Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Harvey 2016 - 5s Impact On Safety Climate of Manufacturing Workers
Harvey 2016 - 5s Impact On Safety Climate of Manufacturing Workers
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:239791 []
For Authors
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
1 INTRODUCTION
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012 manufacturing industries had a non-
fatal occupational injury rate of 3.9 per 100 employees, compared to 3.6 in construction and 3.2
for all private industry. The specialized manufacturing sector in this study, the fabricated metal
product manufacturing sector, had an even higher incidence rate of 5.4 per 100 (Bureau of Labor
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
Statistics, 2013). In 2006, OSHA reported that lost productivity from workplace injuries and
illness had cost companies $60 billion in which the manufacturing industry accounted for nearly
There are two different approaches to improve safety; reactive and proactive measures.
Usual safety indices like safety incidents, workplace injuries, and absenteeism due to injuries are
reactive measures of safety. They determine the safety of the workplace after the incident.
Johnson (2007) notes that the explanatory power of the conventional methods of measuring
safety, i.e. reactive, is incomplete and several other factors are required to truly understand the
safety in a workplace. In contrast, safety climate is a predictive measure of safety (Clarke, 2006)
and is defined as the perceptions of procedures and practices relating to safety which reflect
employee perceptions about the value of safety in an organization (Neal and Griffin, 2004).
Safety climate also includes management commitment to safety, workplace risks, and employee
involvement in safe practices (Ikuma and Nahmens, 2014, Chang et al., 2013). The Safety
Climate Assessment Toolkit (SCAT), which was developed by the UK Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) (Cox and Cheyne, 2000), lists eight categories of safety climate: management
1
priorities and need for safety, personal appreciation of risk, and work environment. Safety
climate can inform management of the current potential for safety incidents and help identify
areas to improve safety. Furthermore, better safety climates are strongly correlated with reduced
accident rates (Varonen and Mattila, 2000), making safety climate an important component to
measure.
and lack of quality and safety by implementing process improvement techniques. Lean is a well-
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
Toyota is a management philosophy with a set of tools which aims at decreasing waste,
optimizing workflow, reducing cost and improving quality (de Koning et al., 2006). It is used
prominently due to its effectiveness and simplicity in decreasing lead time, reducing inventory,
and reducing waste (Melton, 2005). Lean, in theory, improves the working conditions of the
employees and eliminates hazards in the workplace (Ohno, 1978). Primarily, due to other critical
issues in manufacturing companies like on-time delivery, quality and customer satisfaction,
occupational safety is overlooked in the lean process. The advantages of a lean approach to
safety over stand-alone safety initiatives are first, stand-alone safety initiatives may rely on
following a set of regulations drawn by federal organizations, which may or may not necessarily
improve occupational safety. Second, with lean, employee involvement is very high and this
gives the employees a better perception of targeting the problem safety-wise and tackling them
which the safety initiatives do not provide. So, this relationship between lean and safety,
There are several common tools within lean like 5S and kaizen which are used to achieve
a lean workplace and improve housekeeping practices. Good housekeeping is an essential quality
2
in a workplace that can reduce safety concerns, retain visual order, improve employee morale,
and increase efficiency and effectiveness (Becker, 2001). In Japan, housekeeping was first
introduced as 5S which stands for 5 Japanese words: Seiri (Sort), Seiton (Set in order), Seiso
(Shine), Seiketsu (Standardize) and Shitsuke (Sustain). These principles emerged in the post-
World War II era to eliminate obstacles for efficient production (Becker, 2001). 5S is a system
where waste is reduced and productivity and quality are optimized through observing an orderly
work area (Bayo-Moriones et al., 2010). The first phase sort eliminates unnecessary, broken and
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
expired items from the work area by “red tagging” and removal. The second phase set in order
focuses on providing efficient storage areas for the remaining items. Items are labeled and put in
place where it is very easy to locate them. Shine, the third phase, is to thoroughly clean the work
area. Daily schedules to clean the area are created to sustain these changes. Once the first three
phases have been implemented, the next phase is to standardize the best practices in the work
area. Standard operating procedures (SOP) are created or enforced if already available. The
newly developed practices are integrated into the SOP, and they become the standard way of
performing actions. The final phase, sustain, which is often considered the most difficult, aims at
creating habits of maintaining the changes and properly communicating them to the organization.
Results from 5S programs are instant and tangible. For instance, garment factories
improved productivity and quality as a result of lean practices, with 5S being practiced by 44%
of the respondents (Ferdousi and Ahmed, 2009). Kumar et al. (2006) showed that 5S
implementation increased productivity by reducing idle time in some processes, and also ensured
factory, 5S resulted in a 30% total space saving due to the elimination of unwanted items and use
of shadow boards for hardware bins (Acharya, 2011). The implementation of 5S not only
3
organizes the work environment and standardizes workflow in a manufacturing, but it also
The current study sought to determine the effects of a 5S event on safety climate in a
manufacturing setting by comparing the group of workers involved in the 5S to a control group.
This paper first presents a literature review on past reports of the link between lean, 5S, safety,
and safety climate and then describes the experimental design of the study. The 5S event is
described in the results along with safety climate and productivity measurements taken before
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
workplace health and safety in conjunction with increased productivity. Saurin and colleagues
(2013) discuss the interrelated nature of Lean and safety from a theoretical perspective of
complex systems, though experimental data is needed to verify this relationship. Poor safety can
muri in lean terminology, and is considered a type of waste. However in many cases, safety is
overlooked when implementing lean. Improved employee safety is usually an extra benefit of the
5S program and is not the actual reason for implementation. With lean already being
verified. Several researchers presented cases where implementing lean had improved safety.
Safety personnel in an automobile industry in Brazil, where lean techniques were applied,
reported that the most significant improvement was in the employees’ perceptions of safety
(Saurin and Ferreira, 2009). Brown and O’Rourke (2007) presented that the best way to promote
4
worker safety in the manufacturing sector is through lean production and by training the workers
with the knowledge, skills and presence of mind to identify and eliminate hazards in the
workplace. They reported that several hazards like noise, heat, ergonomic, machine guarding and
radiation exposure were deeply reduced due to lean operations. However, no empirical results
were presented by Brown and O’Rourke (2007). Similarly, Das and colleagues (2014)
documented the removal or reduction of several safety hazards in an air conditioning coil
Although numerous researchers have reported the advantages for safety of implementing
5S in manufacturing in theory, few empirical studies have linked 5S to safety. Rahman and
colleagues (2010) found that using 5S methods resulted in some safety improvement
Other researchers have proposed adding safety as a sixth ‘S’ to the 5S methodology, thus
creating 6S. Their reasoning is to create a dedicated step to safety to ensure it is not overlooked.
Others, such as Graban (2009) and Ikuma and Nahmens (2014) argue that safety should
permeate all of 5S, and more importantly, the entire organization. Regardless of the
philosophical position, several studies cite the use of 6S. Sarwar and Haider (2008) and Gamage
settings, and Skeldon and colleagues (2014) reported value-added time increasing from 30% to
over 66% after a 6S event in an outpatient uro-oncology clinic. None of these reports specified
5
the activities occurring during the safety step of 6S. However, several safety hazards were
et al., 2014), and two case studies in healthcare reported a decrease in potential patient safety
All of the studies cited thus far focus on tangible changes in the work environment, but
5S may also affect employee perceptions of safety. Longoni and colleagues (2013) measured
safety climate in ten manufacturing facilities with lean programs and found that having a
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
cohesive lean policy was associated with higher safety climate scores. Recently, Hernández
Lamprea and colleagues (2015) found that the implementation of 5S in an automotive metal
of 85.7% of the risk sources in the workshop. They attributed these results to full involvement of
managers, supervisors and operators, increased sense of belonging to the company and
In referring to the components of safety climate discussed from the SCAT (see Table 1),
positively affected by 5S activities. Lean activities in general promote greater employee and
management communication and collaboration, and 5S specifically aims to improve the physical
communication, and work environment may be influenced positively by the 5S. The current
research tests the general hypothesis that 5S programs improve safety climate. The specific
objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of the implementation of 5S on the safety climate
6
3 METHODS
The 5S event was implemented in the assembly area of the plant, and safety climate and
productivity of the workers were measured before and after the 5S event. The facility is a job
shop with high mix and medium volume, employing 150-200 workers. The plant manufactures
highly customizable, made to order instrumentation devices, and typical activities include
machining, welding and assembly work. Safety climate was compared with a control group in
the same company who did not undertake any lean events during the same time period. The
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
control group was used to determine if the potential changes in safety climate are due to the 5S
event or some other confounding factors. The 5S was hypothesized to improve the safety climate
3.1 Participants
The case group was made up of employees working in or around the assembly area who
did not participate in the 5S implementation. Around 15 employees worked in this area including
assembly workers, quality inspectors, and supervisors. Of these 15, the 5S team consisted of
three assembly workers, one quality inspector, one supervisor, one lean organizer and the
researcher. The remaining employees (~10) were recruited to complete the safety climate
questionnaires.
The control group consisted of employees from different departments (welding, scales,
machining, inventory, and shipping) in the shop floor that were not affected by the 5S. The
control group completed the safety climate questionnaires at the same time as the case group.
7
Out of 24 employees approached, 18 completed the safety climate questionnaires before
and one month after the 5S (9 participants from the case group and 9 participants from the
control group). For the 2-month follow-up SCAT, 7 participants continued from the case group
and 5 participants continued from the control group. Demographics of the initial 18 participants
showed that mean age was 32.3 (8.73) years for the case group and 39.9 (6.62) years for the
control group. Mean experience for the case group was 2.28 (1.48) years and 3.56 (1.76) years
management commitment, supervisor competence, work pressure, risk perception and regard for
procedures (Mearns et al., 2001). Different surveys measuring safety climate have been
developed for manufacturing (Zohar, 2002), construction (Gillen et al., 2002), service (Barling et
al., 2002), nuclear (Lee and Harrison, 2000) and telecommunications industries (Hayes et al.,
1998). The safety climate questionnaire used in this research is the Safety Climate Assessment
Toolkit (SCAT) (Cox and Cheyne, 2000). The SCAT was developed from a variety of
established safety climate questionnaires (Lee and Harrison, 2000, Donald and Canter, 1993,
Zohar, 2002) and includes 43 questions across 8 categories (Table 1). Each question response
follows a Likert scale, and the section-wise and final scores can be obtained by adding the points
-------------------------------------------------TABLE 1 here-----------------------------------------
This instrument has shown adequate validity. The survey had a minimum Cronbach’s α
value of 0.64 for the different dimensions (Cox and Cheyne, 2000). Tomás et al. (2011) applied
8
this survey tool in several industries in Spain and reported a minimum Cronbach’s α score of
0.78 for the different dimensions. Kao et al. (2009) implemented the SCAT along with a few
other surveys to measure the safety climate in an airline setting and reported that the different
dimensions were valid with a Cronbach’s α score of 0.89. According to Nunnally (1978), the
Cronbach’s α range of this questionnaire could be between 0.75 to 0.83 with at least one
dimension claiming a value above 0.90, which the mentioned applications all had, thus making
The SCAT is appropriate for this study due to the relationship between the dimensions of
the survey and the lean implementation. Several dimensions of SCAT are going to be potentially
communication.
Three productivity measures of cycle time, floor space and inventory were used to compare the
performance of the assembly line before and after the 5S event. It is hypothesized that a
successful 5S, in terms of productivity, will have a positive effect on safety climate, whereas a
5S event that results in few changes may not impact safety climate substantially. Therefore, the
analysis will consider the level of success of the 5S in terms of productivity and safety.
Cycle time was defined as the time it took the assembly worker to assemble a unit with
all the parts. Assembly of each unit was done by one specific worker. The worker obtained the
parts required for assembly and started the assembly. Once the worker finished the assembly, the
worker placed it in the crating area and started on the next unit. Sometimes, due to high load, the
assembly worker worked on two or more units and then sent them to shipping at the same time.
The cycle time was measured by time study; which involved measuring the continuous time,
9
using a stop watch (or a phone), for predetermined events. No changes in the layout or the
standard operating procedures were made after the time study. After the 5S event, a new time
A successful 5S event usually frees the available floor space previously held up by
unnecessary items. Increased floor space is one of the visual indicators of a successful 5S event.
The available floor space was measured both before and after the 5S implementation.
Inventory (parts ready to be assembled) in the assembly area, in terms of dollars, was
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
measured both before and after the 5S implementation. Less inventory held up means better
inventory management and a more efficient process, and this can be measured as a ratio of the
value of the inventory to the number of completed units each day. These parameters were
observed for 6 days before the 5S and for 6 days one month after the 5S.
The case and control groups took the SCAT one week before the 5S event (pre-5S). The
SCAT was provided to each participant as a paper survey. The survey included a cover sheet
with name, job title, and participant number, and an informed consent form showing experiment
approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The cover sheet was used only
to link individual participants to responses between the three SCAT surveys over time.
Information regarding productivity measures of cycle time, floor space and inventory in
terms of dollars were also collected before the 5S event. The 5S event was a company initiated
event so all the trainings and audits were conducted by the in-house manufacturing engineers.
The first four phases of the 5S event were completed over a period of four days with each phase
taking between two to three hours. To evaluate the effects of 5S on safety and productivity
10
measures, data regarding the SCAT, cycle time, floor space and inventory was collected one
month after the implementation. The SCAT was administered again two months after the
implementation. In the meantime, to sustain (the last S) the implemented changes, periodic audits
of the implemented 5S event were performed on weekly basis. The audits were done using
All statistical analyses were done by using SPSS version 21(IBM Corp, 2012). Shapiro-
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
Wilk’s tests of normality and Levene’s test of equality of variances were performed prior to
conducting any inferential statistics (α = 0.05). Results showed that the residuals of SCAT scores
(total score and individual subcategories) followed a normal distribution. Moreover, the test of
homogeneity of variance showed that all subcategories except for work environment had equal
variances.
Two sets of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA, α = 0.05) was used to determine (a) if there
were any significant differences in the SCAT scores among the three points in time (pre-5S, one
month post-5S, and two months post-5S) for the case group and for the control group, and (b) if
the SCAT scores for the case group were significantly different from the control group at each
time point. Tukey post-hoc tests were performed to determine pairwise differences among the
11
4 RESULTS
4.1 5S Implementation
The company conducted the 5S as a part of the lean strategy and took place over the course of
several weeks as production demands allowed. The 5S goal was to improve productivity of the
targeted area by organizing, cleaning, and standardizing the work environment. The 5 steps were:
i. Sort: All the unnecessary tools, items and parts were eliminated by red tagging all the
unwanted items and prioritizing the required items based on necessity. Frequently used
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
items were placed to be more accessible. The supervisor verified the red tagged items and
discarded them. Unused inventory was returned to purchasing, rarely used tools and items
ii. Set in order: This step involved assigning clearly labeled locations for all the retained
items. Foamed toolkits were utilized to assign a set of tools to every assembly worker.
Colored bands were inserted on the tools to identify the toolbox and the area. Colored tape
marked the floor to standardize the location of pallets, bins, and trash cans. Each worker
was assigned two tables which will be his work cell. This phase made sure that there was a
iii. Shine: This step involved cleaning the workplace. An activity task list was established to
make sure that the workplace was regularly maintained. At the end of every shift, the
worker cleaned his work cell. The assembly area floor was cleaned on a turn-by-turn basis
iv. Standardize: This step involved standardizing the work practices. Standards were
established so that using the tools, obtaining the parts, cleaning the area and standard
12
operating procedures were followed. The assembly workers were educated on their
responsibilities.
v. Sustain: The final phase made sure that the changes were sustained. The results of the 5S
event were communicated to everyone who had access to the implemented area. A notice
board was put up which included all the changes made, the results of the checklist, and area
for future changes made by the assembly worker. Employees were asked to make
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the dimensions of SCAT and the
total safety climate score for the control and case groups before the 5S, one month after the 5S,
-------------------------------------------Table 2 here-------------------------------------------------------
The 5S event had a positive effect on improving the safety climate when comparing the
SCAT scores for the case group in the first and second month with the pre-5S scores. Figure 1
shows that there was a sharp increase in total safety climate after the 5S event (Tukey HSD p =
0.02 between pre-5S and one month post-5S, and Tukey HSD p = 0.05 between pre-5S and two
months post-5S), and the score was steady when comparing the two months after the 5S (Tukey
HSD p = 0.972 between one month and two months post-5S). The control group saw modest
increases in total safety climate, but these differences were not significant (p ≥ 0.531).
-------------------------------------Figure 1 here------------------------------------
13
The case group showed significant improvements in two of the eight sub-categories of
the SCAT after the 5S (Figure 2). Management commitment increased by approximately 16%,
and involvement increased by approximately 33%. Tukey HSD results showed that management
commitment in the first month (p=0.01) and second month (p=0.008) were significantly higher
than that of the pre-5S event. Moreover, involvement in the second month was significantly
higher than that of prior to 5S implementation (p=0.03) and approached being significantly
higher (p = 0.053) when comparing the first month with the pre-5S data. The other dimensions
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
either showed slight gains or no change in safety climate, though none of these differences were
statistically significant (p > 0.25). The control group also reported a significant increase in
involvement from before the 5S to two months after the 5S (Tukey HSD p = 0.004), but no other
----------------------------Figure 2 here------------------------------------------------
Before implementation of the 5S, the SCAT scores in the case and control groups did not
differ significantly from each other (p > 0.246). The case group had significantly higher
management commitment than the control group one month after the 5S (p = 0.011) and
continuing two months after the 5S (p = 0.023). Work environment was significantly higher for
the case group than the control group at one month after the 5S (p = 0.021). Total safety climate
was higher for the case group than the control group one month after the 5S (p = 0.003).
However, neither work environment (p = 0.105) nor total safety climate (p = 0.089) was
significantly different between the groups at two months after the 5S.
14
4.3 Productivity measures
The 5S effectively improved the productivity of the assembly area. The cycle time to
assemble one unit significantly decreased by approximately 4.5 minutes (independent t-test, p =
0.002). After 5S, space was freed up as a result of developing standards like not placing units on
the floor and removing unnecessary inventory and equipment, which resulted in a decrease in
floor space utilized by 18.2%. The inventory ratio significantly decreased from a mean ratio of
$5.79/unit ($0.62/unit) before the 5S event to $3.67/unit ($0.43/unit) one month after the 5S
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
(ratios are expressed in $1000 units). This represents a 36.6% decrease (independent t-test, p =
------------------------------------Table 3 here----------------------------------------------------------
5 DISCUSSION
The objective of this study was to study the impact of 5S on the safety climate of
manufacturing workers. The 5S event increased workplace safety climate along with increased
productivity, which coincides with what other researchers proposed (Rahman et al., 2010,
Kilpatrick, 2003). The 5S was successful in terms of improving productivity, which was the
original goal of the event. Cycle time was reduced by 16.6%, floor space utilization decreased by
18.2%, and inventory held up was reduced by 36.6%. These improvements may have positively
influenced the safety climate of the manufacturing workers. Table 4 discusses the effects of
implemented changes on the workers and work environment safety. Total safety climate
improved after the 5S event, and the improvement was sustained for two months following the
event. Anecdotal evidence from talking with workers in the assembly area confirmed that they
15
felt more in control of their surroundings after the 5S and as a result felt safer. Many of the
---------------------------------------Table 4 here-------------------------------------------------------------
While several of the eight dimensions increased, contributing to the overall improvement
commitment and involvement. Management was involved in the 5S activities, which could
explain the increase in management commitment. As part of the standardize and sustain steps of
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
the 5S, employees were asked to be more involved in work decisions and to take on
responsibility for the cleanliness and orderliness of the work space. These activities directly
increased the involvement of employees in the work environment. Employees also were
responsible for reporting hazards and eliminating them. Employees may have perceived these
changes as being driven by management in an interest to promote productivity and safety, further
increasing their perception of management commitment. Brown and O’Rourke (2007) note that
employee engagement through training and involvement are required to identify and reduce
safety hazards, explaining how the changes resulting from the 5S can translate to safety
improvements. The results also support Varonen and Mattila (2000), who reported that safety
level of the work place and the safety practices of management were driving factors for the
The other dimensions of safety climate either showed modest increases or remained
unchanged, though none of the differences were statistically significant. Since the SCAT items
followed a Likert scale, scores above the median were considered positive ratings of safety
climate dimensions. All scores were above the median at baseline except for involvement,
16
indicating overall positive impressions. Involvement increased significantly for the case group as
discussed in the previous paragraph, going from an overall negative impression to a positive
impression after the 5S. Management commitment was positive before and after the 5S, yet it
still increased significantly for the case group. The purpose of the 5S was to improve
communication or safety of the work environment. Other dimensions relate to workers on a more
individual basis, such as need for safety and personal appreciation of risk, and they also were not
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
a focus of the 5S. Future 5S events may incorporate these ideas, which may further increase the
The control group also saw a significant increase in the involvement dimensions of safety
climate, although their total safety climate did not change significantly over the course of the
study. The act of administering the questionnaires might have increased the perceptions of
management involvement.
Main et al. (2008) reported that lean and safety go along concurrently. They also reported
that any changes through lean in a manufacturing facility would have an impact on the safety
risks, positive or negative. Some research has shown negative effects of lean on musculoskeletal
disorder risks due to increased work pace and fewer unscheduled breaks (Landsbergis et al.,
1999), so extreme care should be taken to make sure that the lean events support occupational
safety. The 5S in the current study addressed this concern by making sure that any change made
Ultimately, the research shows that 5S increases the safety climate of the manufacturing
17
i. The total safety climate score and two other dimensions significantly increased,
specifically in management commitment and involvement, while the total score for the
ii. All the productivity measures (cycle time, floor area utilized, and the inventory held up)
significantly improved due to the 5S, thus proving the event to be effective.
5.1 Limitations
The results of the study cannot be generalized to the whole manufacturing industry as the
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
5S was observed in one area. The facility was a job shop which manufactured highly
customizable, made-to-order items. 5S might have a different impact on safety climate in high
volume manufacturing industries. Moreover, different areas of a factory like inventory, testing,
machining, etc. might have different results due to 5S. The post-5S questionnaires and measures
were obtained one month and two months after the 5S event. Total safety climate and two of its
dimensions did increase significantly; however, it would be interesting to observe any changes to
safety climate over a longer time period (Cooper and Phillips, 2004). Some changes in safety
climate dimension in both the control and case groups may be due to perceptions of increased
management involvement, which may decrease outside of 5S or other lean events. The control
safety questionnaires multiple times. A small fraction of the increase in the safety climate of the
workers in the case group might be attributed to the bias developed due to the lean training and
A longitudinal study to understand the changes in safety climate due to lean could be
performed to realize the sustainability of 5S. Other tools like kaizen or poka yoke could be
18
implemented to find out if they too have a similar effect on safety climate. Applying 5S in
different areas of a factory would be beneficial to understand how other departments’ safety
climates are affected. Finally, designing a 5S with an objective of improving safety could help
clarify the relationship between the safety climate and 5S. Along with having a 5S focused on
safety, future research could adapt or create a safety climate questionnaire that could identify
6 Conclusion
The 5S implemented in this study successfully improved the safety climate of the
workers. It also improved the cycle time, floor area utilization, and inventory held up indicating
that the 5S met the original goal of improving productivity. This study ultimately helped in
and overall safety climate improved. These improvements were sustained for the two months
measured following the 5S event. In conclusion, 5S not only improves processes by reducing
waste and costs, but also improves the safety climate of workers which can lead to overall
improved safety. This technique may be implemented in other sectors to realize these benefits.
7 REFERENCES
ACHARYA, T. K. 2011. Material handling and process improvement using Lean manufacturing
principles. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 18,, 357-368.
BARLING, J., LOUGHLIN, C. & KELLOWAY, E. K. 2002. Development and test of a model linking
safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87,, 488-496.
BAYO-MORIONES, BELLO-PINTADO & MERINO-DÍAZ DE CERIO 2010. 5S use in manufacturing
plants: contextual factors and impact on operating performance. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 27,, 217-230.
BECKER, J. E. 2001. Implementing 5S to promotes safety & housekeeping. Professional Safety, 46,,
29.
19
BROWN, G. D. & O’ROURKE, D. 2007. Lean Manufacturing comes to China: A case study of its impact
on Workplace Health and Safety. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Health, 13,, 249 - 257.
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. 2013. Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities [Online]. Available:
http://www.bls.gov/iif/.
CHANG, Y.-C., CHANG, K.-H. & CHEN, C.-Y. 2013. Risk assessment by quantifying and prioritizing 5S
activities for semiconductor manufacturing. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers Part B-Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 227.
CLARKE, S. 2006. Contrasting perceptual, attitudinal and dispositional approaches to accident
involvement in the workplace. Safety Science, 44,, 537-550.
COOPER, M. D. & PHILLIPS, R. A. 2004. Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety
behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research, 35,, 497-512.
COX, S. J. & CHEYNE, A. J. T. 2000. Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Safety Science,
34,, 111-129.
DAS, B., VENKATADRI, U. & PANDEY, P. 2014. Applying lean manufacturing system to improving
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
20
KUMAR, M., ANTONY, J., SINGH, R. K., TIWARI, M. K. & PERRY, D. 2006. Implementing the Lean
Sigma framework in an Indian SME: a case study. Production Planning & Control: The
Management of Operations, 17,, 407-423.
LANDSBERGIS, P. A., CAHILL, J. & SCHNALL, P. 1999. The impact of lean production and related new
systems of work organization on worker health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
4,, 108-130.
LEE, T. R. & HARRISON, K. 2000. Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations. Safety Science,
34,, 61-97.
LONGONI, A., PAGELL, M., JOHNSTON, D. & VELTRI, A. 2013. When does lean hurt? - an exploration
of lean practices and worker health and safety outcomes. International Journal of
Production Research, 51,, 3300-3320.
MAIN, B., TAUBITZ, M. & WOOD, W. 2008. You cannot get lean without safety: Understanding the
common goals. Professional Safety, 53.
MARRIA, P., WILLIAMS, S. J. & NAIM, M. 2014. Six S: creating an efficient and safer work
environment. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25,, 1410-1428.
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
MEARNS, K., WHITAKER, S. M. & FLIN, R. 2001. Benchmarking safety climate in hazardous
environments: A longitudinal, interorganizational approach. Risk Analysis: An International
Journal, 21,, 771-786.
MELTON, T. 2005. The benefits of lean manufacturing: What lean thinking has to offer the process
industries. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 83,, 662-673.
NEAL, A. & GRIFFIN, M. A. 2004. Safety Climate and Safety at work. In: JULIAN BARLING & FRONE,
M. R. (eds.) The Psychology of Workplace Safety. Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.
NUNNALLY, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill.
OHNO, T. 1978. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, Tokyo, Diamond Inc.
RAHMAN, M. N. A., KHAMIS, N. K., ZAIN, R. M., DEROS, B. M. & MAHMOOD, W. H. W. 2010.
Implementation of 5S practices in the manufacturing companies: A case study. American
Journal of Applied Sciences, 7,, 1182-1189.
SARWAR, M. & HAIDER, J. Introducing lean, not mean, to improve productivity in a cutting tool
manufacturing company. Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, FAIM2008,
2008 Skövde, Sweden.
SAURIN, T. A. & FERREIRA, C. F. 2009. The impacts of lean production on working conditions: A
case study of a harvester assembly line in Brazil. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 39,, 403-412.
SAURIN, T. A., ROOKE, J. & KOSKELA, L. 2013. A complex systems theory perspective of lean
production. International Journal of Production Research, 51,, 5824-5838.
SKELDON, S. C., SIMMONS, A., HERSEY, K., FINELLI, A., JEWETT, M. A., ZIOTTA, A. R. & RESHNER, N.
E. 2014. Lean methodology imporves efficiency in outpatient academic uro-oncology clinics.
Urology, 83,, 992-998.
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL 2009. Using the Lean approach to transform pharmacy services
in an acute trust. The Pharmaceutical Journal.
TOMÁS, J. M., CHEYNE, A. & OLIVER, A. 2011. The relationship between safety attitudes and
occupational accidents: The role of safety climate. European Psychologist, 16,, 209-219.
VARONEN, U. & MATTILA, M. 2000. The safety climate and its relationship to safety practices, safety
of the work environment and occupational accidents in eight wood-processing companies.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32,, 761-769.
ZOHAR, D. 2002. The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on
minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 23,, 75-92.
21
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
22
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
23
155
150
145
140
135
130
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
125
Pre-5S 1 month post-5S 2 months post-5S
Case Group Control Group
Figure 1. Average total safety climate score for the control and case group pre-5S, one month
post-5S, and two months post-5S
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
Table 1. SCAT Dimensions
Personal Appreciation of 12.8 (3.2) 12.1 (3.9) 12.5 (2.5) 13.7 (3.5) 12.4 (1.8) 12.7 (3.0)
Risk
Work Environment 15.6 (4.2) 15.6 (4.8) 14.3(1.7) 19 (5.2) 14.8 (2.8) 19.4 (5.3)
Total Safety Climate 134 (9.1) 136 (11.8) 136 (7.8) 153 (12.5) 139 (8.2) 151 (12.3)
Table 3. Summary of productivity measures before and after the 5S event
! " #
$ " &'
%
( * "#+ * !"+ ,
!) * * ! + * +
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)