Rock Products is the aggregates industry's leading source for market analysis and technology solutions, delivering critical content focusing on aggregates-processing equipment; operational efficiencies; management best practices; comprehensive market
Issue link: https://rock.epubxp.com/i/511782
www.rockproducts.com ROCK products • May 2015 • 25 On survey items 17 to 28, respondents were asked to rate various forms of communication as to what they be- lieved to be: • Not effective = 1 • Effective = 2 • Most effective = 3 As done in the Joy study, each of these items was given a numeric value so that an average score could be obtained. By doing so the most and least effective form of communication could be iden- tified. The closer the average response was to "3," the more effective respon- dents believed the form of communi- cation to be in that particular situation. They were asked to rate the following communication processes: a. Conversation. b. Hand Signals. c. Notes on Bulletin Board. d. Telephone or Radio. e. T5s. f. Crew Meetings. g. Task Training. Rate the following as processes to in- form you of changes in operating pro- cedures, co-workers, equipment or hazards at your plant or project. • Non-supervisors rated conversation and crew meetings as most efficient (Score 2.7) and notes on bulletin board (Score 1.6) and T5s (Score 1.9) as not effective. • S u p e r v i s o r s ra te d c o nve r s a t i o n (Score 2.8) and crew meetings (Score 2.6) as the most effective and notes on the bulletin board (Score 1.6) and telephone/radio (1.8) as not being effective. Rate the following for providing you with the hazards of operating a new machine or equipment. • Field employees indicated conver- sation (Score 2.8) and task training (Score 2.8) as the most effective com- munication process to provide infor- mation on hazards with new equip- ment or machines; not effective were notes on the bulletin board (Score 1.4) and T5s (Score 1.9). • Supervisors agreed conversation (Score 2.9) and task training (Score 2.8) were the most effective in this case and notes on bulletin board (Score 1.0) and T5s (Score 1.6) to not be effective. Rate the following as ways to encour- age co-workers to conduct risk assess- ments. • Conversation (Score 2.9) and crew meetings (Score 2.8) were rated as the most effective by field employ- ees and notes on a bulletin board (Score 1.5) and T5s (Score 1.5) as not effective. • Supervisors selected task training (Score 2.9) and conversation (Score 2.8) as most effective and hand sig- nals (Score 1.4) and notes on a bulle- tin board (Score 1.5) as not effective. Rate how effective the following would be for making others aware of issues that were found and corrected during your shift. • Non-supervisors indicated conver- sation (Score 2.9) and crew meetings (Score 2.8) were the most effective in this case scenario and considered notes on a bulletin board (Score 1.5) and hand signals (Score 1.7) were not effective. • Conversation (Score2.9) and crew meetings (Score 2.9) were consid- ered most effective by supervisors and not effective were hand signals (Score 1.1) and notes on a bulletin board (Score 1.3) Rate the following on how effective they would be to give pre-shift infor- mation or assignments. • Conservation (Score 2.9) and crew meetings (Score 2.8) were rated as the most effective by non-supervi- sors while hand signals (Score 1.0) and notes on a bulletin board were considered not effective. • Supervisors indicated conversation (Score 3.0) and crew meetings (Score 2.6) were the most effective. Hand signals (Score 1.0) and notes on a bulletin board were determined to not be effective. Clean Flight Wing (C) lean (F) light (W) ing ™ ™ Patent Pending CONVEYOR PULLEY www.martinsprocket.com 817 258 3000 Less Vibration and Noise Enhanced Belt Tracking and Material Rejection Belt Cleaning is Optimized Available in Flat Face or Crowned Face Offered in Standard Duty, Mine Duty, Quarry Duty and Engineered Class Also Available as Assembled Unit with Shaft and Bearings and as Dead Shaft Design