Strange formatting is this something from or to Chat GPT?

You have however missed the blindingly obvious preventative measure - eliminate the hazard.

In one employment we deployed area boards and would then have a walkround each one until someone suggested putting the boards on wheels and taking them to a safe location so that we weren't unecessarily passing through and standing in a traffic environment.

Given how technology has advanced it may be found to be completely unecessary to move the board by taking or projecting an image in a safer location.

Yes, all looks very odd. It must be the longest  post ever on the forum and it seems that someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to assess a risk that does not need to exist: all of this to access a flip chart!

This is way too long for me to want to read it.

I wonder if your difficulty in convincing your colleagues could be overcome by altering the way you communicate with them.

Richie

I am struggling to understand parts of the scenario.

I guess is that a PFU board is a Problem Follow Up board but this is a new descriptor to me though variants on the principle have existed for decades.

But I haven't a clue what you mean by "Karawane". Google suggests that it would be a group of travellers staying together to make them safer. A "caravan" of camels (and people) passing through a desert.

However, if we ignore these issues, are you asking a question or simply venting your frustration on the Forums? - as it appears that you recognise the principles of the "hierarchy of control" and your MD is resisting change to follow those principles.

One thing that might need some thought is whether the central walkway is needed to keep travel distances down in the event of the need for emergency escape from the warehouse?

I’m also struggling with some of the terminology. However, you seem to have a warehouse with offices at one end and perhaps a production area off the other end. People from production walk through the warehouse to get to some form of chart outside the offices, then walk back again along the thin blue line. All the while fork trucks are moving around the area in the centre from side isles. I may have this picture wrong in my head.

Not sure exactly what this thing is they are looking at, but I will go with flip chart. Seems somewhat old fashioned. It also seems very inefficient for all that wasted time back and forth to look at this thing. I assume it is providing information on what is wanted next etc. It seems to make sense to modernise and have a computer screen on Wi-Fi in the production area. No need to walk anywhere and time saved (spent in production in place of walking about not being productive) it would pay for itself and a selling point to the MD. If nothing else, it would reduce the frequency of the event in question. It may also then make walking around the edge more palatable.

It also occurs to me that those in the danger zone already have the option to walk around, but don’t feel the need to do so. Has there been near misses that has persuaded some to walk around or has everyone been lucky so far and no danger is felt?

Chris

Originally Posted by: chris42

I’m also struggling with some of the terminology. However, you seem to have a warehouse with offices at one end and perhaps a production area off the other end. People from production walk through the warehouse to get to some form of chart outside the offices, then walk back again along the thin blue line. All the while fork trucks are moving around the area in the centre from side isles. I may have this picture wrong in my head.

Not sure exactly what this thing is they are looking at, but I will go with flip chart. Seems somewhat old fashioned. It also seems very inefficient for all that wasted time back and forth to look at this thing. I assume it is providing information on what is wanted next etc. It seems to make sense to modernise and have a computer screen on Wi-Fi in the production area. No need to walk anywhere and time saved (spent in production in place of walking about not being productive) it would pay for itself and a selling point to the MD. If nothing else, it would reduce the frequency of the event in question. It may also then make walking around the edge more palatable.

It also occurs to me that those in the danger zone already have the option to walk around, but don’t feel the need to do so. Has there been near misses that has persuaded some to walk around or has everyone been lucky so far and no danger is felt?

Chris

Hi Chris, you are correct in your assumptions here. It feels very old fashioned to use flip charts dotted all over the factory and then have a team every morning (9am) to walk to each one to discuss the isses raised - very time consuming. It's a mindset thing - if the pfu boards were re-located in this area we would have no need for a walkway running through the centre of a very busy warehouse. Once again it is not enough to point out hazard and risk - our role is very much about changing the culture and habits of a company doing the same this for years. Very frustrating. I was hoping for less resistance form the MD!

Ritchie, you say "Once again it is not enough to point out hazard and risk - our role is very much about changing the culture and habits of a company"

That is spot on.  That is indeed the role, as I imagine most people here have experienced it at some time,  and there's no point in being frustrated about it.  Either you accept that this is the task and get on with it, or you give up on it and go and do something else.  It's easy for me to say - I gave up on it and went to do something else!

It's never enough just to point out hazard and risk - you also have to be constructive in helping to find solutions to problems.  This safety measure would prevent access to some flipcharts, so you need to suggest some other ways to achieve whatever the flipcharts are supposed to be doing.

You also mention "My risk assessment".  Maybe this gives a clue as to how to go about changing things.  It's your risk assessment, not one owned by the decision-makers and people of influence who you need to convince.  Getting them involved in the risk assessment process may give better outcomes.  It will at least force them to think about the issues, and at best they may come up with the solutions ("I've just had a thought - why don't we replace the flipcharts with a computer and a big monitor?")  It's so much better if they come up with the solution because then they will be more committed to it.

You need them to see you as part of the team not as someone opposed to them.

As you say that it's a quality-focused organisation, it may be helpful to reframe the problem in terms of whatever quality fads and terminology they like to use for problem solving.  Present it as if it's a quality problem that needs to be solved, using their quality problem solving methodology.  Then you can collaborate with them on a solution that meets their communication needs, and improves safety standards in the warehouse.

It's very important, if you haven't already and even if you have,  to talk to the people who go to these flipchart meetings, to understand their needs and concerns and what would be acceptable to them.

Edited by user 03 February 2025 10:13:29(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Originally Posted by: Ritchie Hutton

My risk assessment says - don't do it! I'm hoping we never have to read that out in court.

I think Kate has put her finger on the issue.

The court would ask for the employers risk assessment.

Reading your post I get the feeling management would not be presenting your document to court.

Originally Posted by: Kate

Ritchie, you say "Once again it is not enough to point out hazard and risk - our role is very much about changing the culture and habits of a company"

That is spot on.  That is indeed the role, as I imagine most people here have experienced it at some time,  and there's no point in being frustrated about it.  Either you accept that this is the task and get on with it, or you give up on it and go and do something else.  It's easy for me to say - I gave up on it and went to do something else!

It's never enough just to point out hazard and risk - you also have to be constructive in helping to find solutions to problems.  This safety measure would prevent access to some flipcharts, so you need to suggest some other ways to achieve whatever the flipcharts are supposed to be doing.

You also mention "My risk assessment".  Maybe this gives a clue as to how to go about changing things.  It's your risk assessment, not one owned by the decision-makers and people of influence who you need to convince.  Getting them involved in the risk assessment process may give better outcomes.  It will at least force them to think about the issues, and at best they may come up with the solutions ("I've just had a thought - why don't we replace the flipcharts with a computer and a big monitor?")  It's so much better if they come up with the solution because then they will be more committed to it.

You need them to see you as part of the team not as someone opposed to them.

As you say that it's a quality-focused organisation, it may be helpful to reframe the problem in terms of whatever quality fads and terminology they like to use for problem solving.  Present it as if it's a quality problem that needs to be solved, using their quality problem solving methodology.  Then you can collaborate with them on a solution that meets their communication needs, and improves safety standards in the warehouse.

It's very important, if you haven't already and even if you have,  to talk to the people who go to these flipchart meetings, to understand their needs and concerns and what would be acceptable to them.

I appreciate you sharing your insights into risk practices. I fully align with the point that just naming hazards and risks are insufficient; we need to actively engage with developing a culture of safety and collaboration, which I am trying to do.

If I told you that I have only been employed by this company for 4 months you will also understand that these kinds of relationships take to develop, particularly with senior management types. If I also told you that this company were nearly prosecuted by HSE for not have an Asbestos register or risk assessment in place - you may begin to understand what I am dealing with. Thankfully, I put measures in place to satisfy the HSE, amongst others.

It is always a key strategy of mine to engage decision makers in the risk assessment process and I have done here with success. Pining them down is the problem.

Arguing that safety issues are really quality control issues is an interesting repositioning strategy. Presenting safety improvements alongside the company’s existing quality initiatives may help us demonstrate the value of change to my MD.

So, there may be a tough road ahead and, over time, I think I can help move the organisation forward as far as safety is concerned. I don't mind working to develop a business that is stuck in 1990, I just wish I had my age and youthful exuberance and   energy back to deal with it :)

Edited by user 03 February 2025 12:35:30(UTC)  | Reason: spelling

Hi Ritchie

Expanding on what Kate has written, all too often H&S is treated as something separate to what else goes on in an organisation, when decisions should be taken that integrate H&S with every other aspect of the business.

Suppose you go out on the shop floor and see that Machine X is poorly guarded. YOU could do a risk assessment and recommend that £50,000 be spent on getting Machine X up to a safe standard.

In contrast if the risk assessment is owned by management they might think that Machine X is on its last legs and if replaced the business would be more efficient.

So, suppose £200,000 is to be spent on Machine Y, that decision is very unlikely to be made UNLESS there is a clear business case that says that the Return on Investment is such that the organisation will recoup the investment within say 5 years maximum. Being brand new Machine Y is already properly guarded so the price of improving H&S is NIL!! 

If you apply exactly the same thinking to your actual scenario, it is very likely that if those managing and working on the site take ownership of H&S as an integral part of everything they do, they will realise that walking from A to B to C to D each day is a complete waste of time and those flip charts will soon be in the bin, replaced by modern ways of working - NOT for reasons of H&S but for reasons of productivity. Again your H&S improvement is a free bonus.

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Are they working to ISO 9001? I am sure that someone in there it mentions legal compliance. If it does you can ask them about what they think they should be doing  to ensure to ensure that they are fully compliant. They could even ask for advice from a H&S professional!

Ha Ha, yes I suppose they could ask for a H&S professional - I've often pointed out that they do actually pay me for this advice etc. I did wonder if this reluctance to deviate is common amongst automitive suppliers.

Hi Ritchie

Personally I would leave the costs of accidents (and ill health) completely out of the debate as the argument you can make can be easily countered by anyone with some rational thinking.

So, you suggest that perhaps an accident at the junction might result in a broken leg (you could argue death) and using the Department of Transport official Value for Preventing a (statistical) Injury for such severity say that the cost is about £200,000 (or about £2 million if you set the potential severity as death).

That's a good starting point, BUT it presumes that the accident WILL happen even if you don't know when, and is difficult to defend when people intent on sticking to the status quo say "but we've been doing it this way for 10 years and it hasn't happened yet".

Let's suppose for a minute that we have a crystal ball and can accurately predict that the accident will happen in eight years time. £200,000 (or, possibly, some larger sum) spent now will not have the same value in 8 years time. AND in that period the same amount of money COULD be spent on something with a Return on Investment such that the Benefit to Cost Ratio is greater than 1.

OK, your barrier isn't going to cost anything like £200k but you will get into a lengthy debate about the weekly opportunity cost of the time wasted walking round the warehouse instead of straight across.

Whereas if you throw the ball to those in control of what happens they should be able to work out for themselves that what they are doing is a waste of time and money, if they are in any way competent.

Granted this does demand a degree of competence, but if they haven't got that, then they are unlikely to be convinced by some argument that is heavily dependent on the "costs of accidents".

Before I got my first job as an H&S professional I worked as a production programmer in a factory. May be the UK MD was actually working to a cunning plan to ensure that the factory was forced to close but otherwise he was utterly incompetent as were those in his immediate entourage.

So, when he made some changes apparently with no consideration of the unintended, but entirely predictable, consequences no amount of rational explanation as to why some of his decisions were bound to fail would cut it. If I had tried to chuck the costs of accidents into the mix it would probably have made the debate even worse!!!