Behavioral safety analysis

The defining and observing processes of DO IT provide opportunities to evaluate the situational factors contributing to at-risk behavior and a possible injury. This chapter details the procedures of a behavioral safety analysis, including a step-by-step examination of the situational, social, and personal factors influencing at-risk behavior in order to determine the most cost-effective corrective action. Critical distinctions are made between four types of intervention—instruction, motivation, support, and self-management—between training and education, and between accountability and responsibility. 

Chapter 8 introduced the DO IT process and provided some detail about the first two steps—define target behavior(s) to improve and observe the target behavior occurring naturally in the work environment. The CBC (critical behavior checklist) was introduced as a way to look for the occurrence of critical behaviors during a work routine and then offer workers one-on-one feedback about what was safe and what was at risk. This is behavioral coaching and is explained in more detail in Chapter 12. 

The checks in the safe and at-risk columns of a CBC can be readily summarized in a percent safe score. As I discussed in the previous chapter, an overall global score can be calculated by dividing the total number of behavioral observations (i.e., all checks on all CBCs) into the total number of safe observations (i.e., all checks in the safe columns of all CBCs). This provides an overall estimate of the safety of the workforce with regard to the critical behaviors targeted in the observation step of DO IT. 

The global percent safe score does not provide direction regarding which particular behaviors need improvement, but it can provide motivation to a workforce that wants to improve (Williams and Geller, 2000). It is an achievement-oriented index that holds employees accountable for things they can control. This assumes, of course, that the workers know the safe operating procedures for every work task. 

If some employees are not sure of the safe way to perform a certain job, behavioral direction is needed. A global percent safe score is not sufficient. When the CBC is reviewed during a one-on-one coaching session, behavioral direction is provided. The worker sees what critical behaviors were observed as safe and at-risk. A constructive conversation with the coach provides support for safe behavior and corrective feedback for behavior that could be safer. Often this includes suggestions for making the safe behavior more convenient, comfortable, and easier to remember. It might also include tire removal of barriers (physical and social) that inhibit safe behavior. 

---

Too often "retraining" or "discipline" (meaning punishment) are selected impulsively as a corrective action for behavior change when another less costly and more effective approach is called for. A proper behavioral safety analysis enables the selection of the most cost-effective intervention. Let us consider the variety of situations or work contexts that can influence a behavioral discrepancy. 

The bottom line Before selecting an intervention strategy, conduct a careful analysis of the situation, the behavior, and the individuals involved in an observed discrepancy between desired and actual performance. Do not impulsively assume corrective action requires "training" or "discipline." A behavioral safety analysis will likely give priority to a number of alternative intervention approaches. Performing such an analysis before intervening will help ensure your correcHve action plan does not reflect malpractice. 

The Exxon procedure is markedly different from the "planned 60-second actively caring review" implemented at a Hoechst Celanese plant. For this one-on-one coaching process, all employees attempt to complete a one-minute observation of another employee s work practices in five general categories body position, personal apparel, housekeeping, tools/equipment, and operating procedures. The initial plant goal was for each of the 800 employees to complete one 60-second behavioral observation every day. Results were entered into a computer file for a behavioral safety analysis of the work culture. 

Geller, E. S., Behavioral safety analysis a necessary precursor to corrective action. Prof Saf, 45(3),... 

This Handbook represents an extensive revision of my 1996 book. The Psychology of Safety. Every chapter in the earlier edition has been updated and expanded, and three new chapters have been added—one on behavioral safety analysis, another on intervening with supportive conversation, and a third on promoting high-performance teamwork. As a result, this edition is substantially longer than the first. 

This paper reviews data on certain thermodynamic aspects of the nonstoichiometric Pu-0 system, which may serve as a basis for use In reactor safety analysis. Emphasis Is placed on phase relationships, vaporization behavior, oxygen-potential measurements, and evaluation of pertinent thermodynamic quantities. Limited high temperature oxygen potential data obtained above the fluorite, diphasic, and sesquioxide phases In the Pu-0 system are presented. 

Smith, T. J. (1999), Synergism of Ergonomics, Safety and Quality A Behavioral Cybernetic Analysis, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 247-278. 

Bosak, J., Coetsee, W. J., Cullinane, S. (2013). Safety climate dimensions as predictors for risk behavior. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 55, 256-264. 

According to the modem accident-causation (G. and B. et al., 2005), from the point of individual behavior-safety control, hazard is embodied unsafe act (behavior) and unsafe condition meanwhile, under certain situation, unsafe act (behavior) can transform and result in unsafe condition. The unsafe act and unsafe condition is the direct cause of accident, deeper analysis comes to the indirect (common) cause, which include three elements inadequate safety knowledge, inadequate safety awareness, and inadequate safety habit. 

It has been general agreement among researchers, and industry that individual (staff) unsafe behavior (act) is the elementary level in event (accident)-chain modeling, no matter in a simple system or in a sophisticated socio-technical system (Leveson, 2004). Thus, study on behavior safety is worthwhile. The accident-cause analysis is ranged in individual scope, i.e. not go further to organizational cause, which is addressed as the common cause of accident (see Fig. 1). 

Behavioral safety 2-4 model is applied to the coal mine roof accident analysis drawing the following... 

STPA (System-Theoretic Process Analysis) can be used at any stage of the system life qrcle. It has the same general goals as any hazard analysis technique accumulating information about how the behavioral safety constraints, which are derived from the system hazards, can be violated. Depending on when it is used, it provides the information and documentation necessary to ensure the safety constraints are... 

The primary responsibility of the process controller is to produce conutiands to fulfill its control responsibilities. Again, the STPA hazard analysis and safety-guided design process will produce the application-specific behavioral safety requirements and constraints on controller behavior to ensure safety. But some general guidelines are also useful. 

Software need not be treated any differently than the other parts of the system. Most safety-related software problems stem from requirements flaws. The system requirements and system hazard analysis should be used to determine the behavioral safety constraints that must be enforced on software behavior and that the software must enforce on the controlled system. Once that is accomplished, those requirements and constraints are passed to the software developers (through the black-box requirements specifications), and they use them to generate and validate their designs just as the hardware developers do. 

This why question is at the heart of behavioral safety. The shocking part is that the psychological model commonly used to explain the conceptual foundation of behavioral safety—variously called behaviorism, behavior analysis, or reinforcement theory —cannot explain why employees choose to work safety when not being formally observed. Yet few seem to recognize this emperor has no clothes situation. 

Zhao En-qian. Case Analysis and Psychological Discussion on Behavior Safety UJ.Petrochemical Safety Technology, 2006,(04). 

Like its popular predecessors, the book supplies a complete overview of hazard control, safety management, compliance, standards, and accreditation in the healthcare industry. This edition includes new information on leadership, performance improvement, risk management, organizational culture, behavioral safety, root cause analysis, and recent OSHA and Joint Commission Emergency Management requirements and regulatory changes. 

Job safety analysis (JSA) is technique to help identify what behaviors in an operation are safe and correct. It is a form of task analysis. Some call the procedure job hazard analysis. 

Dealing with these design problems requires analysis to identify the potential behaviors and errors in behaviors that can lead to accidents and injuries. Techniques to identify these behaviors include job safety analysis (JSA) or some derivative of it. There is a need to conduct tests of designs with users who represent the population of potential users. 

---