The Blindness of Day-to-Day Life – The Basics Are Lost in the Details
When an organization or a system reaches a critical point and the present goal or a clear vision of the future begin to waver, we look for the causes deep within and try to return to the basics. However, the “back to basic” slogan does not mean that we should forget past developments and processes and start over “from scratch,” but rather that we should conduct a comprehensive review of the entire system to identify what has been lost or gone off course.
Everyone knows the feeling when a multitude of problems obscures the goal. At such times, we need to examine the full range of challenges and acknowledge our own responsibility in how the situation came to be. One thing is certain: no problem can be solved by pointing fingers at each other. If we look for others’ mistakes instead of acknowledging our own responsibility, this negative conflict drains everyone’s energy and distracts us from the solution.
To identify the causes, we can use root cause analysis methods, which allow us to systematically investigate the possible sources of the problem and evaluate and rank them according to their importance and impact. An example of this in accident investigation is the 9M method, which examines nine possible causes related to the specific incident. Man (person), Method (work method), Machine (machine), Milieu (environment), Material (material), Management (management), Money (financial resources), Motivation (motivation, e.g., to follow rules), Measurement (measurement). When investigating accidents, it is primarily the first three factors, followed by the next two, that we must examine to obtain a true picture of the circumstances of the accident, the means of prevention, and, perhaps most importantly, to clearly define the areas of responsibility.
The key for accident prevention is always the person — the employee! Everything depends on them, including whether other factors even come into play at all!!! After all, just think about it: even if there is a potentially hazardous object in the environment (e.g., a sharp tool that could cause a head injury), it will not cause injury to the employee on its own if they pay attention to their surroundings and avoid the danger. The same applies to the safety level or shortcomings of machines, since it is not possible to build so-called “foolproof” machines in the rubber industry. There have always been and always will be rotating or moving machine parts that will certainly cause injury if touched — in these cases, only the extent of the injury is in question. This gives rise to the common law regarding machines: touching rotating or moving machine parts is prohibited! Troubleshooting can be started only on a machine that has been properly shut down! Everything depends on the essence of the human factor: how we perceive ourselves, others, and our environment; how we adapt to new situations and tasks; and how we are able to overcome our limitations (fatigue, stress, fear).
If we have made every effort within our own scope of responsibilities — that is, within those boundaries — and done everything that can reasonably be expected of us, then we can begin to shed light on unregulated, unmonitored, and unmanaged processes. Of course, this requires that we understand our own work processes, the operation of the machines, and the manufacturing process, and that this knowledge is an integral part of our own standards.
Unfortunately, blind spots can develop in the daily grind and routine, which can pose a risk of accidents. A concrete example: We inspect a new machine for safety in accordance with standard procedures. All emergency stop switches are in place, all are functioning, and they respond appropriately in both manual and automatic modes. Yet an accident occurs because, in manual mode, the machine operates at such a high speed that when the operator’s hand gets caught in the material, they cannot release it, and due to the relatively high speed, they are unable to handle the emergency in time. In such a case, is it solely one person’s responsibility to identify this error? Legally, yes, but in practice, no. Shouldn’t others have also noticed the difference in speed between the new machine and other machines? Definitely yes!
With this article, my goal was to highlight the lack of attention caused by routine, as well as the insensitivity to dangers and problems that are otherwise obvious.
Let’s step outside our daily routine and look at our work, our machines, and our environment as if we were strangers, and do everything we can to reduce risks, then ask for support from other managers to achieve this goal.
I wish all my colleagues accident-free work and the ability to maintain mindful presence!
László Vígh
EHS Team Manager