Posted By Stephen W
I am trying to decide whether to go with a BBS system which requires all staff to complete observations, or to use just a core of "better trained" staff. I can see pros and cons to each approach:

- All (full involvement, more eyes, wider knowledge base, greater training needs ....)
- Core (better quality observations, less system-management overhead as fewer observations ...)

What are other your thoughts?

And could someone recommend BBS reference book -ideally the accepted gold standard ?

Thanks a lot !

Posted By Neil Budworth
Hi Stepehn,

Definitely start with a core of observers.

Dr Tim Marsh (of Ryder Marsh) has a website Rydermarsh.co.uk Tim is also the author of the IIRSM's book on Affective Safety management which covers a lot of behavioural safety stuff

Professor Dominic Cooper runs a Behavioural safety website called http://behavioural-safety.com/ Dominic has a book on safety culture / behavioural safety

Both of these websites have tons of information on them.

Behavioural Science Technology (BST) also have a good website and BST have produced some really good text nooks on the subject.

There are others who can help, Physcologica, the Quo Group, John Ormond Assoiates etc

I hope that this helps

Best Regards


Neil

Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Hi Stephen

I have a number of papers and information I can email to you via my name link.

There are various approaches, all with worthy pros. The way I prefer is often to align the initial training from top down and capture it in current lines of responsibility. For example team leaders or supervisors undertake an observation coupled up with their manager, but with them leading. All employees do need to be involved and aware of what is going on and why. Work groups including employee reps can be used effectively to identify the key behaviour to re-enforce and general observation techniques.

Best wishes

Ian

Posted By Stephen W
Thanks Ian - I think your response succinctly outlines both sides of the argument! I am mandating the BBS system at each of our 40+ manufacturing sites but am getting some push back on involving all staff (with the claim that the likes of DuPont, BST and BV are recommending a focussed approach based on a core team of observers).

My view is that involvement is key - and so all should be included.

Posted By RHOES
Neil, or anyone else for that matter,

Do you know where I may purchase Dr Tim Marsh's book Affective Behavioural Safety?

Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Hi Stephen

Of the approaches mentioned, the most critical aspect in my view is firstly the quality of the observations. Feedback at the time of the observation and afterwards is absolutely essential. Also critical is how the information is captured and analysed.

One benefit of having an area supervisor or team leader responsible is that they can then take personal ownership of any actions required in their area. There are additional benefits to having cross-area observations with different teams.

I suggest not having more than two people do observations at a time. There are benefits from starting small with core teams that cover each area. We often run a short session (about 30 minutes) which every single employee attends (not all at once!) to discuss the approach and explain the reasoning behind it all.

With the different techniques, it is the way the observer interacts in the discussion and personal commitment, and of course ensuring that all successes are celebrated.

This in my opinion should never be a one shoe fits all approach. There are other things that influence behaviour, so your approach should consider commercial pressures, planning etc. The observation process being one tool that can be used.

It can be tweaked as you go along.

Good luck with it all


Ian

Posted By Merv Newman
Our approach is to train managers, supervisors, employees on the basic concepts and the nuts and bolts of the programme. Half a day for groups of 12 or for a complete workgroup.

Observers are drawn from their work groups. One or two per group.

Management/supervision role is not to observe but to support the programme and the observers.

Behaviours to be observed, 10 to 15, are those proposed by the workgroup. Ownership.

Key point : emphasis is not on "do it right" but on : "you got it right"

There are quite a few variations on BBS systems, perhaps the most extreme being the definition of maybe 4 "critical behaviours" which are observed for by management or "the team".

The books I have on my shelf are :

* Improving safety culture by Dominic Cooper
* The values based safety process by Terry McSween
* Bringing out the best in people by Aubrey C Daniels

There are certain to be more recent ones out there. And those above should be available from Amazon.

Outtakes (outakes ?)who I always recommend (no fee, thanks) has some very good videos which cover this kind of subject.

One very evident lesson - you can't do nothing without solid management buy-in.

But ain't that always the way ?

After more than 30 years in the trade and 10 years offering BBS we have really solid evidence that SMS alone will get you a long way. Adding BBS to that and you trend to zero LTI.

The really difficult question which has been coming up for the last few years is "been, there, done that, we've got all these t-shirts, now what do we do ?"

Anyone ?

Merv

Posted By Ian Futcher
It's always wise to check other ideas/methods, of course. I still feel that once a rugged Safety Management System is in place and working and producing injury reductions, it is a very useful step to move on to Behavioural Safety. It is a relatively easy system to adopt; it need not take up much time; it can achieve a higher level of involvement and ownership by those who are most likely to be injured; it can give some relevant performance indicators to highlight the continual improvement approach.

Perhaps some of these other methods being mentioned in this posting are ones that can be added in later, or used to develop the BS scheme in the next iteration?

There are lots of other areas in "safety" that the employees can get involved in (area safety inspections, ergonomic teams, manual handling teams, Risk Assessment, Emergency response, Engineering actions, First Aiders, lean-type 5-S checks, etc etc). BS Observations are another involvement arm!

The BS benefits are real and are in there. Trust me!

Ian

Posted By Merv Newman
Rak,

I think I have picked up the link you suggested. Maybe not.

But, "if you think that accident prevention is expensive, try the alternative"

I may be wrongly quoting the wrong link here. sorry.

Sorry if I have got it wrong but. A "normal" accident is estimated at £100 000 pounds direct cost. "Catastrophes" go to ten times that. (OK, estimates/statistics/blah blah blah)

Employing a competent safety advisor will cost you maybe £30 to £50 K. Implementation of that person's recommendations maybe twice that.

It's all theoretical/hypothetical. But how many people do you want to injure/kill (statistically) this year ?

Merv

And how much do your retained lawyers cost ?

Posted By Ciaran McAleenan
Stephen

Both Rakesh and Kieran have suggested widening your thoughts and keeping your mind open to the many alternative interventions, beyond BBS.

I want to set my comments in the context of the Seoul Declaration, which recognises;

“… the serious consequences of work-related accidents and diseases, which the International Labour Office estimates lead to 2.3 million fatalities per year world-wide and an economic loss of 4 percent of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) .“

The Seoul Declaration calls on employers to ensure that ;

1. Prevention is an integral part of their activities, as high safety and health standards at work go hand and hand with good business performance.

2. Occupational safety and health management systems are established in an effective way to improve workplace safety and health.

3. Workers and their representatives are consulted, trained, informed and involved in all measures related to their safety and health at work.

For worker consultation to be meaningful and effective in terms of OHS success, it is considered that issues such as trust, honesty, integrity, respect, support, commitment, sincerity and inclusiveness be recognised and implemented by all participants in the consultation process.

(Read http://www.web-safety.com/kosha/SY38-03.pdf World Safety Congress Paper)

One approach to addressing this effectively that I would offer for your consideration is Operational Analysis and Control (OAC), an approach that has proved to be successful in reducing accidents by over 70% in the early years of its operation and has instilled a competence based thought process to an entire organisation (bar the odd dissenter).

The purpose of OAC model is to ensure that work operations are carried out in strict accordance with all relevant ‘safe working’ procedures. In this way we can make sure that people, plant and property are protected from harm prior to, during and after the work operation, regardless of the nature of the hazards faced.

Planning any project without reference to the safety requirements means that the project will fail, certainly and spectacularly. Effective management requires that safety is considered as an integral aspect of the project, not an afterthought nor a discrete element, but central to and fully integrated with the project objectives. What planning does is consider the objectives, the means and the methods of achieving them.

By definition planning leaves nothing to chance. All elements of the projects and every eventuality are considered, in advance and appropriate steps, actions developed and scheduled. Anything that is left out, by accident or by design exposes the project and the company to risk and consequently the likelihood of an undesirable outcome.

In defining the outcomes, and all the relevant considerations, the Operational Analysis and Control model requires the identification of the principal actors necessary for the establishment, development and successful achievements of the project.

The competence and expertise of a wide range of personnel are needed to input to the various aspects of the project, to establish the parameters of what is achievable within the constraints of; finance, engineering & technical capabilities, environmental management, and human interaction, during and after the project.

The occupational safety and health (OSH) input will not solely be derived from OSH professionals, but must also come from experienced and competent managers and supervisors, engineers, specialist experts and of course the workers and their representatives.

Effective management and the OAC model advocates that those who are involved in the project at whatever stage, will have a contribution to make to the elimination/ control of hazards (i.e. those factors that will negatively impact upon any element of the project, not just the safety). The correct option is to go for elimination of hazards, or hazard control when elimination is not possible, so that accident probabilities are removed not minimised.

Best wishes

Ciaran

Posted By Merv Newman
kieran, Hi.

What are you on ? Are you deliberatly being provocative today ?

My objective is to get my sites down to zero.

Whatever it takes.

I may beg, buy, borrow and steal. I will cry, kick my heels, hold my breath untl I go blue in the face. But they will do it my way. Or in fact any way they like until they get those accidents down.

Shame, name, blame ? If you have to. But it is much nicer to stroke, kiss, caress. (The BBS way)

And youv'e got to pick a pocket or two on the way.

Trust me, I'm a consultant.

Discuss.

Merv

Posted By Brando
We have had many BBS conversations here before.

Has anyone else read the articles on the subject at www.hazards.org?

These guys really hate BBS!!!

Not the most balanced view - but certainly worth a look just to see how BBS system can be used badly.

Brando

Posted By Merv Newman
Hossan,

You have to go back to Dom Coopers early articles in SHP. May be around 1990. He wrote specifically, and that was his early research, about BBS on construction sites.

Define the safe behaviours. Recognise, reward, reinforce those safe behaviours.

Still works.

In a more stable situation, ex-construction, we let the workers define for themselves the preferred safe behaviours.

Works.

Merv

Posted By Nigel Bryson
Stephen

BBS has produced results within defined programmes. In trade union organised workplaces equally verified results have been achieved by trained Safety Reps in directed joint initiatives with their managers at a lot cheaper cost.

Why not train up a few employees to act as 'Champions' and do BBS observations on the Board? This would be to check the decision making process and allocation of resources for health and safety. Included in this may be a contrasting exercise to determine how investment decisions on business issues compare with those made for health and safety.

A particular criterion may be the prevention hierarchy in Schedule 1 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. I often pass construction sites that display the Personal Protective Equipment required by individuals who come onto the site: thus advertising that out of a legal nine point hierarchical 'scale' they can do no better than second bottom. Hence the 'Champions' could identify all the steps the Board takes to 'avoid risks' before going to the next hierarchical step - evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided; then combating the risks at source and so on.

However such an approach has the disadvantage of trying to convince the Board that they should be on the receiving end of observational safety behaviour techniques. Once they find out that the approach is based on work from Pavlov's Dogs through to the sacrifice of many lab rats and pidgeons in the 1960s, they may feel this an affront to their intelligence.

Presumably it's OK for the workers though.

Cheers.

Nigel

Posted By Nigel Bryson
Dominic

Sorry to have hit a nerve.

Ah yes, if it is done properly. But what if it isn’t.

‘To focus solely on changing individual behaviour without considering necessary changes to how people are organised, managed, motivated, rewarded and their physical work environment, tools and equipment can result in treating the symptoms only, without addressing the root cause of unsafe behaviour.’
Strategies to promote safe behaviour as part of a health and safety management system. HSE CRR 430: 2002

‘BP has emphasized personal safety in recent years and has achieved significant improvement in personal safety performance, but BP did not emphasize process safety. BP mistakenly interpreted improving personal injury rates as an indication of acceptable process safety performance at its U.S. refineries. BP’s reliance on this data, combined with an inadequate process safety understanding, created a false sense of confidence that BP was properly addressing process safety risks.’
The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel [Baker Report] January 2007: followed the BP Texas Plant explosion that killed 15 people and injured 170 in March 2005

‘The author proposes that the causes of personal safety accidents may differ to the precursors to major accidents and therefore behavioural safety programmes may draw attention away from process safety. Furthermore, the tendency is to focus on individuals and fail to address management behaviour, thus excluding activities that have a significant impact on safety performance.’
Behavioural Safety and Major Accident Hazards: Magic Bullet or Shot in the Dark? HSE Martin Anderson MErgS, EurErg, MIOSH HM Specialist Inspector of Health and Safety (Human Factors)

That behavioural safety initiatives have significantly reduced accidents in a number of organisations is beyond dispute. Oh yes, the ones I have observed involved more than just the ‘lads’, they involved the ‘lasses’ as well.

Helping managers has always been an aim of mine, even if some of them do not recognise this. Hence I defined the role of the Trade Union Safety Representatives as:

1 Assisting managers develop health and safety measures that are effective in practice; and

2 Audit such measures to ensure they are working effectively.

However, ensuring the effective implementation of the prevention hierarchy [required by law] is as good a starting point as any. Even better is to compliment it with the use of the laws on consulting with TU Safety Representatives, Representatives of Employee Safety or employees to have ‘a consensus between management and the workforce’.

During 1994-1999 the GMB trade union initiated and supported a joint programme directly with a range of different organisations. A few used BBS, most didn’t. At the launch of their Working Well Together initiative in 1999 the GMB published a range of case studies. Similar results were published later by the TUC in their 'Partnership for Prevention' reports. Significant accident reductions were achieved, in most cases, without BBS. Those using BBS had significant reductions in injuries as well.

In your article in OSH World, October 1999, ‘Behavioural Safety: a Proven Weapon in the War on Workplace Accidents?’ one of the points you say BBS is not, is:

’Top-down implementation by line-management alone. Behavioural safety systems are based on a consensus between management and the workforce.’

In your programme maybe.

Unfortunately I understand a number of American and Canadian unions have kicked against BBS programmes for precisely the reason that there was no consensus. Australian unions are also voicing similar concerns about BBS.

Yes many employees like BBS because it is the first time their employer has taken a significant interest in what they do and it gets them involved. All I am arguing is that there are alternatives that can achieve similar results.

Oh yes, the bit about politics. What is wrong with the Board being questioned in detail about their priorities? Has anybody applied BBS to a Board?

Tried to be a bit less puerile this time.

Cheers.

Nigel

Posted By James P W
Steven,

Worker involvement is the key.

Anything else is just a 'patch' to your problems. If you employees and contractors are valued they'll be motivated to do most of whatever your strategy requires.

I heard a well respected speaker saying "...your employees OWN your CULTURE, not your managers. Your CULTURE will eat your procedures for breakfast...".

To my mind cracking employee motivation is not the only solution but it's the most fundamental one as it spreads beyond safety and it really is a powerful (but underused) resource.

We're trialing Safety Bonus at present and the feedback is encouraging.

To tie up the other side of things I'd try Mind Safety, John Ormond etc to focus on your 'downstream' message and standards.

Good luck!