KNAUF INSULATION GmbHSAFETY MANAGEMENT

PROCESS

Kevin W. Donohue

Manager, Corporate Safety

Corporate Environmental Health and Safety

Group

EHS0.23.4

Safety Management Process

• Research and Analysis began in 1999

• Starting in 2000 with the introduction of new elements for the conversion from the existing “Safety Program” into a measurable “SAFETY PROCESS”

• Prime Objective- Reduce the variability in our performance

WHY THE CHANGE?

• If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got! (Deming)

• Our Quality Quest demands an atmosphere of continuous improvement

• Safety IS a Business Process and should be managed the same as Financial, Quality, and Production

Leading Indicators Utilized in Our Process

• Monthly Behavior Observations and Feedback

• Monthly Department Hazard Analysis

• Critical and At-Risk Behavior Identification

• Training

• Mgmt Audit of Observations

• Gap Analysis of Incidents v. Recordables

• Procedure Audits and Corrective Actions

• Accident Root Cause Analysis

• COR Tracking/Analysis

Behaviors, Observations, and Feedback

• The Safety Management Process began with a 5 year analysis of accidents, and cause codes

• This lead to a grouping of what turned out to be 4 Critical Behaviors that encompassed some 15 At-Risk Behaviors

• Through this identification process a focus is developed to target improvements

• First focus was corporate wide, progressed to Plant specific, next to individual lines/depts. Within Plants

Behaviors, Observations, and Feedback

• The next step in the Behavior model was to Recognize that there are two categories of behaviors- Employee Behaviors- things employee(s) do or don’t do that puts them at-risk, AND Company Behaviors- things we ask (actively and passively) our employees’ to do putting them at-risk

Behaviors, Observations, and Feedback

• With the inventory of Behaviors established the next step was…

• Development of an Observation component which was achieved through the BST video training series

• Management and Supervisors were trained on how to conduct observations, and a form developed to record them for reporting

Behaviors, Observations, and Feedback

• Employee participation is strongly encouraged in the observation component, but it is a required function for supervisors

• A key requirement of a good observation is the understanding that the process is NOT punitive- Neither Knauf nor its’ employees does everything wrong. There is as much value in positive observations as negative

Behaviors, Observations, and Feedback

• Generating behavior inventories, observing and recording actions, and NOT providing Feedback immediately is a waste of time, effort, and resources

• The Observation Log has a section designed to record immediate feedback from both the observer, and the observed employee(s)

Behaviors, Observations, and Feedback

• We value these measurements to the point that we also record which Critical Behavior, At-Risk Behavior, and if Feedback was provided in our accident/incident reporting system

How Does the Process Work?

• The process elements are recorded, reported, tracked, and graphed for trend analysis

• Data is reviewed quarterly for progress towards goals established for each Plant

• All the elements are reviewed and compared with risk data to determine what focus is necessary for add’l improvement

How Does the Process Work?

• If negative results continue we do provide on-site activities such as employee meetings, audit and review, and utilize other Knauf tools such as 4D Problem Solving Teams

What We Do At The Plant & Corporate Levels

• Complete the elements

• Measure the process

• Analyze the data from the measurements

• Improve performance by intervening in negative trends

• Control the process, avoiding variability

• Implement Continuous Improvement

Does this Process Work?

•YES

•YES

•YES

2005 Total Recordable Incident Rate by Location v. Company Goal

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Inc

ide

nt

Ra

te (

Re

co

rda

ble

s x

20

00

00

/Hrs

Wo

rke

d)

Plant I

Plant II

Plant III

Plant IV

Corp Mfg.

Corp Off.

Corp

GOAL 2005

Knauf Corporate 10 Year Incident Rate Review

0

5

10

15

20

25

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Years '94-'05YTD

Tota

l Rec

orda

ble

Inci

denc

e Ra

te

Does this Process Work?

• In the first 3 months of 2003 Plant IV Shasta Lake had a series of accidents for failure to control hazardous energy. Two of which resulted in very serious injuries

• Meetings were held by Corp. Safety with every employee discussing the incidents. Since then, No Other Injuries from this cause have occurred. Further they finished the year with the equivalent of 7 months without a recordable accident

Does this Process Work?

• In 2003 Shelbyville Plant III demonstrated a continuing negative trend. By the end of the 1st quarter ‘04 a Knauf 4D Problem Solving Team was put in place. The team was sponsored by Corporate Safety and the Plant Manager. Lead by the Plant Production Superintendent, facilitated by the Plant QA Mgr., and include team members of 4 Production employees and the Facility Engineer.

Why Does It Work

• Our Safety Process is a group of defined, specific activities that when developed, implemented, managed, and measured properly will produce the desired end result

What Knauf’s Safety Process Is NOT

• A short term fix

• A regulatory requirement

• A Mandate

• Done easily

• Maintained with Little to No effort

• Going to go away

From the President’s Office down to the Production Floor

• YOU CAN ONLY ACHIEVE THE LEVEL OF SAFETY THAT YOU DEMONSTRATE YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE