Introduction

The United State Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimate that $60 billion is lost annually from workplace injuries and illness. Using their $afety Pays Program calculator, twenty Carpal Tunnel Syndrome injuries will cost a company $1,260,000 in direct and indirect costs. A single back injury would cost $101,933 total. This makes safety a prime target for risk analysis.

Safety

While safety programs have numerous names, they can be broken down into three broad approaches: 1. a linear approach where either human error or a mechanical failure cause the accident. 2. a systems approach which views accidents as more complex, where human error, mechanical failure and the environment could all contribute. and 3. Lean Safety. (Lean Safety is not normally considered a safety approach. This is because safety, employee involvement and continual operational improvement are all linked in the Toyota Production System (TSP).) However, the philosophy and associated approach make it a viable alternative to the other two.)

It should be noted that in all cases in the United States compliance with OSHA regulations is required. Consequently, there is a safety bureaucracy. The bureaucracy maintains the paper work and conducts OSHA compliance audits. In each case the responsibility for safety is management’s and the safety bureaucracy. However, under Lean Safety, employees are also responsible. Safety is an integral part of the organizational culture, as is operational performance.

The investigative approaches to an accident vary depending on the emphasis. In the first instance the cause is viewed as either human error or mechanical failure almost exclusively. The second allows for a more interactive cause. While human error or mechanical may be the determinant cause, it may also be a combination of both, or some environmental factor. Lean Safety focuses on the cause of the accident including any environmental contributors, and less on the individual. In the first two approaches there is a bias going into the investigation. The bias is that the individual is at fault. Where the determination is mechanical failure, the redesign of parts and equipment, as well as more, frequent compliance inspections are mandated. In Lean Safety, redesign, and workplace layout may also result. As for inspections and compliance it is a regular occurrence, part of the gemba walk.

Gemba Walk

The Gemba Walk is a structured methodology which is part of the TPS. Gemba is the Japanese for the work room floor. Michael Bremer, the author of “How to Do a Gemba Walk”, views the walk as part of the Check and Act steps, in the Plan, Do, Check, Act steps of the quality improvement process. It affords the opportunity to see and learn what is actually happening on the work room floor. This approach is different from the OSHA compliance audit, which seeks to identify and correct any OSHA standards violations. In a Gemba walk, the emphasis is on identifying both operational and safety problems. Some of the questions asked are: 1. Are employees working in a more vertical, as opposed to horizontal posture? An ergonomically correct posture, more vertical, helps reduce repetitive injuries and workers compensation claims. 2. Is the placement of machinery, or the general work environment the safest possible? This helps reduce on the job injuries. 3. Can employee motion be reduced, while accomplishing the same amount of work in the safest manner possible? This combines operational efficiencies with safety.

Risk Analysis and the Gemba Walk

Thus, the Gemba Walk can be an important aid in any safety program and risk analysis. This is because the Gemba Walk goes beyond the paper work and narrow OSHA focus, to the actual happenings on the work room floor. The best way to show the complimentary nature of the Gemba Walk is to provide an example. The example is the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). USPS’s approach to safety is that accidents are linear. Further, the employee is always at fault. USPS has a large safety bureaucracy geared toward OSHA compliance. Accident reports, worker compensation, and safety complaint forms are maintained. There is even Job Safety Analysis (JSA) for all jobs performed on the workroom floor. Each shift has a Safety Committee. There are also weekly safety talks. Paper wise USPS looks good. However, when one looks at the types of OSHA fines across USPS, one sees repeated violations and multiple violations in most processing plants. This raises a red flag as to why.

A risk analysis and Gemba walk would determine a number of things. First, an examination of accidents and a comparison with the JSAs would find that trailers are to be locked in place and the driver is to check the trailer before leaving. Yet, several fork lifts have fallen off the back of trailers because, either the truck was not properly locked in place and moved as the fork driver was backing out, or the driver did not check to see that all work was completed and drove away while the fork was backing out. Second, the safety talks have been changed from an hour talk in a quiet room, to ten minutes on the shop room floor. Assuming one can hear the presentation; safety is demonstrably given less time and importance. Finally, management is not enforcing the JSA and safety rules. For instance, when hauling equipment with a tower, only equipment with like hook ups are supposed to be towed together. Yet, often one sees the driver hauling equipment that has different hook ups points past management with nothing being said. None of these items; ensuring that trailers are locked and drivers checking to see the trailer is clear before leaving; being able to hear the safety talk and the hauling of different types of equipment could be effectively assessed except through a gemba walk.

Conclusion

Safety is an important cost item for any organization. This makes it a viable item for risk analysis. However, risk analysis cannot be limited to a paper work review. To get a complete picture, a gemba walk needs to occur.

Bio:

James Kline is a Senior Member of ASQ, a Six Sigma Green Belt, a Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence and a Certified Enterprise Risk Manager. He has over ten year’s supervisory and managerial experience. He has consulted on economic, quality and workforce development issues for the City of Corvallis, Benton County Oregon, the State of Oregon and the League of Oregon Cities. He has also published numerous articles related to quality in government and risk analysis.