Safety Management Safety Management I Six Sigma Safety Applying quality management principles to foster a zero-injury safety culture By Michael M. Williamsen www.asse.org JUNE 2005 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 41 IS SAFETY GIVEN THE SAME COMMITMENT as product quality? Are employees accountable for their own safety? Is safety excellence embedded into the company psyche? These fundamental questions are driving today’s safety revolution. In much the same way quality management made significant strides during the 1980s, industrial safety is poised for its own transformation. This arti- cle provides an actionable approach to how a zero- injury culture can be driven by adopting the same tools and tactics of product quality’s Six Sigma methodology. It includes a previously unpublished case study that documents the teamwork, method- ology and results of a corporate continuous improvement team at Frito-Lay Inc.; it involved 40 plants and 10,000 employees. Six Sigma tools are nonproprietary, with a grow- ing number of documented references to their statis- tical origin (ReVelle). This article documents their practical application to safety and their resulting injury breakthroughs (as illustrated in the case study and accompanying figures). Safety Performance Culture Like all innovations, Six Sigma encompasses the perspectives of leading thinkers in manufacturing and production. Although the concept originated with a group of Motorola engineers during the mid- 1980s, Six Sigma encompasses the theory and logic of quality pioneers such as W.E. Deming, Joseph Juran and Philip Crosby to address the question, “Is the effort to achieve quality dependent on detecting and fixing defects? Or can quality be achieved by preventing defects through manufacturing controls and product design?” At its core, this approach is about improving effectiveness and efficiency. Its primary pursuit is perfection—a never-ending dissatisfaction with cur- rent performance. What separates Six Sigma from conventional quality concepts is its focus on com- municating measurable error ratios. By incorporat- ing customer-focused objectives and metrics to drive continuous improvement—and by establishing processes which are so robust that defects rarely occur—Six Sigma quality objectives aspire to reach a three-parts-per-million error ratio at a 99.9996 per- cent incidence. Statistically, Six Sigma variations are the standard deviation around the mean, represent- ed by the Greek letter sigma (). Today’s Six Sigma quality community includes cer- tification that incorporates formal instruction, per- formance standards, and applying a wide range of analytical problem-solving tools such as Pareto charts, process maps and fishbone diagrams. Its mastery bor- rows martial arts vernacular (e.g., black belt, sensei) to define levels of understanding and performance. Six Sigma Control Levels In the author’s opinion, what Six Sigma did for quality is about to occur in industrial safety. The same desire to eliminate product mistakes is at work to reduce injury rates. This parallel journey has six levels. Each sigma control builds on the previous level until the sixth sigma—a zero-injury culture— is attained. One Sigma Control One sigma is set in the era of the three Es of safety: engineer, educate and enforce. The tools for these rudimentary safety mechanics include work orders, safety rules, injury investigations and com- pliance programs. While barely touching the sur- face of why injuries occur, one sigma tools establish the foundation for creating a safe work- place. As with one sigma in quality, the perform- ance (conceptually at least) is 68.5-percent error-free. This level represents the ability to sus- tain the essentials in worker safety. Michael M. Williamsen, Ph.D., is a consultant with CoreMedia Training Solutions, a Portland, OR- based safety products and services company. Williamsen has more than 30 years of business change management experience with companies such as Frito- Lay Inc., General Dynamics and Standard Oil. He earned his Ph.D. in business from Columbia Southern University.
Transcript
Safety ManagementSafety Management
I
Six SigmaSafetyApplying quality management principlesto foster a zero-injury safety cultureBy Michael M. Williamsen
www.asse.org JUNE 2005 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 41
IS SAFETY GIVEN THE SAME COMMITMENT asproduct quality? Are employees accountable fortheir own safety? Is safety excellence embedded intothe company psyche? These fundamental questionsare driving today’s safety revolution.
In much the same way quality managementmade significant strides during the 1980s, industrialsafety is poised for its own transformation. This arti-cle provides an actionable approach to how a zero-injury culture can be driven by adopting the sametools and tactics of product quality’s Six Sigmamethodology. It includes a previously unpublishedcase study that documents the teamwork, method-ology and results of a corporate continuousimprovement team at Frito-Lay Inc.; it involved 40plants and 10,000 employees.
Six Sigma tools are nonproprietary, with a grow-ing number of documented references to their statis-tical origin (ReVelle). This article documents theirpractical application to safety and their resultinginjury breakthroughs (as illustrated in the case studyand accompanying figures).
Safety Performance CultureLike all innovations, Six Sigma encompasses the
perspectives of leading thinkers in manufacturingand production. Although the concept originatedwith a group of Motorola engineers during the mid-1980s, Six Sigma encompasses the theory and logicof quality pioneers such as W.E. Deming, JosephJuran and Philip Crosby to address the question, “Isthe effort to achieve quality dependent on detectingand fixing defects? Or can quality be achieved bypreventing defects through manufacturing controlsand product design?”
At its core, this approach is about improvingeffectiveness and efficiency. Its primary pursuit isperfection—a never-ending dissatisfaction with cur-rent performance. What separates Six Sigma from
conventional quality concepts is its focus on com-municating measurable error ratios. By incorporat-ing customer-focused objectives and metrics to drivecontinuous improvement—and by establishingprocesses which are so robust that defects rarelyoccur—Six Sigma quality objectives aspire to reach athree-parts-per-million error ratio at a 99.9996 per-cent incidence. Statistically, Six Sigma variations arethe standard deviation around the mean, represent-ed by the Greek letter sigma (�).
Today’s Six Sigma quality community includes cer-tification that incorporates formal instruction, per-formance standards, and applying a wide range ofanalytical problem-solving tools such as Pareto charts,process maps and fishbone diagrams. Its mastery bor-rows martial arts vernacular (e.g., black belt, sensei) todefine levels of understanding and performance.
Six Sigma Control LevelsIn the author’s opinion, what Six Sigma did for
quality is about to occur in industrial safety. Thesame desire to eliminate product mistakes is at workto reduce injury rates. This parallel journey has sixlevels. Each sigma control builds on the previouslevel until the sixth sigma—a zero-injury culture—is attained.
One Sigma ControlOne sigma is set in the era of the three Es of
safety: engineer, educate and enforce. The tools forthese rudimentary safety mechanics include workorders, safety rules, injury investigations and com-pliance programs. While barely touching the sur-face of why injuries occur, one sigma toolsestablish the foundation for creating a safe work-place. As with one sigma in quality, the perform-ance (conceptually at least) is 68.5-percenterror-free. This level represents the ability to sus-tain the essentials in worker safety.
Michael M. Williamsen,Ph.D., is a consultant withCoreMedia TrainingSolutions, a Portland, OR-based safety products andservices company.Williamsen has more than30 years of businesschange managementexperience withcompanies such as Frito-Lay Inc., General Dynamicsand Standard Oil. Heearned his Ph.D. inbusiness from ColumbiaSouthern University.
Williamsen Feature June 2005.qxd 5/16/2005 12:32 PM Page 41
42 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JUNE 2005 www.asse.org
across 20 categories (above), cross-tabulated by man-agement, supervisors and frontline employees. Theself-administered questionnaire includes 73 questionsand provides firms with a statistically reliable methodto answer the questions, “Where do our people believewe are weak?” and “Where do they agree and dis-agree?” Today’s safety perception survey results can becompared with a database that contains more than two
million respondents. It is a toolthat provides statistically validdata for industrywide compara-tive analyses.
This development added animportant dimension to pin-pointing improvement oppor-tunities. Not only does itidentify safety shortcomings,its implementation is recog-nized as a valuable “buy-in”mechanism to set the stage forcontinuous improvement workteams—a necessary componentto reach four sigma control—99.97-percent injury-free. Four-sigma control concentrates onthe nonobservable “what isbelieved” in workplace safety.
Two Sigma ControlThe tools for two sigma control include observa-
tion programs, job safety analyses and near-hitreporting. At this level, awareness and analysis toolsare applied to reach a two sigma level—or an injury-free rate of about 98.5 percent. Research indicatesthat a 10-percent error level requires about 3,000observations to detect and act on mistakes [e.g.,Harry(a),(b); Jackson; Walmsley]. As errors decrease,more observations are needed to detect the incorrectactivities, which means a one-percent error levelrequires about 10,000 observations to be statisticallyvalid [Petersen(b) 114-118]. It is a benchmark thatunderscores how challenging it is to move beyondtwo sigma control without adding to the traditionalsafety repertoire of observation programs and“rearview mirror” reporting. Two sigma safety con-trol is focused on “what is seen” in the workplace.
Three Sigma Control Three sigma product quality requires well-defined
responsibilities and accountabilities to provide pre-dictable results on a regular basis. The same is true forthree sigma safety [Petersen(a)]. Without safetyaccountability at all levels, it is essentially impossiblefor a company to attain this level of control.Organizations that have been able to move from twosigma to three sigma generally attribute their successto the introduction of individual accountabilities intotheir safety programs. Embracing the conventions ofaccountability and personal responsibility is a criticalfactor in achieving a 99.7-percent injury-free work-place. While three sigma is commendable, companiesat this level still incur lost-time injuries at a rate ofthree per 1,000 employees. Three sigma safetyaddresses “what is done” in the workplace.
Four Sigma ControlBeginning in 1979, Dan Petersen teamed with
Charles Bailey to develop a comprehensive and statis-tically validated safety perception survey on behalf ofthe U.S. rail industry [Bailey(a),(b); Bailey and Peter-sen]. Today, the survey is used to audit an organiza-tion’s safety culture and identify perception gaps
The Safety PerceptionSurvey: 20 Categories
1) Accident investigation. Does your safety systemdeal positively with the investigation of accidents? Arethe real causes ever covered up for political reasons or tomeet production quotas? Do employees feel free to dis-cuss the underlying causes and circumstances?
2) Quality of supervision. Are supervisors perceivedto be competent in accident prevention? Do they holdmeaningful safety discussions with employees on a reg-ular basis? Do they reward safe behavior?
3) Substance abuse. Are employees with substanceabuse problems allowed in the workplace? Is there aneffective program for prevention and rehabilitation?
4) Attitudes toward safety. Is there a positive attitudetoward safety at all levels of the organization? Do em-ployees feel that management is fair and effective in itsapproach to safety?
5) Communication. Do managers and employeescommunicate freely on safety issues? Are there informalsystems of communication in addition to the more tradi-tional channels?
6) New employees. Are new employees thoroughlytrained in safety? Does training continue on the job withreinforcement from experienced workers?
7) Safety performance goals. Do workers and man-agement formulate behavior-oriented safety goals? Aregoals effectively communicated to all employees?
8) Hazard correction. Is there an effective system fordealing with reported hazards? Is this system understoodand supported at all levels of the organization?
9) Inspections. Are there regular inspections of alloperations? Do employees have an opportunity to par-ticipate in these inspections?
10) Employee involvement. Are there opportunitiesfor employees to become involved in safety throughsuch means as quality improvement teams, ad hoc com-mittees or effective supervision?
Figure 1Figure 1
Action Item Matrix: Accountability Team
Williamsen Feature June 2005.qxd 5/16/2005 12:32 PM Page 42
www.asse.org JUNE 2005 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 43
sionals need to implement a similar approach towhat zero-error quality cultures use in manufac-turing. To do this, an organization’s continuousimprovement teams must “own” and imple-ment the following:
•A regular, sanctionedmeeting system with action-able rules and mechanismsand trained leaders to man-age the CI process in safety.
•Six Sigma analyticaltechniques/tools with safetyissues and projectible data.
Once these critical fac-tors are in place, a zero-error safety culture can be arecognized strength along-side the traditional businessnecessities of customer ser-vice, quality assurance andmanufacturing efficiencies.As the case study will illus-trate, the resulting savingsin both cost and hardshipcan be dramatic.
Applying Six SigmaTools in the Workplace
Five and Six Sigma in-jury control requires statis-tical process control tools, adedicated continuous im-provement (CI) team andactive participation from alllevels of employees. Thislatter component empha-
sizes the importance of effec-tive meetings. Organizingeffective “subteams” to executetasks is essential. Furthermore,because many of the subteamscombine cross-functional em-ployees from disparate groups,it is critical to delineate provenprinciples to create a meetingstructure that ensures efficien-cy, participation, action andhigh performance.
Effective Meetings forContinuous Improvement
To achieve results from safe-ty meetings, the person whocalls the meeting must focus onits purpose and desired out-comes. By deploying the POPmodel—purpose, outcomes,process—the group can remainfocused and on task.
Purpose The purpose is a mini-mission statement. Why is
the group meeting? If the purpose is unclear, start
Five Sigma & Six Sigma ControlThe next challenge is to use the data from the pre-
vious four levels of safety:•injury and work order data;•observable processes;•accountabilities;•information based on a safety perception survey.The material from these four areas needs to be
applied in a rapid, accurate and functional way.Once a company is nearing four sigma, the majorbarriers to effective cross-functional continuousimprovement are eliminated. A roadmap can bedeveloped to an unprecedented five sigma (99.997percent) and Six Sigma (three injuries per millionemployees) safety performance. At this point, anorganization can approach a zero-injury workplace.
As in a Six Sigma quality program, all founda-tional mechanics—engineer, educate, enforce,observe, investigate, accountability principles andthought patterns—are required to establish anauthentic Six Sigma safety culture. The challenge isto create a sustainable safety culture where height-ened safety decisions occur without thought. It is aprocess that begins by addressing the milestones tocontinuously improve.
Good data are necessary. However, to achievefour sigma performance and beyond, SH&E profes-
11) Program awareness. Do awareness programsstress safety both on and off the job? Do employees lookfavorably on these efforts?
12) Performance recognition. Is good safety perform-ance recognized at all levels of the organization? Areworkers routinely reinforced on the job for safe behavioror is recognition merely relegated to occasional safetyawards?
13) Discipline. Is the company perceived as takinga fair approach to handling rules infractions? Is the em-phasis on discipline in proportion to the emphasis onpositive reinforcement?
14) Safety contacts. Are there regular safety contactswith all employees? Are one-on-one discussions used inaddition to safety meetings?
15) Operating procedures. Are safe procedures seenas both necessary and adequate by all levels of theorganization? Are employees actually aware of thecompany’s safety-related procedures?
16) Supervisor training. Are supervisors perceived tobe well-trained and able to handle problems related tosafety? Is their performance measured and rewardedappropriately?
17) Support for safety. Is the whole organization seenas working together to create a safe work environment?Is each level of the organization perceived as contribut-ing effectively to the safety effort?
18) Employee training. Do employees feel that theyreceive adequate training in how to work safely? Doemployees understand how to work safely?
19) Safety climate. Is the climate conducive to adopt-ing safe attitudes and work habits? Is safety perceived asimportant to the organization?
20) Management credibility. Is management seen aswanting safe performance? Are they willing to providenecessary resources to achieve this performance?
Source: Bailey(b).
Task: DefineMachineOperator RoleDefinition
The key safety accountabilitiesof the operator are to use safe workpractices, use all safety equipmentwhen required and promote safetywith coworkers.
Responsibilities1) Before each shift, inspect/
check the work area to identify anyunsafe issues and correct or initiatecorrective action as needed.
2) Perform daily housekeepingduties to keep/maintain work areain a safe and clutter-free condition.
3) Attend and participate in allshift supervisor safety meetings.
4) Team with the supervisor topresent/discuss topics in the super-visor safety meeting (two to fourper year).
5) Initiate and follow up on safetywork orders.
6) Provide appropriate safety andhealth training to new/transferredpersonnel.
7) Review and improve job haz-ard analyses regularly.
8) Be familiar with all documentsin work area.
9) Pay attention to coworkers andoutside personnel working in thearea. If they are not following properpractices or procedures, talk withthem immediately about correctingtheir activities.
10) Inspect containers to ensurethat they are labeled correctly. If not,relabel them immediately.
Measures of Performance1) Appraisal by supervisor of
individual task achievement.2) Observations by supervisor.
Williamsen Feature June 2005.qxd 5/16/2005 12:32 PM Page 43
44 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JUNE 2005 www.asse.org
“Develop safety accountabilities for all levels of theorganization that will help eliminate injuries.”
OutcomesWhat will be accomplished when the stated pur-
pose is achieved? This is a brainstormed list of theissues that the meeting is designed to address. It is alsothe metric for whether those tasks have been accom-plished. The whole team or group participates in set-ting these outcomes and, therefore, seeks completeagreement as to definitions of success. Not only willthis eliminate future differences, it also helps eliminate
with an open-ended question, “What is our purposefor this meeting?” If necessary, record responses on aflipchart until agreement is reached. Subsequentmeetings of this same group need to restate the pur-pose and make sure it remains on target. If the meet-ing starts to wander or branch into a tangent, askwhether the current topic is “on purpose.” A typicalsafety purpose may resemble a statement such as,
This previously unpublished case studyillustrates how Six Sigma measurementswere applied to a Fortune 500 food prod-uct company that was experiencing hun-dreds of injuries across multiple facilities.The initiative resulted in a rapidimprovement in workplace injuries andthe start of a zero-injury safety culture.
Pareto ChartsThe Pareto chart is one of the most help-
ful visual tools in the safety Six Sigma toolbox. These charts help to pinpoint unac-ceptable occurrences that warrant high pri-ority. The charts (Figures 2-8) show thefrequency and severity of problems andwhere they occurred geographically.
Process MapsProcess maps or process flow dia-
grams graphically illustrate how a task orprocess can be accomplished effectivelywithin the constraints of time and re-sources (Figures 9-12, pp. 47-48). This toolallows a continuous improvement teamto break down a complicated sequence ofevents into simple metered steps, which
result in a “spaghetti diagram.” The teamthen analyzes each step in the processbeing studied and optimizes each indi-vidual task to a point where inefficien-cies, errors, complicated “spaghetti” andsafety hazards are eliminated.
Cause-&-EffectDiagram
As the CI team con-tinued its efforts toeliminate back and soft-tissue injuries, the safetyteam used another SixSigma tool, the cause-and-effect diagram (Fig-ure 13, which is alsoreferred to as a fishboneor Ishigawa diagram).Team members wereable to refer to the chartto identify multiplepotential causes for theproblem at hand. The“bones” of the normalpotential “cause” cate-
gories include people, methods, machin-ery and materials. As problem situationsvary, this Six Sigma tool has the added ben-efit of being able to creatively identify dif-ferent elements to better fit the individualsituation. For the food products company,
A Case Study: Six
Figure 2Figure 2
Lost-Time Injuries for 10 PeriodsA baseline must be determined to indicate where the investigation shouldbegin. This figure illustrates lost-time injuries over the last 10 months by vari-ous departments, and breaks out which departments warrant the most atten-tion (e.g., packaging with 52 injuries, then shipping and processing). Onceidentified, plants with high numbers of injuries in these departments deter-mined where to begin the continuous improvement in safety initiative.
Figure 3Figure 3
Injuries by Gender“Are males or females more apt to have costly injuries?”The pie chart is an effective tool whenever the variablesare limited and the sum is 100 percent. This examplereveals a need to find out why so many women weregetting injured.
Figure 4Figure 4
Lost-Time InjuriesBy sorting injury data, the company drilled down onback and shoulder/arm injuries for individual facili-ties. Ultimately, it was found that all the sites wereexperiencing similar injury patterns, which presenteda high-priority focus area.
Williamsen Feature June 2005.qxd 5/16/2005 12:32 PM Page 44
www.asse.org JUNE 2005 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 45
accomplishment of these account-abilities; a reward system that rein-forces these activities; reducedinjury frequency as a result of doingthis work well.Process
How will the purpose and out-comes be accomplished? What
typically follows is a description of how the team willwork. Often, it is divided into small problem-solvinggroups that include volunteers to accomplish smalltasks. Why volunteers? When people get to place
discussions that stray from the desired outcome. Atypical set of outcomes for a safety team might be:Accountabilities that make a difference in safety forevery job in the facility; a tracking system to follow
Sigma Tool Usageenvironment and technology were addedas potential causes. After listing all poten-tial causes, each team member voted for
two or three of the individual fishbone dia-gram causes deemed most important. Thisindividual voting process is referred to as
“Pareto voting” in Six Sigma organiza-tions; other trainers use the term “multi-voting” (ReVelle). It is not a rigorousstatistical evaluation; rather, it is a methodthat uses the personal experiences andjudgment of the engaged subject-matterexperts. It is an efficient way to quicklydetermine the top “vote-getting” issuesbelieved to warrant more research anddetail. These “focus causes” were thenplaced in an AIM for deeper team analysisand problem resolution.
In the next step, the team began a sys-tematic search for low-cost, highly effec-tive solutions. The cause-and-effectdiagram (in group mode) allowed eachteam member to record what s/hethought was important. In turn, the teambegan to work on areas of interestbelieved necessary to be resolved in orderto eliminate back and soft-tissue injuries(Figure 14, pg. 49).
From start to finish, the CI teamapproach to safety-issue resolution work-ed well for the manufacturing environ-ment. The efforts to apply Six Sigma andother CI tools led to improvements inboth total recordable and lost-time injuryrates (Figures 15-17, pg. 49).
Figure 5Figure 5
Back Injuries by LocationExamination of back injuries and where they occurred provided a lens throughwhich to categorize injuries. To begin the investigation and issue-resolutionprocess, volunteers were asked from relevant departments. By sharing this visualwith the continuous improvement team, hands-on data and perspective weregathered and troubleshooting began.
Although the impactcannot be entirelyattributed to theteam initiatives,the number ofserious injuriesdropped by morethan 80 percentover the courseof two years.
Figure 6Figure 6
Back Injuries by Age“Are the back injuries age-related?” While the initial expectation hypothesized that an olderworkforce were a high probability segment, this was not the case. Most back injuries werereported by workers over age 20 and under age 40. This Pareto chart represents scores ofback injuries in some 40 manufacturing facilities. The chart was not meant to determine thecause of back injuries, but to illustrate whether advanced age was a significant factor as hadbeen presumed for many years. The CI team’s conclusion was that the type of injury shouldbe the primary consideration to be investigated, not the employee’s age.
Williamsen Feature June 2005.qxd 5/16/2005 12:32 PM Page 45
46 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JUNE 2005 www.asse.org
themselves in performancezones where they are comfort-able, they are more likely tosucceed. Conversely, quick del-egation can lead to having thewrong people assigned to thewrong task. If there are notenough volunteers to performall the work in the time allot-ted, time or resources (or both)may need to be increased. Onedistinction must be remem-bered throughout: This is not acrisis team; it is an improve-ment team that fosters the con-tinuous improvement process.
Action Item MatrixIn many cases, a significant
number of tasks need to becompleted by various people invarying time frames. To effec-tively manage this wide spec-trum, it is best to use an actionitem matrix (AIM), which is asimple five-column spread-sheet (Figure 1, pg. 42). Thecolumns (from left to right) are:
•Item number. Each itemon the list is numbered. Asitems are completed, they aremoved to the bottom of the list.This provides a record of whatthe team has completed aswell as what still needs to beaccomplished.
•Task to be accomplished.This is a simple, succinct state-ment of the issue. Each task oraction item is a small, manage-able portion of the larger proj-ect scope.
•The team. The list of vol-unteers who have agreed toaccomplish this action item.Each item may have one ormore volunteers—or in somecases none, if the assignment isnot ready to be worked on.
•The date. This indicates thenext report date for the taskteam on this action item. It maybe a completion date, a progressreport date or other target date.
•Comments. This fieldholds information pertinent tothe action item, e.g., “awaitingvendor quote.”
At this point, the team has itsassignments, the POP statementand its progress-tracking mecha-nism, and the AIM. How often
Figure 7Figure 7
Injuries vs. MonthWere more injuries occurring during certain times of the year? Could shipping schedulesbe a factor? The Six Sigma team was still seeking some “silver bullet” that would provide asimple, quick action plan. The Pareto chart in this figure revealed that neither was a pre-dominant factor and, as a result, eliminated any false hypotheses and red herrings thatcould waste time and effort.
Figure 8Figure 8
Injuries per ShiftThe CI team also assessed where injuries were occurring within an individual plant by shift.While employee figures revealed a high injury incidence rate during the second shift, theyalso directed attention to a substance abuse issue. The swing shift employees had manifest-ed a mini-subculture, which led to a quick resolution to address the issue. Pareto chartsallow continuous safety improvement teams to focus on what is different, then question why.All that remained was for the internal safety teams to address the issues highlighted by theSix Sigma continuous improvement process.
Williamsen Feature June 2005.qxd 5/16/2005 12:32 PM Page 46
www.asse.org JUNE 2005 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 47
should the teams meet? Thewhole team meets every twoweeks, with the task or sub-teams meeting more frequentlyas they are problem-solvingunits. More-frequent wholeteam meetings do not allow thesubteams enough time to com-
Figure 9Figure 9
CaseErectionProcessThis figure is a flowchartfor erecting a cardboardcase for packaging thefood product. After a thor-ough discussion, the safetyteam can identify keyareas for concern: reachingfor a new case, twistingthe body, inspecting thecase, possibly throwingout rejects, unfolding thecase, etc. Based on thisprocess-flow diagram, theteam started to understandthe numerous reasons forthe prevalence of ergo-nomics-related injuries.
Reach for new case—twist body
Unfold case
Apply label
Erect case
Reach and place case on stand
Pack case
Fold case
Throw case
Visually inspectcase—no good,
throw out
Figure 10Figure 10
One-Pound Package Movements Per HourBy analyzing operators’ work tasks, packaging maneuvers are assessed for a one-hour peri-od. In this example, the total weight was equal to 1,950 pounds per hour. The calculationswould ultimately include the weight of handling and moving full cases, which brought thetotal weight to almost two tons per hour. Examples such as these demonstrate the greaterimpact of ergonomics issues.
Example: One-pound package movements every hour1,800 grasp300 case reach150 twist450 fold/unfold, erect167 throw1,800 package reach1,800 package place
Pounds per hour:1,800 packages150 cases1,950 poundsThis figure puts the preceding statistics into a Pareto bar format. In this instance, the
process map was a better presentation of the data than a Pareto chart.
Figure 11Figure 11
Packer Process Flow DiagramThis figure provides another look at process flow by including both sequential tasks andtheir timing as they relate to employee functions. By breaking down the packaging processinto micro steps, the safety team started recognizing areas to reduce the amount of muscle-strain-related injuries. The safety team then had a micro and macro perspective on the datafor a more complete picture.
Williamsen Feature June 2005.qxd 5/16/2005 12:32 PM Page 47
48 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JUNE 2005 www.asse.org
plete their tasks and are an inef-ficient use of time. Less-frequentmeetings do not create the need-ed sense of urgency.
An entire safety programwas developed in less than ninemonths using this meetingprocess [Petersen(c)]. Hourlyand salaried employeesapplied these guidelines for all20 safety perception survey cat-egories. Although the impactcannot be entirely attributed tothe team initiatives, the numberof serious injuries dropped bymore than 80 percent over thecourse of two years (see Figures15-17, pg. 49).
Effective SafetyTask Forces
How are safety taskforcescreated? How are tasks priorityranked? The answers are sum-marized in this process:
•Start with an AIM.•At Frito-Lay, supervisors
trained in CI techniques couldgenerally lead up to two CIteams of three to 10 peoplewhile still performing theirnormal work tasks.
•Attempt to enlist only vol-unteers so people assign them-
Figure 12Figure 12
Injury SequenceThis figure was developed as a result of a continuous improvement team’s effort to achieveconsistent injury reporting and analysis throughout the corporation. The team found thateach of the plants handled its injured employees in its own way. Employees from the plantswere assembled to analyze the injury action process (below). The resulting process map waswhat worked best and most consistently in the manufacturing environment.
It was found that when plants sent the supervisor to the clinics with injured employees,every step in the process functioned better. Part of the reason supervisors took more person-al responsibility for employee safety was because of the cost and inconvenience of leavingthe plant every time an injury occurred.
When questioned, plant personnel believed there was a more consistent and clear discus-sion of the injury (and description of work tasks) with healthcare professionals when thesupervisor was present. These same plant personnel felt that the employees needed an addi-tional perspective to describe or reconstruct the incident. Ultimately, it was decided that arevised approach should include personal employee care as opposed to simply sendinginjured employees alone, by cab, to a clinic. This was viewed as a significant improvementby the employees. However, the real effort to eliminate all injuries—not simply handle themcorrectly—remained at large.
Injury
Communication of Actions
CorrectiveActions
Injury ReviewBoard
Staff Reviewof Injury
InvestigateInjury
First Reportof Injury
Foreman Returns to Work With or Without Employee
TreatmentForeman TakesEmployee to ClinicFirst Aid
Figure 13Figure 13
Cause-&-Effect for Packers
Air conditioned (cold)StandingNo footrest/cushionsOnly assigned breaksWork “hurt” philosophy existsHigh turnover of EEsHigh turnover of supervisors
Poor trainingNo preconditioningNo return to work physicalLittle rotation of workstationNo assimilation programInconsistent supervisionTraining support by management lackingSupervisers don’t reinforce proper proceduresEEs clean up spillage/areaEEs responsible for quality control
UntrainedUnconditionedNo hiring profileReturned injured EEs to same jobNo work hardeningNo EE input to improve situationSupervisors at low training levelEntry-level job20-percent long-term EEs
Not state of artAuto case packers coming?
Doesn’t stack for ease of pickupIsn’t ergonomically designed
Throw casesStack cases
All manual tasksFor cases
Speeds seemingly set highIncorrect heights for EEs
Little to no automationNo diagnostics
Slippery bagsVarious sizes
Different stacking configurationsDifferent placement configurations
Seals fail regularlyCases often bad
Soft-tissue injuries$1,500,000/year direct cost
60 people injured
Environment Methods People
Technology Machinery Materials
Williamsen Feature June 2005.qxd 5/16/2005 12:32 PM Page 48
Walmsley, A. “SixSigma Enigma.” Globe andMail. Oct. 1997.
selves to tasks they want to pur-sue and are willing to make thetime to complete.
•Implement only short-term,90-day teams that have effectivefacilitation, leadership and clo-sure. If those three characteris-tics are not achievable, then theteams should not be initiated.The short-sighted approach oftrying to “do everything foreverybody right now” will onlylead to frustration.
•Have teams meet everytwo weeks to reconnect ona regular basis. The timebetween meetings can beincreased to three weeks, butthe groups should not meetmore often than every twoweeks. Subteams should meetas necessary to test, discussand resolve problems. The“Task” sidebar on pg. 43provides an exam-ple of hourlyemployee safetyaccountab i l i t i esdeveloped throughthis process. Thisprocess can can beused in each of the20 safety perceptionsurvey categories.
ConclusionThe case study
and figures demon-strate how a CIapproach helped toimprove safety per-formance in a man-ufacturing setting.Injury data werecombined with perception survey data to obtain afull spectrum of workplace realities—both observ-able and hidden. Hourly and salaried employeesthen team—using Six Sigma tools and effective safe-ty meeting techniques—to develop and implement azero-injury safety culture, a workplace that neithertolerates, nor experiences, injuries. �
ReferencesBailey, C.W.(a). “Improve Safety Program Effectiveness with
Perception Surveys.” Professional Safety. Oct. 1993: 28-32.Bailey, C.W.(b). “Using Behavioral Techniques to Improve
Safety Program Effectiveness.” Washington, DC: American Assn.of Railroads, 1988.
Bailey, C. and D. Petersen. “Using Perception Surveys to AssessSafety System Effectiveness.” Professional Safety. Feb. 1989: 22-26.
Harry, M.J.(a) “Framework for Business Leadership.” QualityProgress. April 2000.
Action ItemsThis figure lists agreed-upon action items from all the cause-and-effect diagrams, processmaps and Pareto charts. Team members then began focused efforts to eliminate the dis-abling back and soft-tissue injuries experienced each year.
Figure 15Figure 15
Total Injury FrequencyThe CI team was formed in 1985 at a time whenthe 40-plant aggregate injury-reduction ratesstalled. Based on total injury rates alone, thereappears to be a direct correlation between teamefforts and their use of Six Sigma tools.
Figure 16Figure 16
Lost-Time InjuriesHistoryLost-time data also improved during the sametime period.
Figure 17Figure 17
Lost-Time InjuriesFrequency
Williamsen Feature June 2005.qxd 5/16/2005 12:33 PM Page 49
![Peer-Reviewed Quantified Risk Assessmentaeasseincludes.asse.org/professionalsafety/pastissues/060/09/F3... · He has nearly 110 research publica- ... Safety Directorate (OISD)]. Because](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5aeed74d7f8b9a572b8d4741/peer-reviewed-quantified-risk-asse-has-nearly-110-research-publica-safety-directorate.jpg)
