The Principles Driving Safety & Reliability:
A Look at the History of DuPont
by: Winston P. Ledet
The Manufacturing Game
During my 27 years with DuPont, the safety culture was apparent.
It was a part of everyone’s job every day. As a result of a
benchmarking study in the late 1980’s and creation of a System
Dynamics model to explain the benchmark results, it became clear
that safety and reliability operate on the same principles. Both
are significantly affected by defects and both require a
commitment from everyone in the organization for improvements to
be achieved.
Beginnings as a Gunpowder Manufacturer
To begin to understand the safety culture at DuPont, you must
understand a bit of the company’s history. The DuPont company
began operations as a family owned and operated gunpowder
manufacturer in 1802 on the banks of the Brandywine River in
Delaware. For the next 170 years, members of the DuPont family
were actively involved in running the company. Many family
members worked in the early powder mills, built their homes and
sent their children to school buildings within sight of the
mills. This made safety more than just a program at DuPont; it
was a way of life that kept loved ones and personal property
safe.
Early Incidents that Galvanized the Focus on Safety
The production of gunpowder in the early 1800’s was a dangerous
business. Fires and explosions were not uncommon. One of the
earliest safety innovations used by the DuPont powder mills
involved the basic design of the mill buildings. They were
constructed of three strong, stone walls, a weak fourth wall
made of wood facing the river, plus a weak wooden roof that
acted as a “safety valve”. If an explosion occurred in the
powder mill, the wooden roof and fourth wall would be blown out.
The rest of the factory, and people within the factory, would be
protected from the blast by the stone walls. The wooden wall
faced the river so the boats were locked to the dock when
production was in progress; DuPont’s first lock out procedure.
While this might not sound very impressive by today’s safety
standards, it was an extraordinarily innovative safety design at
the time.
A series of incidents during the first 100 years of operation
kept safety concerns in the consciousness of the DuPont family
and employees. In 1815, an explosion cost the company $80,000,
more than double the original investment in the entire company.
In 1817, they were faced with a more significant loss.
Seventy-seven year old Pierre Samuel DuPont, the financial
founder of the company, died after working all night to help
fight a fire in the mill. The following year, an explosion
killed 40 workers and injured many children who were in the
school building on the grounds at the time. Later, the death of
one of the young favorites of the DuPont family, Alexis DuPont,
in an explosion while fighting a fire on the wooden roof of a
powder mill in 1857 also had a significant impact.
The first safety rules in DuPont were established in 1811 and
even at that time, DuPont saw line management as responsible for
Safety. DuPont first started collecting safety statistics in
1912. The belief that all injuries were preventable didn’t
actually develop until the 1940’s. The “off the job safety”
programs began in the 1950’s. The standards for safety continued
to evolve and became more demanding all the way to the 1990’s at
which time DuPont adopted the goal of zero injuries. Management
had wrestled for years with the idea of setting this zero
injuries goal but finally decided that if it was to be believed
that all injuries are preventable, how could there be a goal of
anything higher than zero. To put DuPont’s excellent safety
record into a personal perspective, if you as an individual want
to beat DuPont’s safety rate, you have to work an entire career
without getting even a single minor injury. One would be too
many.
The Key to Success
The key to success in the DuPont Safety Program is the deeply
held belief that safety is everyone’s responsibility – not one
designated individual, team or department. Each person must be
individually responsible for safety based on the position they
hold and according to the circumstances they face. It is not
good enough for a plant manager to search for people not wearing
proper safety equipment. The plant manager must look at his
duties and make judgments about what policies will lead to safe
behaviors. This also includes policies about hiring, firing, and
development of people along with policies on standards for
design of equipment. Operators and mechanics also have
individual safety responsibilities. They should not expect to
wait for their boss to tell them to wear proper safety
equipment. Discharging that responsibility takes courage to do
what is right, integrity to not use safety as an excuse to avoid
work or other unpleasantness, and to recognize that an
incredible amount of persistence is required. Safety is never
finished; you have to do it again and again, every day. This is
something that must be learned through experience, but you don’t
have to wait until someone is hurt. It is important to create
places to practice and drill people in safe behaviors like the
training of fire fighters.
Applying the Principles to Reliability
Companies that have achieved high equipment reliability have
learned that similar to safety, reliability must be everyone’s
responsibility. Each person, from the plant manager to the
engineers, purchasing agents, operators, mechanics and other
support personnel, must be individually responsible for
reliability based on the position they hold and according to the
circumstances they face. Focused reliability teams and dedicated
reliability engineers can be used to make dramatic improvements
in concentrated areas, but they will not be able to develop the
kind of reliability culture within the entire organization that
is the essential ingredient to significant improvement. In
addition, there must be a belief that all failures are
preventable, just as DuPont acknowledged that all injuries are
preventable when they adopted the goal of zero injuries.

The managers must look at their duties and make judgments about
what actions and policies will lead to improved reliability.
Managers must increase the urgency around improving reliability.
They are responsible for developing and effectively
communicating the business case for reliability to all levels
within the organization. They must decide which issues get their
attention. Focusing on the most urgent events, typically the
breakdowns, sends the unintended message from the management
team to the workforce — that reactive work is the most
important. For proactive behaviors to become a prevalent, normal
part of the daily routine, managers must actively seek ways to
recognize, reward and publicize such behaviors. Operators and
mechanics must recognize that defect elimination is an integral
part of their daily job. They should not wait for an engineer or
manager to tell them to take action when equipment, processes or
practices are not functioning properly. Instead they should
actively recruit others to help them eliminate identified
defects.
For reliability improvement efforts to be successful, the
organization must create an environment where the workers can
practice proactive behaviors. Most workers have years of
reactive habits that cannot be expected to disappear overnight.
Creating new habits requires repetition of the new desired
actions. The Manufacturing Game® workshop uses Action Teams for
this purpose, giving the participants the opportunity to work as
a cross functional team to eliminate a known defect. The
behavior of managers must also change to support performance in
the Improved Precision Domain. The old “I tell, you do” approach
that can be extremely successful in the Reactive Domain will no
longer be appropriate since everyone in the organization
participates in decision making in the Improved Precision
Domain. The role of the manager changes from “boss” to “leader”.
Their responsibilities need to include encouraging
self-generated Action Teams for continued elimination of
defects, determining and communicating a vision of the
organization’s future and developing the needed support systems
for front-line decision-making. Accomplishing these objectives
is the goal of the Leadership Forum Series, a set of monthly
meetings that each address gaining commitment to a specific
leadership issue.
In DuPont, we recognized that safety was the responsibility of
each individual and required the participation of everyone. Thus
the slogan - Safety, I have to do it myself, but I can’t do it
alone. Many organizations are now realizing that the same is
true for reliability. Each individual must take personal
responsibility for reliability and take appropriate action based
on the position they hold and circumstances that they face —
through defect elimination activities and the setting of
policies and procedures. And it will take the participation of
everyone within the organization to achieve higher reliability
and the resulting improved performance results.
Reliability, I have to do it myself, but I can’t do it alone.
|