IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
A problem with adequate supervison....IT issue
Rank: Super forum user 
|
We have several large office buildings (30,000 sq feet) containing typical office and admin type enviroments an various server rooms. The server rooms serve our global business and customers in terms of IT support and systems.
If there is a server or PC hardware problem during the night (the building is empty of personnel at night) an automated call is made to our maintenance contractor (a well known name) and they send out either an engineer or sub contract to fix the problem. Normally these problems are time crtical and must be attneded within a couple of hours.
Now the problem...As our IT maintenance contractor have so many engineers and also use sub contractors we do not know exactly which engineer with attend. This means the enginner may not have had any type of safety induction for the building they will be visiting and working in. (this is a requirement for all other contractors). Also we are unable to provide any type of supervison for this engineer as we only have one IT person on call covering a very large area so they are not always availbale to attend the site. The only other person on site is a security guard.
The jobs the engineers will carry out is general hardware support, and apperantly nothing too hazardous..e.g climbing ladders.
So...would you consider this a problem? That we cant always offer an induction and also cant supervise the contractor to ensure they are working safely and inline with any RAMS that may be on file and applicable to the work they do?
I think we are failing in our legal duty to provide adequate supervison....
What happens if the engineer is in a rush (late at night) takes a short cut, diverts from a safe working procedure and has an accident??....Is the engineer more likely to take a short cut due to the fact they are working unsupervised?
I simply dont like it...Any views or opinions would be most welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
stonecold wrote:We have several large office buildings (30,000 sq feet) containing typical office and admin type enviroments an various server rooms. The server rooms serve our global business and customers in terms of IT support and systems.
If there is a server or PC hardware problem during the night (the building is empty of personnel at night) an automated call is made to our maintenance contractor (a well known name) and they send out either an engineer or sub contract to fix the problem. Normally these problems are time crtical and must be attneded within a couple of hours.
Now the problem...As our IT maintenance contractor have so many engineers and also use sub contractors we do not know exactly which engineer with attend. This means the enginner may not have had any type of safety induction for the building they will be visiting and working in. (this is a requirement for all other contractors). Also we are unable to provide any type of supervison for this engineer as we only have one IT person on call covering a very large area so they are not always availbale to attend the site. The only other person on site is a security guard.
The jobs the engineers will carry out is general hardware support, and apperantly nothing too hazardous..e.g climbing ladders.
So...would you consider this a problem? That we cant always offer an induction and also cant supervise the contractor to ensure they are working safely and inline with any RAMS that may be on file and applicable to the work they do?
I think we are failing in our legal duty to provide adequate supervison....
What happens if the engineer is in a rush (late at night) takes a short cut, diverts from a safe working procedure and has an accident??....Is the engineer more likely to take a short cut due to the fact they are working unsupervised?
I simply dont like it...Any views or opinions would be most welcome.
Could you write up a set of site rules (simple bullet ponits would do) to include fire and evac procedures. Have the Secuirty officer give them to the engineer to read and sign. I assume they sign in with secuity therefore it would be part of the SSOW. Not ideal I know but it's better than nothing at all. you could also ask the engineers management for a copy of their Lone working or generic RA for the mobile egineers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Have a chat with your equivalent at the provider about the suitability of their RA for their employees at your premises working unescorted - after all they are the individuals employer with the primary Duty of Care and may have for example a lone worker procedure in place.
You could make it part of the service contract terms with the provider that only staff who have received your site induction may attend "out of hours" and arrange (several) induction sessions either at your premises or their premises to develop a pool of inducted attendees.
And for those rare occurrences when the whole thing falls apart a simple induction pack covering the main points evacuation, fire etc. (print outs or a power point) positioned with the security guard at reception along with a current and up to date list of who has received your site induction.
Larger server systems - electricity, manual handling (especially lifting units in and out of cabinets), trailing cables, fire suppressions systems (where fitted), access restrictions (these things end up shoved close enough to a wall that opening access panels blocks movement), cooler units with compressed gasses and rodents (weil's disease) immediately spring to mind as matters to addtress
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Have a chat with your equivalent at the provider about the suitability of their RA for their employees at your premises working unescorted - after all they are the individuals employer with the primary Duty of Care and may have for example a lone worker procedure in place.
You could make it part of the service contract terms with the provider that only staff who have received your site induction may attend "out of hours" and arrange (several) induction sessions either at your premises or their premises to develop a pool of inducted attendees.
And for those rare occurrences when the whole thing falls apart a simple induction pack covering the main points evacuation, fire etc. (print outs or a power point) positioned with the security guard at reception along with a current and up to date list of who has received your site induction.
Larger server systems - electricity, manual handling (especially lifting units in and out of cabinets), trailing cables, fire suppressions systems (where fitted), access restrictions (these things end up shoved close enough to a wall that opening access panels blocks movement), cooler units with compressed gasses and rodents (weil's disease) immediately spring to mind as matters to addtress
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for the replies..the provider does have very thorough risk assessments and method statements (they are accredited to 18001).
I like the idea of a mini induction at the security gate...
Still have a gap in regards to supervison though and thats what bothers me..
Had issues with other contractors before failing to follow agreed RAMS before and the supervison element was identified as an area where we could have possbly improved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Little bit harsh to judge all contractors based upon experience of a few bad ones (however I also take the approach of lowest common denominator as the only real sanction with contractors is to escort them from site when persistently breaking their own documented rules).
Were the miscreants also 18001 certified? More correctly did they hold certification for cultural development purposes within their business or was it merely a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire / Tender tick box?
Similarly for the IT contractor is their 18001 embedded in employee activity in which case everything reasonable for the circumstances has been achieved or again a piece of paper to earn money in which case your question of premises occupier supervision becomes a given.
As the customer why not ask for a Supplier Assessment Audit so you can gauge their base of operations first hand taking a look at their training systems and records together with the outcomes of internal audits and accident/incident reporting which would demonstrate the type of 18001 certificate they hold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Little bit harsh to judge all contractors based upon experience of a few bad ones (however I also take the approach of lowest common denominator as the only real sanction with contractors is to escort them from site when persistently breaking their own documented rules).
Were the miscreants also 18001 certified? More correctly did they hold certification for cultural development purposes within their business or was it merely a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire / Tender tick box?
Similarly for the IT contractor is their 18001 embedded in employee activity in which case everything reasonable for the circumstances has been achieved or again a piece of paper to earn money in which case your question of premises occupier supervision becomes a given.
As the customer why not ask for a Supplier Assessment Audit so you can gauge their base of operations first hand taking a look at their training systems and records together with the outcomes of internal audits and accident/incident reporting which would demonstrate the type of 18001 certificate they hold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not sure if im being misunderstood, sometimes difficult to get your clear point across on here. :)
The contractors documentation i.e RAMS etc is of a good standard. But would we be creating a potential liabilty for our business by allowing a contracting to work on one of our sites with zero supervison?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It is not your primary responsibility to "supervise" safe working, that is of the service provider, but you need to ensure that who ever comes has the information of the most critcal aspects regarding your facility, primarily, i.e. fire alarm escape route and also, ensuring that either the the service provider has a robust working alone system or uses yours.
The fact that they work in server rooms has its won hazards & risks, all are manageable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The delights of written communication.
Whilst the documents are of a good standard have you shadowed this contractor when they have been at site (not necessarily out of hours, but during other visits) and were they doing what it says on the paper i.e. were they demonstrating they follow their own documented systems?
As a company do you supervise everyone else at the premises (your security guard), or only those who need it due to lower competence and experience (new starters, young persons, visitors etc.)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The delights of written communication.
Whilst the documents are of a good standard have you shadowed this contractor when they have been at site (not necessarily out of hours, but during other visits) and were they doing what it says on the paper i.e. were they demonstrating they follow their own documented systems?
As a company do you supervise everyone else at the premises (your security guard), or only those who need it due to lower competence and experience (new starters, young persons, visitors etc.)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
not shadowed anyone in this case....
all other contractors...roofers...air con engineers...electricains...plumbers etc will all have an element of supervison while they are working on our sites...I have learnt the hard way that its important to keep a reasonable close eye on contractors espeically those who are carrying out taks with an element of risk to ensure they are working safely and inline with agreed safe sytems of works/ method statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
for example I have come across scaffolders before who erected a scaffold at our site in an unsafe manner and not inline with the agreed method statement....without any supervison/ monitroing this woudl have been missed and alloweed to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As you have identified that their activities will be low risk you should be able to get a way without having to supervise these contractors. On our site all contactors of this sort have had a basic site induction and they have then been issued with a pass allowing them on site. No induction, no pass, no acess…no job.
The induction should tell them the risks of working on your site and in particular the sorts of activities they must not do eg using ladders. In that way the responsibility goes back to the contractors and their employer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just watch any series of 24. All the attacks on CTU were carried out by persons posing as IT engineers. You just can't trust them :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Contractors can be a nightmare.
We are located on a small business park and had agreed roof maintenance work pencilled in last week. We had their RAMS in advance and they looked suitable.
I watched from our building as the contractors worked on nextdoor's roof. Standing and working right on the edge of the building without using the available mansafe system.
I called their boss and told them what was going on.
I then watched as the guy on the roof got the call from his boss that someone had reported them and they clipped them selves on.
When they came round to our building and I saw the state of their Mobile scaffold (means of access) (RAMS states MEWP) with half the bits missing and necessitating climbing out of the scaffold to get on to our roof, I told them go go away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
A problem with adequate supervison....IT issue
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.