dr matthew hallowell - university of colorado - three interventions to enhance hazard recognition
TRANSCRIPT
Matthew Hallowell
Beavers Endowed Professor of Construction Engineering
Three innovations to improve
hazard recognition and communication
Safety Innovation: Develop, test, and share new safety solutions.
What are the respective roles of industry and academia?
How can industry and academia partner to foster innovation?
1. Identify Industry Issues
2. Design Research Plan
<Domain Experts>
<Research Experts>
3. Create New Solutions
4. Test New Solutions
Today, I will showcase work on hazard recognition.
Hazard recognition
Risk perception
Risk tolerance
Behavior & Performance
Hazard recognition is the foundation.
Hazard recognition
Risk perception
Risk tolerance
Behavior & Performance
Not JUST workers. Also designers, managers, clients & vendors
Hazard recognition is the foundation.
Hazard recognition
Risk perception
Risk tolerance
Behavior & Performance
Is there an injury prevention practice that does not require strong hazard recognition skills?
How about safety in design?
What is the hazard recognition skill of your team?
What proportion of hazards can YOU identify?
Uneven surface
Heavy equipment
Sharp blade
Vehicular traffic
Heat
Flying debris
Pinch-point
Noise
Compressed gas
Data from 4,800 worker-hours of observation
45% For managers
and workers
the skill was:
Data from 16 projects
38% For designers?
We developed and tested three new interventions.
Augmented reality training
HIT Board for Managing Change
Safety Meeting Quality
Measurement
Underlying Theory: Energy-Based Hazard Recognition
Try it again. How many hazards can you identify?
Try it again. How many hazards can you identify?
Dust
Sharp blade
Heat source
Soil pressure
Uneven surface
Awkward posture
Insects
Noise
Strategy 1: Augmented Reality Safety Training
Strategy 2: Quality of hazard communication
Level Plan
Sco
re
Identify the Job Basic Steps Hazard Identification & Mitigation
MA
TU
RE
(3)
To
meet
the c
rite
ria f
or
a s
co
re a
t th
e M
atu
re (
3)
Level,
the s
co
re
mu
st
tota
l 8– 9
. H
ow
ever,
if
an
y c
om
po
nen
t sco
res a
t th
e L
east
Matu
re (
1),
Level, r
ed
uce t
he s
co
re t
o t
he L
ess M
atu
re (
2)
Level.
The job as discussed is detailed and specific, adequately identifying the job to be conducted, the tools that may be used, and the environmental conditions at the jobsite. If multiple jobs are being conducted, separate pre-job meetings are conducted for each job.
The basic steps of the job are discussed and explained in sequential order. The integration of steps is discussed in enough detail to accurately describe the entire process of completing the job. The relationship between the worker, the task, the tools, and the work environment are detailed.
Relevant energy sources and specific hazards are addressed and discussed for the job; subsequent plans to mitigate the hazards are fully addressed (e.g. permits, tools, equipment, training, procedures). Evaluate activities for task demand (task difficulty) and suggest safety measures that may reduce task difficulty. Compare alternate ‘means and methods’ to accomplish specific tasks with safety as the focus, and implement the best (less hazardous) alternative. In addition, potential hazards in surrounding work areas, or associated with adjacent work, are discussed and properly mitigated. STOP Work Authority is discussed and both the specific work area conditions (e.g. wrong tool or equipment, not enough or the right people, lack of clear understanding) and general work area conditions (weather, adjacent work, emergencies, major weather event, plant alarms) that will stop work are addressed.
9 8
LE
SS
MA
TU
RE
(2)
To
meet
the c
rite
ria f
or
an
overa
ll
sco
re a
t th
e L
ess M
atu
re (
2)
Level,
the s
co
re m
ust
tota
l 14 –
22.
The job as discussed is specific (i.e. work tasks are appropriately identified); however, it is not detailed (associated tools and work methods are not thoroughly detailed) and therefore does not identify all of the work to be completed. Tools required to complete the job and environmental conditions are ignored.
The basic steps of the job are discussed and explained in sequential order. However, the integration of steps is discussed only in general terms. The relationship between workers tasks and tools are not considered.
Relevant energy sources and specific hazards are addressed and discussed; subsequent plans to mitigate the hazards are addressed (e.g. permits, tools, equipment, training, procedures). However, potential hazards in surrounding work areas, or associated with adjacent work, are not discussed. Alternative ‘means and methods’ are not discussed. STOP Work Authority although recognized as general safety policy is not particularly adressed
7 6 5
Least
Matu
re (1
) T
o m
eet
the c
rite
ria f
or
an
overa
ll s
co
re
at
the L
east
Matu
re(
1)
Level, t
he s
co
re
mu
st
tota
l 59– 1
3.
The job as discussed is not specific; subsequently the job activity is inadequately identified.
The basic steps of the job are discussed. However, the steps are not discussed sequentially and do not accurately describe the entire process of completing the job.
Only a few energy sources are addressed and only basic hazards and controls are discussed (e.g. permits and procedures). STOP Work Authority is not upheld or discussed.
4 3
Most Mature
Less Mature
Least Mature
Evaluation Criteria (9 total)
Strategy 3: Management of Change
How do we know that they work?
Time
Baseline Phase
Intervention Phase
Hazard Recognition Skill
67 62
44 40
28 24
20 19 17
2
Percent of hazards identified by type.
Key Take-Aways:
Hazard recognition is a SKILL that can be improved.
Workers and managers are not as skilled at identifying hazards as we initially assumed.
Energy mnemonics work really well if they are embedded into useful tools that spur engagement and retention.
This research could not have been conducted without a strong industry-academia partnership.
