Hi Guys
Some of you may be interested to know I have published two new papers and made them available on http://bsms-inc.com/library.aspx.

One is on the Return on Investment (RoI) of various Behavioral Safety processes and the other is a Safety Leadership case study in Construction.

Enjoy

Dominic

Try linking to:
http://bsms-inc.com/Docu...mmittment-Cooper-013.pdf
I managed to pick it up.

Apologies. I put a period at the end of the link which threw it doolally!!

http://bsms-inc.com/library.aspx is the correct link.

Best wishes
Dominic

This study shows that the commitment of management levels to safety is what is required.

I agree from my personnel experiences, that it is the commitment of front line management, the supervisors / Forman that bring about real change.

My one question in relation to the C.A.R been fixed quickly, is a 30 day time frame for closing out safety issues of too long a duration.

I also would agree with KieranD questions in that where could one obtain the checklists in regards to the (1) Middle management (2) Front line management F.L.M (3) V.O.S Visible observations checklist (4) Safety Observations Checklists S.B.O (5) Corrective Action Reports C.A.R

The reduction in the incident / accident rate over the study period when one considers the scope of works / man-hours worked / amount of contractors / personnel is a testimony to what can be achieved.

Well done and congratulations

Paul

In reply to Bob's question, 'What's new in this paper?':

1. A practical example of a checklist for monitoring management behaviour, useful for implementing the Behavioural Safety Maturity Ladder

2. Relatively lucid argument about a complex subject, with readable uses of statistics

3. An example of the kinds of argument that IOSH officers and senior staff might usefully deploy in public instead of getting enmeshed in unproductive legal exchanges which reinforce the outdated reputation of good safety practice

Kieran

Forgive my tardy reply but your answer to my question is too bland as I have seen all of these things before in other disguises. Yes we need starters for ten etc but I cannot escape my nsense of deja vue.

Bob

Dear All

I'm about three quarters of the way through Dom's book and found the following intriguing:

‘The major underlying reason that 99 percent of all Behavioral Safety processes fail is a loss of credibility.’ Page 140

This does not sound like a very good success rate.

Cheers.

Nigel

Bob

No rush.... we both have lives beyond this forum :-)

You may well have seen what Dom is writing in many guises yet what is distinctive about what he,as a safety psychologist/practitioner, is doing is presenting a scientifically based case. This is different

The significance is actually historical and very constructively addresses the major problem of the lack of respect for the safety profession.

Decisionmaking in organisations rests on four kinds of reasoning:
1. based on precedent
2. based on rules including laws
3. based on scientific research that generates understanding of new optons
4. based on innovation that takes scientific research into account.

Recurrent storms about safety in the media and with politicians reflect the dominant conservatism of the safety profession which is seen as largely dependent on precedent and rule-keeping. Your own disregard for scientifica research, which you classify as 'bland', illustrates how, with the best of goodwill, you set yourself and the profession you love, as mired in the nineteenth century.

I believe that the work of Dom Cooper, Tim Marsh, James Reason and other scientists who consistently publish scientific evidence in support of the profession will very gradually assist in conveying to scientifcally educated members of the public the value of the safety profession.

Scientific research also offers common ground to business leaders and managers able and willing to evaluate evidence with reasonable objectivity.

Members of the IOSH Council and senior officers would generally support the public status of the profession if they too based their public rhetoric more on relevant scientific understanding and displayed greater wisdom and smartness about labelling scientific research as 'bland'.