Rank: New forum user 
|
We are currently using a General/standard self-devised H&S checklist for our inspections of ALL council establishments (including schools), which was designed to measure performance in H&S compliance. The scoring on the audit ranges from 0% - 100%, with 20% increases throughout. 0% equates to a 'Fail' and 100% equates to a 'Pass'. The end result gives an overall percentage score for the establishment with each individual section i.e. Asbestos, coshh, DSE, receiving an individual score for achievement. Anything in-between signifies work in progress, how advanced this work is and the quality of the work. The auditing inspector would make a judgement on the quality of the work in progress and score the establishment between 20% - 80% on the issues that were either not a fail or a pass. However, there will always be clear failures and clear passes, which our current audit identifies.
It has been suggested that we change this system to just a Fail/Pass/N/A (with no scores in between) in order to achieve percentage results that are either a fail or a pass despite the level of work being carried out in between.
In my experience, this suggested change does not conform to performance management or quality systems as their is no criteria for managers to work to, despite the fact that I feel it would discourage and de-motivate managers that are making great efforts towards compliance.
It has been suggested that within H&S we should only be accepting a pass or a fail and nothing in between.
I would be interested in your views on this matter and also to find out what kind of systems you are working to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi Tracey, it may be that the person doing the suggesting is not fully aware of "real-world" activity and somewhat lacking in management expertise. They may be seeking to achieve perfect compliance in all areas of council activity but reality dictates that, in your words, there will be areas of work in progress.
The law generaly requires practicable reasonableness with only relatively few situations demanding absolute compliance.
There are regular posters on this forum who have great insights in to behavioural science and motivation who will I'm sure agree that encouragement is a much more effective tool than punishment for achieving less than perfection.
Aim for total complaince with 100% as an objective but recognise that a lower percentage may well represent a very significant improvement since the last measurement. Equally, for the previously perfect operation which now scores "a fail" there will be reasons that need to be discovered and addressed, along with encouragement to regain lost ground.
There is of course a place for punishment if used appropriately and with discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To be honest the only criteria score I have done with auditing is are you compliant or non compliant or a simple yes/no
There is a difference in being compliant or not to the criteria set than if there are opportunities of improvement. The percentage compliance suggests no compliance, a little compliant, could do better or fully compliant...very complicated and likely to confuse the very people that the audit is dumped on to rectify at the end of the audit.... likely to receive a negative response?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Perhaps the yes/no approach would suit certain situations or industries, possibly on construction sites, which are high risk areas e.g lack of PPE - ..er sorry mate I was just about to go back to the site hut to get my hard hat or no safety file on site - sorry but it was in the van and Ted has driven round to the co-op to get the sandwiches - Clear failures!
I disagree, however with those responsible for the rectification of issues being confused, as my role is to advise and assist them with this task along with monitoring their progress and so any confusions would be explained to them in full.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would first question what the purpose of the audit outcome is supposed to be and what it is meant to inform the stakeholders.
Both systems, whether scored or not have advantages & disadvantages.
A Yes/No/NA is OK if you are auditing for compliance only, but it may not suitable if you want to measure excellence, which is more than mere compliance!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Have to agree with Jay regarding if you wish to measure excellence.
Who is the target audience of the audit may also be a factor and how much information do they require can also influence as to the degree of scoring system you may choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
MB1
If you have a large construction site with perhaps 10 @ 20m high scaffolds and a single missing toe-board, does this count as a pass or a fail?
I'd be scoring this element 90%+ (assuming there aren't other work at heights deficiencies)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi , Maybe the issue isn't so much about the outcome score but about the question/statement being asked in the audit.
If there is the potential for work to be in progress then could the audit be phrased to have degrees e.g.
1. All employee have been issued with Hard hats - 100%
2. All employees who currently need to wear a hard hat have been issued with hard hats - 80%
3. Some employees who may require to hard hats as part of their work have been issued with hard hats but not all employees who currently need to wear a hard hat have been issued with hard hats - 50%
4. Employees have not been issued with ahrd hats - 0%
Pelase don't take this literally as it is just an example.(and I have a cold which has left me brain dead) This way you get the best of both the worlds you appear to want to reward and people can clearly see what the next goal is towards 10%% achievement.
The problem with this is it can be onerous to establish the audit tool but if you start small you could end up being able to use internal trained auditors as it would not require any greater ability than to read a question and see the proof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Oh dear - 100% achievement not 10%% (told you I was brain dead.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Peter,
As Jay suggested... depends if you want to show complience and/or partial complience and involve goal setting process into the audit.
At the end of the day it needs to suit the needs of the company who's top tier view maybe looking for compliance or excellence
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.