As to facility inspections, their results if any are minimal and any corrective measures made at that time usually last until the inspector leaves the facility and then its business as usual.

Additionally, we realize that personal protective equipment (PPE) such as fall protection should be the final defense against workplace injuries. Even when provided all necessary and required PPE we have found that employees do not use them or use them incorrectly.

The answer to why this occurs lies somewhere beyond safety. It lies within the operation and unless identified and addressed, the expense incurred to provide PPE will not produce the desired results.

The purpose of this service is to determine actual and potential barriers that stand in the way of not only reducing accidents, but also of improving operations which is not usually considered as a safety objective.

Normally, the endeavor to eliminate accidents from the workplace is handled as a stand-alone initiative and is kept at arms-length from the main objectives of a business, which are production, quality and profitability. Because of that separation, as well as the use of minimally effective traditional safety programs, safety becomes an issue tolerated by plant management.

Supporting this is the fact that, for the most part, safety today assumes more of a role in maintaining regulatory compliance. As a result, valuable resources are expended to maintain compliance, leaving little to allow safety to contribute to the company's main objectives. This draining of resources that contributes minimally to either production or to the reduction of accidents can produce negative feelings toward traditional safety efforts.

It is our opinion that a major objective of safety is to work in unison with the departments of a company in order to assist the company to achieve its business plan through the elimination of job hindrances.

The same job hindrances that eventually produce employee injuries also contribute to inefficient operations. The final symptom of a job hindrance is the accident. However, those daily job hindrances such as damaged equipment and material, rejects, rework and delays to name a few, produce more economic losses to a company then do the accidents that those same hindrances eventually trigger.

In all cases, in order to remove a job hindrance, whether it is rejects or rework, damaged equipment or accidents, the manufacturing or service process must be addressed and modified to include those changes that will improve production. Therefore, it is not the matter of safety that must be addressed, but rather the many barriers that stand in the way of improved operations. When operations are controlled, accidents are normally found to be minimal in frequency.

We are not suggesting that safety is unimportant; rather it should become an indistinguishable part of the process so that it can contribute to the plant's primary goals. Separating safety from the operations can be interpreted by management, supervision and the employees that safety, regardless of what they are told, comes after production, quality and profitability.

Our "Operational Improvement" consulting focuses on process problems by following this methodology:

	Analysis of loss history.
	Development of site specific interview questionnaires for top management, middle management, supervisors and employees. The development of these results from a pre-"Needs Analysis" visits to the facility.
	Conduct interviews using the site specific guide questionnaires.
	Review existing facility programs for effectiveness.
	Conduct physical surveys of operational exposures and controls where a demand, desire or dissatisfaction has created a need for change. These include rejected work, damaged equipment and material, reduced production and lost customers to note a few.
	Report to management.