Rank: Guest 
|
Hi. we are a manufacturing plant closing at the end of September and found that after a quite successful prolonged period (2 yrs) of no lost time accidents we had two LTA's and about 3 near misses in the last 3 months. All investigations ended up with human error in one way or another as the root cause, i.e. the RA's , SOP's etc all held up. Generally the atmosphere is poor (partially as redundancy negotiations are still ongoing) but there is not too much observable deterioration, i.e. housekeeping is generally still very good and there is little slippage on following safety rules, wearing PPE etc. People seem to have and maintain good and safe working habits. It is probably difficult to comment as I cannot describe the SMS or process etc in great detail. Conventional approaches such as re training, formal documented risk assessment reviews (only reviewed a few months ago) etc. do not seem appropriate in any of the above situations as people have no interest or incentive. We don't have a formal BBS program. We already have increased the EHS presence by doing additional inspections / walk throughs and generally keeping an eye out for deterioration, appealing to self preservation etc. These however do not seem to be effective and one cannot be everywhere. I need to tackle the behaviour side of things and motiviate in a difficult situation, without being able to start a new program or system. Something simple, yet effective that would help motivate individuals to continue looking out for safety issues, clean up after themselves and so on. There are some concerns as well that if redundancy negotiations are not going well, that injuries may be exaggerated, claims lined up etc. Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It is a well-established principle that the costs of redundancies should also include an amount to cater for an increase in liability claims, regardless of safety management efforts.
I don't have any useful insights in how to counter that tendency, other than to keep doing a good job in inspections, encouragement in good housekeeping, adherence to safe working procedures, 1-2-1 discussions, discipline if needed and thorough investigation of all incidents.
Good luck in your quest for alternative employment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
My first comment is that human error can never be a root cause of an incident or accident. You have to understand why the error occurred. Without more information about that we cannot comment on why you are (or appear to be) having more incidents.
I'm a little confused because you say "there is not too much observable deterioration" but then go on to say there is a behavioural problem.
Is it just the case that the incidents that happen all the time are now being viewed a bit differently? Motivation will make a big difference to individuals' likelihood to return to work promptly after an injury or illness. Fitness for work is very subjective. If people see more benefit from being at work more than staying at home the number of days they take off will always be less. That being the case I suspect the motivational factor that you are encountering has very little to do with H&S and far more to do with the way the shutdown is being managed. I'm no expert on this, but know that the better companies manage this difficult time by making sure people feel they are in a very good position to move on to other things after the shutdown, and so redundancy is viewed as a minor hiccup rather than a major disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Your statement:
'I need to tackle the behaviour side of things and motiviate in a difficult situation, without being able to start a new program or system. Something simple, yet effective that would help motivate individuals to continue looking out for safety issues, clean up after themselves and so on'
raises questions about the quality of communications between team leaders and managers, both operational management and staff management, including yourself.
A process of enquiry using repertory grids can be both simple and effective when it is used skilfully and to the extent that the outcomes are communicated well, to the right people and with sensitive timing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Accident and incidents are like buses...hence a long period without an incident is no assurance that some will not occur at once.
I don't understand why 'human error' cannot be the root cause of an accident. Personally, I dislike the term and prefer to use 'immediate cause' and 'underlying cause(s)' for accidents. In my experience the immediate cause is normally human error. Underlying causes could be any manifestation you care to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray
HSE research indicates that management preconditions are associated with 70% of accidents, e.g. as the cause of human error by employees.
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
ab risk wrote:... You have to understand why the error occurred. ..... I'm a little confused because you say "there is not too much observable deterioration" but then go on to say there is a behavioural problem...
Again without going into detail, our investigation process looks for contributory and underlying causes among others and yes in an ideal world you can always go back ultimately to management and culture etc. but in practice this requires a certain enlightenment and cooperation on both sides, which is not necessarily given. Suffice to say that in both cases there were no contributory factors relating to mechanical / eqipment etc issues, training or experience, understanding of process that could be found. One incident basically involved a momentary lapse in concentration followed by a reflex action when the error was realized that caused the injury. Am I going to say the person was upset and hence there was a lapse? What is the basis for that? How would you correct that? The person involved himself did not even use that as an argument.
While there are attempts by management to make this redundancy as painless as possible and provide support, it is difficult and people are clearly upset. The reason I am saying that there is not much observable deterioration, but also that there is a behavioural problem is, because there is a distinct difference between what people say and what they do. While on the face of it, things are as normal, there are strong verbal misgivings voiced in conversations, both directly and indirectly. Now I do take those with a pinch of salt and try to be sensible as well as sensitive, but 30 years of misgivings and dirt are being dug up in situations like this. There is always the balance between genuine issues and clear attempts at highjacking a situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Peter
Conversely I have seen research which claims that 80% of accidents are caused by human error. I doubt whether anyone really knows the real causation of accidents. It is a bit like the Byrd/Heinrich pyramid, it is allegorical and not based on any empirical research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Mesab
Both of your entries above describe evidence of occupational stress, on the part of some staff and possibly on your own part.
On the basis of your own evidence, there are evident needs for coherent and legally-compliant processes for managing occupational stress healthily.
While you state that you dont' want to start a program or system, you also ask for ideas. What do you want them for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.