Why Do Employers Continue To Focus Their Safety Efforts On “Fixing” Employees?
I was at a business association meeting recently when I sat down at a table with 5 other attendees.
I was at a business association meeting recently when I sat down at a table with 5 other attendees.
Are you involved in running a business or “program” within a business such as Lean, Ergonomics, Process Improvement, Safety, Quality, Operations, …you get the idea? If so, what is your goal? Often I hear people say something similar to the following, “I want an effective and sustainable fill-in-the-blank program”.
In my previous blog I described the how behavioral based safety and ergonomics are not the same and definitely do not utilize the same approach. That being said, companies are really good at identifying “bad” employee behavior and using policy, observations and enforcement to correct it. So the question becomes how do companies who aren’t versed in ergonomics learn how to change behavior through workplace design? Let’s start with a simple framework on which built upon.
There are basically 7 steps to determining design solutions to change behavior.
I recently attended a presentation in which the speaker was trying to make the case that behavioral safety and ergonomics are virtual the same and go hand in hand together. He started off by saying that bad behaviors are caused by bad ergonomics and that good ergonomics can produce wanted (good) behaviors. I totally agreed with him but then he gave the following example:
One of the most common safety signs is the one the states “Safety is #1” or words similar to it. Consider when and where you have seen those signs. Now ask yourself, did you see and feel that safety was indeed #1 at the company where the sign was posted? If your experience is similar to mine, the answer to that 95% or greater is “No”.
Over the remainder of the year I’m going to blog about some of the lessons I’ve learned through the years through practicing, facilitating and consulting on ergonomics, lean and process improvement. Today is the first blog in this series on “Lessons Learned”.
“Location, location, location!” We’ve all heard those words when it comes to real estate. The same house located on a lake is of more value and therefore worth much more than when it is located on a street in the city. The same can be said for where the roles and responsibility of an ergonomic program resides. The value to company can rise and fall depending on the location. If you read this month’s (December 2011) feature article you probably have a good idea on the best location. The most common location for ergonomic programs is in EHS or HR.
Determining and demonstrating the value of your ergonomics initiative for specific engineering improvements are commonly requested. Unfortunately, many of us struggle to even begin to justify improvements, let alone choose a meaningful calculator to demonstrate the benefits of improving workplace conditions. A quick Google search turns up available calculators: Equipois Return on Investment (ROI) Calculator and
Are you one of the millions of people worldwide who use iPads, tablets or reading devices such as the Kindle? If so, you may be or soon will be suffering from a multitude of musculoskeletal pains and strains. The use of these devices has exploded over the 12-18 months. It’s commonplace for me to see them used whenever I’m in coffee shops as well as when I’m visiting business clients. Initially they were used for personal entertainment and convenience compared to a laptop but now businesses large and small are adopting them. They haven’t replaced the desktop or laptop computer but they
In my previous blog I discussed the indisputable fact that working extended hours causes worker fatigue and lowers performance. This was regardless of the time of day that was worked. Another aspect to consider is the effect of shift work on worker performance. I will define shift work as either the night shift or rotation shifts working normal amount of work hours (8-10 hours/shift). A recent study of Canadian workers shows some interesting results in regards to work injuries. The study covered a 10 year period, 1996-2006, and examined the injury rates of workers differentiated by the