Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I am interested to know just how many of us accept the myths proposed in the article on page 49 et seq. of this month's, March 2006, Safety & Health Practitioner, using them as underpinning foundations of our safety management sytems
I am therefore carrying out an online survey. Please click on the link if you wish to take part
http://freeonlinesurveys...id=mwb91bdgsdj58t5172003
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
These are some early figures.
Remember the question asks if these are used as the foundation to underpin your safety management system
1: Accident triangles offer a realistic, accurate and useful tool for accident prevention?
Yes: 33.3% No: 66.7% Not sure: 0.0%
2: Linear management structures are bad
Yes: 44.4% No: 33.3% Not sure: 22.2%
3: Reactive statistics are a bad way to measure success
Yes: 22.2% No: 77.8% Not sure: 0.0%
4: Benchmarking is a good thing
Yes: 88.9% No: 0.0% Not sure: 11.1%
I will make a daily update report for interest of all interested parties.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Good Day All
Results to date
1) Accident triangles offer a realistic, accurate and useful tool for accident prevention
Percentage
Yes 26.3
No 73.7
Not sure 0.0
2) Linear management structures are bad
Percentage
Yes 26.3
No 57.9
Not sure 15.8
3) Reactive statistics are a bad way to measure success
Percentage
Yes 26.3
No 73.7
Not sure 0.0
4) Benchmarking is a good thing
Percentage
Yes 84.2
No 0.0
Not sure 15.8
This is still going to run for a couple more days so please respond if you wish.
I will remind everybody that the question ultimately is about whether or not the stated myths are actually foundational to your safety management systems.
Thanks for your time.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nigel Button
Robert,
Could you please provide us with an update of your online survey.
NB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Nigel
Raw figures with no comments. I might produce an article on this.
1) Accident triangles offer a realistic, accurate and useful tool for accident prevention
Percentage
Yes 20.0
No 80.0
Not sure 0.0
2) Linear management structures are bad
Percentage
Yes 23.3
No 63.3
Not sure 13.3
3) Reactive statistics are a bad way to measure success
Percentage
Yes 30.0
No 70.0
Not sure 0.0
4) Benchmarking is a good thing
Percentage
Yes 83.3
No 3.3
Not sure 13.3
It is looking likely that some "myths" are not as widely believed or regarded as foundational as the article proposes
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
How about an additional.
"Human Behaviour policies & practices are an excuse by management to blame workers"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth
Just a point on monitoring. It could be argued that all monitoring ultimately is reactive in that in order to measure something it must have happened in the first place eg when conducting a departmental inspection a dangerous condition is present or it isn't, an unsafe act has happened or it hasn't. Either way it gives an indication of the safety of a particular area.
Similarly, when conducting environmental monitoring such as noise assessment you can only measure the noise levels as they are happening and react to them afterwards.
In safety surveys, the answers that are given will be influenced by the experiences of the people being asked, therefore they are reacting to their experiences. All these methods of monitoring are so called proactive methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Jim
There are undoubtedly similar propositions but I chose to pick up only on those in the article as they prompted questions in my mind as to whom made the assertions in the first instance and what evidence there is to accept them.
Peter
Your points are exactly right - we are too used to Aristotlean western logic which demands that if something is A it cannot be also be Not A at the same time. The fluidity of Eastern, and much French, philosophical thinking allows for A and Not A to co-exist in the one "object". Modern Set mathematics also reflects this. I am not sure yet where this leads but a lot of articles and books treat the topics/myths as proven and I am not so sure looking at the results that this is correct.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nigel Button
Hello Robert,
Have you now completed your survey? I am interested in the number of responses you had to your survey and what your conclusions are.
Thank you
NB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Nigel
Responses are continuing but the percentages are not changing significantly; current situation re percentages
1) Accident triangles offer a realistic, accurate and useful tool for accident prevention
Percentage
Yes 23.3
No 74.4
Not sure 2.3
2) Linear management structures are bad
Percentage
Yes 27.9
No 60.5
Not sure 11.6
3) Reactive statistics are a bad way to measure success
Percentage
Yes 30.2
No 69.8
Not sure 0.0
4) Benchmarking is a good thing
Percentage
Yes 88.4
No 2.3
Not sure 9.3
For me I think no matter how long I let it run the net result seems to indicate that practitioners are far more nuanced in their use of various techniques than is credited. I will end the survey after this weekend and then find some time to fully absorb the meanings contained in the responses.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.