Did you know that October is National Ergonomics Month? Beginning in 2003, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) designated October to formally recognize the countless hours of research that go into the ergonomics profession. The goal is to promote the application of ergonomics through teaching, learning, networking, service, and fun!
Stay in the loop by becoming an HFES member today, or check out the National Ergonomics Month website at: http://hfesnem.org/
Thanks to Greg Cresswell of Humantech for this post.
I am surprised at the increasing number of presentations, discussions, and blog posts using 5S and ergonomics synonymously. As Lean programs begin to realize that good ergonomic design can reduce waste of motion, many people are making a leap assuming they are one in the same. The two are very distinct.
Occupational ergonomics (as defined by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) is "the science of fitting workplace conditions and job demands to the capabilities of the working population. Ergonomics is an approach or solution to deal with a number of problems - among them are work-related musculoskeltal disorders." Simply put: it is designing the job and tools to fit the people doing the work. The science part of fitting is based on using known limits and methods (anthropometry, cognitive limits, static strength, reaction time, etc.) to best design work, tools, job design and flow to fit the capabilities of people.
5S is a method for organizing a workplace to optimize flow. It's sometimes referred to as a housekeeping methodology; however this characterization can be misleading because organizing a workplace goes beyond housekeeping (see Seiton/Straighten). The key target areas for improvement are workplace morale and efficiency. The assertion of 5S is, by assigning everything a location, time is not wasted by looking for things, and it is quickly obvious when something is missing from its designated location.
The 5S's (in the original Japanese terms and English equivalents) are:
5S advocates believe the benefits of this methodology come from deciding what should be kept, where it should be kept, and how it should be stored. This decision making process usually comes from a dialog about standardization which builds a clear understanding, between employees, of how work should be done. It also instills ownership of the process in each employee.
5S is a valuable tool for those responsible for improving workplace conditions and this tool becomes even more effective when ergonomic principles are employed BUT it is only one tool and should not be relied upon to solve all ergonomic issues.
Just as you can't sterilize a hospital room with a broom, the work environment isn't free from ergonmic risk after 5S.
A post at Slow Leadership caught my attention the other day:
“Why you should think seriously about being less efficient.” Hmmm.
Though it may seem contradictory to what we know and understand in the world of lean and ergonomics, it makes total sense. Being efficient is all about minimizing waste, increasing productivity, and decreasing costs (think: “How can I do this with less?”). Being effective, however, is about finding the right solution and thinking outside of the box (think: “How can we do this better?”) Now it should go without saying that you need both to be successful; but it’s about how you utilize your resources that counts.
As usual,the 80/20 rule can be applied to various functions within a company:
Slow Leadership included a statement made by Jeff Bezos, CEO and founder of Amazon.com, on his thoughts about customer needs. I thought I’d include a couple of other examples of Bezos’ colleagues (who, by the way, also made it onto this year’s Time 100 list who are models of how to be more effective, not just efficient:
If you’re still not convinced, let’s close with a quote from Thomas Leonard, founder of CoachVille: “When you're effective, you are able to accomplish the worthwhile goal you've chosen. When you're efficient, you quickly carry out actions. You won't be effective, however, unless those actions result in your achieving a meaningful goal.”
Are you efficient, effective or efficiently effective? It makes a difference.
Jon Miller (Gemba Panta Rei) reminds us that "what you find on the floor tells you a lot". In fact, lean challenges aren't the only thing you'll find.
By opening your view to observe not only space (floor) and inanimate objects (wheels, Ohno circles, debris, etc.) but also to the people performing the tasks, you'll get a much better sense of the barriers to higher productivity. After all, people are the sole source of productivity.
What are you looking for?
It will become evident that lack of casters on carts, materials stored on the floor, obstacles like equipment and debris, and no Ohno circles are often the root cause of their non-value added motions and exposure to injury risk factors (musculoskeletal disorders).
So, what are you waiting for...hit the floor!
Photo credit:
Recently, Kevin Meyer (Evolving Excellence) offered that "people are more than a pair of hands. They have knowledge, creativity, experience and ideas. Even if that isn't represented on a P&L or balance sheet."
Kevin is right on point, people are the sole source of productivity in an organization (you could even say they are the soul of your company's competitive advantage). The key is having them engaged (is this term becoming overused?) or involved in improving/changing/optimizing their aspect of the business.
There is one way we've found to "keep score" when it comes to how well utilized your employees are. It's called the OSHA incident rate. High incident rates are an indication of how safe and efficient the workplace is. The lower the rate - the safer the environment - the more respect for employees is demonstrated.
This is very important stuff...consider some of these recent stats from a new report, "The State of Employee Engagement 2008", issued by global consultants BlessingWhite:
Fujio Cho, Toyota's Chairman, said "Manufacturers treating workers as simply one of the 'three M's --men, machines, and material -- won't develop in terms of international competitiveness."
The problem is that while many companies have excellent tools to optimize the performance of machines, and ensure the the smooth flow of raw, in process, and finished materials in their plants and to their customers, they generally lack tools to help them understand, engage and then optimize the performance of people.
This knowledge gap creates a trying fit for people, the output of which could be a painful and punishing workplace -- tough to engage when what you are engaging in hurts you.
Concentrating on lowering metrics like the OSHA incident rate is a first step in driving your company towards real Lean.
photo credit: laffy4k
David Zinger's article "A Tiny Secret: Small is Significant" is a great reminder about how small changes can make a big impact, especially when we're all fighting for more time, resources, and money. More often than not, we spend countless hours coming up with the "golden fix" to a problem, and once we have the solution, we spend more time convincing others to fund and support the fix.
Though you can't discount a good solid improvement that raises the bar on quality or productivity, you also can't discount the small changes that make a big difference to the people doing the job 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
Today, Humantech announced the start of its second annual Find It - Fix It Challenge. The contest recognizes simple and effective workplace solutions that result in increased productivity, imprved worker morale, and fewer workplace injuries and illnesses. The contest is open to all Humantech clients, past or present. We've found that many of these improvements came as a result of our RAPID Team Events (focused four day initiatives aimed at identifying as many ergonomic improvements as possible, and deploying real-time fixes and a 90 day plan to fix the rest, modeled on Kaizen events).
We're looking forward to another great list of entries that prove small IS significant!
photo credit: lazlo-photo
Recent Comments