Abstract
This paper presents the findings of qualitative research which examined how manufacturers addressed safety matters in the course of designing and constructing machinery, and the factors shaping their responses.
This topic was investigated in 66 Australian firms that supplied machinery into local and international markets. Based on in-depth interviews, observation of machinery and review of documentation, firm performance was evaluated for three substantive safety outcomes – hazard recognition (types and instances), risk control measures (type and quality) and provision of safety information (scope and quality).
The paper discusses differences in firm performance for these outcomes and concludes that there is a need for greater and more effective attention to safety in machinery design and construction, in order to advance the goal of preventing death, injury and illness arising from machinery.
*****
Some finding from the full-text paper:
- “Less than one third of firms had comprehensively recognized the hazards of the machinery they designed and constructed” (pg. 30);
- Specifically, 30% comprehensively identified hazards, 56% incompletely identified a range of hazards but overlooked other types of hazards & 14% had “blinkered” hazard analysis, where only mechanical hazards were identified but overlooked other types
- One typical example was a manufacturer whom produced customized materials handling systems. They recognised many mechanical hazards but overlooked instances of mechanical, structural, electrical and ergonomic hazards. This includes hazards relating to end use, proximity to people, falling objects, and workplace design and impact. Another overlooked aspect related to the robotic elements, which had the “potential for the machinery to execute rapid, high energy, unpredictable movements, eject or drop materials handled, trap body parts between the robot and other fixed objects, or parts of the robot. There was also the potential for operators to incorrectly activate poorly designed operator controls, and for control malfunction arising from electrical, hydraulic or pneumatic failures, software faults or other electronic interference.” (pg. 31);
- Other machinery manufacturers had narrow conceptions of machinery safety. The author notes that: “[one exemplar] firm’s owner/manager was concerned about the potential for operators to access dangerous areas by removing guards, or for the machinery to be energized while a worker was removing a blockage or during maintenance. Undoubtedly the crushing, cutting or shearing hazards associated with the closing action of the press were significant, but there were other important hazards which the firm overlooked. These included structural, electrical, noise, hydraulic and compressed air hazards, as well as the potential for spills or waste generated by the process, and ergonomic issues relating to design of operator controls, lighting and material” (pg. 31);
- The potential for unintended use of machinery due to errors, inexperience, fatigue or work pressures was an area found to have received little attention. The author states that: Safe design sources suggest that end users’ experience of real work situations and activities should be harnessed at the design stage in order to remove or minimize the potential for deviations in end use that compromise safety.” (pg. 34).
Author: Bluff, E. (2014). Safety in machinery design and construction: Performance for substantive safety outcomes. Safety Science, 66, 27-35.
Study link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.02.005
Link to the LinkedIn article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/safety-machinery-design-construction-performance-ben-hutchinson
SafetyInsights.org 