Rank: Forum user 
|
As anyone got any sources of information on behavioural based safety. I am going to deliver a series of briefs to drivers, the theme I am trying to portray is excepting they work remotly when making deliveries / collections however they do need to take account for their own actions (to a degree of course).
Think before they act, as opposed to act before thinking, that sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
phargreaves04
I wonder to what extent are you simply talking about 'motivational guidance' (which is fine) rather than 'behavioural based safety'.
BBS has become a shadow industry mainly because it is often attempted without mastery of the essential core skill of validly (i.e. accurately) measuring the behaviours an organisation wishes to cultivate and validly providing feedback on their performance or omission. An example of the profound confusion is illustrated on the TUC website' statement of opposition to BBS which illustrates lamentable ignorance about its potential for safeguarding workers (as well as leveraging quality performance).
This so-called BBS is like expecting people to sing like opera stars without opening their mouths or reading a line of music.
Unless you're willing and able to introduce and develop these kinds of measures, you're much better off simply learning to coach the drivers using some much simpler, if less powerful, methods. If you re willing, figure out the kinds of valid measures that fit in with the tasks of lone workers and how you'll use them to provide fruitful feedback to them and to managers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I should have added that the most useful guides to adequate BBS are available online through Amazon; they're written by Aubrey Daniels, or E Scott Geller or Tom Krause or Tom McSween. A former student colleagues of Tim Marsh, Dom Cooper, has also published a good guide, available through his own website B Safe.
While Tim's books are good rhetoric and serve this purpose well, they're not in the same league as guides to introducing BBS; after all, he has the integrity not to claim to have done any research for twenty years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Kieran
In Professor Dominic Cooper's book 'Behavioral Safety: A Framework for Success' (page 140) - published in 2009 - he stated:
'The major underlying reason that 99 percent of all Behavioral Safety processes fail is a loss of credibility.'
A 1% success rate does not inspire confidence.
On the other hand in the HSE's Strategy - launched in 2009 - 'The Health and Safety of Great Britain \\ Be part of the solution there is a 'goal' in relation to workforce involvement. In the supporting text it states:
'.... there is strong evidence that unionised workplaces and those with health and safety representatives are safer and healthier as a result.'
In launching the strategy Judith Hackitt said workforce involvement was one of their top 3 priorities. She recognised the success of trade union supported safety representatives - over 100,000 of these volunteers - and sought ways of transferring that success into non-union organisations. A start was made by funding a training initiative where around 2,400 non-union reps were provided with free courses and a separate pilot done to support joint union rep/manager training. The second training initiative was for 120 organisations and over subscribed.
The initiative was evaluated after six months and one year, to identify the impact in the workplace. [The research report is: Evaluation of the HSE worker involvement training courses: Final Report – HSE Research Report 964: 2013]. It shows both initiatives to be successful. In relation to the joint training, I quote:
‘After 12 months, there was evidence of embedding and culture change, with lasting improvements to relationships and joint working arrangements, and continuing improved processes and procedures. There was some evidence of moves towards lasting culture change, and less formal meeting arrangements, reflecting the fact that issues were being dealt with as they arose.’
At an International Conference in New Zealand in October last year, Judith Hackitt stated:
‘Since the launch of HSE’s new strategy in 2009 one of the most successful programmes which we have initiated has been the piloting of joint training in health and safety for safety reps and supervisors ..’.
[In passing it is a puzzle why the HSE have not even issued a press release about this successful initiative, given the report has been available on their website since March this year.]
The TUC and affiliated unions, having established the most effective worker involvement system for health and safety - so much so that the HSE are trying to emulate it in non-union organisations - are now displaying 'lamentable ignorance' in their views about BBS?
Perhaps they are reflecting a reality check on how too many so called BBS systems, actually don't work in practice because they are inappropriate for a significant number of organisations that try them.
Cheers.
Nigel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Nigel
I wonder why you choose to address your comments to me: I have not ever, ever, ever categorically advocated 'behavioural safety.
At the same time, like worker representation, where 'BBS' or comparable methods are well-designed and validated, they can be effective within measureable limits.
Whether the HSE say so or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
KieranD wrote:Nigel
I wonder why you choose to address your comments to me: I have not ever, ever, ever categorically advocated 'behavioural safety.
At the same time, like worker representation, where 'BBS' or comparable methods are well-designed and validated, they can be effective within measureable limits.
Whether the HSE say so or not.
Judith Hackitt's speech with the title, " Engaging the whole system, the regulator cannot do it alone", at the 11th World Conference on Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion, 3rd October 2012 - Wellington, New Zealand is at:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...cripts/hackitt031012.htm
What was left out in was "............................breaking down the "us and them" barriers and getting people to recognise their shared purpose."
Irrespective whether it is BBS or general safety or even general industrial relations, organisations and programmes will not be successful there is an "use and them" barrier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry Kieran, I did not mean to quote you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Kieran
I picked the point up you made about the TUC in post#4. You said that there is 'profound confusion' regarding the potential benefits of BBS and referred to the TUC website as illustrating such confusion. Unless I read it wrong:
'An example of the profound confusion is illustrated on the TUC website' statement of opposition to BBS which illustrates lamentable ignorance about its potential for safeguarding workers (as well as leveraging quality performance).'
In some cases BBS initiatives have worked but in others they were misleading. I accept that if everything is done right, in the right circumstances etc, they may add value. The TUC guide is reflecting what they find: that many limit the vision of workers into a narrow area and fail to put control measures into the perspective of the general principles of prevention. As a result - in my own experience - people are more comfortable challenging somebody not wearing PPE or tidying up the workplace; less comfortable in challenging poor planning or identifying weaknesses in managerial decision making or communication failures etc and the other main underlying causes in the vast majority of accidents. [I'm not considering occupational health issues here.]
The TUC approach is based on applying the general principles of prevention, avoiding the risk being the first step. Throughout HSE investigation reports over the last 30 years there is generally an 80%/20% split - 80% of accidents attributable to a failure in managerial control/20% individuals. This is not mathematically accurate but a reasonable summation.
The HSE estimate that 60% of employees in Great Britain are not properly consulted over health and safety issues that they should be. The health and safety issues that employers are legally required to consult their employees about is quite extensive. All I'm saying is I do not think the TUC is ignorant of the benefits of BBS, just more concerned about the pitfalls, as Jay points out.
Cheers.
Nigel
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.