Zero Access

My best buddy is 75 years old. He lost half his index finger in a log splitter about 15 years ago. He can still hold a drink or a cigarette, and shoot a gun. The upside is, he's got one less finger nail to clip. I can't help you understand this management, sorry.

Read a bunch of Dilbert comics?

Get the bosses to do the changeovers. They obviously need an education in practical realities.

Terrific answer!

We had a smiler problem some years ago on a machine that was gated closed so operators could not access unless the machine was locked out. But, in the design the designer's failed to follow the proper lockout context. Locking out something does nothing if the unit is not in a "Zero Mechanical State". This was the problem with this machine as stored energy was still there. Failure to design proper lock out systems into machines should not be over looked for every state the machine could be in. Not just killing the electrical.

YES! Despite the designer's intent on making a safe system with your lockout and the safety switches on the access panel that started this thread, in both cases the machines were obviously not in a safe condition. By having a safety system in place that did not successfully render the machine safe a false sense of safety was implied to the victims.

<From a liability point of view, it is sometimes better to respond quickly than it is to respond accurately> twice as fast in the wrong direction makes some sense....nonsense <With a fix to save the product line. > read jobs. (hints).....Management has given engineering the hint that the change-over time is what they believe .... maybe just too punch drunk myself. Warmest Regards, Ray

Have worked on packing machines with all the screens, guard's etc. Every member of the maintenance team would carry a over ride key.

Thanks for the replies! I think I can go into work now without feeling squashed by the weight of regulation!

Unless the extra guards are TOTALLY independent of the existing ones;that is a separate circuit, hard wired into the main run relay,they will not be any better than what you have already.The problem is the operator did not have sufficient training in lockout/tag-out procedures,or chose to ignore them.Considering the length of employment, the former is probably true.In most cases,the supervisor is held accountable for the safety of his workers,not the worker himself.This puts the impetus on the supervisor to ensure that his men are properly trained.The demand for 20% reduction in change over time is simply a means of putting pressure on the supervisor and his men to drive home the importance of safety.This means the supervisor will have to spend more time observing his men than before, and look for ways to safely reduce time required for changeover.Pressure is a great innovator.Look at technology every time we have a war.Extreme example, but you get the point.

In some companies, the supervisor would be fired outright, so count your blessings.

HTRN

< help me to understand this management> The driving motive is ....Fear. And the strategy is shift responsibility. You have to agree this is both untenable and Not an un-smart solution.... Viewed from the desk of the issuer. BTW I wouldn't feel to comfortable in your shoes (been there done that). Hope this is helpful. Ray

Hi...You could also help us by letting us know what the increase in change-over time is with the added guards. I assume that the 20% decrease in change over time required is after the added increase change-over time. This will let us know if you are meant to get a better response time than before.

While I do understand the desire to precisely quantify a goal, I believe that you, daffy, are missing a critical point here. Set the initial goal to be the more stringent 20% decrease in change over time prior to adding these guards. Don't set mediocre goals from the start. Don't make excuses before you start. It is far better to just miss a stellar performance than it is to just pass one opinion of the minimum required. Particularly after the original design clearly failed to safeguard a worker.

OK redfred...I was not implying to do bare minimum. As a manager myself, I do put pressure on people to achieve certain goals and hope (also reward) those that go and achieve more. But I do also recognize that at some point efficiency cannot be increased (significantly - in this case 20%) without some other detriment.

Here is my philosophy - There are three variables - Cost, Time, Quality - you can only pick two, the remaining will be the detriment. Choose wisely.

"Particularly after the original design clearly failed to safeguard a worker." huh?!?! I guess common sense is not so common after all. There was a guard. Now there is a guard to get to the guard. Who in their right mind would use a finger to clean a gear?

To all who posted here. They key words are "2 weeks on the job".

Poor or no training will not fix the problem. I don't care how many guards management wants installed. You can not fix stupid. Had he been properly trained to begin with, this post would not exist.

Never spotted that "2 weeks on the job". "2 weeks on the job". This guy is going to be a danger to himself and workforce!

The base line is this. Engineering now has to come up with a viable solution to the problem by addressing the incident with an operator/mechanic who had 2 weeks on the job was poorly trained and was allowed to access the machine. This is a training issue. Then they need to demonstrate that the 'quick safety addition' slows down production costing the company money. Then they need to show how by using proper training with the existing safety mechinisims in place the PM work can be conducted safely and efficiently.

NO!

You do not correct a safety problem by just blaming the victims. The victims here are not just the maintenance worker, but also the worker's boss, the safety supervisor, the training staff and the machine design staff. Blaming people just makes them unsure in their work and eager to hide possible problems. This will compound safety problems and not correct them. Certainly if an investigation proves true negligence or malicious intent on any party then blame and repercussions maybe appropriate. But if you start any investigation with a preconceived notion that training or engineering or anything was at fault so that you can hang a scapegoat then you will never fix the problem but perpetuate it.

We are all humans here that make mistakes. A good safety system should expect people to make mistakes and not be injured.

The facility was outside of the US and OSHA regs probably did not apply to the workers, regarding training in proper lockout procedure.Part of the regulation is to make certain that all forms of energy,stored or otherwise, are disabled or put into a safe state.This includes, air,water,hydraulic,heat,x-ray, nuclear,induction, steam,mechanical,as well as electrical energy.A properly trained employee would not touch a gear unless he was certain it was not moving.Improper training is the root cause of the accident.

As for management's decision process, it evokes thoughts of:Do something even if it is wrong,it shows an immediate response and attention to the problem.

They are reducing a claim of negligence and blatant disregard for the employee's welfare.They have put a thumb in the dike to hold till it can be fixed properly.

The demand for a reduction in changeover time is merely a means to reduce the effects of adding the guards,by putting everyone in high gear and taking up slack in their routine.

A competition between shifts might encourage better times.A recognition of their effort( free donuts or coffee,etc) will go a long ways to improve employee attitude and morale.

The real fix will be improved training of the employees,with a sufficient apprenticeship program to ensure familiarity with safety procedures.As per OSHA,it is required that employees learn and RETAIN the knowledge of safety procedures.This requires periodic updates and refreshing of proper training practices.

Remember, you cannot make a machine fool proof.Those fools are so damn ingenious

HiTekRedNeck hit the nail on the head!!! I have gone from design engineer to management to forensic engineering consultant. While Zero Access may not like what management did, they made the right decision from a political standpoint. However, they did the wrong thing from a practical liability standpoint. An initial accident investigation should have been done immediately.

Any accident investigation should involve production supervision, engineering and maintenance personnel (the machine would be taken out of service until this was completed.) This committee would then report to management their findings and recommendations. If management felt their conclusions were still lacking, they should have hired an outside consultant to investigate and make his recommendations. (Remember no one trusts or respects an in-house expert, especially management)

It is not unusual for the companies insurance carrier to supply a qualified engineer and provide a non-biased opinion. No matter who pays the bill, someone from outside the company will show production workers the company really takes accidents seriously and it will give them more confidence in the final solution. In case of litigation, this is extremely important!

My guess is management paid $$ to do a "quick fix"; but expects engineering to perform a miracle with little if any funds. As mentioned by others, true change only comes when management commits $$ and not just lip service.

It is impossible to totally idiot proof a machine. Most finger injuries I know of have been caused by springs (mechanical power). Some machines must be jogged to a certain position to release spring tension, then jogged to another position to release tension on another spring, which of course takes time when you have to lock/unlock electrical/fluid power each time you jog. The best solution I've been able to come up with is to include in SOP's where the hazardous PM points are and use a tool for cleaning so that body parts do not come into contact with machinery. I use chamois swabs for cleaning because they are soft, absorbent, do not shed, and we had a ton of them left after we quit manufacturing videocassettes. Managers like SOP's and of course training (with records of training). Also submit a cost analysis where proper PM's result in less downtime during runs to justify time spent on PM's. And in some corporate cultures, any ideas submitted may be shot down until they are "rediscovered" later by whomever is bucking for brownie points.