1 / 15

Brookhaven National Laboratory Collider-Accelerator Department

Brookhaven National Laboratory Collider-Accelerator Department. FY06 Summary of Safety Feedback and Improvement Sessions Ed Lessard February 13, 2006. Safety Survey. 2004 Survey and Group Discussions: 17 managers 27 supervisors 88 workers 2006 Survey and Group Discussions: 20 managers

abena
Download Presentation

Brookhaven National Laboratory Collider-Accelerator Department

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Brookhaven National LaboratoryCollider-Accelerator Department FY06 Summary of Safety Feedback and Improvement Sessions Ed Lessard February 13, 2006

  2. Safety Survey • 2004 Survey and Group Discussions: • 17 managers • 27 supervisors • 88 workers • 2006 Survey and Group Discussions: • 20 managers • 42 supervisors • 232 workers

  3. Survey Results • Technique delivers four levels of insight: • The absolute answers yield important information • Comparison among management, supervision and workers • Results can be compared over time to assess progress • Results can be compared to those of other companies

  4. Safety Model in Best-Safe Companies 3 Root Factors (management commitment, line responsibility for injuries and worker involvement) + 3 Drivers (clear rules, competent ESH specialists and comprehensive safety systems) = 3 Outcomes (safe equipment and facilities, safe-aware people and an excellent injury record)

  5. Priority Individuals Give to Safety

  6. Priority People Think Others Give to Safety

  7. All Injuries Are Preventable

  8. Overall Involvement in Safety Activities

  9. Observance of Safety Rules

  10. Rating Facilities and Equipment Safety

  11. Rating of the Safety Organization

  12. Satisfaction with C-AD’s Safety Performance

  13. Where to Address Injury Reduction

  14. Conclusions • Safety performance is moving toward excellence • Staff are satisfied with safety performance • Safety organization excellent • Worker involvement excellent • Competent group of safety specialists approaches excellence • Comprehensive safety systems approaches excellence • Concerns associated with equipment and facilities • Supervisors do not buy into ‘all injuries can be prevented’ • Clearer rules and practices needed

  15. Recommendations • Derek should continue to set zero injuries as the Department’s direction • C-AD managers and supervisors must set this same demanding goal • Supervisors must re-examine their belief about preventing all injuries • Safety rules must be well communicated and confined to a small set • Safety rules should be distinguished from good practices • Regular post-job feedback sessions need to be implemented • Involve managers, supervisors and workers

More Related