safety

Article Designing and Developing an Effective Safety Program for a Student Project Team

John Catton 1,*,†, Ramin Shaikhi 2,*, Michael Fowler 1,*,† and Roydon Fraser 2,*,†

1 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Engineering 6, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON N2L 3E9, Canada 2 Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo, Engineering 5, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON N2L 3E9, Canada * Correspondence: [email protected] (J.C.); [email protected] (R.S.); [email protected] (M.F.); [email protected] (R.F.) † These authors contributed equally to this work.

 Received: 24 August 2017; Accepted: 2 May 2018; Published: 9 May 2018 

Abstract: In the workplace, safety must be the first priority of all employers and employees alike. In order to maintain the safety and well-being of their employees, employers must demonstrate due diligence and provide the appropriate safety training to familiarize employees with the within the workplace. Although, a student “project team” is not a business, the work done by students for their respective teams is synonymous with the work done in a place of business and thus requires that similar safety precautions and training be administered to students by their team leads and faculty advisors. They take on the role of supervisors within the team dynamic. Student teams often utilize the guidelines and policies that their universities or colleges have developed in order to build a set of standard operating procedures and safety training modules. These guidelines aid in providing a base for training for the team, however, they are no substitute for training specific to the safety associated with the work the team is doing. In order to comply with these requirements, a full analysis of the workplace is required to be completed. A variety of safety analysis techniques need to be applied to define the hazards within the workplace and institute appropriate measures to mitigate them. In this work, a process is developed for establishing a safety training program for a student project team, utilizing systems safety management techniques and the aspect of gamification to produce incentives for students to continue developing their skills. Although, systems safety management is typically applied to the design of active safety components or systems, the techniques for identifying and mitigating hazards can be applied in the same fashion to the workplace. They allow one to analyze their workplace and determine the hazards their employees might encounter, assign appropriate ratings and segregate each respective hazard by their risks. In so doing, safety level assignment can be completed to ensure team members are trained to be able to work on the systems associated with a given level.

Keywords: student-design team; safety training; gamification; systems safety; risk analysis

1. Introduction Safety training on the hazards and tools within a given workplace is a necessity for an employee or general member to receive, so much so that it is a legislative requirement [1,2]. It is pivotal to ensure the safety of those working at their respective occupations, while, additionally, helping them become more skilled and prepared at their duties. At the University of Waterloo, this is evident in the policies set down by the administration to ensure the safety of students and faculty [3]. The guidelines and training offered by the university is sufficient to providing a basis for safety training [4]. It cannot, however, fully

Safety 2018, 4, 21; doi:10.3390/safety4020021 www.mdpi.com/journal/safety Safety 2018, 4, 21 2 of 21 encompass all of the procedures and operations of the team. In response, the University of Waterloo Alternative Fuels Team (UWAFT) has used systems safety management techniques and the principles of gamification to develop a more appropriate safety training system for the team. Student teams at universities allow for engineering students to apply the principles that they have learned in the classroom and apply them to real world applications. These applications are often involving design and build phases and as such there can be significant safety risks associated with these activities. The safety risk is increased even higher with the fact that at times, there is limited faculty supervision for such teams in the work areas and laboratory spaces [5]. This is unlike the labs associated with classes on campus which must have onsite staff, teaching assistants or faculty oversight when the physical work is being executed [5]. In order to establish the safety training program, though, a formal analysis of the workplace hazards that team members will encounter must be completed to determine what experience level must be obtained before a member can perform a particular job. Systems safety management techniques are utilized to perform this analysis [2]. These techniques are typically used by a design team in accordance with active safety objectives, determining what hazards a consumer will face and how to mitigate them but these techniques can be extended for use within the workplace [6]. The management techniques are used to identify workplace hazards, overall classifications of respective risks and subsequently determine mitigation strategies to limit the risks of the hazards [6]. To ensure the safety of personnel, certain safety objectives have to be established [4,7]. They are as follows: (1) To safeguard personnel by preventing loss of life, injury and damage or loss of property; (2) To ensure all UWAFT team members are committed to safety in the workplace; and (3) To provide a process to train personnel on the different systems and operations being completed within the UWAFT facility. The developed Safety Training Plan shall ensure that safety standards are established and that appropriate evaluation and reviews are accomplished on all facets of operations in UWAFT. Through this plan and its goals, a proper safety training program can be fully developed and implemented. The work being completed here, can then be subsequently extended to other student teams, creating a framework by which they can develop their own safety training program.

2. Background

2.1. Description of Past Safety Practices over Advanced Vehicle Technology Competition (AVTC) Participation To date the team has participated in 6 Advanced Vehicle Technology competitions (AVTC), including the: Propane Vehicle Challenge, Ethanol Vehicle Challenge, Challenge X, EcoCAR1, EcoCAR2 and EcoCAR3. In its infancy the team, consisted of only a few team members who largely had mechanical engineering backgrounds. The Propane and Ethanol Vehicle Challenges required members to modify vehicle engines to use alternative fuels and did not require any advanced controls or knowledge of high voltage to perform the necessary tasks. The safety training given to members relied largely on following the safety regimen given by the university, with some minor specialized training for specific tasks. When participating in ChallengeX, the complexity of the project increased dramatically. The competition involved modifying a vehicle to operate using a hydrogen fuel cell and relied on high voltage batteries for energy storage. As the team was much smaller during this period of time, every person was trained on high voltage, compressed gas safety and vehicle controls. Unfortunately, this process was largely informal, not standardized and relied heavily on the team faculty to detail the safety hazard of using these systems. This posed a difficult problem when trying to schedule safety training sessions, as they had to fit with the particular professor’s schedule. From EcoCAR1 to EcoCAR3 there was an even greater increase in the scope of the project, incorporating a wide variety of vehicle design aspects. With the number of team members rising, Safety 2018, 4, 21 3 of 21 it became abundantly clear that it would be impossible to train everyone in the aspects of mechanical operations, high voltage safety and vehicle operational hazards. When working on projects for the vehicle, team members had to have a more in-depth level of understanding of the entire vehicle and all potential hazards present. In EcoCAR 1, a process was developed for understanding various vehicle hazards associated with mechanical, chemical, electrical and controls. This was expanded upon in EcoCAR2 with the development of High Voltage (HV) Training and the new regulations involved with operating the vehicle. Only team members who had become fully certified and understood all of the different vehicle operations and hazards would be able to drive the vehicle for test runs. With these changes, though, it required people to attend the safety training lectures to be able to perform work on the vehicle, as opposed to before, which was in-person training on their first day. Safety training became a requirement for students to participate more actively with the team and it was viewed as a negative by the team members. As a result, attendance declined as students joined other teams. The other teams had (and still to this day) fewer requirements to participate in projects for their respective competitions, as they lacked the complexity of projects that UWAFT had to build. Thus, the number of properly trained personnel dwindled and an additional issue arose from a lack of knowledge transfer when the most senior team members graduated university. In the EcoCAR3 competition, a new safety training program was devised to remedy these issues.

2.2. EcoCAR 3: Hybrid Electric Camaro Case Study UWAFT has had a long tradition of competing in Advanced Vehicle Technology Competitions (AVTCs). The team has now embarked on participating in the EcoCAR 3 competition, sponsored by the US Department of Energy and General Motors. The task for the university students participating in the challenge is to complete the entire development process, from design to integration, completely re-engineering a stock V6 Camaro into a hybrid-electric vehicle. The goals of this challenge are: to improve fuel economy, reduce emissions and maintain performance of the vehicle. The competition runs over a four-year period, with various milestones having to be completed annually and at the end the teams pursue the goal of having a full operational hybrid electric vehicle. The architecture chosen by the team and approved by the competition in early 2016, is a split parallel design. To provide torque to the vehicle an 850 cc snowmobile engine and two electric motors are being utilized. The design will also include a custom clutch and coupling systems to connect and disconnect the engine from the driveline when it is required. This is a highly complex design and has a large amount of risk attached to the project, especially when considering the implications of safety for the personnel involved. Working with such complex systems introduces inherent risk into the project, requiring that hazard and risk analyses be completed on the systems and the facility. In order to best serve UWAFT personnel in completing tasks in a safe and effective manner, a safety training program was developed by Van Lanen et al. [5]. The program established a series of required safety training activities for students to perform, so as to ensure their safety while working on projects with the team. In addition, the developed safety program provided a more formalized and standardized approach to safety, giving participants a much greater level of understanding of the entire vehicle. From this initial safety program, additional improvements and revisions have been made to ensure that safety is maintained throughout the competition. This paper will detail the program’s initial development through the application of safety analysis techniques, development and dispersion of information relating to safety training activities, program objectives and revisions made to the program to counteract drawbacks seen from the initial launch.

2.3. Present Day University of Waterloo Alternative Fuels Team (UWAFT) Demographics Since the beginning of EcoCAR 3, UWAFT has continued to grow its talent base, growing by 19% in year 3 alone. Since the beginning of the competition, 217 students have registered with the team. The bulk of the team is made up of engineering students but the UWAFT team has made strides to Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21 Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21 team.Safety 2018 The, 4 bulk, 21 of the team is made up of engineering students but the UWAFT team has made strides4 of 21 toteam. gather The talented bulk of thepersonnel team is madefrom upacross of engin botheering the studentsUniversity but of the Waterloo UWAFT andteam Wilfrid has made Laurier strides University,gatherto gather talented recruitingtalented personnel personnel members from acrossfrom many bothacross thedifferent both University the faculties University of Waterloo and backgrounds.of andWaterloo Wilfrid and Laurier Wilfrid University, Laurier recruitingUniversity,In terms members recruiting of education from members many levels, different from members many faculties differentare enro andlled faculties backgrounds. in either and backgrounds.undergraduate or Masters-level programs.InIn terms terms In former of of education education AVTCs, levels, levels, UWAFT members members has had are are enrolled oneenro orlled two in in either eithergraduate undergraduate undergra studentsduate capable or or Masters-level Masters-level of taking leadershipprograms.programs. roles. InIn formerformer In year AVTCs,AVTCs, 3 of EcoCAR UWAFTUWAFT 3 however, hashas hadhad the oneone number oror twotwo of core graduategraduate graduate studentsstudents students capablecapable has drastically ofof takingtaking risenleadershipleadership to 14, roles. withroles. Ina In total year year 3of 3 of of17 EcoCAR EcoCAR on the 3 team3 however, however, as a whole. the the number number This of hasof core core allowed graduate graduate the students studentsteam to has nowhas drastically drastically have 59 undergraduatesrisenrisen to to 14, 14, with with for a a total everytotal of of5 17 graduate17 on on the the students. team team as as a Allowinga whole. whole.This Thisfor greater has has allowed allowed leadership, thethe team team knowledge to to now now transfer have have 59 59 andundergraduatesundergraduates providing supervision for for every every 5 5and graduate graduate guidance students. students. to students Allowing Allowing Figure for for greater 1greater details leadership, leadership, the background knowledge knowledge of the transfer transfer team basedandand providing providingon education supervision supervision level. and and guidance guidance to studentsto students Figure Figure1 details 1 details the background the background of the teamof the based team onbased education on education level. level.

Figure 1. University of Waterloo Alternative Fuels Team (UWAFT) Graduate and undergraduate statistics.FigureFigure 1. 1. University University of of Waterloo Waterloo Alternative Alternative Fuels Fuels Team Team (UWAFT) (UWAFT) Graduate Graduate and undergraduate and undergraduate statistics. statistics. TheThe core core team team has has seen seen an an 18% 18% increase increase in in females, females, with with a a 22% 22% increase increase in in females females overall overall among among teamteam members. members.The core team Gender Gender has percentages percentagesseen an 18% for forincrease the the team team in females, can be seen with in a 22%Figure increase 22.. in females overall among team members. Gender percentages for the team can be seen in Figure 2.

FigureFigure 2. 2. GenderGender distribution distribution in in UWAFT. UWAFT. Figure 2. Gender distribution in UWAFT. 2.4.2.4. Occupational Occupational Health Health and and Safety Safety Act Act (OHSA) (OHSA) 2.4. Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) TheThe Occupational Health Health and and Safety Safety Act Act (OHSA) (OHSA) mandates mandates that that an an employer employer must must provide provide the The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) mandates that an employer must provide the necessarynecessary safety safety training training to to their their employees employees so so that that they they will will be be able able to to perform perform their their job job safely safely [2]. [2]. necessary safety training to their employees so that they will be able to perform their job safely [2]. DocumentationDocumentation must must also also be be provided provided showing showing that that the the employee has has completed the the necessary Documentation must also be provided showing that the employee has completed the necessary trainingtraining to to perform perform their their duties duties [1,2]. [1,2]. All All work workersers are are covered covered under under the the OHSA OHSA and and must receive training to perform their duties [1,2]. All workers are covered under the OHSA and must receive proper training. AlthoughAlthough aa workerworker is is classified classified as as someone someone who who receives receives monetary monetary compensation compensation [7], proper training. Although a worker is classified as someone who receives monetary compensation [7],the Universitythe University has policieshas policies which which state thatstate students that students are also are classified also classified as workers as workers [8,9]. Thus, [8,9]. students Thus, [7], the University has policies which state that students are also classified as workers [8,9]. Thus, studentsare covered are undercovered OHSA under and OHSA require and the require necessary the ne safetycessary training safety totraining perform to dutiesperform with duties the team.with students are covered under OHSA and require the necessary safety training to perform duties with theIn Ontario,team. In accordingOntario, according to Ontario to Ontario Regulation Regulation 297/13, 297/13, workers workers of any of type any require type require at the at very the very least the team. In Ontario, according to Ontario Regulation 297/13, workers of any type require at the very leasta basic a basic safety safety training training that coversthat covers the following: the following: least a basic safety training that covers the following: (1) The duties and rights of workers under the Act. (1) The duties and rights of workers under the Act. (2)(1) TheThe duties duties and and rights rights of of employer workers sunder and supervisors the Act. under the Act. (2) The duties and rights of employers and supervisors under the Act. (3)(2) TheThe roles duties of andhealth rights and ofsafety employer representativess and supervisors and joint under health the and Act. safety committees under the (3)(3) Act.TheThe rolesroles ofof health and and safety safety representatives representatives and and joint joint health health and and safety safety committees committees under under the theAct. Act.

Safety 2018, 4, 21 5 of 21 Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21

(4) TheThe roles of the Ministry, thethe WorkplaceWorkplace Safety Safety and and Insurance Insurance Board Board and and so so forth, forth, with with respect respect to tooccupational occupational health health and and safety. safety. (5) CommonCommon workplace workplace hazards. hazards. (6) WHMISWHMIS safety safety training training with with respect respect to information and instruction on controlled products. (7) OccupationalOccupational illness, illness, including including latency (h (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r13297ttps://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r13297). ).

In designingdesigning aa safety safety program program this this list list forms forms a basis a basis by whichby which UWAFT UWAFT can form can anform effective an effective safety trainingsafety training regimen. regimen. The most The pertinent most pertinent task is to task identify is to identify the common the common workplace workplace hazards usinghazards a variety using ofa variety systems of safetysystems techniques safety techniques in order in to order perform to pe arform Job Safety a Job Safety Analysis Analysis [7]. The [7]. safety The safety analysis analysis will identifywill identify the mostthe most hazardous hazardous tasks tasks and and in turnin turn dedicated dedicated safety safety training training can can be be given given toto personnelpersonnel so they can becomebecome informed and be able to performperform those tasks safely. This training will provide additional information in addition to providing an understanding of the broad safety requirements currently in place atat facilities.facilities.

2.5. Job Safety Analysis Job Safety Analyses (JSAs), also referred to as job hazard analysesanalyses (JHAs) and job hazard breakdowns, are are performed performed in in order order to tointegrate, integrate, into into the daily the daily work work life of life employees, of employees, properproper health healthand safety and principles safety principles and practices and practices [7,8]. This [7 ,is8]. focused This is directly focused on directly the work on completed the work completed by personnel by personnelin the workplace, in theworkplace, as well as, the as welloverall as, facility. the overall At each facility. step Atof a each particular step of operation, a particular the operation, goal is to theidentify goal potential is to identify hazards potential and to hazards recommend and to the recommend safest way the tosafest do the way job to[7]. do [7]. Safety is an integral part of every job and shou shouldld be the focus when completing work. Providing personnel with the proper trainingtraining on equipment and operations reduces the chances of a hazard occurring [[1].1]. With the team, there are many operationsoperations that need to be completed on the vehicle in order to ensure that the goals of the overall projectproject are accomplished.accomplished. Also, as we can be considered a “small business,” there are only so many resources that the team can draw upon to complete these assessments. Thus, tasks need to be effectivelyeffectively analyzed from the firstfirst pointpoint ofof contact.contact. JSAs areare notnot suitable suitable for for jobs jobs defined defined too too broadly, broadly, for example,for example, “overhauling “overhauling an engine” an engine” [8]. Thus, [8]. tasksThus, needtasks to need be slightly to be slightly broken downbroken into down sub-tasks into sub-tasks but as there but is as not there a large is numbernot a large of resources number toof drawresources upon to and draw students upon and require students training require on saidtraining tasks. on To said rectify tasks. this Toa rectify broadly this defined a broadly task defined can be bettertask can understood be better byunderstood applying by a hazards applying analysis a hazard tos individual analysis to components individual thatcomponents make up that the entiremake system.up the entire This structuresystem. This will bestructure beneficial will for be developing beneficial for a safety developing training a programsafety training [7] Figure program3 depicts [7] theFigure process 3 depicts for completing the process a for JSA completing in industry. a JSA in industry.

Figure 3. Process of performing a Job Safety Analysis (JSA) in industry [[7].7].

Safety 2018, 4, 21 6 of 21 Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21

2.6. Hierarchal Task AnalysisAnalysis (HTA)(HTA) In order to to identify identify the the various various tasks tasks performed performed by by workers workers for for a aparticular particular project project or orjob, job, a Hierarchicala Hierarchical task task analysis analysis (HTA) (HTA) can can be be utilized. utilized. An An HTA HTA is is one one of of the the most most widely used forms of task analysis, breaking down a a goal of the job intointo a hierarchy of sub-goals that are completed by performing a series of tasks and subtasks [9]. [9]. In order to complete an HTA the following steps are performed [[10]:10]: (1) Define the task under investigation; (1) Define the task under investigation; (2) Collect the necessary data for the task; (2) Collect the necessary data for the task; (3) Define the overall task goal; (3) Define the overall task goal; (4) Determine the next level of sub-goals by breaking down the overall goal and continue to do so (4) untilDetermine all operations the next are level identified; of sub-goals by breaking down the overall goal and continue to do so (5) Anduntil define all operations plans to are describe identified; how to perform the operations in each sub-goal level of the (5) hierarchy.And define plans to describe how to perform the operations in each sub-goal level of the hierarchy. An example of how an HTA cancan bebe developeddeveloped isis providedprovided inin FigureFigure4 4::

FigureFigure 4. 4. ExampleExample of of Hierarchical Hierarchical Ta Tasksk Analysis (HTA) workflow.workflow.

2.7. and (HARA) A Hazard Hazard Analysis Analysis and and Risk Risk Assessment Assessment (HARA) (HARA) is a technique is a technique that aids that in aidsidentifying in identifying hazards associatedhazards associated with a particular with a particular job, operation, job, operation, or task before or task they before occur. they The occur. analysis The analysis focuses focuseson the relationshipon the relationship between between the worker, the worker,the task, the the task, tools the and tools the and work the environment work environment [9,10]. Upon [9,10]. identification,Upon identification, the hazards the hazards are given are given an appropriat an appropriatee risk risk rating rating and and subsequent subsequent steps steps are are taken taken to eliminate or reduce them to an acceptable riskrisk levellevel [[11].11]. In order toto establishestablish properproper safety safety protocols protocols for for given given operations, operations, the the associated associated hazards hazards need need to tobe determinedbe determined [10]. [10]. Defining Defining all possible all possible hazards hazard thoughs canthough be quite can difficultbe quite to difficult complete, to especially complete, if especiallysystems are if unfamiliarsystems are to personnel.unfamiliar Thisto personnel. process involves This process performing involves research performing and literature research reviews and literatureto better understandreviews to better the hazards understand associated the hazards with each associated component with each and co operation.mponent Theand processoperation. of performingThe process Hazardof performing Analysis Hazard and Risk Analysis Assessment and Risk isas Assessment follows (detailed is as follows in Figure (detailed5)[10]: in Figure 5) [10]:

Safety 2018, 4, 21 7 of 21 Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21

Procedure:

1. Identify the hazards - Provide information on the risks of performing a given operation or working with a component. 2. Assess the level of risk 3. Provide a risk level rating to each hazard. 4. Reduce risks by implementing control measures - Determine how best to mitigate the risks of each of the hazards. 5. Verify effectiveness - If the residual risk is acceptable, then the risk assessment process is completed.

Figure 5. Process for completing a Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA) [10]. Figure 5. Process for completing a Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA) [10]. By using this engineering tool, a thorough assessment of the possible hazards and their associated risksBy can using be developed. this engineering This will prompttool, a alternativethorough designassessment of the to mitigatepossible or hazards control theand risks their to associatedan acceptable risks level. can be developed. This will prompt alternative design solutions to mitigate or control the risksIt must to an be acceptable noted, though, level. that any hazard, which is not identified, will not be addressed by safety measuresIt must and be willnoted, not though, be detected that any during hazard, testing. which Hazards is not identified, not identified will not during be addressed this analysis by safety can measurescreate substantial and will risk not to be users detected of the during design. testing. Thus, obtaining Hazards asnot much identified information during regarding this analysis a system can createand its substantial components risk is to pivotal users toof developingthe design. Thus, the HARA obtaining assessment. as much information regarding a system and its components is pivotal to developing the HARA assessment. 2.8. Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) 2.8. Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) Once identified, the hazards in the workplace can be quantified or classified by performing riskOnce assessments, identified, such the ashazards an Automotive in the workplace Safety can Integrity be quantified (ASIL) or assessment classified by [6 performing,12]. An ASIL risk assessments,assessment is such a risk as an classification Automotive scheme Safety definedIntegrity by (ASIL) the ISO assessment 26262—Functional [6,12]. An ASIL Safety assessment for Road isVehicles a risk classificationstandard [3,12 scheme]. The systemdefined uses by the the ISO exposure, 26262—Functional controllability Safety and severityfor Road ratings Vehicles determined standard [3,12].for a particular The system hazard uses the and exposu links themre, controllability to a corresponding and severity ASIL ratings rating [determined12]. ASIL ratings for a particular are given hazardan alphabetical and links rating, them with to a Acorresponding being the least ASIL hazardous rating and[12]. D ASIL being ratings the most. are Althoughgiven an ASILalphabetical ratings rating,are typically with A applied being the to risks least to hazardous the driver and when D being operating the most. a vehicle, Although they can ASIL also ratings be applied are typically to risks appliedto a person to risks who to is the performing driver when a particular operating job a or vehicl operation.e, they can also be applied to risks to a person who Determiningis performing thea partic levelular of exposure,job or operation. controllability and severity is very similar to the process of determiningDetermining severity, the level occurrence of exposure, and controllability detection for aand Design severity Failure is very Modes similar and to Effects the process Analysis of determining(DFMEA). Exposure severity, indicates occurrence the and probability detection of afo human‘sr a Design exposure Failure toModes a hazard; and severityEffects Analysis is, again, (DFMEA).the extent toExposure how damaging indicates a failure the probability can be; and of controllabilitya human‘s exposure is the capability to a hazard; of systems severity to is, mitigate, again, theor prevent,extent to the how hazard damaging from occurring.a failure can An be; associated and controllability ranking is givenis the tocapability a hazard of based systems on theto mitigate,conditions. or Tableprevent,1 outlines the hazard the specifications from occurring. for An each associated of the levels ranking of individual is given to parameters a hazard based [13,14 ].on the conditions. Table 1 outlines the specifications for each of the levels of individual parameters [13,14].

Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

Safety 2018, 4, 21Table 1. Automotive Safety Integrity (ASIL) Parameter Specification Ratings [14]. 8 of 21

Parameter Limit Description Table 1.E0Automotive Incredibly Safety unlikely Integrity (ASIL) Parameter Specification Ratings [14]. E1 Very low probability (injury could happen only in rare operating conditions) ParameterExposure LimitE2 Low probability Description E3E0 MediumIncredibly probability unlikely E4E1 HighVery lowprobability probability (injury (injury could could happen happen under only most in rareoperating operating conditions) conditions) Exposure E2 Low probability S0 No Injuries E3 Medium probability S1 Light to moderate injuries Severity E4 High probability (injury could happen under most operating conditions) S2S0 SevereNo Injuries to life-threatening (survival probable) injuries S3S1 Life-threateningLight to moderate (survival injuries uncertain) to fatal injuries Severity C0S2 ControllableSevere to life-threatening in general (survival probable) injuries C1S3 SimplyLife-threatening controllable (survival uncertain) to fatal injuries Controllability C0 Controllable in general C2 Normally controllable (most drivers could act to prevent injury) C1 Simply controllable Controllability C3 Difficult to control or uncontrollable C2 Normally controllable (most drivers could act to prevent injury) C3 Difficult to control or uncontrollable Typically, in order to obtain the exact ASIL rating, a matrix is used to align the three conditions based on their individual specifications [6,14]. For this analysis though a numbering system is Typically, in order to obtain the exact ASIL rating, a matrix is used to align the three conditions established to provide a number to the exposure, controllability and severity ratings. The subsequent based on their individual specifications [6,14]. For this analysis though a numbering system is product of these three values will then give a number that will correspond to a particular ASIL rating. established to provide a number to the exposure, controllability and severity ratings. The subsequent product of these three values will then give a number that will correspond to a particular ASIL rating. 3. Methodology 3. MethodologyThe process outlined in this work is to assess current and potential hazards in the UWAFT facilityThe and process determine outlined how in thisbest work to mitigate is to assess them current, in order and potentialto safeguard hazards students in the working UWAFT facilityon the andproject. determine Utilizing how the best information to mitigate collected them, infrom order the to hazard safeguard analysis students of the working various on duties the project. to be Utilizingcompleted the by information UWAFT personnel, collected froman effective the hazard andanalysis informative of the safety various training duties program to be completed can be bydeveloped. UWAFT Also, personnel, by determining an effective the and highest informative risk ha safetyzards trainingwithin the program team, resources can be developed. for the project Also, bycan determining be appropriately the highest allocated. risk hazardsThis is important within the as team, they resources are limited for theand project team must can be begin appropriately work on allocated.the vehicle This post is haste important to meet as the they deadlines are limited of andthe competition. team must begin Although work onaddressing the vehicle all postthe possible haste to meetrisks theis of deadlines importance of the and competition. will be addressed, Although specif addressingic attention all the will possible be dedicated risks is ofto importancethe higher risk and willhazards. be addressed, specific attention will be dedicated to the higher risk hazards.

3.1. Job Safety Analysis (JSA) for UWAFT TeamTeam Based on UWAFT’s assessment of current resources, the following “refined” “refined” JSA procedure, depicted in Figure6 6,, isis beingbeing proposedproposed to to assess assess tasks tasks and and their their hazards. hazards.

Figure 6. Process of performing a JSA in student team.

Safety 2018, 4, 21 9 of 21

The first step in the refined JSA is to distinguish the different types of jobs (Step 1). By doing this, associated hazards can be more easily compiled for a particular job. Job tasks can be grouped under the different occupation types (Step 2). The job tasks should only be an overview of the work being completed and should not go into great detail about every individual detail. Although this is not as beneficial providing a detailed overview of all job tasks and then, subsequently, defining hazards for each job task (Step 3) the risk assessment will be able to address the most hazardous risks (Step 4). The most hazardous risks will then be separated in Step 5, where they are grouped by occupation type and risk level.

3.2. Development of Safety Training Program The job safety analysis allows for the assessment of workplace operations within UWAFT, providing an effective method for assessing workplace hazards and segregation of tasks based on groups and levels. In order to develop the safety training program, this initial information must be taken and refined using the principles of gamification. Gamification refers to the process of applying game playing elements to other areas of activity [1]. UWAFT can apply these principles into the development of an effective safety training program, which uses a level based system. By attaining certain requirements members can move up through the levels to gain the ability to work on more advanced systems. For instance, as a hypothetical example to move from Level 2 to Level 3, a certain number of hours at that level need to be accrued to show that the student gains experience at performing “Level 2” work before he or she can receive training on the next level. This is to ensure experience, on use of a variety of tools and systems, has been obtained by students before beginning Level 3 activities. In the training system proposed here, students will be able to observe their progress based on the level of training they have reached and be able to understand the requirements they will need to reach subsequent levels in the program. With each level comes more responsibilities and status in the team, increasing for more members to “level up” in the organization. These levels track students so that as they increase their training level they can increase their hands-on involvement with the design project. To establish the levels of the safety training program, the information gathered from the job safety analysis and built-in system safety management techniques, must be relied upon [2].

4. Results and Discussion In order to ensure teams competing in the competition maintain a safe work environment, the organizers provide safety training and expert advice (in the form of webinars, in person safety talks and access to team mentors from industry partners). Students taking on supervisory roles must learn and understand the content provided so as to ensure they are capable of identifying hazards and instituting mitigation actions. Any of the members can establish risk levels for the tasks, however, this role is largely fulfilled by the systems safety manager who has received the most training in safety awareness by the organizers. The other supervisors then act as overseers who approve the risk level rankings proposed by the manager. Corresponding to the JSA process depicted in Figure6, a generalized list of all tasks performed by UWAFT personnel was developed. of tasks depicted in Figure7 was generated by performing a hierarchal task analysis (HTA) as described in Section 2.6. An example of the performed HTA is provided in Figure A1 in the AppendixA. Safety 2018, 4, 21 10 of 21 Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21

FigureFigure 7. ListList of of Potential Potential UWAFT UWAFT Tasks.

From this list of tasks appropriate appropriate hazard analys analyseses were developed based on the task description and potential components involved.

4.1. Establishing Hazard Analysis Documentation In orderorder toto ensureensure that that a thorougha thorough hazard hazard analysis analysis is completed is completed to cover to cover all of all the of necessary the necessary steps, steps,a formal a HARAformal documentHARA document is developed. is developed. Establishing Establishing a HARA safetya HARA document safety aids document in streamlining aids in streamliningthe process and the allowsprocess supervisors and allows tosupervisors maintain consistencyto maintain whenconsistency performing when analysesperforming on differentanalyses ontasks. different This istasks. an important This is an document important fordocument the team fo tor the have team and to use have as and it will use effectively as it will effectively document documentthe potential the dangers potential to personnel.dangers to The personnel. document The involves document four steps: involves hazard four identification, steps: hazard risk identification,assessment, establishment risk assessment, of control establishment measures andof control performing measures a review and for performing current efficacy. a review for currentHazard efficacy. identification in the document begins with a general identification of potential hazards, suchHazard as: chemicals, identification energy systems, in the document facilities andbegins machinery. with a general Personnel identification utilize this of potential as ahazards, starting pointsuch as: for identifyingchemicals, theenergy potential systems, hazards facilities that may and be machinery. encountered Personnel but can also utilize add this additional checklist hazards as a startingthat are uniquepoint for to theidentifying task. The the job ispotential to determine hazards what that can may go wrong. be encountered This is then but followed can also up withadd additionala preliminary hazards assessment that are of unique the risk to level the oftask. each The of job the is respective to determine hazards. what The can “likelihood” go wrong. This of the is thenhazard followed occurring up andwith the a preliminary “consequence(s)” assessment of it occurringof the risk are level estimated of each andof the then respective the two hazards. together Therelate “likelihood” to a subsequent of the risk hazard level o levelsccurring [15 and]. Table the2 “consequence(s)” describes the risk of level it occurring table used are to estimated establish and the thenrisk levelsthe two [16 together] and Table relate3 gives to a subsequent the qualifications risk le forvel eachlevels of [15]. the riskTable levels 2 describes [15]. the risk level table used to establish the risk levels [16] and Table 3 gives the qualifications for each of the risk levels [15]. Table 2. Risk Level Identification [16]. Table 2. Risk Level Identification [16]. Consequence Likelihood Insignificant Minor ConsequenceModerate Major Critical Likelihood Almost Certain MediumInsignificantMedium Minor ModerateHigh MajorExtreme Critical Extreme LikelyAlmost CertainLow MediumMedium Medium HighHigh ExtremeHigh ExtremeExtreme Possible Likely Low Low MediumMedium HighHigh HighHigh Extreme High Unlikely Low Low Medium Medium High Possible Low Medium High High High Rare Low Low Low Low Medium Unlikely Low Low Medium Medium High Rare TableLow 3. QualificationsLow of riskLow levels [15]. Low Medium

Low TableMedium 3. Qualifications of risk levelsHigh [15]. Extreme Negligible impact or May result in minor May cause death or May cause severe injury may requireLow minor first injury orMedium High permanentlyExtreme or occupational illness Negligibleaid treatment. impact or may Mayoccupational result in illness. minor May cause severe disablingMay cause injury. death or require minor injury or or occupational permanently disabling treatment.It should be noted thatillness. the above methodologyillness is very general and reliesinjury. on a fair amount of subjectivity in the analysis process. For these reasons, it is used mostly to provide an initial risk It should be noted that the above methodology is very general and relies on a fair amount of subjectivity in the analysis process. For these reasons, it is used mostly to provide an initial risk

Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21 Safety 2018, 4, 21 11 of 21 assessment, with the ASIL assessment proceeding this analysis being the primary establisher of the risk level for a given task. assessment,After establishing with the ASIL an initial assessment assessment proceeding of the ri thissks analysisinvolved being in the the task primary and then establisher the subsequent of the risk levellevel, for appropriate a given task. mitigation actions. For this paper, the necessary control measures involve developingAfter establishing the safety training an initial program assessment to effect of theively risks address involved the in risks thetask and andprepare then team the subsequent members forrisk the level, process appropriate on how to mitigation mitigate them. actions. Thus, For an this evaluation paper, the of necessarythe risks associated control measures with each involve task is paramountdeveloping for the assessing safety training which programones will torequire effectively more addressadvanced the training risks and and prepare which will team not. members for theTable process 4 gives on an how example to mitigate of a HARA them. Thus,analysis an evaluationbeing utilized of thefor risksthe task associated of dynamometer with each testing task is ofparamount the engine for system. assessing The which hazards/risks ones will of require using the more system advanced are listed training on the and left. which The will associated not. risk levelsTable for each4 gives hazard an example are determined of a HARA and analysis finally co beingntrol utilizedmeasures for to the ensure task ofthe dynamometer hazards do not testing occur areof the listed engine for implementation system. The hazards/risks during the oftask using to prevent the system or mitigate are listed the on hazards. the left. The associated risk levels for each hazard are determined and finally control measures to ensure the hazards do not occur are listed for implementationTable 4. Example during of HARA the Analysis task to preventof dynamometer or mitigate testing the of hazards. engine system.

Description of Hazards/RisksTable 4. Example of HARARisk Analysis Level of dynamometer testing ofControl engine Measures system. MEDIUM Risk Operator training MisalignmentDescription of ofshaft Hazards/Risks Likelihood:Risk Unlikely Level Dyno testing mustControl be done Measureswith Dyno operator as part of Consequence:MEDIUM Risk Major OperatorSDC training Misalignment of shaft MEDIUMLikelihood: Risk Unlikely Dyno testing must be done with Dyno operator as part Operator training and instructions Engine-dyno bellhousing breaks Likelihood:Consequence: Unlikely Major of SDC MEDIUM Risk Finite element analysis of bellhousing Consequence: Major Operator training and instructions Engine-dyno bellhousing breaks Likelihood: Unlikely Fluid subsystems leak—Creates a MEDIUM Risk Finite element analysis of bellhousing Consequence: Major Visual inspection during bench test of cooling system “slip”Fluid hazard subsystems for personnel leak—Creates Likelihood:MEDIUM Likely Risk VisualSpill kit inspection procedures during will be bench implemented test of cooling if spill system occurs workinga “slip” on hazard dyanmometer for personnel Consequence:Likelihood: LikelyMinot Spill kit procedures will be implemented if spill occurs Makingworking contact on dyanmometer with engine HIGHConsequence: Risk Minot Dyno testing must be done with Dyno operator as part of systemMaking during contact operation—Pinch with engine Likelihood:HIGH Risk Possible Dyno testing must be done with Dyno operator as part system during Likelihood: Possible SDC hazard Consequence: Moderate of SDC Makingoperation—Pinch contact with hazardengine HIGHConsequence: Risk Moderate Making contact with engine HIGH Risk Dyno testing must be done with Dyno operator as part of system during operation—Burn Likelihood: Possible Dyno testing must be done with Dyno operator as part system during Likelihood: Possible SDC hazard Consequence: Major of SDC operation—Burn hazard Consequence: Major

4.2. ASIL Analysis The ASIL analysis yielded the following results as depicted in Figure8 8..

FigureFigure 8. 8. ASILASIL Ratings Ratings for for the the UWAFT UWAFT Tasks.

Based onon thethe ASILASIL classification, classification activities, activities that that were were deemed deemed to haveto have low low risk risk levels, levels, class class A, were A, weremostly mostly involved involved with completingwith completing design design and controlsand cont workrols work but not but actually not actually having having to interact to interact with withthe vehicle the vehicle or the or design the design bay. bay. These These tasks tasks have have very very low low potentials potentials for for hazards hazards to occurto occur resulting resulting in invery very low low ratings ratings across across all all of theof the metrics. metrics. At the opposite end, the highest risk activities, class class D, D, were were found to to be operation of of engine, engine, working on HV components and building and testing of chiller system. Many of the tasks associated

Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21 Safety 2018, 4, 21 12 of 21 with these systems involve performing advanced mechanical and electrical work. Improper use of withthe equipment these systems involved involve with performing these systems advanced can easily mechanical result in and many electrical very severe work. hazards Improper occurring use of theto personnel. equipment Also, involved as many with of these the tasks systems outlined can easily are similar result inas manythose determined very severe hazardsin the risk occurring Level C toranking personnel. of the Also, ASIL as analysis, many of it theis determined tasks outlined that are personnel similar aswill those need determined to receive specialized in the risk Leveltraining C rankingfor performing of the ASIL work analysis, on tasks it risk is determined Level C or higher. that personnel will need to receive specialized training for performingTasks that workinvolved on tasksutilizing risk basic Level tools, C or higher.performing basic installation in the vehicle and working on theTasks low thatvoltage involved systems utilizing were found basic tools,to be grouped performing into basic the B installation risk level. Most in the of vehicle the tasks and are working highly oncontrollable the low voltage through systems simply were providing found to some be grouped basic training into the or B riskthrough level. proper Most of direction the tasks by are reading highly controllablethe SOPs associated through simplywith the providing tools. some basic training or through proper direction by reading the SOPsASIL associated assessments with the quantify tools. the severity of the potential hazards faced by UWAFT team members.ASIL assessments[4] By grouping quantify these thehazards severity under of theindividual potential rating hazardss (using faced ASIL by UWAFTvalue ranges), team members.operations [4 involving] By grouping these these hazards hazards can underbe allocated individual to the ratings members (using with ASIL the value appropriate ranges), operationsamount of involvingexperience. these For hazardsinstance, can an be operation allocated towith the an members accompanying with the appropriatehazard ASIL amount rating ofof experience. A can be Forperformed instance, by an any operation safety level, with whereas an accompanying an operation hazard with ASIL a hazard rating ASIL of A rating can be of performed C or higher by anywill safetyrequire level, a team whereas member an operation to have witha safety a hazard level ASIL close rating to the of Ctop or of higher the hierarchy will require (or a teamabove) member to be toperformed have a safety safely. level close to the top of the hierarchy (or above) to be performed safely. BasedBased onon thisthis segregation,segregation, of eacheach ofof thethe taskstasks thatthat cancan bebe performedperformed by UWAFT membersmembers byby theirtheir riskrisk levels,levels, thethe followingfollowing trainingtraining hierarchicalhierarchical regimenregimen waswas developeddeveloped toto matchmatch thethe ASILASIL ratingsratings andand taskstasks containedcontained withinwithin each each rating rating with with the the appropriate appropriate safety safety level level that that a membera member must must reach reach to performto perform said said task task

5.5. Safety TrainingTraining ProgramProgram InitialInitial DesignDesign

5.1.5.1. Development ofof TieredTiered SafetySafety TrainingTraining ProgramProgram AsAs displayeddisplayed inin FigureFigure7 7,, there there are are a a variety variety of of tasks tasks and and systems systems within within the the UWAFT UWAFT facility facility that that carrycarry varyingvarying degrees of risk of a a hazard hazard occurring occurring to to personnel. personnel. Based Based on on the the hazard hazard assessment, assessment, a alevel-based level-based safety safety training training prog programram has has been been developed developed using using th thee principles principles of of gamification. gamification. AnAn initialinitial safetysafety programprogram waswas developeddeveloped andand implemented inin Year 11 andand YearYear 22 ofof thethe EcoCAR3EcoCAR3 competitioncompetition inin thethe UWAFTUWAFT facility.facility. TheThe developmentdevelopment ofof thethe programprogram waswas basedbased uponupon thethe completedcompleted JSA,JSA, asas describeddescribed inin FigureFigure6 6.. The The program program is is a a progressive progressive multi-tier multi-tier system system that that is is separated separated into into fourfour levels,levels, which which goes goes from from the the most most basic basic legislative legislative requirement requirement all the all way the to way the necessary to the necessary training thattraining a supervisor that a supervisor must receive must to receive be in a “lead”to be in position. a “lead” At position. each tier, At students each tier, are students educated are on educated systems thaton systems require increasinglythat require moreincreasingly rigorous more safety rigoro trainingus andsafety mandated training toand complete mandated a required to complete number a ofrequired hours workingnumber of on hours activities working at that on activities tier. This at system that tier. isdesigned This system such is designed that students such canthat bestudents eased intocan be the eased team into while team while specific meeting safety specific targets, sa increasingfety targets, the increasing overall team the safety overall standard team safety and motivatingstandard and them motivating to become them more to involved.become more Figure invo9 depictslved. Figure the initial 9 depicts safety the program. initial safety program.

FigureFigure 9.9. Preliminary SafetySafety LevelLevel HierarchyHierarchy [[5].5].

Safety 2018, 4, 21 13 of 21

5.1.1. Level One Safety Training As described previously, the University of Waterloo has guidelines to provide a basis for safety training for student groups. As such, Level One training relies on utilizing current university modules pertaining to workers and students, informing students as to a general overview on recognizing hazards in the workplace and their rights as a worker. The training modules are performed online and must be completed by all members before being able to work with the team. New students can become familiarized with the facilities and operations before moving to the next level of training. In addition to the safety training, students must be aware of all emergency procedures outlined in team documentation, where the documentation exists and sign all Non-Disclosure Agreements. Signing the NDAs allows students access to all information on computer servers and use any team computers that have specific software pertinent to various tasks. At this level, though, the training only covers awareness of hazards and students are not able to perform tasks involving hands-on work with the vehicle systems. It is only after the students have passed Level 2 safety training that they will be able to work safely on specific equipment, nor safe work and operating procedures.

5.1.2. Level Two Safety Training In order to be able to perform “hands-on” work on the vehicle, team members must complete safety training with regards to the hazards associated with the use of specific tools and equipment that they will be using for the various projects. The training provided is meant to be introductory and the first step to more active team participation. The training consists of three modules including: general shop safety and facilities, basic electrical safety and general mechanical work and procedures. These training modules are presented to students by team supervisors with the necessary experience to teach them. They provide the foundation for team members to further build upon their training with the team by being able to work on and familiarize themselves with the vehicle and tools. All activities performed by level 2 members are supervised by personnel Level 3 (or higher) team members The first module is a training session on general shop safety and facilities. This session includes basic training on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), shop layout, emergency equipment and exits and other pertinent information to day-to-day hands-on activities. The second module is on basic electrical safety. This module covers information for low voltage (12V) electrical work, including best practices and safe operating procedures. The final module is on general mechanical work and procedures, covering commonly used tools and best practices. All modules together form a foundation for team specific training that address risk for common activities on the team.

5.1.3. Level Three Safety Training After meeting the necessary requirements at Level 2 safety training, personnel can receive Level 3 training. This level of training is meant to give students more in-depth knowledge on specific tasks that are completed on the student team. Level three training becomes much more specialized and is meant for students who have proven their dedication to the team. These students are therefore trusted with higher risk work within UWAFT including advanced mechanical work, engine emissions and hazards and high voltage. The training involves three aspects: advanced mechanical, engine emissions and hazards and above all High Voltage training. The very nature of the competition involves working with advanced powertrain components (engine, motors, transmissions and so forth) for hybrid drivetrains, as well as, components that utilize voltages that are near or are high voltages. The provided training will allow students to be able to perform more advanced activities, such as: engine dynamometer testing to determine engine efficiencies, as well as, designing and building the battery pack to be integrated into the vehicle to provide the necessary power. Safety 2018, 4, 21 14 of 21

Due to the advanced nature of activities specified under level 3 training, full level 3 certification requires completion of an additional 15 h of practical hands-on work with the team in addition to the training requirements. This safety training level requires both in-person training in the form of presentations and hands-on training to gain the necessary skills to work at this level.

5.1.4. Level Four Safety Training In order for work on the vehicle to be performed safely and be properly inspected as projects progress, members must be properly supervised by trained personnel. Members who have risen to the level of supervisor must have deep knowledge of the work being performed by members at the lower levels and have completed all the necessary safety training modules. At level four students have reached the highest level of training and are responsible for delegating work and ensuring that it is safely completed. Students who are to become supervisors for the team must first be approved by the faculty advisor in addition to meeting the requirements. The requirements for Level 4 training are: completion of the safety training modules for supervisors (provided at the university level via online modules), as well as completion of six hours of high voltage work, six hours of mechanical work and eight hours of aiding an already certified level four student in the supervision of group work. These requirements promote the well roundedness of the candidate(s) and ensure that the student(s) understands all of the safety risks involved with the project and the proper protocols for mitigating them.

5.2. Implementation of Safety Training Program There are three main components required to fully implement this type of safety training program into the team dynamic:

(1) Documentation to detail proof of completion of the training, hours and level achieved for each student; and, (2) Documentation of the safety training program modules, (3) Visual representation to aid with the motivation and gamification of the safety program.

Documentation is a very important aspect of the training program as it allows for the monitoring and tracking of a team member’s training. At each tier, there are forms required to be signed by supervisory personnel to ensure that students have completed the necessary safety training modules and the hour requirements. These signoff sheets are stored in a Personnel Training binder detailing the members who have completed safety training at each level. If an incident were to occur on campus, the team will have the supporting documentation to confirm that the student completed the necessary training modules to complete the work. In accordance with competition procedures, a facilities binder must be created and prominently displayed within the student team’s facilities. The facilities binder contains all of the information pertaining to the safety program. This includes: emergency response plans and procedures, workplace hazards, best practices, safe operating procedures (SOPs), material safety data sheets (MSDSs), as well as, all training documentation. This documentation is only useful for students to use as a reference but also can be used by existing team members for training purposes. To ensure accuracy the documentation must be kept up to date. While the documentation provides the records for completion of training, the visual representation, of team personnel traversing the tiers of the safety training, is depicted in the safety board, Figure 10. As part of the gamification integration into the program, students see which level they are and want to improve to attain a higher level. The board, also, serves as a visual identifier for team leads to know what training has been completed by each individual member. Safety 2018, 4, 21 15 of 21 Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

FigureFigure 10. Depiction10. Depiction of of Safety Safety BoardBoard in in UWAFT UWAFT Bay Bay (Main (Main Office) Office) [5]. [5].

5.3. Successes of the Initial Program 5.3. Successes of the Initial Program As outlined in a previous case study completed by Van Lanen et al., regarding the development Asof outlined the safety in training a previous program, case studyUWAFT completed was able to by attain Van a Lanen large amount et al., regarding of success the[5]. developmentOver 100 of the safetystudents training had program, participated UWAFT in varying was levels able with to attain the team a large having amount 29 level of one success students, [5]. 27 Over level 100 two students had participatedstudents, 11 in level varying three students levels with and 6 the level team four havingstudents 29[5].level one students, 27 level two students, A number of specific benefits have been seen from its initial launch. First, the system allowed 11 level three students and 6 level four students [5]. for the easy procurement of information by UWAFT administrators and provided a more organized A numbersystem to of track specific teambenefits member haveprogression been seen through from the its team. initial The launch. information First, theis all system stored allowedin a for the easycentralized procurement location, of information providing ease by of UWAFT access. administrators and provided a more organized system to track teamSecond, member training progression was being conducted through theon a team. more frequent The information basis and there is all was stored a much in greater a centralized location,push providing by members ease to of receive access. training. The system has helped to encourage growth within the team, pushing younger members to get more involved and progress through the safety training levels. This Second, training was being conducted on a more frequent basis and there was a much greater push is a significant change from the previous years, in which students deemed safety training as a by membersnegative to receiverequirement training. but with The the system introduction has helped of this new to encourage program there growth has been within a psychological the team, pushing youngershift members in the students’ to get more mindsets involved and progress through the safety training levels. This is a significant change fromFinally, the previous with a years,standardized in which system students in place, deemed all members safety trainingof the team as areceive negative the requirementrequired but with thebaseline introduction hazard of awareness this new and program educational there hastraining been on a psychologicalthe vehicle. A shiftclearer in picture the students’ had been mindsets. Finally,defined with on what a standardized the team wanted system to accomplish in place, allin te membersrms of safety of thetraining team and receive helped the to harbor required in a baseline swifter method for improving knowledge transfer for training. hazard awareness and educational training on the vehicle. A clearer picture had been defined on what the team5.4. wanted Drawbacks to to accomplish Initial Safety inTraining terms Program of safety training and helped to harbor in a swifter method for improving knowledge transfer for training. A potential downfall of the programs is that the system allows for students to gain hours from completing even some minor mechanical tasks. If a student simply completes simple tasks and does 5.4. Drawbacks to Initial Safety Training Program not immerse themselves in other projects on the vehicle they can still acquire the appropriate number A potentialof hours to downfallgraduate to of the the next programs safety level is but that only the have system a narrow allows understanding for students of the to gainvehicle hours as from a whole. Thus, it was seen that a number of students were able to attain the level certification with completing even some minor mechanical tasks. If a student simply completes simple tasks and does ease. This was a major drawback for both the program and the team as a whole, as a number of not immerseuntrained themselves personnel incould other be potent projectsially on given the tasks vehicle thatthey they had can little still to acquire no understanding the appropriate of. Lacknumber of hoursof toexperience graduate could to then the nextpossibly safety lead to level injury but or even only death have depending a narrow on understanding the severity of the ofhazard the vehicle as a whole.experienced Thus, whilst it was performing seen that the a task. number of students were able to attain the level certification with ease. ThisIt has was always a major been drawbackdifficult for for the both UWAFT the programteam to define and theoverall team student as a whole, involvement. as a number of untrainedSeparating personnel regular couldstudent bemembers potentially from core given memb tasksers can that be they quite had difficult. little The to nosafety understanding program of. provided an initial methodology for doing this. Level 3 and Level 4 team members were considered Lack of experience could then possibly lead to injury or even death depending on the severity of the the core team members because of the training that they had received, which allowed them to work hazardon experienced more difficult whilst systems. performing As indicated the previously, task. though, some students were able to graduate to It hasthe alwaysnext level been by only difficult performing for the a narrow UWAFT set team of projects to define and would overall show student minimal involvement. initiative as Separatingthe regularstudent members from core members can be quite difficult. The safety program provided an initial methodology for doing this. Level 3 and Level 4 team members were considered the core team members because of the training that they had received, which allowed them to work on more difficult systems. As indicated previously, though, some students were able to graduate to the next level by only performing a narrow set of projects and would show minimal initiative as the term progressed. Defining students’ involvement with the team aids in meeting many of the goals of the competition for defining core members Safety 2018, 4, 21 16 of 21 and, above all, allowing team leads to have an exact understanding of which personnel can participate in more advanced projects and who would be best suited based on past projects being completed. The safety training system needs to better represent these requirements in this regard. Finally, additional incentives need to be added to the training program to further increase user interest. Based on the testimonials from the Term End UWAFT Feedback survey, although the skills development in the safety training program has been beneficial, team members are looking for additional criteria to establish their roles on the team. By establishing this path, they better understand their role on the team, besides just being on a particular sub-team and can use the information for their own portfolio when applying to jobs and other such things.

6. Development of New Tier System and Incentive Program In order to increase the effectiveness of the training program and ensure the maintenance of a safe workplace environment for students a new tier system was developed along with an associated incentive program to increase user involvement. The following modifications to the initial program are described in this section in order to improve upon the previous safety program. UWAFT will still retain the same leveling up system as that has resulted in greater member interest to excel to the top tier but the levels shall now be changed. A “Level 0” tier has been added to the pyramid. The requirements and tasks outlined in Level 1 will now become a part of Level 0 training. As this forms the basis of the minimum amount of training required by the University, students must have this before anything else. As a result, Level 2 training will shift and become the foundations for Level 1 training. To ensure consistency in providing this training, in-person presentations have been substituted for training videos for the modules. Members looking to work on the vehicle will have to complete the associated modules described previously. Once completed and signed off on by the Safety Manager, the students can begin working on the vehicle but only under direct supervision by a team lead. The fifteen hour graduation requirement to be able to take Level 3 training will no longer be available. Instead, in order to graduate from Level 1 to Level 2, team members will be recommended by the team leads for advancement based on merits. Once the particular team member has gained enough experience performing basic tasks they will be able to graduate to Level 2, where they will be able to perform more advanced projects with supervisors having to provide less supervision for them to perform the tasks. Team members will be advised to keep a portfolio on completed projects that they had assisted in completing to assist team leads. In addition, as a final requirement the students will have to present the topic that they worked on to qualify for advancement to Level 2 during the team’s general meetings. Safety levels, Levels 3 and 4 will remain at their current positions in the tier system, however, being able to graduate from Level 2 to Level 3, will require much more rigorous requirements compared to the graduation procedure as from Level 1 to Level 2. Students will have to provide proof of completion of a variety of projects to detail their level of understanding of the vehicle, the powertrain and other key components. The team leads will give the decision as to who will graduate to the next stage based on the students’ merits and expected potential. With this new procedure, another problem will be solved, which the threat of students is being unable to continue providing assistance to the team due to their academic requirements. UWAFT, along with all student teams at the University of Waterloo, promote academics first but team member turnout is a problem when considering the amount of time invested into training them to complete projects with UWAFT. Time and energy to train these students will no longer be wasted. In addition, as per the competition recommendations High Voltage certification was separated from level three task training. The possibility of too many students learning high voltage design without having a solid knowledge base to draw from can potentially lead to serious injury or death. By instituting this additional program limitation and having control of it given to the supervisors (core team leads) this will limit the number of people with the certification and ensure that safety is maintained at all times with these components. Figure 11 details the new tier system with the addition of Level 0. Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21

(core team leads) this will limit the number of people with the certification and ensure that safety is Safetymaintained2018, 4, 21 at all times with these components. 17 of 21 Figure 11 details the new tier system with the addition of Level 0.

FigureFigure 11.11.Development Developmentof ofUpdated UpdatedTier Tier System. System.

TheThe newnew tiertier systemsystem willwill alsoalso allowallow UWAFTUWAFT toto effectivelyeffectively assess,assess, whichwhich membersmembers areare corecore members.members. TheThe systemsystem willwill alsoalso provideprovide aa “ranking”“ranking” forfor eacheach studentstudent besidesbesides justjust havinghaving aa numbernumber forfor safety safety level.level. HavingHaving defineddefined titlestitles willwill aidaid studentsstudents onon bothboth thethe teamteam definitiondefinition andand withwith careercareer buildingbuilding byby havinghaving aa titletitle thatthat definesdefines themthem asas moremore thanthan justjust aa “member.”“member.” Also, Also, in in accordance accordance with with thethe competition competition deliverables, deliverables, UWAFTUWAFT must must detail detail howhow manymany ofof itsits teamteam membersmembers areare corecore members.members. UnderUnder thethe oldold systemsystem this was not easy to to assess assess.. With With the the ranking ranking system system and and the the requirement requirement of ofneeding needing to toprovide provide a adossier dossier of of completed completed proj projects,ects, UWAFT UWAFT team leadsleads cancan betterbetter familiarizefamiliarize themselvesthemselves withwith thethe teamteam membersmembers whowho areare more more active active and and can can be be considered considered core. core. TheThe ranking ranking systemsystem is is defined defined in in Table Table5: 5:

TableTable 5. 5.Safety Safety Levels Levels and and Associated Associated Titles. Titles. Safety Level Title Capabilities Safety Level Title Capabilities Level 0 Entry Level All personnel must complete. Level 0 Entry Level All personnel must complete. Level 11 VolunteerVolunteer Member Member Capable Capable of of working working on on vehicle vehicle with with the the supervision supervision of at of least at least a level a level 3 member. 3 member. Level 22 WorkingWorking Member Member Capable Capable of of working working on on vehicle vehicle with with indirect indirect supervision. supervision. Level 3 Core Member CapableCapable of of working working on on vehicle vehicle without without supervision. supervision. Given Given responsibility responsibility for their for own their projects own Level 3 Core Member Level 4 Leadership Fullprojects time members Level 4 Leadership Full time members As previously mentioned, the team is largely composed of engineering undergraduate students. In accordanceAs previously with the mentioned, requirements the team of their is largely respective composed programs, of engineering students must undergraduate obtain and participate students. inIn at accordance least five coop with placements. the requirements Many of theof studentstheir respective are coming programs, just out ofstudents high school must and obtain typically and lackparticipate experience in at working least five in coop the engineering placements. field. Many As of a result,the students they struggle are coming to attain just coopout of . high school Joiningand typically student lack teams experience not only providesworking ain place the engineer for studentsing field. to express As a theirresult, own they creativity struggle but to itattain also allowscoop employment. them to gain practicalJoining student engineering teams skills not only to use pr inovides the workplace. a place for Thesestudents skills to express can be applied their own to theircreativity resume but to it show also allows prospective them employersto gain practica the applicablel engineering skills skills that to they use havein the gained, workplace. with moreThese advancedskills can skillsbe applied being to gained their asresume they “level to show up” pros in thepective safety employers program. the Also, applicable the addition skills of that titles they to thehave safety gained, levels with present more students advanced with skills additional being gained incentive as they to level “level up up” in the in program,the safety as program. they can Also, add thethe title addition to their of resume.titles to the Thus, safety instead levels of present just being students “a member” with additional of the team incentive they can to potentiallylevel up in bethe seenprogram, as a “working” as they can or add “core” the membertitle to their if they resume. strive Thus, for it. instead This policy of just leads being back “a intomember” the gamification of the team potentialthey can ofpotentially the system. be seen as a “working” or “core” member if they strive for it. This policy leads back into the gamification potential of the system. 6.1. Updating Procedures on Safety Training and Documentation Maintenance 6.1. Updating Procedures on Safety Training and Documentation Maintenance Documents will now all be kept digitally on the university server to ensure that they are not lost. This willDocuments cut down will on now the numberall be kept of filesdigitally that on need the to univ be keptersity in server paper to format ensure for that personnel they are andnot lost. cut downThis will on papercut down requirements. on the number This isof bothfiles athat more need economic to be kept and in a paper more environmentallyformat for personnel sustainable and cut positiondown on to paper take requirements. as an AVTC team. This is Also, both Levela more 1 economic training will and now a more be environmentally given as training sustainable videos as opposed to in person training. Team members looking to receive Level 1 training will watch the videos Safety 2018, 4, 21 18 of 21 under supervision by UWAFT team lead personnel. This will allow other team leads to give consistent training to each team member even when the Safety Manager is unable to.

6.2. Implementation at UWAFT and Extending to Other Student Teams The new safety training process has received much praise from its student members and its implementation into UWAFT’s procedures has been quite successful. To date, over 280 students have participated in varying levels. The team currently has 6 level one students, 149 level two students, 5 level three students and 5 level four students. The gamification aspect of the system has led to many students seeking to aspire to climb the safety leadership ladder, with many students inquiring on potential safety training aspects and training dates. Also, as there are new requirements to reach the higher levels of the tiered structure, this has decreased the number of members that have reached them. Team members who are capable of moving to the next stages of training are more aware of the hazards and the vehicle systems as a whole and are better prepared to undertake the work required to be performed at these stages. Students have shown great adeptness for understanding risks and hazards in the garage and have ensured to take the appropriate measures to protect themselves while performing various tasks. As a result, there have been no major incidents recorded at the UWAFT facility. This is not to suggest that the program itself has resulted in this statistic but the impact of having a well-designed safety program prevalently displayed has ensured that students understand that UWAFT places safety as the highest priority and this has been reflected in their behavior in the garage. It is not just the students who have been impacted by the safety program. Faculty members have been quite impressed by the team’s safety program and have sought to adopt sections of it into other student teams, siting their own respective gaps in training and the need to accommodate more rigorous safety procedures. With the increase in students participating in student teams, one-on-one knowledge transfer safety training cannot be sustainably implemented. Specialized training programs need to be developed by the respective student teams to provide knowledge of the hazards to a larger audience without causing major disruptions to project work.

6.3. Potential Drawbacks to Consider for Future Development Due to the increasing complexity of the competitions, safety training is becoming even more detailed and keeping all of the necessary documentation up to date and distributing safety information requires a person full time to maintain the program. The individual must be safety focused and although any of the supervisory personnel meet the necessary requirements to give safety training, ultimately they have other tasks that take precedence. Thus, an individual person is needed, who has a minimum level of safety competence. It can be quite difficult to find a person within the team who is interested in safety management. By having a designated safety manager, though, it displays to individuals UWAFT’s goals of maintaining a safe environment. This increases the implicit value of safety and shows that it is not just something that is done but is important and under constant scrutiny. The high turnover rate of students from year to year, due to students either graduating or simply phasing out of the team, means that there must be effective information transfer from the exiting leadership to the incoming one, especially when it comes to maintaining the safety program. Although, the team has been maintaining a great safety record so far, future generations of the team may not be as conscientious, putting project deadlines above safety in terms of priority. In order to ensure that the safety training program is maintained, oversight by the faculty advisor is required on each incoming new leadership to ensure that the program and above all safety is maintained. If the advisor believes that there is any lack of understanding among the leadership in the direct role that the training program has in maintaining safety then additional training will be required or possibly removal of the personnel from the team. The review of the safety program came about as a result of the need to curb students accelerating through the program too quickly but a formal review process should be mandated on a yearly Safety 2018, 4, 21 19 of 21 basis. A yearly evaluation of the safety training program can be conducted in the future, with the faculty advisors overseeing the review of current safety protocols with team leads to make potential suggestions on refining the program. A review of past incidents and the effectiveness of corrective actions put in place will establish how the team handles these incidents and find areas for improvement. A yearly review will, also, ensure that the training provided in the modules is kept up-to-date. In addition, the student team leads can develop methodologies to reach out to the team members to enquire about program changes and safety modifications that the respective members see as imperative. Much in the same way UWAFT gathers information about the impact of participation with the team on the students’ lives after graduation, by sending out an online survey, a similar methodology can be used to obtain this safety information from team members as well. Providing this information to faculty during the review will help to shape the program development.

7. Conclusions This work provides an understanding on the development of a safety training program for a student team. The process relies on the establishment of an effective method of assessing hazards and risks for the tasks that students will be undertaking and the use of gamification to create incentive for team members to participate in the program. The use of HARA and ASIL risk ratings was imperative for establishing the segregation of the tasks that UWAFT (as a student team) will be undertaking in the EcoCAR3 competition. By grouping tasks based on their risk rating, the most hazardous jobs can receive the necessary attention in terms of dedicated safety training. The tasks are then separated in the hierarchy to ensure team members who do not have the qualifications will not be able to perform them. Graduation to higher levels is then decided upon by the team leads providing a controlled transition for team members and recognizing of merits by the team leads. In order to create the hierarchal structure the UWAFT team relied upon the establishment of a Job Safety Analysis in the team’s safety process. Introduction of a JSA creates a step by step procedure that UWAFT can follow as it continues to broaden its design scope. As more advanced tools and systems are incorporated into the vehicle, the list of tasks that UWAFT team members will be able to perform will change. The newly introduced tasks will require going through the risk assessment process outlined in the JSA, thus aiding in the further refinement of the team’s safety training. Developing a simple hierarchal structure based on risk levels of tasks is an effective measure for ensuring the safety of team members. By applying systems safety techniques to safety training programs at UWAFT, allocation of UWAFT personnel can be done effectively and limit the risk of a hazard occurring. Much in the way systems safety analyses risk to drivers with the introduction of designs and innovations, hazards and risk must be analyzed in the workplace to assess when team members can properly perform tasks safely with proper training. Incorporating gamification principals motivates students to become more involved and want to complete the safety training so as to complete additional tasks and to attain higher standing in the team. Thus, the team grows in both numbers and skills.

Author Contributions: R.F. and M.F. devised the initialization of a more comprehensive safety program to meet safety requirements for both the team members and the competition. As faculty advisors, they, also, oversaw its initial implementation, further development, and ensure its usage moving forward. J.C. and R.S, worked on developing the initial system in place to assess workplace hazards, establish tasks for team members, and determine hazard ratings. With assistance from the other team leads, J.C. and R.S. worked to devise the program, initialize and revise it according to feedback from the team, faculty advisors, and team leads. J.C. and R.S. implemented the revisions to the safety program and updated the procedures and documentation to account for these changes. J.C. wrote the paper. Acknowledgments: I want to acknowledge all of the UWAFT team members who participated in developing this safety program, as well as thank the faculty advisors for all of their input and for helping to shape the program and continue its development. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Safety 2018, 4, 21 20 of 21

Safety 2018, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 21 Appendix A

Appendix A

Figure A1. Hierarchal Task Analysis Example: Installation of a High Voltage (HV) Battery Pack.

Figure A1. Hierarchal Task Analysis Example: Installation of a High Voltage (HV) Battery Pack.

Safety 2018, 4, 21 21 of 21

References

1. Government of Ontario. O. Reg. 297/13: Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training. 2015. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/130297 (accessed on 25 November 2016). 2. Government of Ontario. Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1. 8 December 2016. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o01?_ga=2.119093449.199795593.1501426040-507326671. 1501426040#BK1 (accessed on 29 January 2017). 3. University of Waterloo. Safety Office. Health, Safety, and Environment Mangagement. 2010. Available online: https://uwaterloo.ca/safety-office/policiesand (accessed on 17 March 2016). 4. University of Waterloo. Safety Office. Policy 34—Health, Safety and Environment. 2010. Available online: https://uwaterloo.ca/secretariat-generalcounsel/ (accessed on 17 March 2016). 5. Van Lanen Daniel, E.P.; Ben, G.; Peter, K.; Lauren, M.; Michael, F.; Roydon, F. Safety training system design for student teams. In Proceedings of the 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA, USA, 14–17 June 2015. 6. Metz, P.; Kriso, S.; Grabs, P. ISO 26262 in Practice—Resolving Myths with Hazard & Risk Analyses. 2016. Available online: https://www4.in.tum.de/lehre/vorlesungen/funktionale_sicherheit/WS14/04_[MKG13].pdf (accessed on 29 January 2017). 7. Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety. Job Safety Analysis. Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety, 2016. Available online: https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/job-haz.html (accessed on 12 December 2016). 8. Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety. OSH Answers Fact Sheets: Hazard and Risk. 2017. Available online: https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/hazard_risk.html (accessed on 31 January 2017). 9. Public Services Health & Safety Association. Risk Assessment and Job Hazard Analysis. 2011. Available online: http://www.pshsa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/job-hazard-analysis-riskassessment.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2016). 10. U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Job Hazard Analysis OSHA 3071. 2002. Available online: https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3071.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2016). 11. Czerny, B.J.; D’Ambrosio, J.; Debouk, R.; Stashko, K. ISO 26262 Functional Safety Draft International Standard for Road Vehicles: Background, Status, and Overview. 2010. Available online: http://sesamo-project.eu/sites/ default/files/downloads/publications/iso-26262-dis-tutorial-2010-final.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2017). 12. Piovesan, A.; Favaro, J. Experience with ISO 26262 ASIL Decomposition. 17 February 2011. Available online: http://www.automotive-spin.it/uploads/8/8W_favaro.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2016). 13. Ihsa Health and Safety News. 4 Steps to Conducting Effective Job Safety Analysis. Thomson Reuters, 21 March 2011. Available online: http://www.cos-mag.com/personal-process-safety/29402-4-steps-to- conducting-effective-job-safety-analysis/ (accessed on 15 November 2016). 14. ISO Standards. ISO 26262-3:2011(en) Road Vehicles—Functional Safety—Part 3: Concept Phase. 2011. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:26262:-3:ed-1:v1:en (accessed on 25 February 2016). 15. National Instruments. What Is the ISO 26262 Functional Safety Standard? National Instruments, 2014. Available online: http://www.ni.com/white-paper/13647/en/#toc2 (accessed on 25 February 2016). 16. Gould, J.; Glossop, M.; Ioannides, A. Review of Hazard Identification Techniques. Health and Saftey Laboratory, 2005. Available online: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2005/hsl0558.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2016).

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).