The 30-Inch View

EU Recognizes Importance of Ergonomics and Safety

Recently I was on the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work website and there was a post titled European Week aims at cutting workplace accidents and diseases, and it made me think of the differences between the approach of the EU to ergonomics and safety versus the US approach. What drew me to this article was the statement from the Director of EU-OSHA:

"Every three-and-a-half minutes somebody in the EU dies from work-related causes and every four-and-a-half seconds an EU worker is involved in an accident that forces them to stay at home for at least three working days. This is unacceptable! We need a change, and this change starts with assessing workplace risks. We have to make employers, workers, safety representatives and policy makers aware that proper risk assessment is the key to good workplace safety and health management."

Last year, I spent 20 weeks in Europe rolling out a corporate ergonomics process and it allowed me to see first hand cultural differences between sites. The attitude of a lot of the companies I've worked with in Europe is "let's plan early and do it right the first time". If they say that Ergonomics and Safety are their number one priority, it is. In the US, I see a lot of advertisements at facilities boasting the importance of safety and ergonomics and how it is the number one priority, but in practice, it is only number one until something more important comes along. In the blog post Leverage Internal Resources for Safety & Ergonomics Communication, Cindy touches on advertising within a facility. This is very important, but national advertising can also be very effective and gives support to companies. Such was the goal with European Week for Safety and Health at Work.

We recently posted A Prescription for Carpal Tunnel Vision: Thoughts on an Ergonomic Standard which was a response to the recent news of an ergonomics regulation potentially coming into effect with the change in the US Presidency. Although labor unions tend to support ergonomics regulations to reduce workplace injuries, businesses in the US often feel that supporting ergonomics will be too costly. They do not want to invest the time or energy into something that may not show an immediate return on investment. They do not understand the long term value of ergonomics. This is in part due to the approach that companies take with their ergonomics process. As many companies do with their Lean Manufacturing initiatives, ergonomic principles are applied in a non-systemic way. By not seeing the whole picture and understanding all of the aspects that need to be considered, they end up unsuccessful. Successful companies understand that if you invest resources, time, and money early, it will save much more in the long run in terms of injuries, rework, and productivity. Being proactive and systematic in your approach is the key.

The European Union recognizes that being proactive means looking at risk and not injuries. Risk reduction starts with assessments. In order to fix a problem or reduce risk, you first need to understand it. Only after you have identified risk can you move towards implementing countermeasures to reduce that risk. All of this data needs to be tracked so that you can ensure that your countermeasures are making a significant difference. When done well, this is a process that will yield a startling ROI in both the short-term and long-term.

 

Safety Professionals and Respect - Part 1 - ROI

A recent post at the OSHA Underground blog relates that Safety Engineers feel that they get little respect, and we agree that the frustration many professionals feel is real and a burden to success, not only in construction, as was indicated, but in all industries.

OSHA Underground alluded to two of the major causes; one created by safety people themselves and the other by their employers. In this post, let's discuss the first:

"Efforts are not valued" - Many employers do not value the contribution and results achieved by their safety staff because no value is determined. Safety professionals have a tendency to fall back on the archaic measurement of injury and illness rate, and injury cost as their measure of success. This is a lagging measure of consequences. It is a traditional measure that allows one to focus on cost avoidance. As a result, most safety people demonstrate their value by subjectively projecting cost savings through injury avoidance, not actual measurement of their contribution.

In business and in life, value is measured in one way; MONEY. Safety professionals need to expand their ability and use of objective measures that demonstrate Return on Invesment (ROI). Simply put, what is the monetary return to the bottom line of a business from that investment in the safety program. This means breaking away from traditional safety measures that have been handed down for the past century and finding new ways of measuring contribution. Most importantly, the measures should be familair, common, and of interest to management. For example, the contribution of safety towards decreasing cycle time (production), increased employee retention, and improvements to quality.

When safety professionals begin to measure and demonstrate the value they offer (MONEY) then business leaders will value the efforts of programs and individuals.

5S is not Ergonomics

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:

• Seiri/Sorting: Going through all tools, parts, and materials in the plant and work area and keeping only essential items. Everything else is stored or discarded.
• Seiton/Straighten or Set in Order: Focuses on efficiency. When translated to "Straighten or Set in Order", it sounds more like sorting or sweeping, but the intent is to arrange the tools, equipment and parts in a manner that promotes work flow and maximize efficiency.
• Seiso/Sweeping: Systematic cleaning to keep the workplace clean as well as neat. Daily activity at the end of each shift, the work area is cleaned up and everything is restored to its place, making it easy to know what goes where and to know when everything is where it should be are essential here. The key point is a part of daily work - not an occasional activity initiated when things get too messy.
• Seiketsu/Standardizing. Standardized work practices or operating in a consistent and standardized fashion. Everyone knows exactly what his or her responsibilities are to keep above 3S's.
• Shtisuke/Sustaining: Refers to maintaining and reviewing standards. Once the previous 4 S's have been established they become the new way to operate.

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.

People are flexible, but...

Wally Bock raises an interesting point in "Designing work as if people mattered" at his Three Star Leadership blog. Unlike the specs for say a carriage bolt, people's "specifications" vary and therefore job descriptions must take that variability into account.

As Wally points out, carriage bolts do not change after we buy them, and they are consistent in size and strength. People are not. That is why employers have an obligation to understand the capabilities and limits of human performance and ensure that work tasks and the work environment fit within the normal operating range of a person.

If you utilize a carriage bolt outside of it's tolerances, it will not perform consistently and will wear out. When a person operates outside of their physical capabilities for force, posture, frequency, and duration, they too will wear out. The visible result of wearing out is often not that visible. Wearing out may take the form of presenteeism (at work but not working to potential), absenteeism, injuries or illness. Furthermore, degrading human performance may show up in reduced productivity or quality. The most visible sign, injury, as akin to the carriage bolt breaking, and that is too late.

The bottom line is; base your expectations (flexible expectations) of what people can do on a solid understanding of human limits and capabilities. By eliminating stressors through a "best-fit" workplace, employees can concentrate on what they do best: make decisions, diagnose problems, inspect work, etc.

Where does one find the limits and capabilities of humans (i.e. operating specs for employees)? Anthropometric tables, static anthropometry, strength tables, and ergonomic design guidelines provide acceptable ranges for reaching, grasping, pushing, pulling, pressing, lifting, and more.

Two questions to ponder:

• Do you often put machinery into production without heeding the specs?
• Do you track your maintenance programs by how much of your machinery breaks or fails?

Just because a human CAN do the job as designed, doesn't mean the job was well designed for a human. People are flexible, but don't hold that against them!

Playing the shell game

In Jade Bunke’s Healthy strategies for increasing productivity, he states:

”As health care costs continue to rise, businesses must begin looking at how to reduce long-term costs by controlling presenteeism. The first step in controlling costs associated with presenteesim is to understand the link between employee health and productivity.”

We can clearly accept this connection between employee health and productivity, it’s fundamental to our practice.Somehow though “as healthcare costs continue to rise” seems dramatic in its understatement. The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET), found the cost of health insurance has risen by nearly 60% since 2000. Typically, companies try hard to shoulder as much of the burden as possible, but the prescription for escalations of this magnitude necessitates a systemic and a comprehensive view of the problem.

Unfortunately, one of the most frequent responses to annual escalations in benefits plans costs is to pass the burden of the increases, as much as possible, back to the employees or plan members in the form of reduced coverages, increased premiums, higher deductibles and increased co-pays.

And this often leads directly to increasing presenteeism. The case in point--as prescription co-pays rise, employees, particularly those with chronic medical conditions, are less likely to consistently fill prescriptions that control the condition and help reduce the number of sick days they must take. Additionally, employees are less likely to see a doctor early for preventive care when confronted with higher visit co-pay or a higher deductible.

This is a zero-sum game, or some would say, a shell game. Companies reduce the amount spent on benefits, only to lose equal or greater amounts in productivity. Companies applaud their gains in recorded injuries when, care for these injuries is shifted to the personal physician. It is merely a matter of categorization. Either way, the company, and it’s customers and its shareholders, bears the brunt of costs which could be avoided through better analysis.

Efficient+Effective+Effort=Success

  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:

• Hourly employees, line managers/supervisors, line engineers, etc.:
  • 80% of the time this group should be encouraged to look for continuous improvement and efficiency gains; this can be done through team-based kaizen events.
  • 20% of the time this group should be encouraged to seek out new methods, tools, and processes; this can be done through involving them in clean-sheet design reviews.
• Plant management, leadership team, company executives, etc.:
  • 80% of the time this group should be looking for ways to innovate and to be more effective at what they do; this can be done through benchmarking with similar/different industries, market research, etc.
  • 20% of the time this group should be involved in continuous improvement initiatives; this is to ensure there remains a connection to what is currently being done.

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:

• Indra Nooyi, Chariman and CEO of PepsiCo
  • Rather than just focus on how to be more effective in their traditional market (soft drinks and snack chips), Nooyi pushed for PepsiCo to become a “healthier brand”; purchase Quaker Oats and Tropicana in recent years and removing trans fat from its products well before other competitors.
  • PepsiCo’s international business grew 22% last year
• Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple
  • Rather than spending time, money, and resources making products people don’t want (think back to the days of the good ol’ walkman and discman), Jobs is king of marketability.  Knowing your customers’ wants and needs are far more important than building it fast or cheap.
  • Apple’s stock has increased over 70% of the past year.

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.

On the floor? Here's what to look for...

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?

• Excessive reaches
• Bending and twisting
• frequent movements that bring people out of their comfortable reach area (30 inches)

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: 

Keeping Score on Employee Engagement

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:

• Only 1 in 3 American workers are fully engaged
• 13% are "Crash & Burners", they are disillusioned and potentially exhausted and at risk for becoming disengaged
• 19% are completely disengaged, disconnected from organizational priorities and are not getting what they need from work...people in this group are likely to collect a paycheck and enjoy favorable job conditions but contribute minimally

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

Interesting article from OH&S E-newsletter

Just in from Occupational Health & Safety's E-newsletter (5-7-08)

Rising gas prices are affecting more than the family budget. More pain at the pump results in more employee stress on the job, according to Wayne Hochwarter, the Jim Moran Professor of Management at Florida State University's College of Business.

"People concerned with the effects of gas prices were significantly less attentive on the job, less excited about going to work, less passionate and conscientious and more tense," Hochwarter said. "These people also reported more 'blues' on the job. Employees were simply unable to detach themselves from the stress caused by escalating gas prices as they walked through the doors at work."

Hochwarter gleaned the information by surveying more than 800 full-time employees this spring when gas prices hovered at about $3.50 per gallon. All of the people surveyed work in a wide range of occupations, primarily in the southeastern United States. All drove personal transportation to work and had an average commute of 15 miles each way.

Survey respondents said gas prices were foremost on their mind, including a disgruntled factory worker who wrote, "I spend more time at work trying to figure out what I need to give up to keep gas in my tank than thinking about how to do my job."

Hochwarter's research will be submitted for publication later this summer. Among his findings:

§        52 percent have reconsidered taking vacations or other recreational activities;

§        45 percent have had to cut back on debt-reduction payments, such as credit card payments;

§        nearly 30 percent considered the consequences of going without basics including food, clothing and medicine;

§        45 percent report that the escalating gas prices have "caused them to fall behind financially";

§        39 percent agreed with the statement "Gas prices have decreased my standard of living"; and

§        about 33 percent -- or one in three -- said they would quit their job for a comparable one nearer to home.

Hochwarter's discussions with employees confirm the study's results. Many employees report that gas prices rank as the No. 1 water-cooler discussion topic, ahead of family, sports or work, he said. He found little difference in responses among different ages, gender, work tenure and occupations.

"Several employees said they simply could not escape the media onslaught of bad news regarding the future of gas prices, and many reported their financial futures were looking bleaker and bleaker," Hochwarter said.

The Invisible Hand of Ergonomics

The other day, Mark Eaton was discussing some work he was doing with the National Patient Safety Agency, introducing the idea of designing environments to be safer and more productive.

His point couldn't be more accurate. The design of equipment, tools, and the layout of the workplace are often the difference between positive and negative work behaviors. As an employer, this is one sure way of influencing safe and effective work practices.

The key is ergonomics -- Designing the workplace and equipment to best fit the capabilities of the working population.

This includes the physical dimensions (ex. grip diameter, weight, reach, height, etc.) and the cognitive design for usability (ex. intuitive understanding of controls, presentation of information, design of controls).

Jamie Mallon, a Certified Professional Ergonomist and a Vice President here at Humantech likes to explain this concept as "an invisible hand". When the workplace and equipment are designed correctly, the invisible hand guides a person toward working in a safe and efficient manner, and makes it harder to work unsafely or ineffectively.

For example, placing a box of materials on a raised platform rather than on the floor automatically eliminates the need to bend and reach each time a widget is removed from the box. This one minor alteration in the work environment eliminates repeated exposure to poor lifting conditions, wasteful motions, and the additional time to reach.

Is the Invisible Hand working for you or against you?