The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a manufacturing company."During the past year, workers at our newly opened factory reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries. Panoply produces products

The vice president believes that reducing the time shifts of workers would bring about greater safety in his factory. He cites nearby Panoply industries which have a lower incidence of job accidents. He believes the reason for Panoply's safety record is its shorter time shifts which allows the workers to be fully rested and hence articulate during factory operation. While the vice president makes a good observation, he fails to consider other potential reasons for Panoply's safety record.

While Panoply may have adopted a shorter time shift, they may also have incorporated other safety meachanism to prevent accidents during faactory operation. They may have set alarm systems to alert workers of imminent danger, or they organized their production schedule to make accommodation for safety workers, whose job is to oversee and monitor factory operations at every step, thereby having immediate knowledge of potential danger. Therefore, it would be incorrect to solely ascribe Panoply's safety record to its shorter time shift. While the shorter time shift may have contributed to safety, other safety mechanism may have played greater significant roles.

Another plausible explantion could be that Panoply industries possesses highly efficient and safer machineries than the vice-president's own company. If this is the case, then irrespective of time shift duration, Panoply industries would have a safer record than the vice-president's company. Perhaps the vice-president's company operate outdated, dangerous machinery which are always bound to lead to mishap during factory operation. The vice president in this case should recommend a technological upgrade for its facilties.

Panoply industry workers may be highly trained and posses greater technical expertise than the vice presidents company. The workers in Panoply perhaps are trained in managing factory operations especially during periods of danger. They may possess knowledge that enables them put the factory under control, during contingencies. On the other hand the vice-president's company may have fewer trained workers who have not the expertise of handling facotry operations properly and may have no contingency or safety training. Such facoty workers would be unable to handle dangerous situations at the factory, leading to higher job accidents.

Despite the fact, that both industries produce similar products, their means and process of production may be entirely different. Perhaps Panoply uses a simpler and safer technique, with few hazadrous steps to produce their products meanwhile the vice president's company uses a procedure that may be more complex and rife with potential hazards. If this is the case, the vice president's comapny would have a higher probabilty of accident incidence than Panaoply industries.

I think the vice - presidents needs to do more research and study into Panoply industries to determine if there are other safety mechanisms incorporated into Panoply's operation which he is unaware of. Safety trainings and courses could also be provided to workers to enable them tackle dangerous situations. And if machineries are out of date, they should be upgraded to reduce potential hazards associated with older technologies.