Post on 10-Jun-2015
description
Presented by: Tim Puyleart MPH, CSP
December 9, 2008© IEA, Inc. 2008© IEA, Inc. 2008
USING SIX SIGMA TOOLS TO IMPROVE SAFETY PROCESSES
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Agenda
• FMEA• C &E
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Overview of Six Sigma
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Overview of Six Sigma
To be successful a Six Sigma, approach needs: Management Commitment Employee Participation Planning Involve all Aspects of the Organization Based on Continuous Improvement
Same basic principles as ANSI Z10 – Occupational Health and Safety Management
Systems
To be successful a Six Sigma, approach needs: Management Commitment Employee Participation Planning Involve all Aspects of the Organization Based on Continuous Improvement
Same basic principles as ANSI Z10 – Occupational Health and Safety Management
Systems
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Continuous Improvement
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Define
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Define – Case Study
Objective – Improve overall safety performance. Recordable rate average 4.5 to 5 Annual workers compensation $2.5 million
(average) Data Sources – Plant statistics, incident reports,
workers compensation reports. Output – Team charter, EHS incident data by
location
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Safety Performance – Flat Line
012345678
Oct FY05 Nov
DecJa
nFeb M
ar AprM
ay Jun Ju
lAug Sep
Oct FY06 Nov
DecJa
nFeb M
ar Apr
Goal OSHA Rolling 12 OSHA Rate
LT OSHA Rate FY05 OSHA Rate FY06 OSHA Rate
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Measure
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Measure – Case Study
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Measure – Key Thoughts
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Analyze - Objectives
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Pareto Charts – Other Examples Shift Injury Type Injury Cause Body Part Length of
Employment Day of Week Tools Used
Product Made Supervisor Plant/Work Cell
Location Vehicle Type Task/Work Activity Worker Type
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Analyze – Case Study
First level pareto
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Analyze – Case Study
First level pareto
Second level pareto
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Analyze – Case Study
Third Level Pareto defines the C&E.
2nd Level – use the C&E subtitles:
Man – Materials – Machines – Methods – Measurements - Environment
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Paretos
© IEA, Inc. 2008
C&E Diagram - Fishbone5
Why’s
© IEA, Inc. 2008
C&E Diagram
© IEA, Inc. 2008
C&E – Case Study
Man Training provided? Use of PPE? Use of knives?
Machines Types of knives used? Other options? PPE requirements? Core Slabbers not
used?
Methods Cutting away from
body? Why cutting plastics?
Measurements What measurements
impact the use of knives?
Environment Heat play a role?
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Cause & Effect Diagram
Problem Statement(Unusual Variation in Process)
Major Cause Major Cause Major Cause
Major Cause Major Cause Major Cause
Why?
>> Identify Root Causes and Proposed Solutions
C&E Feeds FMEA
Example
© IEA, Inc. 2008
FMEA
© IEA, Inc. 2008
FMEA Outcomes – Case Study Standardized utility knives – Martor
Megasafe Standardized “J” knives Eliminated manual core slabbing Purchased core slabbing equipment Established Policies
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Improve
Objective Prioritize, plan, and test corrective actions. Eliminate defects through process/product
redesign. Deploy effective corrective actions.
Output Redesigned process. Collect date/measurements on effectiveness.
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Improve – Case Study
Tested variety of knives. ROI projections on core slabbing
equipment. Implemented policies on core slabbing,
knife usage, and PPE requirements.
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Control Plan
Sets in place – rules for future practices. Often impacts many areas of the
organization: Operations, Purchasing, EHS Guidelines for each of these areas to follow
Identifies measurements to determine if the control plan is successful or needs to be revisited.
Sets accountabilities and timelines. Becomes policy or procedure.
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Control Plan (continued)
Policies on standardized knives. Purchasing not allowed to purchase
alternatives. Policy on knife usage – disciplinary action
for improper use. All old knives removed and discarded by a
given date. Incident statistics used a measurement –
knife related incidents went from 40 injuries per year to less than 5!
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Continuous Improvement
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Key Lessons/Best Practices
Go through the steps – don’t let personal influences bias the process.
Use a team approach to the tools. Establish assumptions up front as an
organization. Cost Avoidance credit? ROI Criteria
Solid Incident Investigations are critical. Follow-up and Review. Use the data to drive the process.
© IEA, Inc. 2008
End Result
Incident Rate – 1.8 average for FY07Workers Compensation – Projected costs $823,000
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Questions
© IEA, Inc. 2008
Contact Info
Email: timp@ieainstitute.com Phone: 507-281-6661 Cell: 507-884-6691 LinkedIn
http://www.linkedin.com/in/timpuyleart