the safety performance of their organizations and specifically the safety-oriented behaviors of indi- vidual employees. From the perspective of a quality
engineer, the analysis of the root cause of a human behavior looks for specific structural elements in the environment that may lead to the worker’s actions. This follows from the fundamental orientation that the worker’s actions—or the worker himself—is never the root cause of any problem since management is responsible for the decisive factors in worker performance. Several structural elements can influence worker safety behavior, including the environment, pro- cess layout, documented method, available process time (perceived or actual), tools provided to the worker and type and nature of the per- sonal protective equipment (PPE) provided.
Environment The physical environment,
specifically temperature, humidity and air qual- ity have a direct impact on worker fatigue, which leads to compensation strategies as workers cope with the environmental stress. Fatigue also has been demonstrated to lead to a reduction in vigilance. Vigilance is a nec- essary part of worker safety to ensure safety checklists for example, are used in job preparation, various safety protocols are engaged prior to work and conditions are observed that might signal a safety risk.
Process Layout Ergonomic safety is related to
the physical manipulations required of the worker by the process lay- out. Examples include the relative heights of work tables, tools and materials, the relative spacing and positions of these objects, and the weights and forces involved in the process. These physical characteris- tics of the workplace also contribute
to the fatigue and vigilance decay noted earlier. Process layout also can lead to an injury or accident that on a superficial analysis might be attributed to worker inattentiveness or other character trait. For example, at one jobsite, the
scrap tub at an inspection station was located across an aisle with heavy fork truck traffic. Workers were required to turn around, carry the scrap part to the scrap bin and then return. This process required extreme vigilance to avoid the traffic on the aisle. This was an accident waiting to happen that could not be blamed on worker inattention and no amount of warning or signage could compensate for the lack of safety oversight and poor planning in the layout.
Documented Method
Workers generally follow docu- mented instructions and train- ing provided to them. Including
standard work practices that can often be detrimental to safety. Work instructions written primarily from a quality perspective (not safety) or not reviewed by workers and/or a safety professional can be the cause of foundry accidents and injuries. These may look like purely worker decision errors, but could have been prevented by adequate planning and instruction.
Process Time The time available to the worker
Executive management has a stewardship responsibility for the people they employ, not just for their company reputations and their capital investments.
appropriate safety precautions and describing a safe and practi- cal method in the instructions will reduce the frequency of problems resulting from these operations. However, when metalcasting operations do not subject their work instructions to a safety-specific review and do not create instruc- tions that accurately represent the real world, safety performance problems will result. Impractical or wrong instructions lead workers to improvise and establish non-
is a structural element in his/her environment. This time may be dic- tated by the machine cycle time, the overall pace of work or other con- straints. Fast pacing leads to fatigue and compensation techniques where safe work practices may be com- promised deliberately to keep up, get a scheduled break on time, etc. Fast pacing may simply not leave adequate time for the specified safe work practice to be carried out. The worker’s perception of available time is dictated by a number of signals from the work environment, including: • The rate at which other workers are progressing.
• Implicit or explicit mes- sages from supervision that a faster rate or greater work output is needed to satisfy customer demand or some target of performance.
• Bonus programs that reward higher worker output regardless of what might be physically appro- priate for ergonomic or physical safety.
Tools Generally, tools are provided in the
foundry to increase the efficiency of the work and improve the capability of the worker to perform the task. In a comparable way to work instructions, poorly planned or reviewed tools can lead to a variety of impromptu deci- sions on the part of workers that do not optimize safety. “Failure to follow instructions” is
perhaps the most frequent attribu- tion to cause of industrial accidents.
June 2017 MODERN CASTING | 25
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60