Roger Kahler Director, InterSafe Group (Invited, Friday 28, Ilott Room, 8.30)

1. New Zealand OHSIG Conference –
26-28 October 2011
Two Streams _ Egocentric and Ergonomic –
In Which One Are You Swimming?
Roger Kahler
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

2. Classes of Damage
Classes of Damage
Permanent - Multiple Fatalities
- Single Fatality
- Non-fatal Permanent Damage
Temporary - Temporary e.g. LTI
Minor - Minor e.g.MTI
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

3. Vision
Zero Harm
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

4. A Strategic Pathway to the Vision of
Zero Harm
• Elimination of Permanent Personal
Damage
• Systematic reduction of Temporary and
Minor Damage
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

5. Cost & Size of Personal Damage
Australia 2005/2006
100 30,900
$40.2B
80 $1301k av.
227,000
60 33,100 $0.7B 231,897
164,000
$10.5B $4.3B $3k av. ≈$0
40 $317k av. $26k av.
2,603
$1.9B
20 $730k av.
0
Permanent Permanent >5 days, <5 days, Minor
Fatal no return to reduced full duties full duties
work income
% of all occurences % of all costs
Total Incidents = 689,500 Total Cost = $57.6 billion
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

6. Class I Non-Fatal Damage
(Injury and Disease – All Industries)
Percentage Percentage
Number of Number of
Change in Change in
Class I People in
Numbers Workforce
Year cases – No Workforce –
from Size from
Return to Full and Part
Previous Previous
Work* Time (million)
Period Period
1991-92 19290 - 7.5 -
2000-01 26900 28% 9.9 32%
2005-06 30900 15% 10.16 2.6%
* Excludes Permanently Reduced Income
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

7. Likelihood of Class I Non-Fatal Damage
(Injury and Disease – All Australian Industries)
Likelihood (1 case per
Number of Class I
Year ‘x’ person years of
Cases*
exposure)
1992-93 50,000 1:150
2000-01 48,900 1:202
2005-06 64,000 1:158
* No Return to Work and Permanently Reduced Income
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

8. New Zealand – 2007-2008
• Work-related Fatalities: 119
• Work-related Injuries (> 1 week): 37,700
• Workforce Numbers: 2.26 million
• 91.6% returned to work within year
• 82.3% returned to work within 6 months
• Does the 18% cost the most?
Source: ACC Facts Sheet
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

9. New Zealand – 2007-2008
• Fatality Likelihood: 1:18,700 worker years
• Injury Likelihood: 1:60 worker years
Permanent Impairment Likelihood ?
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

10. GOAL
Organisational
Psychology
≈ 80 years ≈ 60 years
1930 1950
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

11. Preamble
• 1500 Industrialisation of Britain
• 1833 British Factory Inspectorate
• 1867 Massachusetts Factory Inspection
• 1874 France – Inspection of workshops
• 1885 Germany – Workers’ Compensation Act
• 1921 ILO – Geneva
• 1929 Egocentric Stream emerges
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

12. “Egocentric” Stream
1. 1:29:300
2. Unsafe acts, unsafe conditions
3. 88:10:2
4. Lapse, Error, Mistake, Violation
5. A goal of “Accident Prevention”
6. Zero harm
7. “Cause-Effect” thinking
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

13. Foundation of a major injury (Heinrich) - 1929
1
MAJOR INJURIES
29
MINOR INJURIES
300
NO-INJURY ACCIDENTS
UNSAFE ?000 - - - 000? UNSAFE
PRACTICES CONDITIONS
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

14. Heinrich’s Domino Model
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

15. Swiss Cheese Model
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

16. Egocentric Stream
• Failure model
• Unsafe acts model
These models are useful if fixing the point
of failure / unsafe act is an effective
solution
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

17. The Bird accident ratio study - 1969
1 Serious or Disabling ANSI Z16.1
10 Minor Injuries
30 Property Damage Accidents
600 Incidents with No Visible Injury or Damage
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

18. The Ergonomic Stream Attributes
(compared with Egocentric Stream)
1. Behaviour, Knowledge and Skills present/absent (versus
unsafe acts)
2. Equipment and Environment aspects (present/absent)
(versus unsafe conditions)
3. 100:100:100 (versus 88:10:2)
4. Damage Reduction (versus Accident Prevention)
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

19. The Ergonomic Stream Attributes
(compared with Egocentric Stream) cont.
5. “Is” thinking (versus cause-effect)
6. Damage as a consequence of an Energy Exchange
7. Energy Management Strategies (versus Hierarchy of
Control)
8. Pareto Focus (versus Zero Harm)
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

20. Incident Prevention Extended to
Damage Reduction
Stability / Metastability / Instability
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

21. Key Dates / People / Concepts
– prior to 1970’s
• 1949 – Gordon and Gibson
– Injuries can be researched same as
infectious disease
• 1961 – Gibson and Haddon
– Injury as a consequence of an
energy exchange
• 1960s – Haddon – Pre Event / Event / Post Event
– 2D Matrix formed when he added
Human, Vehicle and Environment
• 1962 – Haddon – 10 Energy Management Strategies (“Escape of
Tigers”)
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

22. McDonald’s Contribution
(1960’s and 1970’s)
1. Haddon’s 5 physical energies→ 13 describers
2. Event phase of Haddon’s Pre-event / event / post-
event → Stable, Metastable, Unstable, Damage
3. Pareto Focus (80-20 Rule)
4. “Is” thinking versus cause/effect
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

23. McDonald’s Contribution
(1960’s and 1970’s) cont
5. Essential and Contributory Factors
6. Classifying Damaging Energies → Class I, Class II, Class
III
7. Accidents / Incidents → Damaging and Non-
Damaging Occurrences
8. The Taxonomic Process
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

24. Pre-event Event Post Event
Stable Metastable Unstable Damage
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

25. Metastability
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

26. Metastability
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

27. Metastability
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

28. Metastability
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

29. Metastability
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

30. Metastability
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

31. “Is” Thinking
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

32. Summary & Conclusion
• Fatality rates decreasing
• Non-fatal permanent rates increasing/static?
• Describe your stream
• To enter Ergonomic stream requires “faith”
• Damaged people pay the price of leaders’ “high level”
thought/activity
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

33. Egocentric Stream -v- Ergonomic Stream
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

34. Egocentric Stream -v- Ergonomic Stream
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

35. Egocentric Stream -v- Ergonomic Stream
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

36. •Which stream are you in?
•Do we need elements of “both”
streams?
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions

37. The End
Engineering Safer Workplace Solutions