The 30-Inch View™

Whatever E-H-S stands for, the outcome is $$$.

I got a chuckle reading Frank Brandauer's post on "sustainability" being the new bully in the EHS world...slowly pushing "safety" out of the EHS acronym. I guess it reminded me of the days when "ergonomics" was (and still is in many cases) the "bully" a few years back; EHS professionals often got ergonomics dumped on their plates because it seemed like a natural fit - there's an "E" in EHS isn't there?!

We have always pushed the idea that ergonomics isn't a health & safety concern, it's an engineering concern...it only becomes a health & safety concen if somebody gets injured! This paradigm shift has helped companies successfully transition ergonomics away from an already-overloaded EHS department, into the proactive world of designing equipment and engineering processes correctly the first time.

This shift in thinking (from reacting to injuries, to designing workplaces) didn't take ownership of ergonomics away from EHS, but it did (and does) alter the department's role in the company. Taking a proactive approach means adding value to the organization, it means integrating engineering, manufacturing and other disciplines to focus on improving business outcomes (safety) by showcasing the broader based ROI (productivity and quality gains, lower costs, etc.).

The area of Sustainability seems to also offer this opportunity. As Frank suggested in his post, being a leader in corporate sustainability means bridging the gaps between disparate areas of the company. The key is to show value. Have you seen the new commercials from IBM about being green? The key question is asked, "where is the business value in tree hugging?" That is the type of question that needs to be continually answered by EHS professionals.

Ergonomists cannot ignore Safety - even on TV!

You know, as an ergonomics consultant, I'm often in manufacturing environments where I'm exposed to safety hazards. Although I'm not a Certified Safety Professional, I work very closely with safety and have become acutely aware of what constitutes a hazard.

Last night's episode of House opened in a manufacturing environment, with an employee working right next to a stamping press.

Two things struck me:

1. The characters were wearing ear plugs - although they were dangling uselessly around their necks.

2. When the protagonist collapsed, she fell onto the conveyor feeding the press. No photo-eye stopped the machine from crushing the character's hardhat (although luckily not the character).

I'm sure that this week will bring a variety of angry posts on numerous safety blogs. Ten years ago I am not sure if I would have noticed this, rather I would be focused on the plot. Now that I have developed the capability to recognize risk in the work environoment, I am unable to turn the darn thing off - even when I try to enjoy one of my favorite shows.

It is driving my wife nuts.

The Demise of Industrial Hygiene professional... or is it an evolution?

On a recent post at NAEM's GreenTie blog, Alex Pollock asked for our thoughts on the "demise of the Industrial Hygiene profession as we know it." He noted changes in staffing, reliance on "EHS generalists" and changes to the profession over the past 20+ years. It is my experience that the changes within the IH profession represent an evolution, not a demise.

Not only has the Industrial Hygienist profession evolved, but Safety Engineers, Ergonomists, and other occupational health and safety professionals have seen similar change. No matter what our academic focus and area of specialty/certification was in the past, most of us have been tasked with intergrating and managing several aspects of Environment, Health and Safety in the workplace. As Alex noted, there is a growing trend toward EHS generalists. I agree and have identified the following drivers of the profession's evolution:

• Maintaining regulatory compliance vs. achieving regulatory compliance. In the 70's, employers needed designated IH resources to determine their compliance needs for the exposure requirements of the OSHAct. At the time, demand for focused, technical IH resources was high and made good business sense.
• Increase in availability of quality technical information. Over the past decades, commonly accepted exposure and toxological information has become readily available to all practitioners, reducing the need for an IH specialist.
• Improvement, automation and simplification of sampling devices and procedures. IH sampling equipment has improved dramatically, from hand cranked sampling pumps to today's digital electronic devices with greater accuracy and ease. This has enabled organizations to use technicians and trained safety professionals to conduct sampling that was originally limited to IH specialists.
• Reduction and elimination of exposures in the workplace. Since 1970, US industries and employers have been actively reducing and eliminating hazards in the workplace. As a result, common airborne exposures (dust, vapors, gas), noise, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation have been reduced. Exposures previosly viewed as low incidence (ex. ergonomic risk factors) and from new technologies (ex. nanotechnology) have alternatively increased in concern. In many workplaces, the total amount of exposures IH's dealt with 20-30 years ago is significantly less, reducing the need for IH resources.
• Increasing demand for tighter business resources. Face it, today's employers have to operate with tighter resources than 20 years ago. Few of the Fortune 100 companies I work with have the luxury of, or need for, a full time Industrial Hygienist. Most organizations have an EHS Professional qualified to lead, and currently in the role of managing the EHS issues of the operation. Qualified means that they are experienced and qualified in several areas (ex. industrial hygiene, safety engineering, management systems, etc.). Effective EHS programs integrate IH, safety, ergonomics, auditing, occupational health and other related professional areas and rely on resources both inside and outside their companies.

In answer to Alex's question "what are the harsh realities we need to quickly understand and adapt to if (the prediction of IH demise) is true?", there are some priorities:

• Break the old paradigm of isolating ourselves into single professions. Be broad based in your areas of expertise. Pursue multiple certifications. Integrate the management of E, H, and S. The sciences and technologies behind the professions may vary (some) but the management of them is similar (compare the similarities between Environmental and Safety Management System models.).

• Demonstrate the value you bring to your employer/organization. IH's have a challenge, to apply the sciences (toxicology, physiology, ventilation, etc.) to diagnose and improve the workplace. To survive in any organization, a department or function must somehow add value and contribute to the bottom line. IH's and EHS professionals must be able to demonstrate their value (i.e. Return on Investment of programs and services). This is best accomplished by modeling their program and processes after the process and terminology used by the businesses (speak their language).

Recently, Dr. Michael Brandt, Vice President of AIHA, presented the AIHA Value of the Profession. This is the survey and tools AIHA has developed to help IH's effectively demonstrate their contribution.

Who is the Ergonomics Community?

David Brodie's comments in "Where is the Ergonomics Community" is spot on in calling the efforts to building this community a "fractured approach to pulling people together to learn and advance the field of ergonomics." Perhaps another question needs to be answered in order to lead to greater direction; Who is the Ergonomics Community?

In today's media, the term ergonomics has lost its meaning. It is used to sell keyboards, car seats, dog dishes, office chairs based on an inflated ball, and backpacks. In addition, a lot of people have assigned the term to their position description and offerings, without having the education, knowledge or understanding of the field. As a result of the marketplace being inundated by people offering "ergo" services and solutions (note that many do not even spell out the whole term), the value of ergonomics gets lost.

Unfortunately, not all "ergonomists" (qualified and self-proclaimed) work from the same definition of ergonomics. Some jump on the ergonomics band wagon and use the term to sell martial arts, body mechanics, stretching & exercise (wellness), and a wide array of gizmos (have you seen the treadmill office workstation). These are examples of the distractions and malpractice activities that give the wrong image and value to the field. Mr. Brodie referenced BCPE which is the recognized certification board for ergonomics/human factors professionals. Accept no substitutes.

Most professional ergonomists focus their efforts on the more specific field of "occupational ergonomics". NIOSH describes occupational  ergonomics as "designing the workplace and job demands to fit the capabilities of the working population." It is all about changing the workplace to fit people (engineering and workplace management) not having people change to fit the workplace (stretching, exercise, body mechanics). The former is the approach used by professional ergonomists. The latter is typically applied by therapists, exercise coaches, martial arts instructors, behaviorists, and the self-proclaimed "ergonomists".

The six sources listed in David Brodie's post offer some control and consistency of core science, methods, materials and content. However, until the public gets a clear understanding of what is ergonomics, and who is the ergonomics community, we will continue to clarify and defend ergonomics/human factors from the misuse of the science, term and practice.

Lewis Carroll once said, "if you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there." In this case, if we don't know who the ergonomics community is, what are the odds that we will know where they are?

EU Recognizes Importance of Ergonomics and Safety

Recently I was on the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work website and there was a post titled European Week aims at cutting workplace accidents and diseases, and it made me think of the differences between the approach of the EU to ergonomics and safety versus the US approach. What drew me to this article was the statement from the Director of EU-OSHA:

"Every three-and-a-half minutes somebody in the EU dies from work-related causes and every four-and-a-half seconds an EU worker is involved in an accident that forces them to stay at home for at least three working days. This is unacceptable! We need a change, and this change starts with assessing workplace risks. We have to make employers, workers, safety representatives and policy makers aware that proper risk assessment is the key to good workplace safety and health management."

Last year, I spent 20 weeks in Europe rolling out a corporate ergonomics process and it allowed me to see first hand cultural differences between sites. The attitude of a lot of the companies I've worked with in Europe is "let's plan early and do it right the first time". If they say that Ergonomics and Safety are their number one priority, it is. In the US, I see a lot of advertisements at facilities boasting the importance of safety and ergonomics and how it is the number one priority, but in practice, it is only number one until something more important comes along. In the blog post Leverage Internal Resources for Safety & Ergonomics Communication, Cindy touches on advertising within a facility. This is very important, but national advertising can also be very effective and gives support to companies. Such was the goal with European Week for Safety and Health at Work.

We recently posted A Prescription for Carpal Tunnel Vision: Thoughts on an Ergonomic Standard which was a response to the recent news of an ergonomics regulation potentially coming into effect with the change in the US Presidency. Although labor unions tend to support ergonomics regulations to reduce workplace injuries, businesses in the US often feel that supporting ergonomics will be too costly. They do not want to invest the time or energy into something that may not show an immediate return on investment. They do not understand the long term value of ergonomics. This is in part due to the approach that companies take with their ergonomics process. As many companies do with their Lean Manufacturing initiatives, ergonomic principles are applied in a non-systemic way. By not seeing the whole picture and understanding all of the aspects that need to be considered, they end up unsuccessful. Successful companies understand that if you invest resources, time, and money early, it will save much more in the long run in terms of injuries, rework, and productivity. Being proactive and systematic in your approach is the key.

The European Union recognizes that being proactive means looking at risk and not injuries. Risk reduction starts with assessments. In order to fix a problem or reduce risk, you first need to understand it. Only after you have identified risk can you move towards implementing countermeasures to reduce that risk. All of this data needs to be tracked so that you can ensure that your countermeasures are making a significant difference. When done well, this is a process that will yield a startling ROI in both the short-term and long-term.

 

Leverage Internal Resources for Safety & Ergonomics Communication

In a recent blog post from Blog 4 Safety (How do you communicate safety issues to your employees?), the use of posters to communicate safety issues was emphasized, along with techniques on selecting posters. I found the title of this topic to be a little misleading due to the lack of information presented.

Where we have found success in communication is incorporating safety messages into existing initiatives or meetings, such as reserving space on employee boards that are dedicated to ergonomics or reserving the first 15 minutes at an all-employees meeting to discuss new ergonomic improvements or safety initiatives.

Showing off the efforts of a continuous improvement team along a metrics board can help grab the attention of all levels of the organization. Always remember that aesthetics comes into play, so use lots of pictures and visuals. Consider the location of your messages as well, remembering where employees will be spending most of their time during breaks. Several companies I've worked with have incorporated media systems into their cafeterias, which have always been a favorite for displaying ergonomic projects. Convenience in the selected locations is also key.  For example, positioning safety observation comment boxes directly at employee ID swipe in/out areas makes it easier to attain input and acts as a daily reminder that employee feedback is valuable. Leveraging daily pre-shift meetings to notify employees about new safety procedures and ergonomic equipment can also help with extending the message to a large population.

So, although posters can help to communicate safety and ergonomics, keep in mind the internal methods that can also be utilized and never forget that there is no better alternative than face-to-face conversations.

Are your improvement initiatives all talk and no action?

Carmine Coyote at Slow Leadership recently highlighted  a blog post by Freek Vermeulen, an Associate Professor of Strategic Management at the London Business School, which pointed out that in reference to management strategies of the past 10-15 years (TQM, Six Sigma, Job Enlargement, etc.)...

"there's little or no hard evidence that they add anything to company performance" and "none of these techniques seemed to have produced any positive benefit on corporate results, despite containing what sometimes looked like little more than basic common sense".

To anyone that has worked for or with large organizations in the last decade, this should not be a surprise. The "flavor of the month" fails for one of two reasons:

1. the initiative is slow to show results
2. the initiative is not driven into the culture from the top down

Let me address the slowness factor first. In many situations, these management strategies involve initiation, definition, and completion of projects that may take weeks, months or even years to close. This long lead time, from initiation of the project to the point where tangible improvements are achieved is not cost effective nor does it contribute to a culture of improvement (were you ever sitting in your office and the landscaping crew starting working outside your window? In the beginning its distracting, but eventually it just fades into the background. Compare this to the continual drumbeat of the latest corporate initiative). Front line employees and senior management want the same thing, improvements and improvements now. Simply put, if you did something for weeks or years and you didn't see any results, would your heart be in it?

In terms of creating a culture, we all know what's important to your boss is important to you...the only way these types of initiatives work is when everyone has performance objectives associated with the plan from the top of the organization down to the foot soldiers, and what's more, they all understand their roles. This will not only drive completion of the tasks necessary for the strategy to be successful, but it is also the best way to create a culture in an organization where one currently does not exist.

A quote from Vermuelen's post really flushes out a key issue:

"Finally the piece-de-resistance: The influence of the adoption of popular management techniques on a CEO's compensation package (salary and bonus)...Yep, you guessed it, and the effects were very strong. If a CEO's firm adopted one of the popular management techniques, his compensation went up."

What Vermuelen found was that the mere appearance of one of these popular programs was enough to give the CEO credibility with investors and the Board of Directors that would merit higher pay. No results, just the effort. Is it any wonder why these programs fail?

Lastly, Carmine Coyote noted, "what all fashionable management fads and techniques seem to have in common is that they promise a quick fix based on a simple recipe"

Unfortunately, too often, the recipe looks a lot better than it actually tastes. All powerpoint, no results.

The Key to Sustainability is in the Process

Last week, we attended the National Association of EHS Managers (NAEM) Forum in Memphis. NAEM has recently expanded their focus beyond environmental to include health and safety as well.

NAEM has also recently launched a new blog, The Green Tie. In a recent post, Frank Brandauer comments on the rise of the word "sustainable" and asks EHS managers to explore how sustainable their company's EHS programs really are.

We think his points are spot on and give rise to some additional thoughts:

Sustainability vs. sustainability. Today in Environmental Management, the term Sustainability is commonly used within the profession to denote the environmental aspects of an organization and their impact on business, product and energy (as Frank points out). This is a significant evolution in Environmental Management since it's formal introduction via the formation of the EPA. In the early days, environmental programs focused on compliance. Today it is a critical component of a business.

On the other hand, EHS managers, safety managers and many program/process managers use the term "sustainability" (small "s") to describe and promote the ongoing managment and results of their program/process. In my early days of EHS management (early 80's) we were in the "Comply or Die" mode when the fear of being cited drove deployment. Unfortunately, many initiatives were rolled out without planned maintenance or sponsorship. The resulting cycle of initial fanfare, deployment, then fading resulted in EHS programs being referred to as "the flavor of the month" (along with HR, Quality, and Production initiatives, maybe all initiatives for that matter).

Today, with the prevalence of Continuous Improvement, Toyota Production System, and TMP, we are a lot smarter. EHS managers' focus to maintain compliance continues, as it is the foundation of any EHS program. However, savvy managers and professionals know that these programs must be managed as a process (on-going, owned by many) not as programs (event driven, owned by the EHS department). Aligning EHS programs with the familiar process used for continuous improvement and leveraging other functions and departments are two key elements for success and sustainability.

Sustainability with a small "s" means the program is:

• managed as a process
• owned by many
• on-going despite personnel and business initiative changes
• measured using proactive metrics
• valued by top management.

At Humantech, many of our client partners have evolved their ergonomics program from a list of elements (ex. the OSHA Meatpacking Guidelines) to an Ergonomic Improvement Process or Ergonomic Management System. As with any rollout, there is a need to invest a level of resources to launch the process and maintain momentum. However, once the process is deployed, people are confident and capable in their respective roles, and management understands, monitors and tracks progress, then the level of resources drops off while the value continues to rise.

Frank's rhetorical question, 'is your program prepared for sustainability during tough economic times', is one that every EHS manager should consider. Our experience is that established and effective ergonomic improvement processes survive tough economic times and these lessons can surely be applied to all aspects of your EHS program.

A REAL Ergonomic Solution...

The creation and explanation of an Ergonomic Culture is an interesting stretch (see article in OHS Online).  It is a good example of non-professionals twisting the definition and application of ergonomics to meet a specific agenda. This is one of many examples of how people take the definition of ergonomics and expand or change it to include things it is not. While these applications may seem more palatable and/or easier to implement than actually changing the workplace (for example; methods to change behavior, teaching people to lift, stretching, or applying martial arts principles, etc.), they fail to address the root cause of the problem. Unfortunately these creative interpretations reinforce the public's misunderstanding of ergonomics and ergonomic principles.

Occupational ergonomics has been defined by NIOSH as "...designing the workplace and job demands to fit the capabilities of the working population." Webster defines it as "an applied science concerned with designing and arranging things people use so that the people and things interact most efficiently and safely." Both clearly suggest that ergonomics is an engineering discipline aimed at the environment, not the people in the environment. In other words, ergonomics changes the work environment to improve how someone performs, rather than changing the way someone works in order to improve their performance.

The author of the above mentioned article indicates that one benefit of improved ergonomics is the reduction of risk factors that contribute to musculoskelatal injuries, but that isn't the only benefit. Improving ergonomics, the fit of the workplace to the person, also improves comfort, eliminates non-value added motion, and removes barriers to performance, to name a few. The single purpose view of injury reduction is another limited paradigm that is continually repeated to the public and this further influences an already flawed understanding of ergonomics as an improvement tool.

The article contained a number of interesting bits of jargon that may cloud the issue as well:

• "Ergonomic Behaviors" - isn't this really just good or bad work practices?
• "Ergonomic Injuries" - aren't these injuries the result of exposure to poor ergonomic conditions?
• "Ergonomic Culture" - isn't this really a description of change management or another term for the safety culture of an organization?

Just slapping the word ergonomic on something doesn't create something new. Proper integration of ergonomics into the quality and continuous improvement culture/process is where workplace changes really happen and performance barriers are removed and prevented. Unfortunately, occupational ergonomics continues to suffer from misinterpretation and malpractice. It has become the bandwagon for new gimmicks and methods that sound good but lack validity (ex. back belts, magnetic bracelets, stretching software, etc.).

Employers beware! Ensure the advice, direction and methods you use are valid (based on research) and effective.  Ensure your advisor is a qualified professional ergonomist (i.e. education and certification). Just as you would turn to a Certified Public Accountant or a Board Certified Physician, make sure you are turning to a qualified source of assistance with safety, engineering and ergonomic issues (CSP, PE, and CPE respectively).

Employee Engagement is Critical for Change

A recent article on change management in Industry Week (Lean Persuasion) and a subsequent post at Be Excellent (Introducing Change into your Organization) discuss Lean Expert Jamie Flinchbaugh's suggestions on how to introduce Lean, or other initiatives, to your organization.

The base supposition that employees are resistant to change may be flawed. Actually, most people are naturally resistant to change when the change is made to them, not by them. A key element for successful change is to include people in the process.

Our experience with changing processes (i.e. Lean), altering the workplace and work practices, or changing attitudes and behaviors, has shown that success is primarily dependent upon employee engagement. When people have been included as part of the process that identifies the need for change and are involved in selecting and implementing the necessary actions, they are supportive and many times passionate about change. In turn, they are the best change agents for others.

Planning, communication and ensuring staff are all important. Employee engagement is critical.