Use of ES&H Inspections to Develop Performance-Based Leading Indicators and

Avoid the “Safety Cop” Mentality

Mike D. Kinney, CPF, CSPNational Security Technologies, LLC

ISM Best Practices Workshop September 12, 2006

Getting Started

• Good news!

• Opportunity to win free “stuff ” [OK, OK, beads]

• What should be the purpose of conducting ES&H inspections?

• Which process provides the opportunity for long-term improvement: continuing to issue “speeding tickets” or establishment of a safe driver awareness program?

Getting Started

Background

• Numerous regulatory drivers address the need to perform inspections

• Inspections can address numerous topical areas, including worker safety, industrial hygiene, hoisting and rigging, fire protection, environmental management, etc.

• Inspections are used by management to demonstrate commitment, focus on safety, etc.

• The majority of inspections utilize some version of a checklist to guide the process

Background

• Checklist commonly contain Yes/No/Does Not Apply columns to document inspection results

• Checklists may, or may not, require concurrence from the organization being evaluated

• Use of checklists is: 1) easy to do; 2) can be completed in a timely manner; and 3) easy to prove to line management that required evaluations/inspections are being completed

Challenges

• Management “thinks” they understand the value of inspection results-

• Less findings: “we are improving”• More findings: “we are doing worse”

• Inspectors aren’t provided with “tools” to assist the organization with meeting program performance goals

• Inspection results represent single data point in time

• Traditional inspections do not readily portray the overall “health” of the topic being evaluated

Challenges (continued)

• Results from traditional inspections are difficult to compare against previous evaluations (e.g., track and trend)

• Management can inadvertently provide incentives for completing inspections on time versus emphasizing actual results (e.g., two per month, good job!)

• Lack of clear methods to meet company expectations (e.g., compliance with all requirements) can lead to reduced morale and increased friction between facility/site personnel and inspectors

Challenges (continued)

• The majority of checklist type inspections do not permit “grading” of results (e.g., pass, fail, does not apply)

• Use of inspection checklists can become routine (e.g., “check the box” inspection)

• This approach also limits the ability of ES&H professionals to assist with programmatic initiatives

• In numerous instances, these efforts are viewed by facility/site personnel and the evaluators as just yet another “safety ticket” being issued

Example:

 

Group Findings (CY 04) Findings (CY 05)

A 2 0

B 5 2

C 1 3

D 1 4

 

Questions: Which group has improved?; Which group has declined?; Which group should serve as an good example for other groups to learn from?

Answer: You don’t know!

Method

• To assist companies with performance of meaningful inspections, a process needs to be established that:

• Provides for grading of results versus pass/fail• Defines quantifiable criteria to guide efforts • Can be revised as required to address changes• Supports “forward looking” indicators

• For optimum utility, inspection criteria should be developed in a collaborative effort with management and task level personnel

Group Category Group Category

1General Housekeeping and Sanitation

6Hazard Communication

2 Fire Protection 7Excavation and Trenching

3Use of Personal Protective Equipment

8 Confined Space

4 Hoisting and Rigging 9 Program Reviews

5 Tools and Equipment 10Integrated Safety Management

Theoretical ES&H Inspection Groupings

Detailed Inspection Criteria ES&H Inspection Groupings

Group Criteria Score N/A

1Walkways clear; materials/equipment properly stored; facility properly maintained; drinking containers properly labeled and cups provided.

2Proper use of Hot Work Permit; compressed gas cylinders stored properly; flammable liquids properly stored, fire extinguishers in place and inspected.

4Rating tags installed; chokers/slings in good condition; riggers understand duties and responsibilities; defective wire ropes/slings removed from service.

6

Current Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) provided for site chemicals; hazardous materials properly labeled and stored; HAZCOM program requirements communicated to site personnel; project safety document identifies potential site hazards and associated controls.

Method

• To assist with identifying levels of compliance, numerical scores are provided.

• Complaint; Score of 10• Limited Areas of Noncompliance: 5• Numerous Areas of Noncompliance: 1

• In turn, these numerical values are converted into percentile values (using total number of groups being evaluated serving as baseline)

Method

• This process also provides the capability to identify the level of severity for areas of noncompliance, (severity level definitions should be developed with facility/site personnel)

• Minor• Moderate• Severe

• To assist with determining appropriate corrective actions, supporting discussion is also provided for noncompliances

Theoretical Inspection Results for Selected Groupings

Group Criteria Score N/A

1Walkways clear; materials/equipment properly stored; facility properly maintained; drinking containers properly labeled and cups provided.

6

2Proper use of Hot Work Permit; compressed gas cylinders stored properly; flammable/combustible liquids properly stored.

10

4Rating tags installed; chokers/slings in good condition; riggers understand duties and responsibilities; defective wire ropes/slings removed from service.

8

6MSDSs provided, and current, for site chemicals; hazardous materials properly labeled and stored; HAZCOM program requirements communicated to site personnel; project safety document identifies potential site hazards and associated controls.

3

Actual Score (Total Point Value for Groups Inspected) 27

Potential Score (Number of Groups Inspected x 10) 40

Assessment Value (Actual Score/Potential Score) .68

Group Deficiency Discussion Severity

1 Numerous tripping hazards present; lumber not stored in accordance with company policy. Moderate

4 Two slings missing ID tags; one small wire rope “bird caged,” but not red-tagged. Minor

6Numerous MSDSs missing for site chemicals; MSDS book not located for ready access by site personnel in the event of exposure, project safety plan did not address electrical hazards.

Severe

Inspection Performed By:

Site Manager Concurrence:

Method

• This approach also allows “thresholds” to established, based upon predetermined criteria

• For example, a score of 70, or less, for fire protection would require an in-depth management assessment to determine contributing causes of the deficiencies

• This approach also permits comparison between groups and/or frequency periods.

• To assist with increased “ownership” of the process at the facility/site level, concurrence by the cognizant manager is required.

Theoretical Periodic Reporting of Inspections by Percent Value

Month January February March April May June

1 .62 .68 .74 .80 .92 .90

2 .90 .96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

3 1.00 .78 .70 .62 .48 .40

4 .40 .65 .85 .85 .95 1.00

5 .90 .80 .82 .88 .95 .95

6 .64 .76 .88 .94 .98 1.00

7 n/a n/a .72 .64 .62 .54

8 .90 .90 n/a n/a n/a n/a

9 .20 .28 .38 .30 .24 .18

10 .83 .88 .92 .92 .92 .96

Gro

up

Application Considerations

• Inspection criteria can be revised when 100% of goal is consistently being met • Rewards, incentives, and similar recognition mechanisms can be clearly linked to desired performance • To increase overall support for effort, inspection criteria and severity definitions, should be developed in collaboration with management and task level personnel

Application Considerations (continued)

• Overall performance can be evaluated for individual groups and/or discipline areas • Application of enhanced inspection processes can be utilized to drive friendly competition between organizations

• This process also provides mechanisms to engage personnel throughout the company, particularly site/facility management

Conclusions

• Use of inspection processes to support development of leading performance indicators can provide other benefits, including:

• Enhanced safety by evaluating overall process versus focusing on only individual items• Reduced costs associated with performance of inspections• Limits potential for the “check the box” mentality• Increased productivity • Expanded employee participation• Enhanced morale

Conclusions (continued)

• Other benefits from application of this process include: • Provides mechanism to identify discipline areas that are not improving and/or meeting expectations • Provides ability to track and trend inspection results over defined periods of time• Allows less than optimum performance to still be recognized and/or rewarded

• Perhaps most importantly, use of enhanced inspection process allows ES&H professionals to assist in overall program improvement versus having to serve “safety cops”, issuing yet more tickets