Quality no doubt saves jobs if you get it right first time!

Safety saves lives and you only get the opportunity to get it right first time.

I am just about to embark on a journey which will cover the spectrum of delivering quality in a safe manner, and inculcating the safety quality culture into a workforce that have had accident and incident, good and bad quality issues etc.


Any ideas on (BBS) behavioural based safety tools, particularly observational techniques that have worked would be welcome.
I will post my article within the next week or so for your welcomed comments.

The Doc

Quality no doubt saves jobs if you get it right first time!

Safety saves lives and you only get the opportunity to get it right first time.

I am just about to embark on a journey which will cover the spectrum of delivering quality in a safe manner, and inculcating the safety quality culture into a workforce that have had accident and incident, good and bad quality issues etc.


Any ideas on (BBS) behavioural based safety tools, particularly observational techniques that have worked would be welcome.
I will post my article within the next week or so for your welcomed comments.

The Doc
Interesting topic.

As for behavioral based safety tools, it becomes so complex that I hardly know how to respond.

Let us acknowledge the two subjects: quality and safety really are interdependent because of at least two elementary reasons:

1. A practice that is viewed as promoting quality but is perceived unsafe will not be adhered to or will incur unneeded costs through mishaps or accidents; thus one can cancel the other out. For example, cleaning a chemical tank without an independent air apparatus and a buddy system protocol being followed.

2. Safety is an outcome of quality, such as with NASA's space shuttle program. Now the management says the shuttle is safe to launch again, although major safety recommendations have not been addressed.

Both of these are addressed at the program level, with management's commitment to a well-balanced system of operations that does see the anological forest for the trees.

I observed and enjoyed the pinnacle of this balance while serving in the Quality divisions onboard U.S. Navy repair ships. For us, a quality job was also one done safely, and its success was measured in large part of our clients ships' safety, both materially and with the crews.

Behavior development and management was achieved in three ways:

A) Processes and standards designed to minimize expensive missteps, both in quality (by avoiding rework and the investigations associated with failure) and in safety (ensuring personnel were always ready to work and could do so within reasonable human comfort boundaries wherever practical--this included heat, rest, physical strain and limiting long term exposure to physical stressors).

B) A sense of customer focus and pride in our work that was harbored throughout the ranks of both repair and quality divisions, and supported by top leadership when I occasionally had to say: "I know you have a deadline, sir, but the ship doesn't sail unless it can sail safely."

C) A strong accountability system, where the system was supported by top leadership through investigation and, if necessary, consequences were doled out for those who made choices to work outside of the established mission.

I'll be very interested in what tools will promote this level of human performance in profit-driven cultures. :cool:

OK, I'll bite.

We are very BIG on safety culture. #1 priority, always first thing on the agenda, safety first...

Accountability, ownership and responsibility are the background of all of our systems. We provide a focused orientation program and I make sure that when we talk about the quality system I always show new employees how the safety, environmental and quality systems work together. At the end of my powerpoint presentation I have a summary page. The first bullet point is a question, Why do we have a quality management system. The answer: "To help keep us safe" through the use of standardized methodology. If we are all working using the same methods, it is easier to make sure that we are working safely.

So, I guess we start the first day you work for us in training employees that the are responsible for their own and everyone else's safety. If they see a problem and don't report it, someone can get hurt (ownership). If they are involved in an incident and don't report it, they can and probably will be fired (accountability). It is that important that we review each and every incident so we can fix any problem that we find.

Thank you both for the initial response , I'm sure this will generate more thought amoungst the vast cauldrons of expertise out there :magic:




The Doc

I'm sure this will generate more thought amoungst the vast cauldrons of expertise out there I'll bite too. Why not add environment as well? Someting environmentally unsound is likely to have a bad influence on both quality and safety.

As I see it all three are connected.

/Claes

I don't think it's Quality VS. anything, but rather Quality and Safety, Environmental. These are all interdependant that connect the total business systems.

Any organization has multiple stakeholders: Owners, shareholders, employees, customers, end users, suppliers, surrounding and affected communities, regulatory agencies, etc…

For the most part, the management of organizations is focused on FINANCIAL results, since most of the World operates under the capitalism. So, we pay a LOT of attention to the profitability of organizations.

However, enlightened organizations realize that there are multiple RISKS associated with running any business and you should MANAGE RISKS in order to strike a sustainable balance in terms of satisfying stakeholders expectations.

Customers are concerned with QUALITY and price

Employees are primarily concerned with a fair compensation and a SAFE working environment.

Owners and shareholders are concerned with FINANCIAL results.

End Users are concerned with PRODUCT SAFETY and PRIVACY of their Information, in addition to price.

The local community is concerned with the environmental impact of the organization. Etc.

Depending on what sector the organization is established, certain risks are very high and need to be more carefully managed. For example, if I am an organization in the Food Sector, food safety is a major risk and I need to PAY close attention to the risks of placing an unsafe product in the market.

If I am a credit card company, INFORMATION security is a major risk for me. Remember the recent case of private information being hacked?

In order to assist organizations managing their risks, numerous International Standards have, are and will be developed. Most are “narrow in focus”, i.e., quality, occupational health and safety, environment, food safety, information security, product safety, etc…

Again, one of the traits of successful organizations is to find a sustainable balance to address, as well as possible, all stakeholder expectations.

I'll bite too. Why not add environment as well? Someting environmentally unsound is likely to have a bad influence on both quality and safety.

As I see it all three are connected.

/Claes

I agree with Claes (as usual) I link all three during my talks to the troops because they all offer techniques for PROTECTION
Quality protects - Process and People
Safety protects -Plant and People
Environment protects- Planet and People

Here is a poster that we use at my work
http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=708

I also use the link between all three systems extensively when I explain Quality Systems to people. Here is a Powerpoint presentation that I have submitted in numerous threads. It will explain how I go about teaching people similarties between all systems

http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2176

Please comment. I like the feedback

Greg B, I liked that slide show very much! With the right delivery, I feel sure it is a very effective learning tool for linking and explaining these three concepts.

How long do you take to do this training? I noticed there is at least one flip chart activity involved.

Jennifer

I don't think it's Quality VS. anything, but rather Quality and Safety, Environmental. These are all interdependant that connect the total business systems.

Ralph,
Your post has powerful key words.
Interdependent and systems.
A system is important. An efficient system is made up of interdependent yet dependent elements.
I'm reminded of the Ford Production System (FPS) of Safety, Quality, Delivery, Cost, Morale and Environment (SQDCME).
Safety first, this may be legislated and/or internal/external customer/supplier enforced.
Safety leads on to Quality, in my particular use, quality is in station process control.
Quality leads on to Delivery; the question may be asked, can you deliver a complete and correct process ot the next process and/or customer?
Delivery leads to Cost; again a question may be asked, can cost issues and/or improvements be identified?
Cost leads to Morale; presenteeism and HR issues.
Cost then leads to Environment; this may be legislated and/or internal/external customer/supplier enforced.

An Independent yet dependent system.
Wallace.

Greg B, I liked that slide show very much! With the right delivery, I feel sure it is a very effective learning tool for linking and explaining these three concepts.

How long do you take to do this training? I noticed there is at least one flip chart activity involved.

Jennifer


Jennifer,

If you save the Powerpoint presentation to your PC and then reopen it in PP rather than HTML you will see that there are Facilitator notes at the bottom of each slide. Basically, the whole presentation is a class room exercise and I get them to relate what they feel and know about safety and environment and then do the same to quality. It usually takes about half a day (4 hours) depending on the make up of the class (operators, supervisors, managers). It has been really succesful since we have also undertaken BBS (Behaviour Based Safety) over the past year. I try and piggy back off the back of the other systems. Try it and let me know if you needed to make changes and what yourt audience thinks.

Behavior Based Tools (The original question?):
I worked at honda and intel - both companies known for very good safety resutls for their employees. Both made extensive use of behavior based tools as well as others.
some of the tools that worked well in promoting good behavior:
1. quick recognition systems. use a token worth ~$1 in a vending machines or in the cafe, etc. give the tokens to management and leads to be handed out wehnever someoen is 'caught' performing a 'preventive' safety act. Such as: claening u pa spill without beign asked, helping somone else who may be struggling with a heavy object. You can also have focused tiems when management is stationed around the plant to specifically catch people exhibiting the correct brahavior: usign the hand rail when coming down stairs, usign a proper lift technique, cuttign away from themselves when using a box knife...
2. peer to peer audits: monthly safety audits where a subset of employees (eventually all employees must perfrom the audtis) audits another area to detect poor behavior - and conditions and they get some safety tokens to hand when good behavior is seen.
3. Monthly reviews with all personnel on previous months behavior based safety accident - what was the incorrect behavior, etc. in those months where there are no accidents, use theoretical or events from peoples personal lives - usually pretty humorous - to drive home the point of safe behavior. Drive home the personal cost of getting hurt, time away, things you can't do with your partner or children etc.
4. The stick approach too, do not tolerate obvious poor behavior that an employee chooses to use. rough housing, running, not using lock out tag out. There must be disciplinary consequences to this type of action.

Here is my first thoughts having read many articles on how its done ! I love your contributions and differing ideas of approach. Its refreshing to look at other perspective which stimulates additional concepts and ideas.

Do keep them coming.

The Doc

Doc,

My only problem with this is that Quality Steering Committees tend to die of natural causes unless driven, backed and encouraged by management....whereas....Safety Steering committees are driven because of self preservation and legislation. IMHO a culture has to be developed or NO system will work. Please see my apes presentation below:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=709

It came from this thread "Teaching Quality"
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6074

I agree with Greg.

I liked the document, and it nicely describes what the steerign committee does. This actually is important because no one springs form the egg knowing what to do in such an environment. Left to their own devices, many personalities will degenerate into an Animal Farm scenario.

More please!

I just love the wet apes for demonstrating cultural behaviour. :agree1:

any more ideas like that out there would be very much appreciated.

The Doc (aka Mal)

Doc,

My only problem with this is that Quality Steering Committees tend to die of natural causes unless driven, backed and encouraged by management....whereas....Safety Steering committees are driven because of self preservation and legislation. IMHO a culture has to be developed or NO system will work. Please see my apes presentation below:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=709

It came from this thread "Teaching Quality"
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6074

whilst that may be the case in your experience, I have found that its the reverse in most cases. Companies tend to be more customer focussed and thus Quality orientated and will only do what is necessary to comply with legilation and safety requirements, wheras Quality is a customer requirement and therfore takes precedence over everything else.

a prime example is:-

BNFL quality control data falsification scandal in December 1999 :-

http://www.greenpeace.fr/stop-plutonium/dossiers/JAPAN_MOX.pdf

The primary objective of the Steering Committee formed specifically for this process as I see it is to ensure the integrity of the organization's behavioural safety process. In support of this objective, the Steering Committee performs two distinctly different types of activities. Members use observation data to develop strategies to improve safety and use data about the process to enhance the process functioning. It has a two pronged attack, 1 on culture and the other on product thus ensuring an equal airing of both and combining the desired result with some stealth as Jen nicely puts it.

when my next piece is complete I will elaborate some more.

The Doc

Systems dynamics posits that the behavior of a system (and the people in the system) arise from the system's structure.

For example, when the FAA provided immunity from prosecution for pilots who reported near-collisions, the number of reports tripled. When the immunity was retracted, the number of reports fell sixfold.

A paper by Marais and Leveson at MIT "Archtypes for Organizational Safety" might provide some good background on your approach. You should be able to find it on-line. Expect to see some causal loop diagrams and archtypes a la Peter Senge.

Ben