Tool Training Matrix

Education
1

At the membership meeting tonight we talked about a way to classify tools to make sure they receive the appropriate training.

I. Why: Rapid membership growth makes it difficult to provide enough training. Tool training requirements vary widely across committees. Some tools have restrictive requirements while others have no requirements. This inconsistency is confusing and may not ensure the safety of our members and equipment.

Objective: Provide greater access to tools by identifying the suitable level of training, while ensuring member safety and minimizing equipment damage. Bring consistency to training levels required.

II. What: an algorithm based matrix/spreadsheet that assesses the recommended level of basic training (safety and basic use) for any given tool provided by DMS. It is not intended to apply to proficiency or project classes.

III. When: Hope to present our findings at the next member meeting so please have form in by March 3rd.

IV. Where: will be maintained, on a static basis, on wiki in the “tools” area, e.g. tool status page

V. How: 4 pieces of information per tool are estimated/assessed:

• Likely/maximum Severity of Injury, on a scale of 1-5:
1 = negligible; 2 = minor; 3 = moderate; 4 = critical; 5 = catastrophic

• Probability of injury – for an untrained operator – on a scale of 1-5:
1 = rare; 2 = unlikely/seldom; 3 = possible/occasional; 4 = likely; 5 = almost certain/frequent

• Likely/maximum Severity of Tool Damage , in terms of cost per occurrence, on a scale of 1-4:
1 =< $100; 2 =< $500; 3 =~ $1000; 4 = Several $K or more

• Probability of Damage – for an untrained operator – on a scale of 1-5:
1 = rare; 2 = unlikely/seldom; 3 = possible/occasional; 4 = likely; 5 = almost certain/frequent

VI. Next Steps:
We need YOUR help to fill out this form. Tool Classification Collection Sheet - Google Sheets

Please copy it and only fill out the areas you consider yourself proficient in. Once you are done please email it to [email protected]

In about 3 weeks we will compile the numbers and review. Please post any questions you may have here but please don’t post what you think something should be scored here as we don’t want to skew someone else’s scoring.

2 Likes
2

Can I suggest making it globally writable from link? Currently it is view only. Google docs has built in version tracking so you can revert malicious edits

1 Like
3

@Brandon_Green, If I understand correctly, I believe a big reason not to make it editable, is because they want input from as many members who know various tools very well in order to get an average of what different members feel about the risks per tool.

One member may feel like tool X is extremely dangerous with a high risk to members and the tool, another member may feel like the risk to a member is moderate but the risk to the tool is high… Etc…

If we see other people’s responses, it could cause us to second guess, or otherwise have an impact on how we may score each thing…



@AlexRhodes, would it be possible to set up the form where the Data Collection is the first tab, and the definitions are the second tab? The reason being is that it defaults to the definitions and if not paying attention, members may not notice the other tab to input the information on. (Upon first glance, it looked like it was a one sheet per tool… Until my eyes wandered up to the tabs where I noticed that I could click Data Collection… :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:)

Thanks! :smile:

4

I think performing a risk assessment is a great plan and much needed for the Space. However, I want to point out, that as presented, this won’t produce data of real value, because the result, by definition, will skew towards the opinions of inexperienced replies. Most committee areas have 2-4 members, who perform maintenance and repair on tools, or are experienced enough with a given tool to have a valid opinion. The rest will simply be unspported WAG opinions by folks lacking actual experience maintaining the tool (other than as a member-user).

For example - I think many users would have some sense of the dangerousness of a tool, as questioned in column C. We’ve been extremely lucky with respect to accidents so far, so none of us really have much experience estimating the probability of accident. So the best we can hope for in this column, is a guage of the perceived fear a certain tool produces, which is a metric with some value. And this would apply to a slightly lesser extent to column D.

On the other hand, the validity of data collected for columns E and F, is directly correlated to the experience of the person answering. I might answer the questions for the Pfaff Heavy Duty Leather sewing machine, but since I’ve never maintained or repaired the machine, my answer would be a wild ass guess, whereas Nicole’s answer is based on real experience, and is high value data. The opposite would be true in Woodshop, where I do most of the repairs, and Nicole would just be guessing. So equating responses without considering the source, guarantees worthless results.

So, I suggest that assigning the questions to persons able to answer them accurately, is an absolute requirement, if you wish to get results that mean anything at all.

3 Likes
5

I’d like to make a suggestion on the category for answering the question related to damage. The numbers are fine and important, but it seems that one of the most common problems with tools and machines being used by people with less experience is down time, not repair costs. By example, failure to properly thread the filament in the Poly printer isn’t necessarily going to cause damage (possible, but not necessarily), but it would make the Poly inoperable until someone with experience helps to fix the problem. For some tools, downtime can be much longer so there is an impact to the community even though there isn’t a financial cost.

6

With most tools, downtime depends on how long it takes to get the parts, plus the availability of the person able to perform the repair. Not easy to estimate ahead of time.

7

I think this is a great idea, but I would be most comfortable if it is reviewed by a lawyer. Even a simple “tool” is dangerous - A friend of mine had a relative who accidently stab himself in the eye with a phillips head screw driver - yes, he lost the eye…the point is that by declaring something less risky, does it add to any liability?

Are there other resources that would help inform the process, such as statistics on accidents by machine? I had reason to research wood lathes because somehow the myth spread these are “really dangerous machines” and need specialized training. here is a link to estimates of woodshop tools that send folks to the ER. Shop Accident Statistics & Woodworking Safety | WWGOA | WoodWorkers Guild of America

I’m all for it, btw, and I really appreciate the thought and effort being put into it! I’ll certainly participate.

(BTW: Wood lathes are one of the safest in the shop (but I’m all for that training). In fact it is kind of silly to demand single machine training for it and not the table saw.)

8

JC,

Always well to remember, that even though our main purpose might be safety, basic operations is usually covered as well, and for many/most users, that’s just as valuable, if not more. I agree with you on lathe safety, but turning is it’s own art and science, and not a lot of knowledge shared with the various saws taught in the WB class. Same as the Multicam - just too much basic operation material to be covered, warrants its own class.

Also, I have never heard a single person complain about taking the lathe class, either before or after the class - means we (you) are doing something right there.

9

Meant to get to this sooner but been a little busy today.

Most of these questions were answered in the talk at the meeting but I should have mentioned them here.

@Brandon_Green Like Lisa mentioned we don’t want people to influence someones decision. We want to see a grouping and then if there are any “outliers.” If there are we will reach out to them to see if they know something that others do not.

@Tapper and @jlcourtman It is suggested that if you don’t know anything about a tool that you leave that area blank. So don’t fill out the area about the pfaff and only stick to woodshop if that is all you know about. That is fine. Do we have people that think they know it all, sure, but if we don’t have a mode we won’t be able to identify those outliers. These numbers and forms are loosely based on some safety matrix @John_Marlow has worked with in the past so this isn’t completely pulled out of thin air. While you are right that it is a gut feeling how often some event is to occur it is better than just an I feel this shouldn’t require training because I know how to use it. It needs to be thought of as if an untrained person person walked up to the tool.

This list can always be adjusted at a later date if we gain new info but there is no consistency across the space in regards why some tools have training and others don’t.

@wilkesc while we didn’t talk about it in the meeting yesterday it was discussed in the initial talks. We decided that it doesn’t matter. Because even if its something we still have 5 of and that number being low it still might have a high replacement cost causing it to be classified higher. Or vice versa, just because we have one of something you will not require training simply due to its scarcity.

I hope y’all fill out the form to the best of your ability so we can get some real numbers to compare. Again, don’t fill out areas you don’t know about.

2 Likes
10

You might consider making the text stand out a bit, like this:

[color=red]only fill out the areas you consider yourself proficient in.[/color]


[color=red]don’t fill out areas you don’t know about.[/color]

2 Likes
12

The manufacturer of the machine should have performed a similar risk analysis and then designed appropriate guards into the system. We are not trying to determine whether a machine is inherently safe or not; we are trying to determine the training appropriate for an untrained user.

I would love to see statistics on accidents by machine. Couldn’t find any. And remember - this is all about untrained users, not the inherent safety of the machine. For example … consider the Saw Stop saw. It most likely won’t cut your finger off whether you are trained or not; but the risk that an untrained user can suffer a kickback accident is much higher than that for a trained user.

2 Likes
13

But as we go through this, we will likely consider some machines that are unique. Rather than change the training requirements, that might prompt us to consider a different spare parts philosophy in some select instances.

3 Likes
14

I have never heard of a new sewer, managing to sew thru a finger, but I know of several that did, I didn t do that,
my experienced person accident was with my flex shaft and a metal saw blade. It caught and kicked back and I had to get the tip of a finger sewn back on,
I had told my hubby that those blades were dangerous and yet I got in a hurry, (I gave the blades to a friend)

I am not sure how to handle a tool like that It depends on what you are using on it

1 Like
15

I wonder if it would make sense to have a modified version of this distributed to the committees to create a tool inventory we can use going forward, as a planning document and an asset inventory.

Perhaps add tool cost, current value, location, supervising committee, etc. It would also help, if committees would be required to turn in a maintenance cost estimate along with the purchase price and installation training plan, any power circuits or footings needed, etc. All this should also be a required submission in order to request a purchase by the Board as well.

It’s a great idea to get a handle on this training thing Space-wide, but a small effort could add greatly to the utility of the data collected.

Lastly, it would be a good idea, to request that committees define their current training requirements, and whatever their future plans are, as a basis for deciding what changes to make.

Just a thought.

16

@AlexRhodes, have we received any responses?

17

Sadly, We have only received 1 response…Seems like everyone has an opinion except for when we ask for it.

3 Likes
18

@AlexRhodes thanks for trying to set this up. Sorry you didn’t get the response you wanted. I think your survey was too broad to be filled out. It seems that many of the tools have none obvious answers to these categories, especially when limited to a number range.

I would suggest allowing more of a fill in setup, With the categories of What types of injuries might happen from the tool, such as cuts, shock, burning, broken bone, loss of life? Second, does this tool have common misuse cases for new or untrained users, if so what are they and how would they hurt the user or tool? Third is this tool likely to break in normal use, and how? Also, there needs to be a no answer because you have no opinion.

My two cents,

19

@AlexRhodes… You might get better buy-in if you get the @Committee_Chairs involved so they can encourage the “power users” of various tools to fill out the form for various tools in their areas. It would probably help to also have hard copies available in each area at the Space for members who aren’t on TALK (or intend to complete it later, then :squirrel: :squirrel: :squirrel:)…

2 Likes
20

They’ll all kill you any time you use them.

That’s all the liability I’m comfortable with.

1 Like