Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Introduction
One of the group exercises undertaken at the OGP safety workshop in March 2000 generated a lot of interest from OGP members. The exercise built on a process begun in 1999 to develop a useable measure of an organisation's safety culture. Westrum's (1985) three stages of organisational culture provided a framework and were extended to five levels: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pathological: No-one knows or cares about safety. Reactive: Improvements are only made following a serious negative incident C alculative: C omplex management systems are used to encourage and monitor safe working Proactive: People try to avoid problems occurring and exist in a constant state of awareness. Generative: Safety is integral to everything we do.
Progress through these five stages shows increasing sophistication. The exercise reported here involved collecting the consensus views of what constitute these levels. This was done through interviews with top managers with responsibility for safety, and HSE professionals, in a number of the OGP member companies. The aim was to produce a set of definitions of organisational behaviour. The exercise did not involve the sharing of company specific information and did not therefore include disclosure or discussion of confidential or sensitive company matters.
Detailed Descriptions
Benchmarking, Trends and Statistics
1. C ompliance with statutory regulations, but the data that is collected is not used. 2. Try to respond as other companies do, and worry about the cost of accidents, and their placing in the 'safety league'. Don't think about the underlying causes. 3. Benchmark with respect to incidents and accidents, collect and publicly display lots of data, and believe that measuring is fixing. Don't look for future problems, and don't try to move beyond 'hard' objective measures that can be summarised numerically. 4. Interpret trends and extrapolate in order to prevent future loss. Define best practice and audit against it. Try to be the best in the industry. Don't involve all levels in the auditing process. 5. Benchmark outside the industry. C onsider the human factor seriously, and therefore use a broad range of 'hard' and 'soft' measures. Involve all levels of the organisation in identifying action points for improvement
but this is not always done. There is no focus on incident potential, or looking at the total of hazard reports, near misses, incidents and accidents. 5. Data is aggregated across business functions to look for trends and issues that need to be addressed. There is a systematic follow up to check that change has occurred and has been maintained and it is always used.
Safety reports
1. There are no safety reports. 2. Safety reporting is simple and factual, and tends to involve finger-pointing. The company does not track actions after reports. 3. There are reports that follow a fixed format with considerable documentation. Body parts and hazards are scored in detail. A tracking system is available. The company does not like blanks in forms. 4. Safety reporting looks for 'why' rather than just 'what' or 'when'. Rapid submission of reports is appreciated, and it is possible to leave blanks in the form to be filled in later. 5. Senior management is routinely involved and sets reporting goals. Safety reporting is easy to disseminate across the whole organisation, using widely accessible databases.
Contractor management
1. C ontractor management is focused entirely on price, and does not take safety issues into account. The company regards the contractor as wholly responsible for their own workers' safety. 2. The company pays attention to HSE issues in contracting companies only after an accident. The primary selection criterion is still price, but poor safety performance has negative consequences for a contractor. 3. C ontractors are expected to jump through a lot of HSE hoops, some of which may not be necessary. Pre-qualification is on the basis of previous safety record. Standards are lowered if no contractor meets requirements. No effort is made to help contractors get up to speed. 4. HSE issues are seen as a partnership. Pre-qualification is on the basis of previous safety record and having systems in place. The company helps with contractor training. Joint safety efforts begin to be seen. 5. C ontractor and company staff are not seen as separate, but an integrated workforce. Shared information leads to integration of policies, procedures and practices. Work is postponed if no contractor meets the HSE requirements. Joint training and competency programmes are standard.
as a discretionary spend. If all contractors are unacceptable, the least bad is taken. 4. The company tries to make safety the top priority, while making a positive connection between safety and financial return. The company is better at juggling the two, and accepts delays to get contractors up to standard in terms of safety. Money still counts. 5. The two are in balance, so that this becomes a non-issue that is not discussed. The company accepts delays to get contractors up to standard in terms of safety. Management believe that safety makes money.
1. Staying alive is reward enough. There are no tangible rewards, only punishments for failure. 2. There are disincentives for poor HSE performance. The understanding that positive behaviour can be rewarded has not yet arrived. 3. Some lip service is paid to good safety performance. Tokens such as T-shirts are given out. Managers' bonuses are tied to LTIs. 4. There is some reward, and safety performance is considered in promotion reviews. TRC F is used when calculating bonuses. 5. Recognition itself seen as high value. Tokens (e.g. baseball hats) are not given, as the workforce know they perform well. Evaluation is process-based.