CUSEC- CULTURA DE SECURITATE- un model utilizabil

ASPECTE GENERALE

”Acest concept (cultura de securitate) utilizeaza o noua abordare institutionala fata de promovarea dialogului cu actorii-institutiile publice, precum si validarea misiunii sociale a acestora in spiritul cunoasterii noilor tipuri de amenintari, riscuri si vulnerabilitati, la nivel individual, de grup, societal, national, regional si global”[1].

Pentru domeniul Securității și Sănătății în Muncă , cultura de securitate reprezintă un atribut dezvoltat la nivelul colectivității (loc de muncă, secție, unitate economică) format din proceduri de bună practică formale și informale și de asemenea din proceduri de colaborare între cei implicați – realizate în scopul unei îmbunătățiri continue a securității și sănătății în muncă.

DESCRIERE CERCETARE

Ne propunem în acest material , plecând de la documentația și experiența existentă [2]să dezvoltăm un model utilizabil al culturii de securitate.

Considerăm o formulă care poate defini cultura de securitate- cum ar fi:

C= (C_init+Ef)*K_DU (1)

unde

C=cultura de securitate individuală

C_init = deschiderea inițială (în momentul angajării sau trecerii în actualul loc de muncă) față de cultura de securitate.

Ef= efortul disponibil

K_DU = coeficient care definește decizia umană

Cultura de securitate individuală- reprezintă un datum propriu fiecărui individ. Este ceea ce respectivul individ are în momentul în care se angajează prima dată- și definește un comportament echilibrat sau periculos la locul de muncă, dorința de a asimila sau dimpotrivă refuzul asimilării, interesul pentru educație, etc.

Putem considera că:

C_init =0 în cel mai rău caz, atunci când lucrătorul respectiv are studii elementare și nu dorește să se perfecționeze, având și un comportament inițial periculos. De regulă astfel de lucrători sunt eliminați în primele zile de lucru- sau li se alocă doar sarcini lipsite de risc. Uneori.

Figura 1 Lucrător cu comportament periculos

Se poate observa că respectivul lucrător are un comportament periculos- prestând sarcina în condiții clare de risc sporit (dacă nu maxim). Indiferent că cineva i-a trasat această sarcină- propriul său simț de securitate- cuantificat aici prin cultura de securitate individuală- ar fi trebuit să-i spună să nu facă așa ceva.

C_init = 0,5- atunci când lucrătorul are noțiuni teoretice- care nu-l ajută totuși în activitate.

C_init = 0,75- atunci când lucrătorul înțelege să se protejeze pe sine- nu și echipa din care face parte;

C_init =1- cazul ideal

Coeficientul definitoriu pentru decizia umană (referitoare la mitigarea riscurilor) K_DU depinde de un set de componente printre care merită enumerate:

-Cunoașterea implicită- cunoașterea implicită (tacită) a fost prima dată introdusă ca noțiune de Polanyi[3]  și definește cunoașterea ne-explicită. Față de cunoașterea explicită- care poate fi documentată- cunoașterea implicită se manifestă în momentul când este nevoie de ea (de exemplu la momentul producerii unui eveniment neprevăzut care se poate transforma în accident- potențiala victimă ia un set de decizii care îi permit evitarea accidentului) și este dezvoltată în cursul timpului de experiență și intuiție[4]. Mare parte din deciziile adoptate vin din tipul acesta de cunoaștere[5].

-Motivația intrinsecă- un factor foarte important în cultura de securitate, motivație care la rândul său include elemente cum ar fi:

                -Apartenența: oamenii – respectiv lucrătorii simt nevoia să aparțină uneia sau mai multor comunități; individul izolat este expus pericolelor- într-o comunitate există și procesul de protecție colectivă contra acestor pericole;

                -Înțelegerea;

                -Controlul;

                -Comunicarea;

                -Încrederea. Toate aceste atribute sunt descrise în detaliu în cartea lui Bandura[6]

-Euristicile implementate sau în curs de dezvoltare [7];

-Homeostaza riscului:acest concept spune că fiecare persoană are un nivel propriu – și fix- de risc acceptabil. Răspunsul la risc este ajustat la tehnologiile de securitate existente. Este posibil ca o parte din aceste tehnologii să mărească și nu să reducă riscul. Oamenii tind să reziste în fața controalelor externe și să adopte ”decizii proprietare” referitoare la risc[8]

-Percepția riscului [9]

În acest sens se poate consideră că:

K_DU =  0- atunci când se adoptă o decizie catastrofală- care poate termina arealul pentru care discutăm de cultura de securitate,nu se adoptă nici un fel de decizie sau când se adoptă decizii proaste în mod repetat; să nu uităm că acest coeficient este unul din elementele definitorii pentru cultura de securitate;

K_DU = 0,25 –atunci când deciziile adoptate evită accidentele de muncă dar nu și incidentele;

K_DU=0,5- atunci când deciziile adoptate evită incidentele dar nu și evenimentele neprevăzute care pot afecta în vreun fel integritatea sau securitatea;

K_DU=0,75 – atunci când deciziile adoptate protejează omul, nu însă și proprietatea;

K_DU= 1; deciziile adoptate sunt ideale raportate la contextul existent;

Efortul disponibil este dat, conform teoriei lui Wickens [10]  de componentele care pot fi observate în figură

-Percepția culturii organizaționale în general și culturii de securitate în special[11] de către individ, percepție influențată în mod esențial de către suportul oferit pentru acest subiect de către management (dacă managementul nu sprijină o cultură de securitate sănătoasă- efortul angajaților va fi disproporționat) și de către colegi- dacă aceștia nu oferă suportul necesar- individul își va pune problema ”De ce să intervin eu ?”;

-Prelucrarea acestei percepții în activitatea zilnică, manifestată prin contextul desfășurării activităților – nu trebuie neapărat să fii expert ca să-ți dai seama dacă activitatea la locul de muncă se desfășoară într-un mod coordonat, dacă există ordinea și întreținerea spațiului necesară, etc.Dacă atât managementul cât și lucrătorii nu dau importanță unei culturi de securitate- și implicit nici implementării conceptelor de securitate- aceste aspecte se vor manifesta destul de vizibil și plenar la locul de muncă;

-Acțiunea în care apare cultura de securitate; acțiunea este cea desfășurată de către individ- și determină concepția individului asupra culturii de securitate ca întreg. De exemplu dacă i se solicită să manipuleze tablă cu muchii tăioase și nu îi atrage atenția nimeni că trebuie să-și pună palmare- oferindu-i timpul necesar pentru această operațiune și bineînțeles mijloacele individuale de protecție- atunci individul va considera că ”așa se face” .

Este evident că individul își va forma un mod de abordare strategic- pe termen mediu și lung- prin relația și interacțiunea cu șefii și colegii săi- și un mod de abordare tactic- pentru sarcinile imediate. În exemplul anterior- el poate acționa tactic- atunci când are o urgență și nu mai are timp să-și pună palmarele- dar acțiunea sa va fi comentată și analizată (într-o cultură de securitate corespunzătoare) astfel încât să constituie o ”lecție învățată” pentru totdeauna.

Este de asemenea important dacă individul pleacă de la început cu un proces de raționament necooperativ (manifestări de genul ”Știu eu mai bine”) sau e dispus să se folosească de un proces de raționament cooperativ.

Putem scrie deci că

Ef=Cr*(Pe+Pre+A)/3 (2)

Unde Cr=coeficientul de raționament Cr=1 pentru un raționament cooperativ și Cr=0.25 pentru un raționament necooperativ

Pe=coeficientul de percepție care poate varia între 0 și 1 (excelent).

Pre=coeficentul de prelucrare  care poate varia între 0 și 1 (excelent).

A=coeficientul de acțiune care poate varia între 0 și 1 (excelent).

CONCLUZII

Se poate vedea că C variază între 0 și 2, cu 2 valoarea de excelență și 0 valoarea cea mai nefavorabilă.

Evident că la nivel de loc de muncă sau unitate coeficientul care descrie cultura de securitate pentru un colectiv, Cs

Cs = ∑ C/n (3)

unde n reprezintă numărul de lucrători pentru care s-a făcut respectiva descriere.

Modelul permite dezvoltarea unor chestionare care pot conduce la obținerea unei valori obiective pentru Cs.

Pentru expertul/responsabilul de SSM din întreprinderea respectivă:

-cu cât Cs este mai mic- cu atât înseamnă că lucrătorii din arealul analizat sunt mai puțin conștientizați și implicați în activitatea de SSM;

-un Cs mic arată necesitatea primară de a-i face pe lucrători să înțeleagă importanța problematicii de SSM;

-un Cs subunitar arată de asemenea necesitatea instruirii corespunzătoare;

Pentru managerul de unitate:

-un Cs mic arată faptul că nici cultura organizațională ca atare nu stă prea bine- și că e nevoie de stabilirea unui leadership- formal și informal – care să reglementeze lucrurile;

-un Cs mic arată faptul că oamenii nu sunt motivați corespunzător- și că este necesară schimbarea sau îmbunătățirea sistemului motivațional;

Figura 2. Structura Efortului disponibil

---

[1] http://www.caleaeuropeana.ro/editorial-sebastian-sarbu-despre-cultura-de-securitate/

[2] B.Gouin (2007), Security Design Consulting-The Business of Security System Design

[3] Polanyi, M., (1962) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

[4] Klein, G., (2003) The Power of Intuition. Doubleday, New York.

[5] Plous, S., (1993) The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. McGraw Hill, New York

[6] Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[7] Standards Australia Handbook 327: 2010 Communicating and Consulting about Risk.

[8] Zinn, J., (ed) (2008) Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty, An Introduction. Blackwell, London

[9] Slovic, P., (2000) The Perception of Risk. Earthscan, London

[10] Wickens, C.D. (1984). "Processing resources in attention", in R. Parasuraman & D.R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention, (pp. 63–102). New York: Academic Press.

[11] Slovic, P., (2010) The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception. Earthscan, London

HOW TO DEVELOP A BETTER SAFETY CHECKLIST

Latest developed tool :

HOW TO DEVELOP A BETTER SAFETY ASSESSMENT

Some images from the material...

RESEARCHING FOR A BETTER SAFETY ASSESSMENT-part 3

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO ASSESS?

There are a lot of checklists for safety assessment- some of this could be found also on Internet. A systemic approach to the safety assessment would however focus on general components- that could be developed by the safety assessor taking into account the specificity of the assessed workplace.

We have chosen- on the basis of our experience- a system with three main components:

-HUMAN RESOURCE- as humans are the root cause of more than 75% of the occupational accidents- this component is a must for every assessment. It should include- in our opinion:

- Technical training involved in the performance of specific tasks; was such training done properly and in time- taking into account not just the technical details but also the capacity of understanding of the employee?  Is this training updated when needed? Is this training enough?
-General and specific safety training;

-Employee experience in work and also at workplace;

-Employee abilities connected with the tasks to be done;

-Employee history of accidents and incidents;

-Team working abilities;

Part of these attributes are used and presented below in the model developed for this paper.

-EQUIPMENT AND MACHINES

-MANAGEMENT

The following table (Table 1) shows the data collection format used for the primary safety assessment.

The 10 attributes were chosen in the idea to assess various workplaces- with different activities. The auditor could change these attributes- taking into account however to have a unitary structure for the plant assessment.

The place of each attribute could be found in the figure...

The theory behind the assessment is considering that each workplace could be described by:

-its human resource, including also experience at work;

-Its technical resource- equipment’s and machines;

-its managerial resource;

A well trained human resource, with people selected taking into account their abilities in relationship with the tasks to be done; with the necessary experience- could be the greatest asset for a safe workplace.

A workplace should be designed having safety as one of the main goals. However, if this was not done in the beginning it could be done- partly- during the “active life” of the workplace. Re-designing for safety is one of the win-win solutions.

A workplace should have as much safety devices in pace as needed- considering the specific activities that are done there. The assessor should verify that the safety device is in place- functional- and that it is used accordingly with the safety goals. Some safety devices could be tampered with- in the idea to increase production by cutting safety paths.

Personal Protection Equipment’s should also be available in connexion with the safety design of the workplace and also with the safety devices in place. The last stand before an incident/accident should be the PPE.

The third component of the assessment should be the (safety) management of the workplace. A good manager would always include safety in his/hers management. However, a very good safety manager would assure commitment- from all the human actors at workplace, would also assure the necessary supervision and the maintenance activities that should be done on a daily basis (including cleaning, waste disposal, etc.) .The safety culture is developing in time- as the ideal link between employees and managers in assuring safety- anyhow these three attributes should be pursued from the management and assessed accordingly.

Figure 1.Place of assessment attributes in the whole image

 

ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS

To illustrate the possibilities of safety assessment and some instruments that could be helpful in the activities that are following the analysis and the interpretation of the results- on the basis of the previous graph we have developed a simple checklist- that could be re-developed as much as you like. It has (in this demo) 10 questions and the primary assessor- the one which goes to the workplace to perform the assessment- evaluates each of the questions on a 1 to 5 Likert scale.

Table 1

No	Item (Question)	1	2	3	4	5	Motivation
	HUMAN RESOURCE
1	Task specific abilities of the employees in the workplace (please consider the main task and all the tasks that are important from the safety point of view)
2	Training (we are considering here the professional training)
3	Safety training (including all the given safety training and its implementation into the workplace)
4	Experience at work- although this is a debatable item, experience at work has its importance to keep the employee out of  risks action
	EQUIPMENTS AND MACHINES
5	Safety design of the process, the afferent activities and the workplace- we recommend to ask for plans in order to have a full image
6	Safety devices in place, functional and that are known by the employees
7	Personal Protection Equipment (PPE)
	MANAGEMENT
8	Supervision of the employees
9	Maintenance of the workplace (including clean-up)
10	Commitment of the employees and their supervisors to safety (if there is a safety culture then it should be evaluated too)

As you can observe- there are general items (questions) that could be changed, modified or replaced- taking into account the workplace that is being assessed. However, once modified for a specific workplace- the checklist should be saved and used as a referential for the future assessments of this workplace. Eventually- a copy of the assessment checklists should be saved and sent also to the Competent Authority- so that the assessments that should be accepted and controlled by the Competent Authority could have a certain referential.

For the interpretation of the primary results we are using a software named ””Expert Choice”- that could be downloaded for free from Expert Choice Inc. Using this software we would try to optimize the assessment and make this assessment as objective as possible.  

Figure 2 shows the defined decision tree that has as its goal the safety assessment. On each branch there is an item.

Figure 2. Decision tree

For our demo we have considered a fictive”Manitoba Enterprise”; we worked with 5 workplaces to be assessed accordingly to the field results for each item. It is possible to make a direct evaluation- as seen in figure 3.

Figure 3 Direct evaluation

For a specific branch- like ”Task specific abilities” we are evaluating the five workplaces and are using a priority coefficient that is based on the results of the field assessment. As seen in figure- the first workplace performs the best for this item.

We could also compare the performances of two workplaces- like you can see in figure 4.

Figure  4 Comparision between two workplaces considering a specific item

It is also possible to perform the comparative evaluation by using a questionnaire to fill in the data.

Figure 5 Evaluating the results by the usage of a questionnaire

The software offers the possibility of a synthesis of all results like in the next figure.

Figure 6 Synthesis of the results taking into consideration all the items

Various graphs regarding the sensitivity of the evaluation can be obtained, like in the next figures.

Figure 7 Graph showing the performance sensitivity for all the nodes

We could also obtain a dynamic sensitivity.

Figure 8 Graph of dynamic sensitivity

Figure 9 Graph for gradient sensitivity

We could also compare head to head two nodes- like the Workplace 1 and Workplace 4.

Figure 10 Head-to head comparison

A global report could be obtained at least.

Figure 11 Global report preview.

RESEARCHING FOR A BETTER SAFETY ASSESSMENT-part 2

GOOD ASSESSMENT VS. FAILED ASSESSMENT

How can we make a clear distinction between a successful assessment of safety at workplaces and a failed one? The next table gives some indications- that are just orientated. Anyhow, you must consider that a safety assessment gives you very seldom an absolute result.

Table.1 Good vs. failes assessment

Good assessment	Failed assessment
It gives you the necessary information to make specific decisions and to develop improvement plans.	It is very categorical. It could be excellent- and in this case you should be very cautious- because nothing is excellent in industry- or could be very worse.
It gives you a risk level that you could use in benchmarking.	Gives a very impressive figure (regarding the risk level) that could not be used, says nothing and could be contested.
Includes all the technical details needed.	Approximates a lot, not including specific activities that are done at the workplace. This non-inclusion is a proof that the assessors are not very expert in their job.
Gives you preliminary reports regarding the workplaces being assessed and a final, consolidated report	Gives a generic report

It is possible to give a mark to the safety assessment job done by the external assessor, using the following table. If you are satisfied with the item- give 1- if not- gives correspondingly between 0 and 1.

Table 2. How to assess an assessment ?

Item	Maximum	Actual mark
1. Componence of the assessment team- no more than 6 persons if the enterprise is SME	1
2. Competence of the assessment team- at least 1 certified assessor with minimum 15 assessments done. At least one of the team members should be an engineer. If you have specific processes at least one member of the team should be an expert regarding those processes	1
3.Accreditation of the assessment company and the assessment team with the Public Authorities like the Work Inspection .All of the work being done in a safety assessment should be compliant with the Public Authority rules and should be certified (when needed) by them	1
4. Existence of safety assessment written procedures- that could be eventually be completed taking into account the characteristics of the assessed workplaces	1
5. Level of information and explanation given by the assessment team to those from the assessed workplaces that are involved in the assessment	1
6. Level of information and explanation given by the safety assessment team	1
7.Exhaustive check-lists for the main objects at workplace	1
8. Accurate description of the situation at workplace assessed- as to motivate the assessment	1
9.Logical and easy to use formula and notation for the global risk level	1
10. Correlation of the safety assessment results with the opinions of employee representative and top management	1
Total

For example- if the safety audit performed by the external firm is not approved by the top management, or by the employee representatives- there are some serious problems in the assessment and even if it is re-developed there should be given here 0 points.

Safety assessments with less than 7 points are highly contestable and the company should be asked to re-work or to mitigate the vulnerable points.

THE SAFETY ASSESSMENT TEAM

Depending on the complexity of the workplace, the primary safety assessment team could be composed by 1-6 persons.

Larger teams could be used for complex facilities. However, they became difficult to manage.

There should be always a team leader- generally the best assessor or the external assessor if we are working in a mixed team.

The team leader- or safety auditor as he appears in figure 1- should have as the main qualities:

A. a high level education- preferably in engineering;

B. at least 5 years working as safety assessor;

C. at least 15 safety assessments conducted by himself/herself;

D. good management qualities;

E. to be certified by a recognized organism;

F. capability of working long hours;

The difference in composing assessment teams is given by the complexity of the job to be done. The next table is showing this aspect.  The number and the participants are the results from our experience in safety assessment.

Table 3. Safety assessment team according to the type of workplace

Workplace type	Description	Safety assessment team
Simple	1-2 workers. Basic technical  equipment	1 person-  the safety auditor (external)
Medium	3-10 workers. Technical equipment with a reasonable degree off complexity.	2 persons. The safety auditor + one employee from the workplace that has the best experience and is safety committed.
Large	More than 10 workers and/or equipment that are very hazardous  with risk not just over the workplace but also on the facility and outside the facility	3-6 persons. The safety auditor +employee+ supervisor or line manager+2 experts +stakeholder

The safety auditor is essential in the assessment. However, our experience shows that when   the workplace is medium or large- in order to assure the maximum objectivity of the assessment- it is the best solution to add more members to the team.

When the workplace is medium-> large- the presence of one or more employees with the best working experience could be very helpful in assessing safety.

When the workplace is definitely large- the assessment team should be also completed with the supervisor/line manager that is directly responsible for the assessed workplace. Beyond the knowledge of the experienced worker the supervisor could give some hints about the quality of the management for this specific workplace. The continuous interaction between the safety auditor, the employee and the chief of the workplace would also lead towards a more efficient and objective assessment and also towards quick development for plans of improvement- if these are needed. A complete schema of the safety assessment team is given below.

Here also are finding places the experts in the field of activity plus a representative of the stakeholders. The safety assessment is not exactly a secret- so the participation of more people could improve (if managed well) the process of safety assessment.

The ideal team- from an external assessor- is presented in the figure 1.

Figure 1. The external safety assessment team

A mixed team- with one safety assessor that could be external- but not necessary- is presented in figure 2. 

Figure 2 The mixed safety assessment team

The figure shows that in the final assessment- the mixed team could be completed with 1-2 experts- generally technical experts that could give advice regarding the equipment used, the safety devices and the facility that is assessed and also by a representative of the stakeholders- if the enterprise has such stakeholders. The presence of the stakeholder representative is very important if the safety audit /assessment show that there are important changes to be made and serious resources should be involved.