1 / 11

Contractor Safety Forum Panel Discussion June 3, 2008

Johnson Space Center. Safety & Mission Assurance. Contractor Safety Forum. Safety Performance Measures. Contractor Safety Forum Panel Discussion June 3, 2008. Agenda. Introduction of Panelists The NASA Safety Performance Measurement Process Performance Influences “Beyond the Numbers”

gingerb
Download Presentation

Contractor Safety Forum Panel Discussion June 3, 2008

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. Johnson Space Center Safety & Mission Assurance Contractor Safety Forum Safety Performance Measures Contractor Safety Forum Panel Discussion June 3, 2008

  2. Agenda • Introduction of Panelists • The NASA Safety Performance Measurement Process • Performance Influences “Beyond the Numbers” • Panel Comments and Q&A

  3. Panel Introduction Billy Autry NASA Procurement Policy Derek Robins SAIC Department Manager, Safety & Test Operations Cynthia Hendershot Program Manager, Raytheon, NBL/SVMF Operations David Loyd Chief, NASA Safety & Test Operations Division

  4. NASA Safety Performance Measurement Process In 2006 S&MA clarified the safety performance measurement process to: • Guide consistent interpretation of injury metrics • Provide flexibility in considering subjective elements, anecdotal evidence, and circumstances surrounding safety performance • Solidify roles – • NASA Safety as a consulting resource • COTR as ultimately responsible for performance scoring

  5. Safety Evaluation Process TIMELINE End of Performance Period Performance Evaluation Board Meeting Fee Determination Official Meeting Contractor mishaps rates and other relevant safety data assessment “Balanced Safety Score Card” S&MA Director/Deputy Director at each FDO Meeting COTR and S&MA TMR Collaborate on overall Safety Evaluation NS provides safety metrics summary and metrics adjective rating

  6. A B Example Safety Metrics

  7. A B C Safety Evaluation Score Card Adjective Rating of metric scores determined by matrix of exceeds, meets & does not meet • Other metric factors are evaluated to determine overall safety metrics adjective rating: • Type A & B Mishaps • OSHA Violations • Rate History • Correctness/timeliness of mishap/288 reporting • Size of contract NS provides final metrics strengths/weaknesses and adjective rating to COTR and/or S&MA TMR

  8. C “Balanced Safety Scorecard” “Reaction” (Safety Metrics) performance rating -- Based on data provided and injury/illness performance, NS Recommends a rating of ___________. This rating is only a portion of the overall safety score – other factors (Leadership, Prevention & Issues) and circumstances will determine the overall safety score. This overall score must be provided and defended by the COTR. NOTE: Zero injuries/illnesses may only mean that you are either lucky or under-reporting. Zero only has meaning if there is a proactive S&H Program

  9. Performance Influences“Beyond the Numbers” • NASA deliberates to develop safety performance rating. • In addition to metrics data provided, “Balanced Scorecard” must be developed and considered in scoring. • Example “Balanced Scorecard” considerations: • Leadership: – Substantive actions taken by management to: • Address specific injury categories; • Lead supervisors through injury preventive exercises, activities, or training; • Support and/or participate in employee awareness campaigns • Prevention: – Proactive programs with measurable impact on injury/mishap reduction – • Actions based on close call trending; • Improvement activities based on employee inputs • Issues: • Corrective action delays • Poor safety/health compliance in planning or operations • Mishaps or compliance problems in which NASA influence was a significant factor

  10. Prevention- Timely close call resolution- Ad-hoc inspection activities- Unique safety & health training- Successful improvement programs- Poor inspection/audit results- Sluggish close call participation- Poor training attendance- Insufficient safety org. performance Leadership- Special safety/injury analyses- Safety & health training/seminars- Resolving employee concerns- Hosting employee roundtables- Inconsistent discipline- Tacit approval of unsafe behaviors- Minimal recognition of safe behavior- Ambiguous direction to cut corners Reaction- Effective case management- Comprehensive investigations- Timely corrective actions- Quick & accurate injury reporting- Proactive consultation with OSHA- Untimely injury reporting- Poor case management- Erroneous injury reporting- Poor mishap investigation Issues- Safety awards and recognition- Injury prevention milestones- Resolution of unique hazards- Win-win safety integration with projects- Ineffective communications- Poor safety integration with projects- Unresolved compliance issues- Delays in corrective action

  11. Panel Discussion Panelist Comments Question & Answer Comment Cards

More Related