Quality Vs Safety - Ideas on (BBS) behavioural based safety tools

[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

[Jennifer Kirley]

Originally Posted by 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.

[SteelMaiden]

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.

[The Doc]

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




The Doc

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Originally Posted by 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

[ralphsulser]

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.

[Sidney Vianna]

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.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by Claes Gefvenberg

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....tachmentid=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....achmentid=2176

Please comment. I like the feedback