Using Human Factors to Stop Hand Injuries

The “Birth” of KONG!

Mark Wiktorski Director of Business Development

ORR Safety Corporation

•  Getting started o  Steering Committee met in July 2007 which consisted

of a collaborative, cross functional group of safety managers and operations managers from:

The Problem/Issue

The Problem/Issue •  Committee’s Analysis

o  Identified a consistent trend in hand injuries

 More specifically: –  Hairline fractures –  Bruising blows

(back of the hand and fingers) –  Pinched fingers

o  Set target goal to develop solutions to reduce or eliminate these hand injuries

Costs of Workplace Injuries

•  Direct Costs o Workers compensation costs/claim o Medical costs o Medical transportation o  Rehabilitation costs o  Property damage o  Damage of equipment

Costs of Workplace Injuries •  Indirect Costs

o  Lost/decreased productivity o  Time to go to medical

appointments o  Production down time o  Administrative costs o  Additional overtime pay required o  Time to replacement hire o  Interviewing and training new

employee o  Delays in shipments and filling

orders o  Loss of products or services o  Unwarranted negative media

attention o  Potential OSHA penalties

o  Attorney fees o  Litigation (an average of > $100,000 per

claim) o  Damages to equipment, machinery,

materials and facility o  Higher Worker’s Comp premiums o  Reputation loss o  Degraded client loyalty and support or

loss of contract o  Managerial costs due to the accident

including inspections, investigations, meetings and administration

o  Loss of employee time associated with assisting with the accident, administering first aid, and witness interviews

o  Loss of employee morale o  Slowed work pace due to other

employees fear of injury

Costs of Workplace Injuries •  Each accident or injury is unique- impossible to estimate

an exact cost associated with each type of accident or injury

•  Indirect costs are typically 5x the direct costs

•  The cost of one typical injury is far more expensive than upgrading an existing safety program or the salary of a safety professional

•  Costs are important, but are not the most important driver for implementing a safety initiative- worker safety and having someone return home to their loved ones is!

The Solution •  There needed to be a two part solution

o  Part 1- change in “behavior”   Education   Training

o  Part 2- Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) designed specifically to address the needs of the industry   One size fits all canvas black dot gloves- didn’t offer protection

needed for injuries being recorded

  People would not wear

The Solution- Part 1 •  The “behavioral” changes

o  Educating the workforce on hand safety with emphasis on hand placement

o  Continue to use the JSA (Job Safety Analysis) process to manage risk

o  Wellworks/Drilling focus groups created (contractor and operator steering committees)

o  Pinch Point Hunt o  Showed workforce graphic images

of types of injuries o  Behavior Observation

The Solution- Part 2 •  Personal Protection Equipment (PPE)

o  Approached ORR Safety Corporation to market, inventory and distribute gloves   Nations largest privately held distributor of industrial safety

products (PPE, industrial hygiene and fire related products and services) based in Louisville, KY

o  ORR Safety partnered with Ironclad Performance Wear   Designer and manufacturer of mechanics style gloves based in

Los Angeles, CA

The Solution- Part 2 •  Developed specifications and requirements

o  Hi-Visibility o  Cost effective o  Breathable o Washable o Wet/dry Grip o  Snug/contoured fit o  Reinforced thumb crotch o  Rolled finger o  Range of sizes

The Solution- Part 2

•  Evaluate existing glove style features o  Committee members were given (16) pairs of various

glove designs by Ironclad

o  These gloves were taken to Oil & Gas Industry safety meetings and input was solicited from a cross section field personnel, safety professionals and managers

o  Key features were identified and discussed with Orr Safety and Ironclad R&D

The Solution- Part 2 •  First Prototype

o  “Concept Glove” developed based on Steering Committee’s input

o  ORR and Ironclad collaborated to develop 1st Prototype of the “Concept Glove”

o  (200) pairs of 1st Prototype manufactured

o  Prototype was evenly distributed to the Committee members for field tests

o  Gloves were field tested and evaluated in a number of different job types, functions and environments

The Solution- Part 2 •  First Prototype Results Review

o  January 24, 2008 Committee Meeting - results of field tests were reviewed and analyzed

The Solution- Part 2 •  First Prototype Data

o  201 total testers surveyed o  Date range of tests

  November 7, 2007 to January 18, 2008 Rating: 1 – 5 ( 1=Low, 5=Best)

The Solution- Part 2

Steering  Commi,ee  Recommenda1ons   ORR  and  Ironclad’s  Recommenda1ons  

Improve  grip-­‐  slippery  when  comes  in  contact  with  oil  

Replace  black  synthe4c  fabric  layered  palm    &  adhere  impregnated  PVC  dots  to  the  palm    

Improve  durability-­‐  significant  wear  a=er  a  few  days    

Extend  glove  life  span  under  extreme  condi4ons  to  exceed  14  days  

Increase  back  of  hand  protec1on   Increased  the  impact  absorbing  Thermoplas4c  Rubber  on  the  back  of  the  hand  

Eliminate  Velcro  strapped  wrist-­‐  poten4al  snag  hazard  

Redesign  of  the  Glove  Cuff-­‐  Replace  the  Velcro  wrist  band  with  a  solid  2½  inch  Neoprene  Cuff  with  elas4c  expansion  band  

•  Field test recommendations

Original

The Solution- Part 2 •  Second Prototype Data

o  Targeted areas for improvement:   Grip   Durability

o  Improved performance in (5) categories

Rating: 1 – 5 ( 1=Low, 5=Best)

Grip Improvement 16.7%

Durability Improvement 18.5%

The Solution- Part 2 •  Steering Committees Decision

o  (12) months of planning and development o  (3) “prototype” gloves were created o  Prototypes were tested for 80,000 hours without a

single hand injury o  (2) separate field tests were conducted o  Final design received a 4.32 overall rating o  June 2008 – Steering Committee approves final glove

design o  ORR started shipping KONG in October 2008

Lab Testing Results •  ORR hires University

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ergonomics Department

•  Performed (7) month independent study

4.25X   10.73x   5x  

Improvement  

Four versions currently being offered:

Performance (Participant #1)

Performance (Participant #2)

Where we are today? •  Glove Guideline for the Oil and Gas industry has been

developed and implemented

•  Over 825,000 pairs of KONG gloves shipped

•  Recognition: o  Selected for Offshore Leadership Award 2010

o  Occupational Health & Safety: 2010 New Product of the Year Award

•  Gloves are currently being shipped all over the world

•  Philosophy is quickly spreading to all other industries that experience the same type of injuries

Did impact resistant gloves help?

The Job

300lbs.  Skid  Anchor  

The Injury

The Glove!

Summary •  Keys to the success of this project

o  Collaboration   Cross functional groups- Operations and Safety   Manufacturers and distributors of safety products   Applying input from users in the field…..listening   Group was open about challenges each company faced with

regards to injuries   Sharing of safety data on hand injuries

o  Two step process- “Behavioral” change in conjunction with a highly engineered glove

o  Impact resistant gloves supported and implemented by major Oil and Gas companies

Questions?