Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi All
I am currently filling in a form that requests the root cause/underlying cause of an accident. The problem I have is the client is being obstructive in providing information and it was their contractor that left equipment in an unsafe condition.
Can anyone tell me what they would detail this situation as?
Obviously, if the information of who did indeed carry out this work comes to light then I will update accordingly but this is looking unlikely.
All contributions/advice appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
First of all, a form that assumes there is ONE root cause is seriously inadequate. Accident/incidents all have multiple causes. Secondly, there should be an investigation BEFORE you try to record the details. It sounds as if you are one contractor working for a client with another contractor linked to the event as well. What is to stop the two contractor organisations talking to each other and learning lessons?
If you can't get co-operation, talk to the people who expect you to complete the form and ask them what they wish you to do. For myself, if the facts are as you state in your post and you can't influence any change, I'd put in 'unknown, due to refusal of key parties to co-operate in my investigation'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Imwaldra
Just to clarify your points:
The form is electronic format so I could record multiple underlying/root causes if necessary. An investigation has been complete however we are at a dead end as the client does not seem interested in "outing" the company that left the equipment in a poor state. Therefore, no communication can be sought with the offending contractor.
I have already entered "unknown" but wanted to make sure with peers that this was suffice before closing out this investigation/reporting process. A safety alert seems the only plausible out come for the purpose of awareness........frustrating times!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Smith
I totally agree with imwaldra
I came cross with that type of electronic forms too much ..it may help in some how but not always... most of the time it is tick box option and if you can get enough data for root causes/ direct causes..just tick it..i know in investigation you can not assume but due to organizational culture or other reasons you don't have much data what you can do??
SHV
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The purpose of the investigation is to determine the facts as far as you can. Then use what facts you have to see if you can put reasonable measures in place to prevent re occurrence.
Yes I would record that no information was available from the other contractor, despite requesting it.
So knowing what you know, can you get your people to check if a previous contractor has not left equipment in a dangerous condition ! Before they do whatever they do.
Because it is not unheard of for others not to do what they should !
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
If a contractor left equipment in an unsafe condition then you have "Human Factors" involved and you will never reach root cause unless you can get hold of the person involved and interview him. In aviation we use a preset interview technique called MEDA, it's primarily for aircraft maintenance error investigations but you could adapt it for any use. It was developed by Boeing and is used world wide. For MEDA to be effective you have to conduct your interviews on Day 1, especially if you have contractors that can disappear. Look up the system from BOEING. Maintenance Error Decision Aid and implement it within your Safety Management System train your safety team in it's use. (I can give you the details of a training provider by PM if you want)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I feel frustrated reading this post, surely there are better things for a H&S professional to do than form filling and dealing with negativety ?
What a waste of time ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not too much things he can do when he dose not have required data..
How many time as OHS professional you end up with no clue during incident investigation even you make an interview with required people??
In incident Investigation you may end up with assumption...Read the Buncefield tank farm explosion investigation report, mentioned, the source of ignition was fire pump..can they prove that ? NOOOO.. it is just assumption ..this is high level investigation ....
SHV
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
So many different response to a basic question. I agree with the post which states that all you can do is record that 'no information provided from client' in the relevant section(s). I would also send a copy of the report to as many senior people in the client's organisation if not to shame them but also this may elicit a suitable response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.