Supervisors, evaluation

How are supervisors evaluated on their involvement with the system ... 

Is it any wonder that the snccess or failnre of the safety program is dependent on the first-line supervisor Certainly, everyone wonld acknowledge that the first-line supervisor is responsible for safety within the work area but seldom is the first-line supervisor evaluated on his or her safety performance in the same manner as production performance. Until each supervisor is held as accountable for safety as for production, with equal consequences for poor safety performance as for poor production performance, safety will never be a priority with supervisors. Until then, the value the supervisor places on safety will always be far less than the value placed on production. Using a separate evaluation form for each supervisor s safety performance, which compares the safety performance records of one supervisor to another, may make a significant difference. 

An effective NDE program rehes heavily on periodic certification of the competence of its personnel (13,14). Certification programs designate levels of competence for all levels of personnel. Level I technicians are able to carry out instmctions in an NDE Level III supervisors are qualified to evaluate the needs of the test and devise a scheme that assures the desired level of quaUty or safety. 

Social Factors. The personalities of co-w orkers and supervisors arc also factors to be considered when evaluating Uie workplace. The liigher Uie employee morale, Uie lower Uie potcnUal for accidents. Another factor is Uie relationship of one job to another, and wheUier Uie job requires Uie coordinating of information, materials, and human effort. 

The progress of large shutdowns will be evaluated daily, or as deemed necessary by the maintenance-planning supervisor. This meeting will identify shutdown problems, and see that measures are taken to solve these problems. Also, action will be taken to compensate for off-schedule conditions. The maintenance-planning supervisor should facilitate this meeting. 

If possible, assessing the evaluation data of previous mentoring schemes/mentoring relationships what did participants want more of and less of What specific skill and knowledge gaps did the majority of mentors/mentees/relationship supervisors display ... 

Self-report questionnaires containing a mixture of open and forced-choice questions. These could be distributed amongst mentors, mentees, relationship supervisors, line managers and program co-ordinators. In addition, you could also use this method to consult with peers, customers and/or suppliers -i.e. anyone who could provide you with valuable evaluation data. Make sure, however, that you customize the questions to the group of respondents you are addressing. 

This book focuses on statistical data evaluation, but does so in a fashion that integrates the question—plan—experiment—result—interpretation—answer cycle by offering a multitude of real-life examples and numerical simulations to show what information can, or cannot, be extracted from a given data set. This perspective covers both the daily experience of the lab supervisor and the worries of the project manager. Only the bare minimum of theory is presented, but is extensively referenced to educational articles in easily accessible journals. 

A fractional factorial design is often suggested to observe several parameters at the same time. Advantages are, among others, the formal sampling plan, which is easy to evaluate by supervisors and auditors. Moreover, a fractional design only needs a fraction (usually about 50%) of experiments compared to a design that tests the relevant parameters one by one. 

Pathos, however, the passionate behef of faith, does not apply. A programmer may know his code is sound a manager may be confident her workers are well trained a supervisor may be convinced the system is rehable. These behefs are critical, and are not to be disparaged effective control would not be possible without ultimate reliance upon such well-placed and reahty tested faith. Pathos is nonevidentiary, however it cannot be evaluated independently and falls beyond the realm of science or regulation. Vahdation must rely on proof confidence may point to the path toward obtaining such evidence, but is not a substitute for it. 

A 1995 evaluation prepared by MSRDI and the Gas Research Institute (GRI) estimates that the capital costs for a portable MSRDI combination technology mercury treatment system would be approximately 400,000. Direct operating costs for a portable system controlled by two technicians and a supervisor were estimated to be 1600 per day of operation, assuming a treatment rate of 2 to 4 tons of contaminated material per day per site. Overall operating costs were estimated to range from 400 to 800 per ton, per site, including mobilization and demobilization costs (D16195P, p. 35). 

In order to begin any waste reduction endeavor, a complete evaluation of the chemical process must be completed. This evaluation requires the total cooperation of the facility s management, operations supervisors, operators and maintenance personnel. Hewlett Packard s San Jose facility management and staff have exemplified total cooperation In this evaluation and have made arsenic waste reduction an achievable goal. 

The NovaScan is presented on a PC-compatible computer equipped with standard memory and visual capabilities, and is run on a DOS-based operating system. A customized response apparatus, including a joystick, control keys, and a keypad, is recommended. Trials of the tasks chosen to be included in the test system are displayed on the computer monitor in a random manner, thereby eliminating the need for the user to focus attention among simultaneously presented tests. However, divided attention components can be added, if needed. The length of the test (i.e., number of trials presented) can be adjusted based on the demands of the test environment. Performance is evaluated in an automated fashion using a change-from-baseline approach, and the test can be administered in an automated or supervisor-controlled manner. 

Value of Using a Regular.Trained or Experienced Sensory Panel" An advantage in having this type of panel is the faci1i-tation of interpretation and understanding of each panelists evaluation it makes for the supervisor. In time an alert panel supervisor will know and understand individual preferences, dis-... 

Testing of Potentially Hazardous Compounds. A possible danger exists in testing the effect on flavor of federally non-cleared substances that may enter into citrus products. A sensory evaluation supervisor has a clear obligation to refrain from allowing unknown potentially hazardous substances in his or her research. 

When conducted as a three-tiered process (Tier 1—Technical Review, Tier 2—Peer or Supervisor Review, and Tier 3—QA Review), internal review is an effective error-detection mechanism. Each tier in the review process involves the evaluation of data quality based on the results of QC data and on the professional judgment of the reviewer. The application of technical standards and professional experience to data review is essential in ensuring that data of known quality are generated consistently. 

Set critical control points. There should be established points throughout the entire process that are utilized as stop-and-test points that evaluate the success or failure of the production process up to that critical point. Critical control points are used as safeguards throughout the process, allowing operators and supervisors to judge whether or not to proceed with the manufacturing process. Make sure these steps are clearly identified in the master production record. Operating personnel must be able to clearly identify the parameters of the test and what steps are required if those parameters are not met. 

Testing and laboratory controls pass/fail criteria and justification if released sampling methods reference standards ongoing evaluation defined retest conditions investigation and review SOPs training of analysts and supervisors. 

The supervisor must determine if it seems to be a true change or a replacement in kind as previously defined. In an ideal situation, the unit supervisor and the second-level supervisor (SLS) should discuss the proposed change prior to spending a lot of time generating the MOC form and starting the evaluation. It may be that the second-level supervisor has information that such changes have been unsuccessfully tried before, or there is no money in the budget or similar roadblocks. 

---