Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Kev Wright
Employers place disproportionate emphasis on external recognition of their management systems (OH&SMS) when compared to the emphasis placed on internal recognition by their own staff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Nice one Kev.
It is quite possible to achieve some kind of external recognition and still not have an internal "safety culture" nor management/employee recognition and participation.
The paperwork, the systems, can be put in place over a six-month period and, if it is only that, will do little to improve actual real-life safety.
The change in safety culture only starts to occur when all levels of management and supervision have integrated H&S into their daily way of life and have visibly and believably "walked the talk" with managers, supervisors and employees.
OHSAS 18002 ? 6 months (with a competent consultant)
A truly integrated safety culture ? 3 to 5 years. (with a competent consultant)
Would any BSI OHSAS 18002 auditor care to comment ? (nom de plumes, aliases, pseudonymes, accepted of course)
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kev Wright
In the last month:
I have encountered an OHSAS 18001 certified management system (certified by one of the high street names in the business) relating to a company that has 2 separate operating entities, with varied operations, organisational structures and therefore different risk profiles - both covered by 1 - yes 1 'OHSAS 18001 Certified Management System'
I have spoken to clients from a ROSPA 'Award winning' organisation that has experienced a workplace fatality a year after the award was granted
None of the professional management bodies such as the Chartered Management Institute, CIPD, IoD etc, to my knowledge, attempt to impose or recommend a business management system 'model' to its membership or businesses that employ them.
Food for thought............
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Kev
A well documented health and safety management system does not mean you are managing health and safety effectively.
The focus on putting the system in can be so time consuming that people stop actually managing health and safety.
Some organisations and clients want the tick in the box so suppliers put these in to satisfy clients and stakeholders.
When sensibly applied in the right way a management system model is a good way of thinking through the business risks and does bring discipline to the processes, planning and reviews.
Food for thought: some of the world's organisations with excellent health and safety performance do not have externally accredited management systems.
These are all my views and I am sure other peoples views will differ. I have just bought the new OHSAS 18001:2007 document so I can review this and see how the principles can best be applied to my clients systems. It is also now (apparently) more aligned with 9001/14001 etc.
I believe that it is how you do it that is important. One of my issues being the introduction of totally generic manuals and documents so people can pass an audit, when they haven't been through the right risk management thought process.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Safety management systems do not produce safety; people produce safety!
Externally accepted systems produce visibility, whilst internally accepted systems produce committment.
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AHS
I totally agree but there is a considerable amount of money to be made in issuing a ticket that makes management feel better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
The problem, I think, is not the systems themselves since they allegedly contain the blueprint for success based on learnt experience.(not convinced though) It is more the case that for many the only reason that they follow these standards is because they believe that commercial survival without them is impossible. They just do not recognise them as a possible means to ensure effective and efficient management of their undertaking. It is accreditation by numbers.
Managers manage targets and the target for most is "get the ticket". Sadly, you do not need to understand or accept the real benefit of good positive management to gain accreditation.
Thus if you already manage in the manner and style prescribed, you have no problems. If you do not, then you can easily end up with "3 line whips", "management directives" and "employee disbelief".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rakesh Maharaj
Interesting thread, but even more interesting themes. Systems for managing health and safety are not actually for managing health and safety but to underwrite commercial success.
Whilst I appreciate that this is generalising - but has anyone come across a system for managing health and safety that is honest in its objectives - save lives and increase profits?
In other words, a system of management that actually contributes to measurable improvements in business value (through the value chain such as management decision making, operations, work design, resourcing, competitive advantage, operational efficiency) - other than the contribution from traditional loss control e.g accidents, damage, insurance reduction etc etc
Kev, sorry to hijack your thread.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
R
A valid interruption though. Management sytems should describe how the business is managed effectively wrt safety, environment quality etc. and not how it maatches the standards.
All too often the mistake is made of trying to make the management fit the standards and it will never produce the benefits that can be gained. If the system does not produce commercial value then it is ultimately ineffective in its purpose.
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.