Posted By Rakesh Maharaj
I have read Oxenburg's paper with great interest. Undoubtedly Oxenburgh et al use empirical evidence to demonstrate the value brought by ergonomic approaches to task analysis/design and claim that it will improve productivity in manufacturing and service sectors! That is extremely brave of the authors to suggest that a single dimensional model will work in multidimensional organisations (without even testing it) but I admire them for their conviction.

However, what their study fails to recognise that in reality organisations that are abound with organisational messes such as dysfunctional departments, incorrect application of hard and soft HRM, diverse perceptions and dichotomous attitudes/beliefs and conflicts in basic operational management systems.

I believe that if due caution is not applied when reading Oxenburg's paper, it could lead the reader into believing that their findings are universally generalisable, just as OHSAS, HS(G)65 or ANSI Z10 etc systems which misleads many practitioners into believing that it is acceptable to introduce yet another sub-system into an organisation that is inherently dysfunctional or unstable and moreover, expect it to work.

I applaud those of you who claim that the recognised systems for health and safety management are not in reality, surrogate to mainstream business. I for one, would welcome evidence of tried and tested recipes that enable the interweaving of H&S branded management systems into daily operations and management decision making.

Ideas welcome....

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Rakesh

To say 'I would welcome evidence of tried and tested recipes that enable the interweaving of H&S branded management systems into daily operations and management decision making' may be like saying you would welcome evidence of Santa Claus and of human life after death.

Such evidence many simply not exist simply because of the underlying assumptions about 'branded management systems'. Oxenburgh's tool is, as they state very explicitly, simply a tool; it's not 'a branded management system' and the authors don't claim it is.

If you are content to adjust to reality sufficiently to explore many of the most fertile negotiating templates ('tools' not 'branded management sytems'), then 'Negotiation Analysis. The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making', by Howard Raiffa with John Richardson and David Metcalfe (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002) is very useful. The main author, Raiffa is a world authority on negotiation, having been a professor on the subject at a leading university and an accomplished negotiator at corporate and international level.

Posted By Rakesh Maharaj
Kieran,

I sense a degree of disquiet in your responses. I am taking this opportunity to re-assure you that I am not attacking you, the authors or their material. I am attempting to engage in a debate that I believe is required to push the boundaries of our practice. I will attempt to respond to your points without pouring scorn in the process.

By claiming that my quest to find an answer to the integration question is 'like saying you would welcome evidence of Santa Claus and of human life after death.' is rather unfortunate because it suggests that in your view, our profession should abandon any ideas of holistic integration in terms of OH&S and business management. On the contrary, there are new thoughts and ideas emerging from other disciplines that enable businesses to espouse inclusive thinking. A classic example of this is the award winning Operational Analysis and Control (OAC) model designed by Philip and Ciaran McAleenan that facilitates the inclusion of a health and safety function operational decision-making. I am pursuing a similar model that will enable health and safety to be fully integrated with management decision-making – supported with by an inclusive system of management. As an aside, you may be interested to learn that here are some religions around the world that believe in reincarnation - so perhaps there is human life after death!

You also cite a number of authors who promote Collaborative Decision Making Techniques and in doing so, correctly point out that these are negotiating tools and not systems of management. My question would be, why can we not harness the techniques of Collaborative Decision Making in order to create an inclusive system of management that is analogous with a learning organisation?

Whilst I am not au fait with the mathematical model derived from Oxenburgh’s research, I will not criticise it, other than to point out that since 1981 (more than 26 years ago), operational and applied systems thinkers such as Peter Checkland, Peter Senge, Russell Ackoff, amongst others, recognised the pitfalls of applying mathematical models to organisations. Their systems theories show that mathematical models strip the organisation of its value and richness because mathematical models are based on the assumption that businesses are predictable. In my reality, this is not the case, because if it were, then there would be a mathematical tool to prevent workplace accidents and fatalities.

You mention that ‘the authors of the paper and their book are very, very careful not to overclaim, it is unreasonable to make inaccurate criticisms of what they've actually written.’ There are two points I would like to address in relation to this. Firstly, you will appreciate that criticisms of academic work are commonplace and without exercising the opportunity to constructively criticise others work one is merely stifling oneself. Therefore my view, it is reasonable to criticise the paper which I have read! Secondly, the source of my critical analysis comes from systems theory and practice – do you know enough about the management sciences discipline to claim that my criticisms are inaccurate?

If you cast your eye back to the point I made in my previous posting. I advanced a cautionary note with regards to applying Oxenburgh’s model to every situation or every business - I did not suggest that the authors overclaimed anything!

I am happy to engage in further academic debate Kieran, but I will not respond to any postings that imply any personal attack.

Regards

Rakesh

Posted By NSO
Wot no Santa? Illusion shattered. TGIF.

Posted By Rakesh Maharaj
Thanks for clearing that up Kieran. May be we could collaborate sometime.

Have a good weekend everyone!

Rakesh

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Ciaran

The OAC is evidently a produce of v. thoughtful analysis.

I've read what's available on your website and would like to know
a. the scope of the sectors for which it's designed
b. the scale of business units for which it's designed.

Posted By Ciaran McAleenan
Good Afternoon everyone.

With reference to Kieran's posting, thank you for the comment. OAC is an ever evolving model that has occupied Philip's and my thinking for over 10 years now.

It was our view when we started, with one of our early writings "Confined Spaces - Towards Zero Fatalities" that industry has the technological and intellectual capacity to make to make zero fatalities a reality.

We haven't moved from that position and indeed OAC came to life as we considered how a competent organisation with all the necessary capabilities could put a system of operational control in that would deliver a successful outcome.

In the quality field control is the key and appropriate inputs or interventions are required from designers and producers/ constructors at as early a stage as is possible to ensure the quality is addressed at the lowest cost base. In other words if we can improve quality through a change at the design stage this has got to be much more beneficial than carrying out major rework further down the line. The same is true in safety and indeed if you peel CDM (1994/5 or 2007) down to its bare essentials that is all it is saying.

Quality and safety are not mutually exclusive and OAC acknowledges this fact.

As to the questions re: the scope of the sectors and scale of business units for which OAC is designed. That’s an easy one will work in all sectors at any scale, in part or in full. Since it is a thought process then anyone can apply it.

For example;

1. A large public body apply it fully to the development of their approach to safety management. Last year they tested OAC against the ILO specification for occupational safety managements systems and found a near perfect fit.
2. A multinational manufacturer use it to control their chemicals handling/ use and for their controls assurance. The positive hear was that it fitted into their existing approach to management without a wrinkle.
3. A major US insurer made it available to their 1000+ clients as part of their expectations for good safety management. Their client base is in a range of sectors and sizes.

One final comment, for now. I read the following in Frank Bird’s obituary (ASSE Society Update Vol. 11 No. 8);

“Mr. Bird didn’t lecture from on high about the importance of our respect for human life—our mutual commitment to the health and welfare of workers was a given. All were as moral as he in that context, as he made clear. He did not recite to us our inadequacies as leaders, then show us pictures to prove it. Nor did he rail against the basic deficiencies of our employees’ substandard behavior patterns and prescribe a simplistic model for their remedy. Placating is easy for most, but satisfying steel mill managers and supervisors who arrived at the training already somewhat hardened is another task entirely—a task for which Mr. Bird was well suited. His message? It’s the “system.”

But what is the system? Well, everything—from how we introduce a new employee to the organization to the standards to which we hold them and ourselves. The system cannot be separated from quality. One does not inspect for safety at the end of the process any more than one should hopefully inspect for quality at the processes’ end. It must be instilled throughout. This meant it must be measurable. If critical variables for quality could be measured, so could critical variables for safety. The product of safety was the product of quality. Without safety, there could not be quality because quality could not exist in a sea of uncontrolled variables—and what is an accident (or defect) but the product of uncontrolled variables? Without quality, productivity is of no value and without safety, there cannot be quality…

…Particularly compelling was his unapologetic belief that the goal of safety was not the prevention of all accidents. The more useful term from his perspective was “control.” Control included prevention but also made explicit the reality that not all risks are equal and so all cannot receive the same measure of resources required to eliminate them”.

Ciaran