Safety management systems: Performance differences between adopters and non-adopters

1. Safety management systems: Performance differences between adopters and non-adopters Safety Science 47 (2009) 155–162 Eleonora Bottani, Luigi Monica, Giuseppe Vignali Speaker: Jenny 2008/12/10

2. Outline • Purpose • Introduction • Hypotheses development • Survey phase • Results and Discussion • Conclusions

3. Purpose whether the performance of safety management systems (SMSs) adopting and non-adopting companies statistically differ

4. Introduction • Human factor plays a important role in an organization’s safety performance. (Attwood et al., 2006; Hughes and Kornowa-Weichel, 2004) • Unsafe behavior resulted from latent failures in the organization and management systems. (Hughes and Kornowa-Weichel; Kawka and Kirchsteiger, 1999) • SMS: a set a policies and practices aimed at positively impacting on the employees’ attitudes and behaviors with regards to risk. (Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2007)

5. Introduction • Benefits of SMS: • Achieve and maintain high level safety (Mitchison and Papadakis, 1999) • improve safety standards • Enhance communication, morale, and productivity (Cox and Vassie, 1998) • Decrease financial impact of safety (Cox and Vassie, 1998)

6. Hypotheses • attitude differs between SMSs adopters & non-adopters • H1: define safety and security goals and communicate them to employees • H2: update risk data • H3: assess risks and define corrective actions • H4: implement employees training programs

7. Survey Phase • Sample and data collection • Questionnaire contents • Methodology

8. Survey Phase • Sample and data collection • Choose the companies randomly on www.kompass.com • Pre-test: e-mail (100) • Rewritten the questionnaire, and add explanations • Data collection: March to May 2007 • Send by email: 400 companies • Response: 23.2% (116/500) • a = 0.838 (recommended value 0.6)

9. Survey Phase • Questionnaire contents • 4 sections • 4-points Likert scale • SPSS

10. Survey Phase • Methodology(Minand Galle, 2001) • Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) • Verify the questions and double check • Reduce the factors to a limited number • Factors reliability: Cronbach’s a or Pearson correlation cofeeicient • Hypotheses testing • independent-samples T test • Multiple comparisons

11. Results • Respondents

12. Results • Adopt SMS (more  less) • Industries: Building (66.67%)  Agriculture  Manufacturing  Commercial • Company size: Big (58.33%)  Medium (56.82%)  Micro  Small • No difference in product quality and competitive position • Current market share: adopters are higher Adopters 65.52% v.s Non-adopters 39.66% • More accidents happened to • Non-adopters (15.05) • Manufacturing (13.97) & Building(14.75)

13. Results • Confirmatory factor analysis • Engenvectors >1 • Variance maximizing procedure is used to extract factors

14. Results • Hypotheses Testing

15. Results

16. Results •  update risk data •  evidence for causal relationships between SMS implementation and improvements •  SMS is used to systematically codify incidents, so facilitating the use of updating risk data (Rowlinson, 2004)

17. Results •  access risks and define corrective reactions •  adopting SMS improves risk monitoring •  SMS codify incidents and related causes, which helps companies to get useful information for improving the design and planning of safety measures, and for monitoring the result performance

18. Results •  implement employees training • strongly supported by the results • Human resource: employees training and awareness

19. Conclusions • The difference between two groups is the key points—implementing SMS can get benefits, i.e. 4 factors • Companies adopting SMSs exhibit higher performance. • This study doesn’t provide a direction of causality of the results obtained. • Future research: investigate only one industry, causal relationship between SMS implementation and improvement, difference between IMS(Integrated) and SMS