|
|
TITLE: |
||
|
|
|||
|
DOCUMENT ID: |
3700
Safety Observation Program |
||
|
|
|||
1.0
Purpose
This
document describes the Jefferson Lab Safety Observation
(SO) Program. This program describes a
process in which management at all levels regularly visit work areas, observe
work practices and conditions, and discuss safety of the job with employees. The framework of this “Safety Observation”
helps people resolve safety issues and concerns, recognize and acknowledge safe
work practices, and gain employee
commitment to correct unsafe practices.
This is done in a non-threatening, collaborative manner. The SO framework
also provides for consideration of other safety issues beyond those
specifically observed.
SO works as a
key tool within Jefferson Lab’s Integrated
Safety Management System (ISMS). It
is designed to enable effective sampling and measurement that lead to
improvement in workplace safety. SO is a
powerful tool for reducing injuries by recognizing and eliminating unsafe work
practices.
2.0
Responsibilities
Director’s Safety Council
·
Develops,
implements, and continuously improves the SO process.
·
Request
summary SO
data from management and review.
All Levels of Management
·
Conduct
SOs to make
their own contribution to improving safety in their areas, as well as to
visibly demonstrate their personal commitment to both safety in general, and to
the SO
process specifically
·
Review
and analyze SO
data regularly, in order to:
o Monitor the safety behavior and
performance of their organization
o Define appropriate action to
correct deficiencies
o Monitor and ensure execution of
follow-up actions
o Monitor the effectiveness of
changes designed to reduce unsafe acts
o Monitor and ensure the integrity
and quality of the SO Process
·
Provide
summary SO
data to the Director’s Safety Council.
3.0
Expectations
3.1
Philosophy
A
basic concept driving the SO process is
management looking after people – getting into the workplace and looking for
opportunities to reduce the risk of injury.
When recognizing unsafe practices, the basic reaction is concern for employees’
safety. SO is intended
to foster constructive dialog between a line manger and worker that results in
worker recognition of the need to modify behavior. The goal is persuasion and agreement
supported by genuine concerns expressed for the employees’
health and welfare rather than “enforcement”.
The safety issue is recognized and resolved together by the worker and
line manager. The goal is employee
engagement and greater commitment to improved personal and organizational
safety.
SO is a
collaborative improvement process without blame or punishment. To maintain employee
support of the SO
program as one of Jefferson Lab’s safety management tools, it is crucial that
it be conducted and recognized as completely separate and apart from any
disciplinary activities. Although the
observer’s name is included in the observation report, nothing is recorded that
identifies the worker(s) observed.
The
SO program
emphasizes unsafe
acts (behaviors, practices) rather than unsafe conditions. An unsafe act
is conduct or behavior that creates a hazard, or fails to avoid a hazard, and
therefore may lead to someone’s injury, directly or indirectly, with greater
than negligible probability. An unsafe act
may or may not violate established safety rules, procedures,
or common practice. Inaction, as well as
action, can constitute an unsafe act.
A condition, associated with
facilities, tools, equipment or the general environment, is unsafe if it
presents a hazard for others, which can lead to injury with greater than
negligible probability. In the vast
majority of cases, unsafe
conditions are the result of unsafe acts; therefore an unsafe act
may be inferred from the evidence it leaves behind as an unsafe
condition.
The sources of unsafe
conditions are not always easy to identify.
To the extent that the unsafe acts that underlie unsafe
conditions are difficult to recognize and address, we tend to use the ‘unsafe
condition’ label for the problem and correct it, without eliminating the
causes, and thus failing to ensure prevention.
For example, removing a tripping hazard from a walk-path corrects this unsafe
condition, but only through changing the behavior of the people, who
created or accept the unsafe housekeeping conditions, can we eliminate the
potential for injury. Similarly, safety
problems with equipment operation may be attributable to the unsafe acts of its designers, but they are
often unknown or inaccessible. It may be
tempting to label these as unsafe
conditions, but this does not help – we need to take responsibility for
correcting the deficiencies and rendering the equipment safe.
3.2
Benefits
The
systematic collection and interpretation of SO data will
foster recognition of the safety behavior patterns at Jefferson Lab and assist
line managers to take appropriate corrective measures to address broader safety
issues. The purposes of the SO process is
to:
·
Recognize
and correct unsafe acts and conditions,
such as procedural, ergonomic, positional and housekeeping deficiencies
·
Assess
the effectiveness of various safety management processes and determine how they
can be improved
·
Reinforce
and raise safety standards across the organization
·
Increase
employee
awareness and motivation for safety
·
Create
both the commitment and the understanding to resolve the issues behind observed
unsafe
acts and condition,
to effectively prevent them from causing injury
·
Build
the desired safety culture – one conversation at a time
·
Eliminate
incidents and injuries
3.3
Program Elements
The
procedure
for conducting SO
sessions is described in the ES&H Manual Chapter
3700 Appendix T1 Safety Observation Procedure, which implements the program
described in this document. It addresses
training of managers to make them effective users of the
process, how to plan and conduct SO sessions,
and how to analyze the results of the sessions.
3.3.1
Training
Only those managers formally
trained in conducting SOs may practice this process on their own. However, trained managers may include other
managers, not yet trained, and even non-supervisory employees,
in their SO
sessions.
3.3.2
Conducting SO
The core of a SO session is engaging the observed employees in
a conversation about safety and safe behavior.
3.3.3
Analyzing
While the principal
benefits of SO are from direct, face-to-face communication about safety
between manager and employee,
analyzing the results of SOs offers the opportunity to generate additional positive
change in the organization’s safety culture.
To facilitate this analysis the manager completes a SO Report following each SO session. A
web-based tool is available for this purpose.
4.0
References
ES&H
Manual Chapter 3700 Appendix T1 Safety Observation Procedure
ES&H
Manual Chapter 3700 Appendix T2 Safety Observation Report Procedure
|
|
ISSUING
AUTHORITY |
CHAPTER
AUTHOR |
APPROVAL
DATE |
EFFECTIVE
DATE |
EXPIRATION
DATE |
REV. |
|
|
|
|
ESH&Q Division |
11/19/08 |
11/19/08 |
11/19/11 |
0 |
|