Safety Committe

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Safety Committe

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
  • #53215


    Hi there,
    Hope that some of you are having great time in Miami, greetings from San Diego.
    Few months ago while getting my GB training, I posted couple questions and I received great ideas from this forum,  my project was on Safety (reducing the number of accidents at work).  This project was approved and the program is working well, not great, but well. Huge improvement from where we were before the program.
    My next question may not have a 6 Sigma twist but I need to ask the question anyway, need help from your analytical perspective.
    We have a safety committe that takes care of the program for a full year, then another team is formed and they lead the pack for another year.  A department manager leads the group for a full year. 
    Having 7 department with groups from 15 employees (S&R) to groups of 60/80 employees (production).  Should the manager who will lead the group be the department manager who had the most number of accidentes/incidentes during the past year?  
    Some managers cried foul to this suggestion, stating that they were in charge of 80 employees while other deparments had only 15 employees.
    Should we measure this by the number of accidents/incidents per department or by percentage of accidents/incidents/employee count per department?



    So leading the safety committee is punishment for having a poor safety record? Are all employees forced into participating on the team, or just the managers?Do you think it’s a good idea to have the manager with the worst safety record (however you decide to figure it) be responsible for leading safety initiatives for the entire company?



    All departments have a representative in the committe, it is not really a punishement but I see it as an opportunity for improvement.  The idea is to put a name and a picture to the challenge and opportunity to own the program.
    Thanks for your input.



    Carlos,Something appears to be missing here and it looks like you are
    have set up up a blanket approach on what to work. You have two
    issues as I see it: where the safety and process champions come
    from (by the way, constant turnover has never helped anything);
    and what projects you target.Not only is picking the manager with the worse record a poor idea,
    the manager then will have to split her/his focus on her/his own
    issues and others?Set up a risk matrix, find the highest rpn’s, and get a handle of
    those first. Who leads the group… should not be a part timer with
    multiple tasks. It should also not be the six sigma project owner
    because then the BB owns the process.Just some food for thought.



    You already mentioned that managers were resistant to taking ownership of the safety committee, crying foul that they would be unfairly targeted because of their department’s size. By linking poor safety performance to a program already seen as a burden, you’re creating the impression that leading the safety committee is a punishment.
    Most managers are by nature resistant to taking on additional repsonsibilities, especially those that don’t impact career advancement. Would it be possible to tie some incentive to leading this group? At the very least, I’d recommend assigning the leadership in a neutral way, like a standard rotation that’s not tied to performance.


    Andrew Banks

    Carlos:I agree with other posters that publicly
    highlighting a manager’s poor safety record does not
    necessarily motivate him/her as a safety committee
    leader. Are there any willing volunteers? Maybe
    there could be an incentive for leading the team /
    getting results (better office space/parking space
    nearer the door/cube nearest the restroom :-) )?Regarding your other question – metrics. I have an
    idea…Ultimately, safety incidents are “never events”
    meaning that they should “never” happen or are
    “never” acceptable when they do (regardless of the #
    of EEs). The aren’t typically something you’re
    looking to control, they’re something you’re trying
    to eliminate (with EE participation). The trouble
    (imo) with using rates is that is is difficult to
    personalize it: what does it mean to have a .03 day?
    If employees of a department can walk away thinking
    “we had a perfect day today – zero safety incidents”
    that means a lot more. Then they can begin to
    string the successes together.In my industry (healthcare) we have begun to display
    “adverse” events on a chart based on the geometric
    distribution. It is essentially “days between
    events” and works well for rates (1/average days



    I can’t imagine the field day OSHA would have with investigating an incident where the Manager in charge of the safety program was chosen because they had the worst safety record.  I would ask the question “Why can’t your facility get anyone to volunteer to be on the safety committee?”  You’re doing something wrong if you have to assign someone to this committee.  The committee can’t be viewed as any kind of punishment, rather a realistic effort to iimprove a process/es.  Lose one trained worker and you could affect throughput, FPY, COPQ, TCIR, and a list of other metrics.   



    Misses the point…you still have a process creating defects, why not focus on that?  Your safety metric should be part of the manager’s scorecard that then drives improvement effort and oversight of their process.  The rest is secondary.



    Safety must involve everyone! That seems like an easy statement to make but in reality you must have complete buy in from every manager and every employee. I personally have mixed feelings about safety committee’s. While I agree some really good suggestions and Ideas come from them, rarely are they productive and often insight fueding as you have stated.
    In order to get full involvement, I recommend programs like DuPonts STOP and STOP for each other. This program has its bad points but the good out weigh the bad. Another is to simply perform JSA’s of all the departments. I’m assuming each department is different so role it out to each manager and put them in charge of identifying the safety issues along with their direct reports. Each department can do this at the same time. Visual and always on everyone’s mind. You must get everyone thinking about safety all the time.
    Unless you can prove that the safety committee is improving safety plant wide in some accountable metric then its not any better than a suggestion box. While many will disagree, the time lost exploring this adventure is far more wasteful than good.



    John,Did not miss the point, just did not talk about the process yet. So
    lets talk about the process metrics that management are driven by:Safety:
    1. Lost Time Incident Rates (a lagging indicator, usually only at the
    corporate level)
    2. Recordable Incident Rates (same as no. 1)Process Metrics:1. Production completion (lagging indicator)
    2. Overtime (Usually treated as a lagging indicator, but could be a
    3. Defects (Usually a lagging indicator)
    .. I could go onWhich one of this does the manager/foreman usually get hit on the
    head with? Which one of these usually gets ignored? If it is a
    lagging indicator which one gets pushed to find a leading
    indicator?If the production is hampered because you have assigned a part
    timer, someone who does not get it, or a person who is driven by
    business metrics only, what gets stopped, the safety initiative or
    production?Raise of hands….. how many Black belts did not certify on a safety
    driven project because is was considered risk avoidance and not a
    money maker? How many were told not to work such a project?Raise of hands… how many Black Belts passionate about safety and
    training found that connection of risk avoidance and long/short
    term gain tying into business driven metrics as well?Think about it who else wears the badge of influencing w/o
    authority like the black belt…. the safety leader does!

    There are some topnotch companies out there that get it but many
    do not. By integrating safety with every other key driven business
    metrics you can get people to listen and make change.Now add a baseline RPN metric that is a leading indicator and tie
    the change into a something that can help the employee be
    successful w/o a conflicting scoreboard then you have progress. So yes John, process is important!… So is understanding how to
    influence change and matching that to a stakeholder analysis and
    power network. Thus the point made earlier w/o talking about


    Bruce J. Hayes

    You might want to take a more holistic view of the safety to program to take it ot the next level. Ultimately the behaviors of the employees towards the committee, the program and the policies will ultimately determine success, failure and the best way to run the committee (and the program) going forward.
    One way to evaluate the safety program on a “wing to wing” basis is to do a formal assessment of the program which examines both the tactical procedures and processes, but more importantly the behaviors of employees toward those processes. We have found that conflicting priorities, gaps in communications, conflicting goals, culture and other historical reasons are often bigger contributors to problems than the policies and procedures themselves. There are efficieint and accurate web based safety assessments available to make identifying these types of issues an easy process. Once you have a baseline of why the employees behave and react the way they do (towards the safety policies and procedures) you can supplement your problem solving processes to mitigate the root causes. Feel free to email me at [email protected] for further discussion. You might also find this article useful. (Click on Behavioral Performance Intelligence). Good luck with the project.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.