# Safety Maintains Lean Sustainability and Increases Performance through Fault Control
## 5 Lean Safety Performance Level (LSPL) Case Study  
The costs and consuming maintainability time were classified according to Tables 1 and 2. The experts according to questionnaire analysis decided that the performance level should be among 65% to 99.9% [46], and distributed according to the illustration Table 11. The proposed LSPL framework stages were adopted via U.S.C.C (a consultant office owned by Zagazig University, Egypt). The losses and costs data for the medium and small industrial organization's scale has been collected from 495 departments belongs 18 ERP's enterprise systems of different industries from July 2014 to November 2019 in some industrial Egyptian cities through physical visits and the online questionnaires that oriented to the safety's managers who participated in this survey voluntarily. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt}} \hline \hline (1) Fault Opportunities: (Specific loss of any of HBL functions), related to opportunities aforementioned in Table 1. \\ \hline (2) Fault mode “effect”: A description of the consequence and ramification of any HBL faults, to rank these faults according to a severity scale. A typical Fault Mode may have several “effects” depending on a review of which manufacturer, manufacturer, or any of stakeholders are considered (i.e., analyzed and tailored according to needs via brainstorming recommendations). \\ \hline (4) Fault mode “causes”: A description of the proficiency’ losses (high ramifications of direct and root causes) that results in the Fault Mode, which can be formulated via classical cause and effect diagram. \\ \hline This step needs for creating a time schedule for predicted faults and codify via closely monitoring its behavior at a specified period using any of forecasting procedures, such as ARIMA or using the codes of artificial intelligent as Neural Network (e.g., time of the birth of the fault: t, fault’s lifespan: \(\delta\)t, severity: \(\eta\), occurrence: \(\omega\) and loss cost estimations: \(\theta\)) \\ \hline (6) Fault Mode “(safety investigation)”: The methods, tests, procedures, or controls used to prevent the cause of the Fault Mode or detect the Fault Mode or cause should it occur. \\ \hline (8) Risk Priority Number (RPN; descending Order): = S\({}_{\text{everity}}\times\text{O}_{\text{C}\text{C}\text{C}\text{C}}\times \text{D}_{\text{e}\text{t}\text{e}\text{t}\text{e}\text{t}\text{s}\text{ a response}}\) \\ \hline (9) Action planning: A high-risk framework that is not followed with corrective actions has little or no value, other than having a chart for an audit. Therefore, the FMEF is created. If ignored, you have probably wasted much of your valuable time. A good action plan focused on reducing the RPN by adopting the obvious safety roadmap has many VA functions. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: FMEF terminology suggestion. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt}} \hline \hline Limits & 60–70\% & \textgreater{}70–80\% & \textgreater{}80–94\% & \textgreater{}94–96\% & \textgreater{}96–99.99996\% \\ Risk level & Under Risk & Moderate & Adequate & Near Safe & Completely Safe \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: The Lean Safety Performance Level reference [47]. The influencing measurement variables for the planning (i.e., Measuring and Analysis) for the Lean Safety LSPL framework as illustrated in Table 12. These variables have been tackled as illustrated in Table 13, which are related to HBL abuses. Out of 495 questionnaires, 197 (40.2%) responses were received. Incomplete questionnaires were discarded. The final study sample consisted of 185 (37.7%) valid returned questionnaires that were implemented in different 18 enterprises. The characteristics summarized of the respondent's enterprises indicate that the majority of them are cartons' industries (48.3%), metal industry (19.1%), textile industries (15.4%), bathtubs fabrications (9.4%), electronics and other electrical equipment (4.2%), and others factories represent (3.4%).