RE: Safety Culture

[Jeff Eichorst <u112237@lanl.gov>]

Michael,
I agree that most organizations have incorporated the different pieces of
ISM in some fashion.  But, management speak alone doesn't cut it.  If you do
not have the individual's buy in, and they recognize that they are
accountable for their actions, who will hold their feet to the fire?  Take
it for what it's worth, but I think that it could be even more important
when an the employees don't have confidence in the management system
(whether private, public, government).  If management is constantly changing
their approach to management from one system to another such as ISM, CQI,
TQM, etc., the employees lose faith in their leaders.  

Not to belittle anyone, but I believe that workers and kids alike will push
the system until the line is drawn - and that is by holding them
accountable.  And if managers insist on changing methods of management every
year or two, then the only way to promote the employee's buy-in is by
accountability - because they sure won't buy into it because they have
confidence in the leadership.


At 01:10 PM 7/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Sandy, Jeff, Franz, et al.,
>
>Safety culture in the DOE world is designed
>to:
>
>"Achieve and maintain excellence in matters
>of environmental concern and provide for the
>safety and health of the organization's staff
>and the public."
>
>Guiding Principles for Integrated Safety
>Management
>
>The "Guiding Principles for Integrated Safety
>Management" (ISM) outlined in DOE P 450.4, Safety
>Management System Policy, to the extent that they
>are effective in defining an organization's Safety
>Management System (SMS).
>
>I.  Line Management Responsibility for Safety, Roles
>    and Responsibilities
>
>    o  Competence Commensurate with Responsibilities
>    o  Balanced Priorities
>    o  Identification of Safety Standards and Requirements
>    o  Hazard Controls Tailored to Work Being Performed
>
>II. Operations Authorization
>
>    The assurance that all hazardous work has been
>    accounted for in detailed procedures, technical
>    basis documents, training, etc., before the work
>    is done.
>
>III. Core Functions for Integrated Safety Management
>
>    The five Core Functions for ISM comprise the SMS.
>
>    1.  Define Scope of Work
>    2.  Identify and Analyze Hazards
>    3.  Develop and Implement Hazard Controls
>    4.  Perform Work Within The Controls
>    5.  Provide Feedback Improve Safety Management
>
>IV. Integrated Safety Management - Mechanisms
>
>    The organization's Self Assessment and Quality
>    Assurance Programs are designed to identify the
>    workplace safety issues of highest concern and
>    safety program deficiencies and to correct them
>    in a timely manner.  The issues identified are
>    tracked through a Corrective Action Management
>    System (CAMS).
>
>V.  Responsibilities for Integrated Safety Management
>
>    Although the ultimate responsibility for safety
>    is the individual preforming the work, line
>    supervisory personnel in the management
>    organization have specified roles and
>    responsibilities as well.
>
>VI. Implementation of Integrated Safety Management
>
>    At least in DOE, some specific methods of
>    implementation must be identified.  These could
>    include management organization, safety culture
>    initiatives (such as behavior based safety),
>    involvement of workers in safety committees, and
>    involvement of workers in the development of
>    procedures with safety as a key element.
>
>Having noted all of the above (a condensation of a
>great deal of text), most organizations have some
>sort of management structure that does all of these
>things.  How well they are done varies greatly, and
>even if all are fully in place (as was observed in an
>earlier posting) there can be no assurance that no
>accidents/incidents will take place in the future.
>Presumably, an organization with all of these factors in
>place would have a significant reduction in the incidence
>rate of accidents/incidents (minimization of
>vulnerability).
>
>My interpretation of other's opinions!
>
>S.,
>
>MikeG.
>
>At 12:04 PM 7/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>Jeff Eichorts said:
>>
>>>  The corporate structure MUST include provisions to hold people
>>>  accountable for their ...
>>
>>Admiral Rickover stated,  and rightly so,  (and I had it on a plaque 
>>which is still sitting in FL),  that someone must always be 
>>responsible, and accountable. You can't run from it, it is always 
>>there. One can NOT delegate away accountability... 
>
>
>Michael P. Grissom
>Asst Dir (ES&H)
>SLAC MS-84
>Phone: (415) 926-2346
>Fax:   (415) 926-3030
>E-mail: mikeg@slac.stanford.edu
>
>
Jeff Eichorst
Occurrence Investigator
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ESH-7, MS K999, Los Alamos, NM 87545
505.665-6980		505.665-6977 fax
505.996-1117 digital pager,	jeichorst@lanl.gov

Would you live with ease, do what you ought, and not what you please. 
-Benjamin Franklin