped/clamped) and \"F12\" (highway incident: top 4) appear to be more serious than they were in the past when accidents happened.  
The accidents of \"F4\" (fall on same level) or \"F1\" (overexertion) appear to be important but often overlooked, and are the top 3 and 5 important risks, respectively, separately based on the ranks of crucial risk as shown in Table 9. The main reasons for the injuries being overlooked by people might be that they do not have serious influences on the physical and mental health of employees, but the total cost of accidents is surprisingly staggering. In fact, more than $600 billion in direct costs for worker compensation were spent on compensable injuries in the United States from 1998 to 2010, and the costs of worker compensation for \"F1\" (overexertion) and \"F4\" (fall on same level) account for 26.8% and 16.9%, respectively [2], which are also the top 2 causes of disabling injuries.  
Risk mitigation is an issue that affects all stakeholders from board members to all employees. The empirical results of 18 critical risks of picking and material-handling accidents improve visibility compared with the past research study [24]. According to the literature review [2], the result of relative ranking seems to be consistent with the logistics industry risk accidents evaluated, or it is closely in line with the current industrial situation in Taiwan. The developed results of evaluating the risks of picking and material-handling accidents in a warehouse facility are, thus, able to create values for logistics risk mitigation in practice in Taiwan. Therefore, it is better to benchmark the significance, which combines to indicate the potential hazard areas, provide safety handbooks, use the right tools for the job, and maintain a safe working environment for accident prevention.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**No.** & **Failure Modes** & \(\otimes\)**Wi** & **Rank** \\ \hline F1 & Overexertion & 0.614 & 5 \\ F2 & Repetitive motion & 0.560 & 11 \\ F3 & Bodily reaction & 0.463 & 17 \\ F4 & Fall on same level & 0.668 & 3 \\ F5 & Fall to lower level & 0.594 & 6 \\ F6 & Struck by object & 0.580 & 10 \\ F7 & Struck against object & 0.487 & 14 \\ F8 & Struck by protrusion & 0.485 & 15 \\ F9 & Object falling & 0.594 & 7 \\ F10 & Wrapped/clamped & 0.708 & 2 \\ F11 & Caught in or & 0.587 & 8 \\ F12 & Highway incident & 0.634 & 4 \\ F13 & Tool rebound/bump & 0.488 & 13 \\ F14 & Electric shock & 0.586 & 9 \\ F15 & Burn by high/low & 0.443 & 18 \\ temperature & & & \\ F16 & Hazardous materials & 0.477 & 16 \\ F17 & Unsafe distance & 0.725 & 1 \\ F18 & Assault/violence & 0.515 & 12 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 9: Results of the GRA method for ranking 18 failure modes.