Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

5S impact on safety climate of manufacturing workers

Siddarth Srinivasan Laura Hughes Ikuma Mahmoud Shakouri Isabelina Nahmens Craig Harvey
Article information:
To cite this document:
Siddarth Srinivasan Laura Hughes Ikuma Mahmoud Shakouri Isabelina Nahmens Craig Harvey , (2016),"5S impact on
safety climate of manufacturing workers", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management , Vol. 27 Iss 3 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-07-2015-0053
Downloaded on: 17 February 2016, At: 03:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 12 times since 2016*

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.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 5S IMPACT ON SAFETY CLIMATE OF MANUFACTURING WORKERS

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

20% of all musculoskeletal injuries (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013).

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

commitment, communication, priority of safety, supportive environment, involvement, personal

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.

Manufacturers address different challenges like rising manufacturing costs, inefficiencies,

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)

established set of principles aimed at reducing waste. Lean manufacturing as introduced by

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,

specifically safety climate, needs to be understood.

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

the health and safety of employees in an automobile accessories manufacturer. In a switchboard

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

assigns clear ownership of the process to each employee.

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)

and after the event.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

According to Kilpatrick (2003), a primary objective of 5S is to maximize the level of

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

overburden employees through increased workplace hazards. This overburdening is known as

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

implemented to optimize processes, its impact on improving occupational safety needs to be

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

manufacturer through the use of several lean tools.

Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)

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

recommendations in an automotive parts manufacturing facility. Ikuma and Nahmens (2014)

reported qualitative improvements in safety when 5S was implemented across several

departments in a healthcare system. Chang and colleagues proposed a method of quantifying

changes in safety risk in conjunction with 5S activities in the context of semiconductor

manufacturing (Chang et al., 2013).

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

and colleagues (2012) reported improved productivity after implementing 6S in manufacturing

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

eliminated or reduced in another case study of a 6S event at an electronics manufacturer (Marria

et al., 2014), and two case studies in healthcare reported a decrease in potential patient safety

hazards as a result of 6S (Fillingham, 2007, The Pharmaceutical Journal, 2009).

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

workshop achieved significant organizational climate improvements and resulted in elimination

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

standardized workshop layout that 5S promotes.

In referring to the components of safety climate discussed from the SCAT (see Table 1),

it is reasonable to hypothesize that management and environment-related categories would be

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

work environment. Therefore, the SCAT categories of management commitment,

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

of fabricated metal product assembly line workers.

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

of the assembly workers, particularly in areas of improved work environment, communication,

and management commitment.

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

for the control group.

Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)

3.2 Safety Climate Questionnaire

Safety climate is often measured by questionnaires covering several dimensions like

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

for each question. Higher scores indicate better safety climate.

-------------------------------------------------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 reliable.

Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)

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

affected by the 5S event such as work environment, management commitment, and

communication.

3.3 Productivity Measures

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

study was conducted to find the post-5S cycle times.

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.

3.4 Data Collection

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

checklists with the help of assembly workers.

3.5 Statistical Analysis

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

three time points when significant differences were found.

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

were assigned a new location, and scrap items were discarded.

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

specific location for each worker, item, and equipment.

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

as per the schedules.

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

additional suggestions to improve the workplace.

Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)

4.2 Safety climate questionnaire results

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,

and two months after the 5S.

-------------------------------------------Table 2 here-------------------------------------------------------

4.2.1 Safety climate trends before and after the 5S

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

changes over time were significant (p > 0.055).

----------------------------Figure 2 here------------------------------------------------

4.2.2 Safety climate differences between groups

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 =

0.0085). Table 3 summarizes the results of the productivity measures.

------------------------------------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

assembly workers removed and reported hazards during the 5S.

---------------------------------------Table 4 here-------------------------------------------------------------

While several of the eight dimensions increased, contributing to the overall improvement

in safety climate, two dimensions of safety climate significantly increased: management

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

improvement in safety climate.

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

productivity, so there was no focus during the 5S specifically on dimensions such as

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

benefits of the events to include improved safety.

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

impacted the risks and hazards positively.

Ultimately, the research shows that 5S increases the safety climate of the manufacturing

workers through two results:

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

control group did not change significantly after the 5S event.

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

group reported increased involvement, which is understandable if a researcher includes them in

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

the anticipation of change due to lean.

5.2 Future research

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

which steps of the 5S process contribute most to changes in safety climate.

Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)

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

understanding the impact of 5S on the safety climate of the manufacturing workers in an

assembly area. Management commitment and involvement dimensions significantly increased,

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)

productivity of airconditioning coil manufacturing. International Journal of Advanced

Manufacturing Technology, 71,, 307-323.
DE KONING, H., VERVER, J. P. S., VAN DEN HEUVEL, J., BISGAARD, S. & DOES, R. J. M. M. 2006. Lean
six sigma in healthcare. Journal for Healthcare Quality, 28,, 4-11.
DONALD, I. & CANTER, D. 1993. Psychological factors and the accident plateau. Health and Safety
Information Bulletin, 215,, 5-12.
FERDOUSI, F. & AHMED, A. 2009. An investigation of manufacturing performance improvement
through lean production: A study on Bangladeshi garment firms. International Journal of
Business and Management, 4,, 106 - 116.
FILLINGHAM, D. 2007. Can lean save lives? Leadership in Health Services, 20,, 231-241.
GAMAGE, J., VILASINI, P., PERERA, H. & WIJENATHA, L. Impact of lean manufacturing on
performance and organisational culture: a case study of an apparel manufacturer in Sri
Lanka. The third international conference on engineering, project and production
management (EPPM), United Kingdom, 2012. 423-436.
GILLEN, M., BALTZ, D., GASSEL, M., KIRSCH, L. & VACCARO, D. 2002. Perceived safety climate, job
demands, and coworker support among union and non-union injured construction workers.
Journal of Safety Research, 33,, 33-51.
GRABAN, M. 2009. Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Satisfaction,
Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.
HAYES, B. E., PERANDER, J., SMECKO, T. & TRASK, J. 1998. Measuring perceptions of workplace
safety: development and validation of the Work Safety Scale. Journal of Safety Research, 29,,
145-161.
HERNÁNDEZ LAMPREA, E. J., CARNARGO CARREÑO, Z. M. & MARTINEZ SÁNCHEZ, P. M. T. 2015.
Impact of 5S on productivity, quality, organizational climate and industrial safety in Caucho
Metal Ltda. Ingeniare. Revista chilena de ingeniería, 23,, 107-117.
IBM CORP 2012. IBM SPSS statistics for Windows,. 21.0 ed. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
IKUMA, L. H. & NAHMENS, I. 2014. Making safety an integral part of 5S in healthcare. Work, 47,, 243-
251.
JOHNSON, S. E. 2007. The predictive validity of safety climate. Journal of Safety Research, 38,, 511-
521.
KAO, L.-H., STEWART, M. & LEE, K.-H. 2009. Using structural equation modeling to predict cabin
safety outcomes among Taiwanese airlines. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 45,, 357-365.
KILPATRICK, J. 2003. Lean Principles. Utah Manufacturing Extension Partnership [Online].
Available: http://mhc-net.com/whitepapers_presentations/LeanPrinciples.pdf.

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

Dimension Number of Questions

Management Commitment 7
Communication 5
Priority of Safety 7
Supportive Environment 6
Involvement 3
Personal Priorities and Need for Safety 5
Personal Appreciation of Risk 4
Work Environment 6
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)
 Table 2. Summary of safety climate questionnaire (SCAT) results
Pre-5S 1 Month Post-5S 2 Months Post-5S
mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD)
Control Case Control Case Control Case
Group Group Group Group Group Group
Management 21.5 (2.3) 20.6 (2.3) 21.6 (2.0) 25 (2.8) 21.2 (1.1) 25.4 (3.4)
Commitment
Communication 19.7 (3.9) 18.1 (3.0) 18.4 (4.6) 19.1 (3.0) 17.8 (4.9) 19.2 (3.8)
Priority of Safety 23.6 (2.8) 25.3 (3.0) 25.1 (3.5) 27.7 (3.2) 24.4 (4.2) 27.7 (3.7)
Supportive Environment 17.8 (3.3) 19.1 (3.3) 19.6 (3.6) 20.1 (3.1) 22.6 (2.3) 19.7 (3.5)
Involvement 6.22 (2.3) 7.22 (2.4) 8.44 (2.5) 10.2 (2.4) 11.4 (3.1) 10.1 (2.2)
Personal Priorities/Need 16.7 (2.7) 18.1 (2.0) 16 (2.3) 18.2 (2.7) 15.2 (2.6) 17.2 (2.6)
for Safety
Downloaded by University of York At 03:13 17 February 2016 (PT)

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)