‘Performance Safety’: Is It a Better Approach?

Yesterday’s Advisor began an exploration of Randy DeVaul’s concept of “Performance Safety.” DeVaul, a Westfield, NewYork-based safety consultant who also produces BLR safety audio conferences, developed his idea partially in response to the popular notion that behavior based-safety—in which worker personal choices, such as deciding to wear or not wear PPE or whether to lock out or not lock out machinery prior to servicing—are the primary causes of workplace injury. It follows from this theory that if worker behavior can be changed, most injuries can be avoided.

Instead, DeVaul takes a wider look, from these three points of view:

Procedures. These are the carefully thought out methods of how work should be done, as written down by the designers of the equipment being used. Included at this stage are hazard identification and methods of hazard elimination.

---

Learn the secrets of proactive injury prevention in BLR’s March 4, 90-minute audio conference on the subject. Can’t attend? Pre-order the CD. Satisfaction assured, either way. Click to learn more.

---

Practices. These are the methods workers use in actually doing the work. They may vary from worker to worker, with some more attuned to safety and others less so. If a worker shortcuts the procedures, all the safety features designed into it won’t prevent injury risk.

Processes. This is how any given task fits into the overall scheme of the enterprise. If either practices or procedures are changed, the change may cause either a positive or negative effect on the overall process, usually on operations “downstream” of the focus location.

In DeVaul’s view, all of these factors must be taken into account in the safety equation.

Changing worker behavior won’t do any good, he says, unless the procedures are right from the start. And if changing practice and procedure negatively impact process—the rate of production, for example—greater safety might be the result, but the company’s economic well being may be affected.

Whether companies are willing to sacrifice some performance in exchange for safety gets into another of DeVaul’s major concepts: Safety as a priority vs. safety as a value. “A priority changes due to circumstances [such as the need for a production speedup],” explains DeVaul. “A value remains constant.” It’s only when a company sees safety as a value that a truly effective program can be put in place.

---

Reduce your workers’ comp costs and improve morale with proactive safety management. We’ll tell you how in BLR’s March 4 audio conference. One low fee. And if you can’t attend, pre-order the CD. Click for compete info.

---

The good news, DeVaul reports, is that the three factors need not be mutually exclusive. Solutions can be found for safety issues that improve the procedure and the practice and contribute to the process at the same time. He cites several examples of how these factors can work together, including one in which a worker, operating at maximum performance, moved loads of 150 lbs. A lot of material got moved, but with the risk of injury to the worker, which would lead to a slowdown or stoppage of the process.

DeVaul adjusted the procedure and, thus, the practice, to moving lesser weights. This achieved what he calls optimum performance, as opposed to maximum performance. Injury, and with it, stoppage, was avoided. In this situation, “more gets accomplished with less risk. Production goes up, risk goes down, and safety is improved. Everyone benefits!” he says.

Where is the role of regulatory compliance in all this? Is there a conflict with safe operation, as others have said?

DeVaul’s reply: “If the task is done correctly, it is safe, efficient, productive, profitable, and in compliance.”

For more information, contact Randy DeVaul at 716-326-6262. And if you have a special philosophy on improving safety, it could be a subject of a future Advisor article. Let us know your thinking. E-mail JSchleifer@blr.com.