Safety management system interviews

Gathering audit data can be accomplished through observations, documents, and interviews. The data obtained is used to verify and validate that the process safety management systems are implemented and functioning as designed. Data gathering can be aided oy the use of audit samples, where a representative number of items are audited to draw a conclusion, and by using self-evaluation questionnaires. 

Perception surveys have also been used to provide measurements of the quality of safety management systems in place. Through an interview system or the completion of surveys, they provide management with a picture of what employees at various levels of responsibility think about the management of safety in the organization. Perception surveys are outcome surveys in that the perceptions people have of how safety is managed derive from their observations of what got done or didn t get done with respect to the safety system elements covered in the interview or questionnaire process. 

During walk-through of work areas for additional observations, the assessment team should interview employees one-on-one in their work areas about their training and perceptions of the safety management system. Any topic is acceptable if it leads to a better understanding of problems or concerns regarding the workplace. If safety-related training is effective, employees will be able to describe the hazards inherent in their work and the effectiveness of the controls that are in place. In this discussion, an indicator of the depth of the safety culture is how well employees can describe what is expected of them in any safety-related activities. 

The process involves analysts holding interviews or discussions with safety management system personnel, teams, and then individuals who have supervisory responsibilities. A flowchart depicting the methods procedure is presented in Figure 8.6. The questions underlying the method can be found in Brazier and Ward (2004), and they also have provided an assessor s guide, which contains prompts and guidance on how to interpret the answers provided by respondents. 

In safety almost everyone looks at incidents. They are observed in a variety of ways. We measure frequency, severity, and cost. We try, sometimes with success, to understand the causes. Most companies with significant risks also use audits. Again, these are done in a variety of ways. Less frequently, companies observe and record the behavior of woikers, typically classifying the observed behavior into safe and at-risk categories. Finally, there are occasional attempts to measure the management system or the organizational culture, using written surveys and interviews. 

A set of publications (Schulte et al. 2003, Sherehiy et al. 2006) indicates that in order to improve the management of OH S system there is a need to develop principles and tools of KM in the area of application at the organisational level. Even though rapid improvement has been made in the field of OH S in Estonia in recent years, there are still challenges ahead. The process of KM in the field of OH S at the state level and major problems were identified and several possibilities for improvements in Estonia were discussed by some researchers (Lehtinen 2004, Kurrpa et al. 2004, Martimo 2004, Kempinen et al. 2004, Jarvis et al. 2007, Reinhold et al. 2009). The contribution of the present paper consists of the presented modified Cooper s Model of Safety Culture with concept of KM. Our discussion of the current OH S system and employers cooperation with OPs is based on descriptive data from interviews with managers and on the... 

Two tanker companies were studied in late 2007 and early 2008. In order to ensure the companies anonymity, company and vessel specific information is retained. In both companies the HSQ manager and Crewing Manager have been interviewed. In one company the SMS data system was examined. In the other company aU available statistics, experience feedback from reported cases and safety bulletins available for the vessel were examined. Two field studies have been carried out on one vessel in each company. 

The second major problem identified with the policies was that of their enforcement. The interviews revealed that the checks that the policies and rules were adhered to were not universally implemented. Indeed it was very clear that knowledge of the health and safety systems in place was patchy. There was also some uncertainty about who was responsible for health and safety on the railways, especially among the workforce. Managers were much more aware of specialized health and safety personnel than the rest of the staff and obviously found their presence reassuring and helpful. Indeed, board-level and departmental-level staff were better known than they personally expected. 

Among the six safety officers, managers and advisors interviewed, only two are familiar with TQM-based safety. Mr. Sin comments that some companies tried to use TQM, but most have given up. Therefore, there is no need to explain why the contractors do not implement this system. Similar problems are found in SSSPS and BBS. Most of the interviewees are also not fanuhar with BBS and SSSPS. The interviewees only know that SSSPS is required by the Buildings Department. 

---