Difference in Europe and US When Approaching Pre-Job Assessments & Root Cause Analysis
Lessons from recent travels . . . Differences between Europe and the US.
Regulators in Europe are convinced that pre-job hazard assessments (safety cases in the UK) are the key to improved safety. Workers wouldn’t be at risk and there would be no accidents if people would just review the job, spot all the hazards, implement effective techniques to remove or ameliorate the hazard, and then conduct the work.
The US regulatory view seems to be to regulate the highest hazard industries with rules to make people safe in the highest hazard jobs. Keeping people safe is the responsibility of the employer. If the employer fails, they are fined to encourage them to do better in the future (and as a warning to other employers). Some companies use pre-job hazard assessments, but a safety case isn’t required across every industry and job.
In the UK, many companies employ consultants to write the safety case. These people are trained and are an external set of eyes. Many (but not all) are experienced in the industries and jobs they are reviewing. They generally don’t use advanced root cause analysis as part of their assessment. They are not part of the workforce and it seems to me that they are viewed as outsiders. Their work isn’t appreciated much by the workers (who often see the restrictions they generate as unnecessary and a waste of time).
In Europe, when an accident happens, it is viewed as:
1) A failure of the pre-job hazard assessment/safety case process,
2) A failure of the hazard removal/amelioration techniques, or
3) A violation of the rules ordered by the pre-job hazard assessment/safety case.
Many in Europe don’t see root cause analysis as a particularly complex task. Their view is that all they need to do is discover which of the the three problems above is to blame, and then do a better job of hazard assessment/safety case, hazard removal/amelioration, and/or enforcing the rules next time . . . then the problems will go away.
In the US, since companies are blamed if something goes wrong and pre-job hazard assessment/safety case is not seen as a universal fix, companies are much more open to process improvement as a solution to problems and accidents. Because process improvement has a wide range of options to improve human and equipment performance, root cause analysis is seen as a more difficult and valuable process. US companies are more open to investing in advanced root cause analysis tools that can be applied across the enterprise to improve not only industrial, process, and public safety, but equipment reliability, product and service quality, process reliability, and environmental stewardship.
How could both cultures improve?
I know you won’t find it surprising that “Mr. TapRooT®” sees the application of advanced root cause analysis both BEFORE and AFTER work as a necessary part of effective improvement.
I think there is value in proactive pre-job assessments; they would be even more effective if advanced root cause analysis (TapRooT®) was applied proactively as part of the pre-job assessment/safety case by the employees (workers and supervisors) who would be trained to conduct the hazard assessment, develop the hazard reduction strategies, and even write the safety case (or at least help the consultant write it). This would create more effective pre-job assessment and better compliance with the resulting hazard mitigation rules and strategies and become a great way to improve safety both in the US and Europe.
Second, employers need to see accidents as more than failures of hazard assessment/safety case. They need to use advanced root cause analysis (TapRooT®) to understand the true causes of the accident and take effective steps to reduce the hazard by improving the process. This failure analysis technique - applying TapRooT®’s advanced root cause analysis tools - can then be applied across the enterprise to improve processes, safety, productivity, environmental stewardship, and profitability.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:49 am
Your observations are quite thought provoking. In your terminology however the word “safety case” may cause confusion for some people. As in your first line ” Regulators in Europe are convinced that pre-job hazard assessments (safety cases) are the key to improved safety.
In Europe we commonly refer to your term “pre-job hazard assessments” as a “risk assessment”. This would typically be written by the Supervisor and someone from the workforce carrying out the job. This involvement of the people doing the job is an essential part of a risk assessment.
A “safety case” on the other hand usually refers to a very comprehensive document covering a whole plant or installation , and “makes the case for safe operation”. This is very much a high level “hazard assessment” and indeed companies will often use external consultants in its preparation as you indicated.
My suggestion would be to replace the words “safety case” with the words “risk assessment ” and your observations are then very valid e.g. ” was applied proactively as part of the pre-job assessment by the employees (workers and supervisors) who would be trained to conduct the hazard assessment, develop the hazard reduction strategies, and write the risk assessment ( omit safety case.)
May 1st, 2008 at 7:50 am
Thanks, it is good to see what is happening in the other parts of the world we here in the state of New South Wales in Australia have Legislation driving this in both the proactive measures to be taken and penalties at the other end as well.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:57 am
I may have met you during a recent Expo in Telford UK. I approached the TapRooT(R) stand and spoke to the gentleman in attendance.
Thank you for the Newsletter. I would though, take issue with some of your assertions and the emphasis that you seem to be fixed to in respect of Hazards.
I believe firmly that the European approach is by far the best - not because I work within it but because it addresses much more than hazard identification. You say we spot hazards and implement techniques to remove or ameliorate the hazard. Not so. We identify a potential (the hazard) to cause HARM (the Risk) - which is what we ameliorate the HARM occasioning a Person, not necessarily the potential.
If we see a scaffold for example. it may only become a hazard if man interacts with it. It is noticeable that on rest days when no work is undertaken and the site is closed there are zero reported accidents even though the site is full of identified Hazards. The scaffold is fine. If men are put to work on that structure there are risks to their safety in doing so. They may be from falling and sustaining injury or death, having items fall on them causing injury or death, the structure was not constructed properly and it may collapse. That in itself is a hazard but if there was nobody on it at the time - there was no Risk of HARM to a person.
We in Europe carry out assessments of the Risk occasioning HARM to an individual, and seek to mitigate that risk whilst acknowledging the potential of the Hazard. If a trench were to collapse over a weekend - the open trench is a hazard sure, but so what - we dig it out again, but we undertake measures to prevent the collapse if men are to enter it. If that cannot be done then men will not enter until measures are in place to prevent collapse that may kill or injure- that simple.
We carry out Risk management rather than hazard spotting. Working with US companies Bechtel for example - I found their approach very simplistic and a large reliance on the workforce to figure ways of staying safe as the job went on with an emphasis on keeping the job going ie the commercial interest was seemingly put first.
I do also understand that there is much more to Risk analysis than what I have alluded to here. It was just the emphasis on Hazards in your article that I have an issue with. I send out safety advisers, engineers, Foremen et al to do site inspections of the workplaces. They can all point to Hazards. What they can’t do is look through the hazard and see the potentials for harm and address that! One engineer thought that Petrol driven Disc Cutters for cutting steel and concrete were a hazard as they might cut a person. His answer? Much like your article he removed the hazard band them from site. I asked him to give a solution to the cutting of 40mm Rebar - he had none to offer other than a hack saw. That is patently unworkable and not a good solution. If we banned chainsaws because they were deemed to be Hazardous or motor vehicles or airplanes?
Nothing wrong with Disc cutters so long as the RISK of HARM occasioning the user or third parties is addressed then the Hazardous item should be able to be utilised. We do this with training in the main i.e. in the case of cars with a drivers licence or the disc cutter operative attains a Certificate of Operational Competency.
So, rant over! Please see if your system lets you look at the HARM that may arise from interface with a Potential source rather than merely addressing the potential.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:14 am
what’is OHSAS 18001? The culturel difference safety approches europe/us have stopped to adopt it as iso!!!