Safety Tagging System: A Unified Information Database for Managing Nonconformities and Incidents

From Scattered Remarks to a Unified Information Database

At the base of Bird's pyramid lie unsafe acts and conditions, yet at many enterprises, recording these prerequisites remains non-transparent. Remarks are passed on verbally, get lost in the flow of tasks, and the real picture of risks is distorted. In her presentation, Irina Klimanova analyzes a practical case of transforming this process at a fiberglass manufacturing plant, where a safety tagging system was implemented as part of the TPM methodology.

The transition from reactive to proactive management requires a tool that makes defect registration simple and their elimination controllable. The speaker shows how the enterprise went from the first attempts to visualize problems to creating a structured electronic database that allowed the vast majority of employees to be involved in the risk identification process.

Evolution of the Tool: Why Classical Methods Failed

The implementation of the system began with a classical approach — hanging physical tags directly on problematic equipment. However, the specifics of the production (high humidity and dust) quickly showed the inefficiency of this method: paper media became unusable, and information was lost.

The next stage was information boards in the areas, but they required lengthy daily rounds to collect data. Ultimately, the optimal solution was the development of a unified electronic database based on Excel macros. This allowed:

• Consolidating data from all production, warehouse, and office buildings in real time.
• Automating the distribution of notifications to responsible managers and the HSE department.
• Generating detailed statistics by types of nonconformities, areas, and shifts for subsequent analysis and building loss trees.

Mechanics of Work and Task Prioritization

The key value of the system lies in the simplicity of registration and built-in risk assessment. Any employee or guest of the enterprise can record a problem (from a crack in the floor to a broken forklift horn). Upon registration, the author fills out a risk assessment matrix, which automatically assigns a color code (green, yellow, or orange) to the nonconformity. This gives managers a clear understanding of priorities: orange tags are taken into work immediately.

The speaker examines the routing process in detail: if a defect cannot be eliminated on the spot, a responsible person is appointed, and deadlines and funding sources are determined. The enterprise's target indicator is closing 90% of tags within 30 days, which is successfully achieved and maintains the team's trust in the system.

Employee Involvement and Culture Transformation

The technical implementation of the database is only half the success. The main challenge was employee motivation. The presentation details involvement tools: from personal conversations and visualization of tag statuses in the areas to integrating indicators into the shift bonus system.

The result of this work was the involvement of 80% of the personnel in the nonconformity registration process. Notably, as the system developed, the focus of workers' attention shifted: while in the early years mostly physical defects were recorded (exposed wires, lack of fencing), now tags related to 5S standard violations and discipline prevail, which indicates a qualitative growth in the safety culture.

What you will learn from this webinar:

• How to adapt the tagging system to the specifics of production with an aggressive environment?
• How to organize electronic tracking of nonconformities and automate notifications without purchasing expensive software?
• By what criteria do workers independently assess the level of risk when registering a tag?
• How to build a budgeting system for the prompt elimination of identified defects?
• What methods of material and non-material motivation actually work to involve line personnel?