Throughout the range of possible workplace temperatures, safeguarding the health and well-being of employees is paramount.  Despite equal importance, the development of a coordinated program to prevent cold injury receives much less attention than its heat-related counterpart.
     An effective cold injury prevention program consists of the same components as a heat illness prevention program.  These include the measures used in environmental assessment, exposure limits, policies and procedures, training plans, program assessment processes, and other information relevant to work in a cold environment.  Like its heat-related counterpart, this is nominally a prevention program; however, information about the proper response to the occurrence of cold injury, such as first aid practices, is also included.
     Given the similar natures of the heat- and cold-related programs, it should come as no surprise that this installment of the “Thermal Work Environments” series parallels that of “Part 5:  Managing Conditions in Hot Environments.”  In the outline for a cold injury prevention program that emerges, cold stress hygiene and various control mechanisms are introduced.  This outline can be customized to the specific needs of an organization or workplace.

     Development of effective cold stress indices has garnered significantly less attention than that of heat stress indices (see Part 4).  Perhaps this is explained, at least in part, by the lesser threat to life posed by cold stress, as explained in Part 7.  Whatever the reason, this difference does not indicate lesser importance.  Cold stress and cold injuries are serious conditions that effect workers in many ways and have both short- and long-term consequences.  Monitoring environmental conditions and worker well-being is as critical a responsibility in cold environments as it is in hot ones.
      This installment of the “Thermal Work Environments” series parallels the discussion in Part 4, beginning with a widely-reported, if not widely-understood, index used in weather forecasting, followed by a discussion of application in industrial settings.  Readers are encouraged to review the discussions of heat and cold indices in conjunction.

     Loss of heat balance in a cold environment leads to cold injury, an umbrella term for several afflictions, of varying severity, resulting from overexposure to low temperatures.  Recognizing symptoms of cold injuries is critical to timely treatment and successful recovery.
     This installment is a companion to Part 3 (“Heat Illness”) of the “Thermal Work Environments” series, in which a range of cold-related effects and injuries are presented.  The objective of this discussion is to raise awareness of the risks of working in cold environments and the severity of potential outcomes.  These are serious conditions, all but the mildest of which require medical attention from trained healthcare professionals.

     Many of the human body’s responses to cold mirror those initiated by exposure to heat.  Others are unique physiological mechanisms engaged to pursue diametrically-opposed objectives.  The risks associated with cold stress are very different from those of heat stress, requiring unique forms of strain for proper and effective management.
     This installment parallels Part 2 of the “Thermal Work Environments” series, providing an overview of thermoregulatory functions activated by cold stress.  The heat balance equation is also revisited, discussing each term in the context of cold environments.  These two installments are “companion pieces;” each can stand alone, but are most helpful when reviewed in conjunction.

     The measurement of sound pressure levels throughout a workplace is a fundamental component of noise-control and hearing-conservation initiatives.  It is the basis for exposure assessment and regulatory guidance.  Sound measurement and audiometry are opposite sides of the same coin.
     This installment of the “Occupational Soundscapes” series introduces basic concepts of sound level measurement and exposure assessment.  Equipment used, frequencies analyzed, calculation of a “dose,” and more are presented.  Like the presentation of audiometry (Part 5), its aim is to provide a level of understanding, within the constraints of this format, that engenders trust in an organization’s noise-related practices.

     Audiometry is the measurement of individuals’ hearing sensitivity using finely-regulated sound inputs.  It is a crucial component of a hearing loss prevention program (HLPP) with an emphasis on the range of frequencies prevalent in speech communication.  To be valid, audiometric testing must be conducted under controlled conditions and the results interpreted by a knowledgeable technician or audiologist.
     This installment of the “Occupational Soundscapes” series provides an introduction to audiometry, requirements for equipment, facilities, and personnel involved in audiometric testing, and the presentation and interpretation of test results.  It targets, primarily, those enrolled in – as opposed to responsible for – an HLPP.  Its purpose is to develop a basic understanding of a critical component of hearing conservation efforts to, in turn, engender confidence in the administration of procedures that may be foreign to many who undergo them.

     Occupational soundscapes, as outlined in Part 1, are comprised of many sounds.  Each has a unique source and set of defining characteristics.  For some purposes, treating all sounds in combination may be appropriate.  For others, the ability to isolate sounds is integral to the purpose of measuring sound levels.
     Of particular importance to a hearing loss prevention program (HLPP) is the ability to add, subtract, and average contributions to the sound pressure level (LP, SPL) in a workplace.  The ratios and logarithms used to calculate SPLs, presented in Part 3, complicate the arithmetic, but only moderately.  This installment of the “Occupational Soundscapes” series introduces the mathematics of sound, enabling readers to evaluate multiple sound sources present in workers’ environs.

     In all likelihood, readers of this series have encountered the decibel scale many times.  It may have been used in the specifications of new machinery or personal electronic devices.  Some may be able to intuit the practical application of these values, but it is likely that many lack knowledge of the true meaning and implications of the decibel scale.
     This installment of the “Occupational Soundscapes” series introduces the decibel (dB) and its relevance to occupational noise assessment and hearing conservation.  Those with no exposure to the scale and those that have a functional understanding, but lack foundational knowledge, benefit from understanding its mathematical basis.  The characteristics of sound to which it is most-often applied is also presented to continue developing the knowledge required to effectively support a hearing loss prevention program (HLPP).

     A rudimentary understanding of the physics of sound and the basic functions of the human ear is necessary to appreciate the significance of test results, exposure limits, and other elements of a hearing loss prevention program (HLPP).  Without this background, data gathered in support of hearing conservation have little meaning and effective protections cannot be developed and implemented.
     This installment of the “Occupational Soundscapes” series provides readers an introduction to the generation and propagation of sound and the structure and function of the human ear; it is not an exhaustive treatise on either subject.  Rather, it aims to provide a foundation of knowledge – a refresher, for many – on which future installments of the series build, without burdening readers with extraneous or potentially confusing detail.

     Exposure to excessive noise in the workplace can have profound effects, both immediate and long-term.  Some consequences are obvious, while others may surprise those that have not studied the topic.
     Some industries, such as mining and construction, are subject to regulations published specifically for them.  This series presents information, including regulatory controls, that is broadly applicable to manufacturing and service industries.

     Safeguarding the health and well-being of employees is among the critical functions of management.  In hot workplaces, monitoring environmental conditions and providing adequate protection comprise a significant share of these responsibilities.  The details of these efforts are often documented and formalized in a heat illness prevention program.
     An effective heat illness prevention program consists of several components, including the measure(s) used for environmental assessment, exposure limits or threshold values, policies defining the response to a limit or threshold being reached, content and schedule of required training for workers and managers, and the processes used to collect and review data and modify the program.  Other information may be added, particularly as the program matures.  Though it is nominally a prevention program, response procedures, such as the administration of first aid, should also be included; the program should not be assumed to be infallible.
     In this installment of the “Thermal Work Environments” series, the components of heat stress hygiene and various control mechanisms are introduced.  Combined with the types of information mentioned above, an outline of a heat illness prevention program emerges.  This outline can be referenced or customized to create a program meeting the needs of a specific organization or work site.

     Since the early 20th century, numerous methods, instruments, and models have been developed to assess hot environments in absolute and relative terms.  Many people are most familiar with the “feels like” temperature cited in local weather reports, though its method of determination can also vary.  Index calculations vary in complexity and the number of included variables.
     Despite the ever-improving accuracy and precision of instrumentation, heat indices remain models, or approximations, of the effects of hot environments on comfort and performance.  The models may also be applicable only in a narrow range of conditions.  When indices are routinely cited by confident “experts,” without qualifying information, those in the audience may attribute greater value to them than is warranted.
     Incorporating the range of possible environmental conditions and human variability requires an extremely complex model, rendering its use in highly-dynamic workplaces infeasible.  Though imperfect, there are models and methods that can be practically implemented for the protection of workers in hot environments.

     When the human body’s thermoregulatory functions are unable to maintain heat balance in a hot environment, any of several maladies may result.  Collectively known as “heat illness,” these maladies vary widely in severity.  Therefore, a generic diagnosis of heat illness may provide insufficient information to assess future risks to individuals and populations or to develop effective management plans.
     This installment of the “Thermal Work Environments” series describes the range of heat illnesses that workers may experience.  This information can be used to identify risk factors and develop preventive measures.  It also facilitates effective monitoring of conditions, recognition of symptoms, and proper treatment of heat-effected employees.

     The human body reacts to exposure to – and generation of – heat by activating various system responses.  The nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory, and exocrine systems are key players in the physiological behavior of workers subject to heat stress.  Effective thermoregulation requires that these systems operate in highly-interconnected ways.
     This installment of the “Thermal Work Environments” series provides an overview of the human body’s thermoregulatory functions that are activated by heat stress and introduces the heat balance equation.  Each component of the heat balance equation is described in terms of physiological and environmental factors that impact thermoregulation.

     In the minds of many readers, the term “thermal environment” may induce images of a desert, the Arctic, or other thoughts of extreme conditions.  While extreme conditions require intense planning and preparation, they merely bookend the range of work conditions that require consideration.  That is to say that the environmental conditions of all workplaces should be thoroughly assessed and the impacts on the people within them properly addressed.
     The ensuing discussion is generalized to be applicable to a wide range of activities.  The information presented in this series is intended to be universally applicable in manufacturing and service industries.  Additional guidance may be available from other sources; readers should consult industry- or activity-specific organizations for detailed information on best practices and regulations that are beyond the scope of this series.

     The work balance chart is a critical component of a line balancing effort.  It is both the graphical representation of the allocation of task time among operators, equipment, and transfers in a manufacturing or service process and a tool used to achieve an equal distribution.
     Like other tools discussed in “The Third Degree,” a work balance chart may be referenced by other names in the myriad resources available.  It is often called an operator balance chart, a valid moniker if only manual tasks are considered.  It is also known as a Yamazumi Board.  “Yamazumi” is Japanese for “stack up;” this term immediately makes sense when an example chart is seen, but requires an explanation to every non-Japanese speaker one encounters.  Throughout the following presentation, “work balance chart,” or “WBC,” is used to refer to this tool and visual aid.  This term is the most intuitive and characterizes the tool’s versatility in analyzing various forms of “work.”

     A precedence diagram is a building block for more advanced techniques in operations and project management.  Precedence diagrams are used as inputs to PERT and Gantt charts, line balancing, and Critical Path Method (topics of future installments of “The Third Degree.”)
     Many resources discuss precedence diagramming as a component of the techniques mentioned above.  However, the fact that it can be used for each of these purposes, and others, warrants a separate treatment of the topic.  Separate treatment is also intended to encourage reuse, increasing the value of each diagram created.

     In many organizations, complaints can be heard that there are too many programs and initiatives targeting too many objectives.  These complaints may come from staff or management; many of them may even be valid.  The response to this situation, however, is often misguided and potentially dangerous.
     To streamline efforts and improve performance – ostensibly, at least – managers and executives may discontinue or merge programs.  Done carelessly, consolidation can be de facto termination.  A particularly egregious example of this practice is to combine safety and 5S.

     Unintended consequences come in many forms and have many causes.  “Revenge effects” are a special category of unintended consequences, created by the introduction of a technology, policy, or both that produces outcomes in contradiction to the desired result.  Revenge effects may exacerbate the original problem or create a new situation that is equally undesirable if not more objectionable.
     Discussions of revenge effects often focus on technology – the most tangible cause of a predicament.  However, “[t]echnology alone usually doesn’t produce a revenge effect.”  It is typically the combination of technology, policy, (laws, regulations, etc.), and behavior that endows a decision with the power to frustrate its own intent.
     This installment of “The Third Degree” explores five types of revenge effects, differentiates between revenge and other effects, and discusses minimizing unanticipated unfavorable outcomes.

     The Law of Unintended Consequences can be stated in many ways.  The formulation forming the basis of this discussion is as follows:
“The Law of Unintended Consequences states that every decision or action produces outcomes that were not motivations for, or objectives of, the decision or action.”
     Like many definitions, this statement of “the law” may seem obscure to some and obvious to others.  This condition is often evidence of significant nuance.  In the present case, much of the nuance has developed as a result of the morphing use of terms and the contexts in which these terms are most commonly used.
     The transformation of terminology, examples of unintended consequences, how to minimize negative effects, and more are explored in this installment of “The Third Degree.”

     An organization’s safety-related activities are critical to its performance and reputation.  The profile of these activities rises with public awareness or concern.  Nuclear power generation, air travel, and freight transportation (e.g. railroads) are commonly-cited examples of high-profile industries whose safety practices are routinely subject to public scrutiny.
     When addressing “the public,” representatives of any organization are likely to speak in very different terms than those presented to them by technical “experts.”  After all, references to failure modes, uncertainties, mitigation strategies, and other safety-related terms are likely to confuse a lay audience and may have an effect opposite that desired.  Instead of assuaging concerns with obvious expertise, speaking above the heads of concerned citizens may prompt additional demands for information, prolonging the organization’s time in an unwanted spotlight.
     In the example cited above, intentional obfuscation may be used to change the beliefs of an external audience about the safety of an organization’s operations.  This scenario is familiar to most; myriad examples are provided by daily “news” broadcasts.  In contrast, new information may be shared internally, with the goal of increasing knowledge of safety, yet fail to alter beliefs about the organization’s safety-related performance.  This phenomenon, much less familiar to those outside “the safety profession,” has been dubbed “probative blindness.”  This installment of “The Third Degree” serves as an introduction to probative blindness, how to recognize it, and how to combat it.

     As mentioned in the introduction to the AIAG/VDA aligned standard (“Vol. V:  Alignment”), the new FMEA Handbook, is a significant expansion of its predecessors.  A substantial portion of this expansion is the introduction of a new FMEA type – the Supplemental FMEA for Monitoring and System Response (FMEA-MSR).
     Modern vehicles contain a plethora of onboard diagnostic tools and driver aids.  The FMEA-MSR is conducted to evaluate these tools for their ability to prevent or mitigate Effects of Failure during vehicle operation.
     Discussion of FMEA-MSR is devoid of comparisons to classical FMEA, as it has no correlate in that method.  In this installment of the “FMEA” series, the new analysis will be presented in similar fashion to the previous aligned FMEA types.  Understanding the aligned Design FMEA method is critical to successful implementation of FMEA-MSR; this presentation assumes the reader has attained sufficient competency in DFMEA.  Even so, review of aligned DFMEA (Vol. VI) is highly recommended prior to pursuing FMEA-MSR.

     To conduct a Process FMEA according to AIAG/VDA alignment, the seven-step approach presented in Vol. VI (Aligned DFMEA) is used.  The seven steps are repeated with a new focus of inquiry.  Like the DFMEA, several system-, subsystem-, and component-level analyses may be required to fully understand a process.
     Paralleling previous entries in the “FMEA” series, this installment presents the 7-step aligned approach applied to process analysis and the “Standard PFMEA Form Sheet.”  Review of classical FMEA and aligned DFMEA is recommended prior to pursuing aligned PFMEA; familiarity with the seven steps, terminology used, and documentation formats will make aligned PFMEA more comprehensible.

     To differentiate it from “classical” FMEA, the result of the collaboration between AIAG (Automotive Industry Action Group) and VDA (Verband der Automobilindustrie) is called the “aligned” Failure Modes and Effects Analysis process.  Using a seven-step approach, the aligned analysis incorporates significant work content that has typically been left on the periphery of FMEA training, though it is essential to effective analysis.
     In this installment of the “FMEA” series, development of a Design FMEA is presented following the seven-step aligned process.  Use of an aligned documentation format, the “Standard DFMEA Form Sheet,” is also demonstrated.  In similar fashion to the classical DFMEA presentation of Vol. III, the content of each column of the form will be discussed in succession.  Review of classical FMEA is recommended prior to attempting the aligned process to ensure a baseline understanding of FMEA terminology.  Also, comparisons made between classical and aligned approaches will be more meaningful and, therefore, more helpful.

     Preparations for Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (Process FMEA) (see Vol. II) occur, in large part, while the Design FMEA undergoes revision to develop and assign Recommended Actions.  An earlier start, while ostensibly desirable, may result in duplicated effort.  As a design evolves, the processes required to support it also evolve; allowing a design to reach a sufficient level of maturity to minimize process redesign is an efficient approach to FMEA.
     In this installment of the “FMEA” series, how to conduct a “classical” Process FMEA (PFMEA) is presented as a close parallel to that of DFMEA (Vol. III).  Each is prepared as a standalone reference for those engaged in either activity, but reading both is recommended to maintain awareness of the interrelationship of analyses.