Total Performance Safety - Real World Safety in the Real World

Total Performance Safety – Real World Safety in the Real World

 

 

Total Performance Safety – Real World Safety in the Real World

 

Introduction

The Behavior-based Safety process has made a tremendous impact on how safety is valued and perceived within the work environment.  As the concept developed, the process successfully adapted and acclimated to various corporate cultures and soon there were numerous theories of HOW behavior-based safety was implemented.  The original goal appeared to be injury reduction in the workplace by addressing individual behavior, not simply existing conditions.

It is this writer’s opinion, however, that as differing opinions emerged in how to do that, the process became more competitive and complicated, losing the “pure” concept of helping people make the right choices in job performance. The perception is that behavior-based safety can only work if following specific outlines and programs and which one is chosen is based on what comes the closest to fitting the company culture.  The frustration level builds, however, when what is chosen does not exactly fit and, therefore, does not produce the results expected.  Company managers become discouraged and, based on poor results, move on to yet another type of injury reduction process.  Often, this causes the “baby” to be thrown out with the bath water.

That is not to say the promoted methods do not work – if matched up exactly, a company can have outstanding results.  But what do companies do that don’t fit exactly into this format?

Performance Safety simply re-focuses the energy back to the fundamentals.  Getting back to the basics is enough to allow any company of any size and with any budget to improve safety.  It allows a company to take working principles and make direct applications for its needs within its culture without implementing detailed mechanics and steps.

There are fundamental principles within all the methods that are necessary and that do not change, regardless of HOW the process is followed, addressing individual performance.  With over five years of focusing on total performance, not strictly employee “behavior,” these principles have been proven to work with various management styles and different corporate cultures.

The purpose of this presentation is to identify those fundamental principles that help improve safety within any type culture and any production environment.

 

What is Performance Safety?

Performance Safety can be defined as an on-going review of processes, procedures, and practices through observation, workplace examinations, and task analysis.  It is a total and comprehensive review of all performance areas (machine, worker, environment) to ensure pro-active, continuous improvement in safe production at all levels.

I have always taken slight offense at suggesting to my people that the reason an injury occurred was a direct result of their “behavior.”  The phrase “behavior-based safety” conjures up in my mind a fault-driven process, even though it is not intended to be so.  Behavior alone cannot fully create or cause injuries. It is true that unsafe actions contribute to more than 85% of all injuries. I suggest the number is closer to 95% or higher.  But the choice(s) made by a worker is not always a reflection of his behavior. It includes the “behavior” of the manager and the safety expectations of the company. We continue to hear phrases such as, “practice what you preach” and “walk the talk” and other such expressions.  We all know lip service alone will not have much influence on choices made by employees.

Performance Safety includes a three-phase process:  practices (employee choices in how to perform assigned tasks); procedures (the overall established method to perform the task); processes (the overall end result in operations and production with equipment, end product, quality control, etc.).

Let me illustrate with two examples of Performance Safety in progress.

We identified an unsafe “condition” in the installation of new equipment at our site prior to start-up. We got engineering, the plant manager, a production foreman, a production crew member, the safety professional (that was me), and the construction foreman responsible for the installation at the site together (crossing and involving numerous processes). We voiced concerns and began to “brainstorm” solutions while standing there.  How would the task have to be performed (procedures)?  How would the task actually or most likely be performed by the employee (practices)?  How would the outcome of this task affect the overall product and tasks “downline” (process)?

The procedures would identify the hazard and provide a means of eliminating the hazard.  The employee would need to follow the procedures to ensure safe performance.  The procedures would have to be written in a manner that would encourage the employee to make the right choices and protect him from taking a “short­cut” (practices). We started the discussion with a $15,000 engineering fix to remove the hazard.  Then we identified what would happen if that engineering solution broke – it wouldn’t hold up within the work environment.  After a few more ideas, a light bulb came on. The hazard was corrected with a $200 part that is easily handled by one person performing the task and provides the employee with a way to follow the procedures without risk and without need to take a shortcut.  The procedure was developed with the newly-implemented part and the employee was able to easily follow the procedures logically and safely, ensuring he followed safe practices to perform the task.  Had we not taken the overall process with the key people in the process to address this issue, we would have most likely ended up with a $15,000 fix that wouldn’t work (if the hazard was corrected, at all).

In the second example, an employee was required to enter a tunnel with a sledge hammer to unclog material getting stuck at a transfer point on a conveyor line. I was asked what could be done to minimize the hazards the employee was exposed to when performing that task. Through questioning the overall process, I found that the material was getting stuck because it was too large for the engineered design of the transfer point. The material was to be “crushed” to a designated size before it reached this point. The material was too large for the transfer because the crushing process had been “opened up” to increase the amount of tonnage handled in a shorter time.  As a result, the down-line transfer was getting jammed.  Now, I could have addressed the specific hazard, but that would have treated the symptom, not the problem.  Once the adjustment was made back to the engineered design, the entire hazard and exposure was eliminated. When the material was at the “right” size, it passed through the transfer point. There was no employee exposure to noise, dust, tunnel hazards, and no continued beating and damage to the transfer box since the sledge was no longer needed, either.  It created the optimal performance of the entire process, thus correcting the need for a practice in an exposed environment.  Everyone understood that a change in the process created a whole set of other problems that, on the surface, could not be explained.  The transfer point was too far down the process to connect what seemed to me to be an obvious problem back up-line. The old saying, “You can’t see the forest for the trees” certainly fit in this case.

Performance Safety helps keep the big picture in view while addressing specific issues. In the above example, it was not my job to tell an experienced manager how to do his job. But in the process of doing my job, we were able to identify a situation that ultimately helped the manager’s production numbers, as well.

Anyone with knowledge of conducting accident investigations knows to ask questions that help get to the “root cause” of the accident.  In the same way, getting to the root cause of hazards and unsafe behaviors will allow a manager to correct the problem rather than continuing to correct a symptom that never seems to go away.

 

Why Performance Safety?

The principles presented in this paper provide a recipe or prescription to follow to reach zero injuries and incidents.  It also provides personal and team involvement and accountability to pro-actively prevent injuries and eliminate or reduce exposures to hazards.

Performance Safety encourages positive recognition and feedback at all levels within the organization to promote positive change and optimal performance.

I have mentioned twice the concept of “optimal performance.”  It should be every individual’s goal to reach and maintain optimum performance rather than maximum performance.  As in my second example, maximum performance involved getting as