6 sigma safety

8/10/2019 6 Sigma Safety

1/9

Safety ManagementSafety Management

I

Six SigmaSafety Applying quality management principles

to foster a zero-injury safety cultureBy Michael M. Williamsen

www.asse.org JUNE 2005 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 41

IS SAFETY GIVEN THE SAME COMMITMENT asproduct quality? Are employees accountable fortheir own safety? Is safety excellence embedded intothe company psyche? These fundamental questionsare driving todays safety revolution.

In much the same way quality managementmade significant strides during the 1980s, industrialsafety is poised for its own transformation. This arti-cle provides an actionable approach to how a zero-injury culture can be driven by adopting the same

tools and tactics of product qualitys Six Sigmamethodology. It includes a previously unpublishedcase study that documents the teamwork, method-ology and results of a corporate continuousimprovement team at Frito-Lay Inc.; it involved 40plants and 10,000 employees.

Six Sigma tools are nonproprietary, with a grow-ing number of documented references to their statis-tical origin (ReVelle). This article documents theirpractical application to safety and their resultinginjury breakthroughs (as illustrated in the case studyand accompanying figures).

Safety Performance Culture

Like all innovations, Six Sigma encompasses theperspectives of leading thinkers in manufacturingand production. Although the concept originatedwith a group of Motorola engineers during the mid-1980s, Six Sigma encompasses the theory and logicof quality pioneers such as W.E. Deming, Joseph

Juran and Philip Crosby to address the question, Isthe effort to achieve quality dependent on detectingand fixing defects? Or can quality be achieved bypreventing defects through manufacturing controlsand product design?

At its core, this approach is about improvingeffectiveness and efficiency. Its primary pursuit isperfectiona never-ending dissatisfaction with cur-rent performance. What separates Six Sigma from

conventional quality concepts is its focus on com-municating measurable error ratios. By incorporat-ing customer-focused objectives and metrics to drivecontinuous improvementand by establishingprocesses which are so robust that defects rarelyoccurSix Sigma quality objectives aspire to reach athree-parts-per-million error ratio at a 99.9996 per-cent incidence. Statistically, Six Sigma variations arethe standard deviation around the mean, represent-ed by the Greek letter sigma ( ).

Todays Six Sigma quality community includes cer-tification that incorporates formal instruction, per-formance standards, and applying a wide range of analytical problem-solving tools such as Pareto charts,process maps and fishbone diagrams. Its mastery bor-rows martial arts vernacular (e.g., black belt, sensei) todefine levels of understanding and performance.

Six Sigma Control LevelsIn the authors opinion, what Six Sigma did for

quality is about to occur in industrial safety. Thesame desire to eliminate product mistakes is at workto reduce injury rates. This parallel journey has sixlevels. Each sigma control builds on the previous

level until the sixth sigmaa zero-injury cultureis attained.

One Sigma Control One sigma is set in the era of the three Es of

safety: engineer, educate and enforce. The tools forthese rudimentary safety mechanics include workorders, safety rules, injury investigations and com-pliance programs. While barely touching the sur-face of why injuries occur, one sigma toolsestablish the foundation for creating a safe work-place. As with one sigma in quality, the perform-ance (conceptually at least) is 68.5-percenterror-free. This level represents the ability to sus-tain the essentials in worker safety.

Michael M. Williamsen,Ph.D., is a consultant withCoreMedia TrainingSolutions, a Portland, OR-based safety products and

services company.Williamsen has more than30 years of businesschange management experience withcompanies such as Frito-Lay Inc., General Dynamicsand Standard Oil. Heearned his Ph.D. inbusiness from ColumbiaSouthern University.


2/9

42 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JUNE 2005 www.asse.org

across 20 categories (above), cross-tabulated by man-agement, supervisors and frontline employees. Theself-administered questionnaire includes 73 questionsand provides firms with a statistically reliable methodto answer the questions, Where do our people believewe are weak? and Where do they agree and dis-agree? Todays safety perception survey results can becompared with a database that contains more than two

million respondents. It is a toolthat provides statistically validdata for industrywide compara-tive analyses.

This development added animportant dimension to pin-pointing improvement oppor-tunities. Not only does itidentify safety shortcomings,its implementation is recog-nized as a valuable buy-inmechanism to set the stage forcontinuous improvement workteamsa necessary componentto reach four sigma control99.97-percent injury-free. Four-sigma control concentrates onthe nonobservable what is believed in workplace safety.

Two Sigma Control The tools for two sigma control include observa-

tion programs, job safety analyses and near-hitreporting. At this level, awareness and analysis toolsare applied to reach a two sigma levelor an injury-free rate of about 98.5 percent. Research indicatesthat a 10-percent error level requires about 3,000observations to detect and act on mistakes [e.g.,Harry(a),(b); Jackson; Walmsley]. As errors decrease,more observations are needed to detect the incorrectactivities, which means a one-percent error levelrequires about 10,000 observations to be statisticallyvalid [Petersen(b) 114-118]. It is a benchmark thatunderscores how challenging it is to move beyondtwo sigma control without adding to the traditionalsafety repertoire of observation programs andrearview mirror reporting. Two sigma safety con-trol is focused on what is seen in the workplace.

Three Sigma ControlThree sigma product quality requires well-defined

responsibilities and accountabilities to provide pre-dictable results on a regular basis. The same is true forthree sigma safety [Petersen(a)]. Without safetyaccountability at all levels, it is essentially impossiblefor a company to attain this level of control.Organizations that have been able to move from twosigma to three sigma generally attribute their successto the introduction of individual accountabilities intotheir safety programs. Embracing the conventions of accountability and personal responsibility is a criticalfactor in achieving a 99.7-percent injury-free work-place. While three sigma is commendable, companiesat this level still incur lost-time injuries at a rate of three per 1,000 employees. Three sigma safetyaddresses what is done in the workplace.

Four Sigma Control Beginning in 1979, Dan Petersen teamed with

Charles Bailey to develop a comprehensive and statis-tically validated safety perception survey on behalf of the U.S. rail industry [Bailey(a),(b); Bailey and Peter-sen]. Today, the survey is used to audit an organiza-tions safety culture and identify perception gaps

The Safety PerceptionSurvey: 20 Categories

1) Accident investigation. Does your safety systedeal positively with the investigation of accidents? Arethe real causes ever covered up for political reasons ormeet production quotas? Do employees feel free to discuss the underlying causes and circumstances?

2) Quality of supervision. Are supervisors perceito be competent in accident prevention? Do they holdmeaningful safety discussions with employees on a regular basis? Do they reward safe behavior?

3) Substance abuse. Are employees with substanceabuse problems allowed in the workplace? Is there aneffective program for prevention and rehabilitation?

4) Attitudes toward safety. Is there a positive attitoward safety at all levels of the organization? Do em-ployees feel that management is fair and effective in itapproach to safety?

5) Communication. Do managers and employeescommunicate freely on safety issues? Are there informsystems of communication in addition to the more tradtional channels?

6) New employees. Are new employees thorough

trained in safety? Does training continue on the job wireinforcement from experienced workers?7) Safety performance goals. Do workers and ma

agement formulate behavior-oriented safety goals? Aregoals effectively communicated to all employees?

8) Hazard correction. Is there an effective system fdealing with reported hazards? Is this system understoodand supported at all levels of the organization?

9) Inspections. Are there regular inspections of alloperations? Do employees have an opportunity to par-ticipate in these inspections?

10) Employee involvement. Are there opportunitfor employees to become involved in safety throughsuch means as quality improvement teams, ad hoc com

mittees or effective supervision?

Figure 1Figure 1 Action Item Matrix: Accountability Team


3/9


sionals need to implement a similar approach towhat zero-error quality cultures use in manufac-turing. To do this, an organizations continuousimprovement teams must own and imple-ment the following:

A regular, sanctionedmeeting system with action-able rules and mechanismsand trained leaders to man-age the CI process in safety.

Six Sigma analyticaltechniques/tools with safetyissues and projectible data.

Once these critical fac-tors are in place, a zero-error safety culture can be arecognized strength along-side the traditional businessnecessities of customer ser-

vice, quality assurance andmanufacturing efficiencies.As the case study will illus-trate, the resulting savingsin both cost and hardshipcan be dramatic.

Applying Six SigmaTools in the Workplace

Five and Six Sigma injury control requires statis-tical process control tools, adedicated continuous im-provement (CI) team andactive participation from alllevels of employees. Thislatter component empha-

sizes the importance of effec-tive meetings. Organizingeffective subteams to executetasks is essential. Furthermore, because many of the subteamscombine cross-functional em-ployees from disparate groups,it is critical to delineate provenprinciples to create a meetingstructure that ensures efficien-cy, participation, action andhigh performance.

Effective Meetings forContinuous Improvement

To achieve results from safe-ty meetings, the person whocalls the meeting must focus onits purpose and desired out-comes. By deploying the POPmodelpurpose, outcomes,processthe group can remainfocused and on task.

PurposeThe purpose is a mini-mission statement. Why is

the group meeting? If the purpose is unclear, start

Five Sigma & Six Sigma Control The next challenge is to use the data from the pre-

vious four levels of safety:injury and work order data;observable processes;accountabilities;information based on a safety perception survey.The material from these four areas needs to be

applied in a rapid, accurate and functional way.Once a company is nearing four sigma, the major

barriers to effective cross-functional continuousimprovement are eliminated. A roadmap can be

developed to an unprecedented five sigma (99.997percent) and Six Sigma (three injuries per millionemployees) safety performance. At this point, anorganization can approach a zero-injury workplace.

As in a Six Sigma quality program, all founda-tional mechanicsengineer, educate, enforce,observe, investigate, accountability principles andthought patternsare required to establish anauthentic Six Sigma safety culture. The challenge isto create a sustainable safety culture where height-ened safety decisions occur without thought. It is aprocess that begins by addressing the milestones tocontinuously improve.

Good data are necessary. However, to achievefour sigma performance and beyond, SH&E profes-

11) Program awareness. Do awareness programsstress safety both on and off the job? Do employees lookfavorably on these efforts?

12) Performance recognition. Is good safety perform-ance recognized at all levels of the organization? Areworkers routinely reinforced on the job for safe behavioror is recognition merely relegated to occasional safetyawards?

13) Discipline. Is the company perceived as taking

a fair approach to handling rules infractions? Is the em-phasis on discipline in proportion to the emphasis onpositive reinforcement?

14) Safety contacts. Are there regular safety contactswith all employees? Are one-on-one discussions used inaddition to safety meetings?

15) Operating procedures. Are safe procedures seenas both necessary and adequate by all levels of theorganization? Are employees actually aware of thecompanys safety-related procedures?

16) Supervisor training. Are supervisors perceived to be well-trained and able to handle problems related tosafety? Is their performance measured and rewardedappropriately?

17) Support for safety. Is the whole organization seenas working together to create a safe work environment?Is each level of the organization perceived as contribut-ing effectively to the safety effort?

18) Employee training. Do employees feel that theyreceive adequate training in how to work safely? Doemployees understand how to work safely?

19) Safety climate. Is the climate conducive to adopt-ing safe attitudes and work habits? Is safety perceived asimportant to the organization?

20) Management credibility. Is management seen aswanting safe performance? Are they willing to providenecessary resources to achieve this performance?

Source: Bailey(b).

Task: DefineMachineOperator RoleDefinition

The key safety accountabilitiesof the operator are to use safe workpractices, use all safety equipmentwhen required and promote safetywith coworkers.

Responsibilities1) Before each shift, inspect/

check the work area to identify anyunsafe issues and correct or initiatecorrective action as needed.

2) Perform daily housekeepingduties to keep/maintain work areain a safe and clutter-free condition.

3) Attend and participate in allshift supervisor safety meetings.

4) Team with the supervisor topresent/discuss topics in the super-visor safety meeting (two to four

per year).5) Initiate and follow up on safetywork orders.

6) Provide appropriate safety andhealth training to new/transferredpersonnel.

7) Review and improve job haz-ard analyses regularly.

8) Be familiar with all documentsin work area.

9) Pay attention to coworkers andoutside personnel working in thearea. If they are not following properpractices or procedures, talk withthem immediately about correctingtheir activities.

10) Inspect containers to ensurethat they are labeled correctly. If not,relabel them immediately.

Measures of Performance1) Appraisal by supervisor of

individual task achievement.2) Observations by supervisor.


4/9


Develop safety accountabilities for all levels of theorganization that will help eliminate injuries.

OutcomesWhat will be accomplished when the stated pur-

pose is achieved? This is a brainstormed list of theissues that the meeting is designed to address. It is alsothe metric for whether those tasks have been accom-plished. The whole team or group participates in set-ting these outcomes and, therefore, seeks completeagreement as to definitions of success. Not only willthis eliminate future differences, it also helps eliminate

with an open-ended question, What is our purposefor this meeting? If necessary, record responses on aflipchart until agreement is reached. Subsequentmeetings of this same group need to restate the pur-pose and make sure it remains on target. If the meet-ing starts to wander or branch into a tangent, askwhether the current topic is on purpose. A typicalsafety purpose may resemble a statement such as,

This previously unpublished case studyillustrates how Six Sigma measurementswere applied to a Fortune 500 food prod-uct company that was experiencing hun-dreds of injuries across multiple facilities.

The initiative resulted in a rapidimprovement in workplace injuries andthe start of a zero-injury safety culture.

Pareto ChartsThe Pareto chart is one of the most help-

ful visual tools in the safety Six Sigma tool box. These charts help to pinpoint unac-ceptable occurrences that warrant high pri-ority. The charts (Figures 2-8) show thefrequency and severity of problems andwhere they occurred geographically.

Process MapsProcess maps or process flow dia-

grams graphically illustrate how a task orprocess can be accomplished effectivelywithin the constraints of time and re-sources (Figures 9-12, pp. 47-48). This toolallows a continuous improvement teamto break down a complicated sequence of events into simple metered steps, which

result in a spaghetti diagram. The teamthen analyzes each step in the process

being studied and optimizes each indi-vidual task to a point where inefficien-cies, errors, complicated spaghetti and

safety hazards are eliminated.

Cause-&-Effect Diagram

As the CI team con-tinued its efforts toeliminate back and soft-tissue injuries, the safetyteam used another SixSigma tool, the cause-and-effect diagram (Fig-ure 13, which is alsoreferred to as a fishboneor Ishigawa diagram).

Team members wereable to refer to the chartto identify multiplepotential causes for theproblem at hand. Thebones of the normalpotential cause cate-

gories include people, methods, machinery and materials. As problem situationsvary, this Six Sigma tool has the added benefit of being able to creatively identify diferent elements to better fit the individua

situation. For the food products company,

A Case Study: Six

Figure 2Figure 2Lost-Time Injuries for 10 PeriodsA baseline must be determined to indicate where the investigation shouldbegin. This figure illustrates lost-time injuries over the last 10 months by vari-ous departments, and breaks out which departments warrant the most atten-

ion (e.g., packaging with 52 injuries, then shipping and processing). Oncedentified, plants with high numbers of injuries in these departments deter-mined where to begin the continuous improvement in safety initiative.

Figure 3Figure 3Injuries by GenderAre males or females more apt to have costly injuries?The pie chart is an effective tool whenever the variablesare limited and the sum is 100 percent. This examplereveals a need to find out why so many women weregetting injured.

Figure 4Figure 4Lost-Time InjuriesBy sorting injury data, the company drilled down on back and shoulder/arm injuries for individual facili-ties. Ultimately, it was found that all the sites wereexperiencing similar injury patterns, which presenteda high-priority focus area.


5/9


accomplishment of these account-abilities; a reward system that rein-forces these activities; reducedinjury frequency as a result of doingthis work well.Process

How will the purpose and out-comes be accomplished? What

typically follows is a description of how the team willwork. Often, it is divided into small problem-solvinggroups that include volunteers to accomplish smalltasks. Why volunteers? When people get to place

discussions that stray from the desired outcome. Atypical set of outcomes for a safety team might be:Accountabilities that make a difference in safety forevery job in the facility; a tracking system to follow

Sigma Tool Usageenvironment and technology were addedas potential causes. After listing all poten-ial causes, each team member voted for

two or three of the individual fishbone dia-gram causes deemed most important. Thisindividual voting process is referred to as

Pareto voting in Six Sigma organiza-tions; other trainers use the term multi-voting (ReVelle). It is not a rigorousstatistical evaluation; rather, it is a methodthat uses the personal experiences and

judgment of the engaged subject-matterexperts. It is an efficient way to quicklydetermine the top vote-getting issues believed to warrant more research anddetail. These focus causes were thenplaced in an AIM for deeper team analysisand problem resolution.

In the next step, the team began a sys-tematic search for low-cost, highly effec-tive solutions. The cause-and-effectdiagram (in group mode) allowed eachteam member to record what s/hethought was important. In turn, the team began to work on areas of interest

believed necessary to be resolved in orderto eliminate back and soft-tissue injuries(Figure 14, pg. 49).

From start to finish, the CI teamapproach to safety-issue resolution work-ed well for the manufacturing environ-ment. The efforts to apply Six Sigma andother CI tools led to improvements in both total recordable and lost-time injuryrates (Figures 15-17, pg. 49).

Figure 5Figure 5Back Injuries by LocationExamination of back injuries and where they occurred provided a lens throughwhich to categorize injuries. To begin the investigation and issue-resolutionprocess, volunteers were asked from relevant departments. By sharing this visualwith the continuous improvement team, hands-on data and perspective weregathered and troubleshooting began.

Although the impact cannot be entirely

attributed to theteam initiatives,the number of serious injuriesdropped by morethan 80 percent over the course

of two years.

Figure 6Figure 6Back Injuries by AgeAre the back injuries age-related? While the initial expectation hypothesized that an olderworkforce were a high probability segment, this was not the case. Most back injuries werereported by workers over age 20 and under age 40. This Pareto chart represents scores of back injuries in some 40 manufacturing facilities. The chart was not meant to determine thecause of back injuries, but to illustrate whether advanced age was a significant factor as had been presumed for many years. The CI teams conclusion was that the type of injury should be the primary consideration to be investigated, not the employees age.


6/9


themselves in performancezones where they are comfort-able, they are more likely tosucceed. Conversely, quick del-egation can lead to having thewrong people assigned to thewrong task. If there are notenough volunteers to performall the work in the time allot-ted, time or resources (or both)may need to be increased. Onedistinction must be remem- bered throughout: This is not acrisis team; it is an improve-ment team that fosters the con-tinuous improvement process.

Action Item MatrixIn many cases, a significant

number of tasks need to becompleted by various people invarying time frames. To effec-tively manage this wide spec-trum, it is best to use an actionitem matrix (AIM), which is asimple five-column spread-sheet (Figure 1, pg. 42). Thecolumns (from left to right) are:

Item number. Each itemon the list is numbered. Asitems are completed, they aremoved to the bottom of the list.This provides a record of what

the team has completed aswell as what still needs to beaccomplished.

Task to be accomplished.This is a simple, succinct state-ment of the issue. Each task oraction item is a small, manage-able portion of the larger proj-ect scope.

The team. The list of vol-unteers who have agreed toaccomplish this action item.Each item may have one ormore volunteersor in some

cases none, if the assignment isnot ready to be worked on. The date. This indicates the

next report date for the taskteam on this action item. It may be a completion date, a progressreport date or other target date.

Comments. This fieldholds information pertinent tothe action item, e.g., awaitingvendor quote.

At this point, the team has itsassignments, the POP statementand its progress-tracking mecha-nism, and the AIM. How often

Figure 7Figure 7Injuries vs. MonthWere more injuries occurring during certain times of the year? Could shipping schedules be a factor? The Six Sigma team was still seeking some silver bullet that would provide asimple, quick action plan. The Pareto chart in this figure revealed that neither was a pre-dominant factor and, as a result, eliminated any false hypotheses and red herrings that

could waste time and effort.

Figure 8Figure 8

Injuries per ShiftThe CI team also assessed where injuries were occurring within an individual plant by shift.While employee figures revealed a high injury incidence rate during the second shift, theyalso directed attention to a substance abuse issue. The swing shift employees had manifest-ed a mini-subculture, which led to a quick resolution to address the issue. Pareto chartsallow continuous safety improvement teams to focus on what is different, then question why.All that remained was for the internal safety teams to address the issues highlighted by theSix Sigma continuous improvement process.


7/9


8/9


plete their tasks and are an inef-ficient use of time. Less-frequentmeetings do not create the need-ed sense of urgency.

An entire safety programwas developed in less than ninemonths using this meetingprocess [Petersen(c)]. Hourlyand salaried employeesapplied these guidelines for all20 safety perception survey cat-egories. Although the impactcannot be entirely attributed tothe team initiatives, the numberof serious injuries dropped bymore than 80 percent over thecourse of two years (see Figures15-17, pg. 49).

Effective SafetyTask ForcesHow are safety taskforces

created? How are tasks priorityranked? The answers are sum-marized in this process:

Start with an AIM.At Frito-Lay, supervisors

trained in CI techniques couldgenerally lead up to two CIteams of three to 10 peoplewhile still performing theirnormal work tasks.

Attempt to enlist only vol-unteers so people assign them-

Figure 12Figure 12Injury SequenceThis figure was developed as a result of a continuous improvement teams effort to achieveconsistent injury reporting and analysis throughout the corporation. The team found that

each of the plants handled its injured employees in its own way. Employees from the plantswere assembled to analyze the injury action process (below). The resulting process map waswhat worked best and most consistently in the manufacturing environment.

It was found that when plants sent the supervisor to the clinics with injured employees,every step in the process functioned better. Part of the reason supervisors took more person-al responsibility for employee safety was because of the cost and inconvenience of leavingthe plant every time an injury occurred.

When questioned, plant personnel believed there was a more consistent and clear discus-sion of the injury (and description of work tasks) with healthcare professionals when thesupervisor was present. These same plant personnel felt that the employees needed an addi-tional perspective to describe or reconstruct the incident. Ultimately, it was decided that arevised approach should include personal employee care as opposed to simply sendinginjured employees alone, by cab, to a clinic. This was viewed as a significant improvement by the employees. However, the real effort to eliminate all injuriesnot simply handle themcorrectlyremained at large.

Injury

Communicationof Actions

CorrectiveActions

Injury ReviewBoard

Staff Reviewof Injury

InvestigateInjury

First Reportof Injury

Foreman Returns to WorkWith or Without Employee

TreatmentForeman TakesEmployee to ClinicFirst Aid

Figure 13Figure 13Cause-&-Effect for Packers

Air conditioned (cold)StandingNo footrest/cushionsOnly assigned breaksWork hurt philosophy existsHigh turnover of EEsHigh turnover of supervisors

Poor trainingNo preconditioningNo return to work physicalLittle rotation of workstationNo assimilation programInconsistent supervisionTraining support by management lackingSupervisers dont reinforce proper proceduresEEs clean up spillage/areaEEs responsible for quality control

UntrainedUnconditionedNo hiring profileReturned injured EEs to same jobNo work hardeningNo EE input to improve situationSupervisors at low training levelEntry-level job20-percent long-term EEs

Not state of artAuto case packers coming?

Doesnt stack for ease of pickupIsnt ergonomically designed

Throw casesStack cases

All manual tasksFor cases

Speeds seemingly set highIncorrect heights for EEs

Little to no automationNo diagnostics

Slippery bagsVarious sizes

Different stacking configurationsDifferent placement configurations

Seals fail regularlyCases often bad

Soft-tissue injuries$1,500,000/yeardirect cost

60 people injured

Environment Methods People

Technology Machinery Materials


9/9


Petersen, D.(a). Auth-entic Involvement.Itasca,IL: NSC Press, 2001.

Petersen, D.(b). TheChallenge of Change:Creating a New SafetyCulture. Portland, OR:CoreMedia TrainingSolutions, 1993.

Petersen, D.(c). Safety Management: A Human Approach. Goshen, NY:Aloray Inc., 1988.

ReVelle, J.B. SixSigma Problem-SolvingTechniques Create Safer,Healthier Worksites.Professional Safety.Oct.2004: 38-46.

Walmsley, A. SixSigma Enigma. Globe and Mail.Oct. 1997.

selves to tasks they want to pur-sue and are willing to make thetime to complete.

Implement only short-term,90-day teams that have effectivefacilitation, leadership and clo-sure. If those three characteris-tics are not achievable, then theteams should not be initiated.The short-sighted approach of trying to do everything foreverybody right now will onlylead to frustration.

Have teams meet everytwo weeks to reconnect ona regular basis. The time

between meetings can beincreased to three weeks, butthe groups should not meet

more often than every twoweeks. Subteams should meetas necessary to test, discussand resolve problems. TheTask sidebar on pg. 43provides an exam-ple of hourlyemployee safetyaccountab i l i t i esdeveloped throughthis process. Thisprocess can can beused in each of the20 safety perceptionsurvey categories.

ConclusionThe case study

and figures demon-strate how a CIapproach helped toimprove safety per-formance in a man-ufacturing setting.Injury data werecombined with perception survey data to obtain afull spectrum of workplace realitiesboth observ-able and hidden. Hourly and salaried employeesthen teamusing Six Sigma tools and effective safe-ty meeting techniquesto develop and implement azero-injury safety culture, a workplace that neithertolerates, nor experiences, injuries.

ReferencesBailey, C.W.(a). Improve Safety Program Effectiveness with

Perception Surveys. Professional Safety.Oct. 1993: 28-32.Bailey, C.W.(b). Using Behavioral Techniques to Improve

Safety Program Effectiveness. Washington, DC: American Assn.of Railroads, 1988.

Bailey, C. and D. Petersen. Using Perception Surveys to AssessSafety System Effectiveness. Professional Safety.Feb. 1989: 22-26.

Harry, M.J.(a) Framework for Business Leadership. QualityProgress. April 2000.

Harry, M.J.(b) Six Sigma: A Breakthrough Strategy forProfitability. Quality Progress. 31(1998): 60-64.

Figure 14Figure 14 Action Items

This figure lists agreed-upon action items from all the cause-and-effect diagrams, processmaps and Pareto charts. Team members then began focused efforts to eliminate the dis-abling back and soft-tissue injuries experienced each year.

Figure 15Figure 15Total Injury Frequency The CI team was formed in 1985 at a time whenthe 40-plant aggregate injury-reduction ratesstalled. Based on total injury rates alone, thereappears to be a direct correlation between teamefforts and their use of Six Sigma tools.

Figure 16Figure 16Lost-Time InjuriesHistory Lost-time data also improved during the sametime period.

Figure 17Figure 17Lost-Time InjuriesFrequency

6 sigma safety

Documents