Truly Improve Construction Risk Management: Reexamine Traditional Safety
Solutions
February 2008
Safety improvement is traditionally addressed
at organizations in a manner that mimics the "new year resolution" syndrome.
Every year, people make resolutions for improving something the following year.
In safety, the same thing happens—it is easy to find something that needs improvement
or to emphasize in the coming year.
by Peter
G. Furst
Liberty Mutual Group
This retrospection is often brought on by workers compensation insurance
renewals and generally stems from a review of the previous year's losses, discovering
the most significant loss leader(s), and making it a priority to lower those
particular outcomes over the following year.
Usually, when things get concerted attention, they tend to improve. The improvement
may come as a result of greater management oversight, better planning, improvement
in worker knowledge, better execution, etc., to name a few. The following year's
loss data will show this improvement, and so some other new losses will appear
at the top of the list, thereby becoming the next year's "cause to champion"—so
we find another thing to "fix." Given this scenario, the interventions and resources
tend to become priority driven and subject to short-term "fixes."
Ineffective Performance Solutions
There is also the possibility that the improvement may result from the selected
interventions impacting the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. In that
case, even though some improvement is seen, it is usually short-lived, and the
loss data the following year will most probably show some other significant
loss drivers at the top of the list. Because the safety interventions did not
address the underlying causes of those particular losses, they eventually resurface
and those same losses increase again, starting this "priority" cycle all over
again.
Click for a
"Treating the Symptom" Graph.
Another way that safety performance is managed is to set a limit above which
that category will get priority attention. The limit may be set by the total
number of accidents or the total cost of the claims, or if any one of the accident
results is a very serious injury, then a concerted effort is made to control
that loss category. Once that particular loss falls below some acceptable level,
it is left alone so as to address some other unacceptable outcome. Given the
discussion above, this "whack a mole" syndrome will most likely generate a graph
as depicted below.
Click for a
"Whacking the Mole" Graph.
There is also the situation where an organization's losses just do not seem
to respond to safety interventions as before (somewhat similar to the situation
above but reflecting total performance rather than one loss category). The loss
reduction effort tends to be successful up to a point, after which no matter
what tools or techniques are used or emphasized, the losses do not seem to respond.
The losses seem to have a "mind of their own"; They go up and down in spite
of everyone's best efforts. Performance has reached a plateau!
The Problem with Traditional Interventions
Industrial activities (operations) virtually always have multiple risks associated
with them. These risks have varying effect on the "work." So in the scenario
depicted below, probably one or a few of the risks were correctly identified
and controlled, stopping their influence; but the others that had not been identified
and controlled now come into play and drive the loss picture. The randomness
of the results really indicates that there is no control exerted by the organization
on their loss picture (results) and the law of probability is driving performance!
Click for a
Typical Variability Graph.
The problem here is in the intervention methodology. These folks are utilizing
the traditional safety solutions, based on traditional intervention methodologies.
First of all, they are starting from loss data which tells them what the problem
may be, but not the causes of these problems. If they conduct further research
and review their accident data, then the quality of the data comes into play.
Who labeled the losses? How was the loss categorized? If it was a claims handler
who read the accident report, then it may have been “wrongly” labeled, from
a loss prevention perspective.
For example, let’s say that a worker carrying a long piece of lumber trips
and falls. The claims department will in all likelihood label the accident's
cause as manual material handling. This would probably trigger an ergonomic
solution response. But let’s say that the worker tripped while carrying the
lumber because there was a lot of debris on the floor. The ergonomic response
would be an ineffective preventative solution. The appropriate intervention
in this case would be housekeeping. This
is a simplistic example, but it makes the point that how the injury is labeled
or identified may actually be part of the problem. This sort of process may
not generate the appropriate interventions, and losses would continue in spite
of the organization’s efforts. And usually when the added effort does not generate
the expected results, the typical solution is to do perform the interventions
more rigorously.
When additional effort doesn't work, then external factors are cited as the
elements to blame. These may include blaming some of the workforce, the state
of the economy, competition, etc. In reality, the source of the problem may
be the analysis and methods of intervention selected by the organization.
The interventions discussed so far are the typical ones found in the governing
safety standards, industry procedures, and reflect traditional safety practices.
These standards were developed about 40 years ago and are based on practices
that were being followed in the industry from the turn of the last century.
Times have changes, but the interventions have not.
Developing Effective Performance Solutions
It is unrealistic to continue to apply the same interventions going forward
and expect to get different results! So the organization must find some other
approach to resolve its loss picture. There are a number of areas that can be
explored to find more effective tools. These are in the operations area, business
processes, and organizational systems. Each of these has residing risks that
have to be identified, assessed, and eliminated or controlled. Given the above,
it seems clear that to solve the safety performance problem one has to look
at it from all of these perspectives. Doing so will achieve stellar safety performance,
the results of which are depicted in the graph below.
Click for the
Stair-Step Performance Graph.
The Four Cornerstones of Effective Performance
The first cornerstone is safety. The organization's safety program must be
evaluated and perfected. It must include all the typical safety programs utilized
by the best-in-class organizations. To this, the company must add all the programs
that would address any unique requirements based on the type of work the company
performs. And, of course, the programs must be flawlessly implemented.
The second cornerstone is operations. This area is where the organization
engages in what it does to exist. This may involve producing a product or service.
Some of the tools in this area may include a risk assessment process, planning
the operations so that the safety of the workforce is identified and detriments
are eliminated.
The next cornerstone is business processes. Here we identify how the business
goes about dealing with external and internal customers. These dealings also
have risk. This area would include the type of contracts the organization signs
and the kinds of commitments it makes in terms of volume, speed, and quality.
And the last area in which risk may reside is the organizational systems.
This is how things get done, what the expectation are, what organizational behaviors
are tolerated or accepted, what leadership does, what values are deemed important,
the vision of the organization’s future state, management’s strategy, business
goals, and objectives, etc. This area is probably the most difficult to influence
or change.
It is important to stress in each of these four areas, risks have to be identified,
assessed and eliminated, or controlled. This is the way to truly improve the
safety assessment process and achieve long-term safety performance goals.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles
and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other
professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney,
accountant, or other qualified adviser.