Kärki, Jenni-Maarit
Occupational Safety Engineering / Tampere University of Technology / P.O. BOX 541 / FIN-33101 Tampere, Finland
+358 3 365 2507 / jenni-maarit.karki@tut.fi
ABSTRACT
The safety performance self-assessment model was developed at Tampere University of Technology. It was tested at least once in five organizations. The results of the assessments were material for this study. In addition, experiences and thoughts were clarified though a questionnaire and interviews.
Organizations were satisfied with the model, mainly because it is all-inclusive and considers all sectors of safety activities. With the model it is possible to find the strengths and weaknesses of operations. On the basis of identified strengths and weaknesses the organization can improve its performance and be more competitive and profitable.
Keywords
Self-assessment, Quality award, Safety management
INTRODUCTION
Price and quality are no longer the sole criteria that customers consider are important when they are making a buying decision. The environment and safety issues have received increasing interest. On the other hand, companies have realized that safety is also a very important thing if it wants to be competitive and profitable. There are many similarities between quality and safety and this is why many companies have integrated them.
Criteria for performance excellence and self-assessment becoming more and more popular around the world as a tool for management and continuous improvement. Thousands of organizations use the Malcolm Baldrige (MB model), the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM), or some national criteria for performance excellence to evaluate their operations. In Finland, many organizations use the Center for Excellence Finland (CEF) model for business excellence. These models can be used to find strengths and areas of improvement in a company’s operations.
At the Institute of Occupational Safety Engineering, Tampere University of Technology, there was a project whose main goal was to create a model for safety self-assessment on the basis of the CEF model. Five different companies have taken part in the project; they represented the metal and chemical industry. Representatives from the Finnish Center for Excellence, the Finnish Work Environment Fund, Center for Occupational Safety, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and participating companies have participated in the executive group. The project took place between 1.1.1998 – 31.8.1999.
The objectives of that project were as follows:
- To assess the state of OH&S management in target companies according to the application of the quality award criteria.
- To draw up and carry out a plan for the development of safety activities in the target companies.
- To devise a model for adapting the set of quality award criteria to develop safety activities and make future improvements in OH&S management.
The development of criteria for the self-assessment method was a result of the project. The model includes all of the aspects that the CEF model does, but rather that being just an overall performance indicator it raises questions about how certain safety related issues are organized and managed in the assessed company. The criteria contain 85 questions from eight assessment areas. The model contains the following issues.
1. Leadership (14 questions)
The purpose of this category is to examine occupational health and safety leadership, and its development and maintenance as a part of the management system. In addition to this, the commitment of senior management to safety issues, their participation and the continuous development of safety activities are also examined.
2. Policy and Strategy (8 questions)
The purpose of this category is to examine how safety issues are organized as a part of strategic planning and main action plans. In addition to this, it is also examined how safety plans are converted into practical actions.
3. Customer and Market Focus (11 questions)
The purpose of this category is to examine how customers’ and other interest groups’ safety demands for a product, service and manufacturing process are taken into consideration. In addition to this, it is also examined how safety is utilized with clients and in marketing.
4. Information and Analysis (11 questions)
The purpose of this category is to examine, select, control and utilize information in design, process control, development of activities and a company’s competitive position.
5. Human Resource Development (15 questions)
The purpose of this category is to examine the competence of the personnel for their work and their motivation and welfare. In addition to this, it is also examined how an improvement in working environment and atmosphere promotes the performance and commitment of all personnel.
6. Processes (14 questions)
The purpose of this category is to examine process control, namely process safety, the development of safe products and services, supportive actions and cooperation with different interest groups.
7. Results (4 questions and 19 examples of different indicators)
The purpose of this category is to examine safety measures and to compare and monitor the development of these measures.
8. Impact on Society (8 questions)
The purpose of this category is to examine the social effects of a company’s activities and products on society, interest groups, welfare, living environment, and natural resources.
Objectives of this study
Objectives were:
- To find out if there are other methods to evaluate safety that are based on self-assessment.
- To evaluate the improvements in safety performance.
- To evaluate if the model is useful for safety self-assessment and its improvement in the participating companies.
This report analyzes the results from the questionnaire and interviews as well as companies essential results from the self-assessment.
MATERIAL AND METHOD
The Self-Assessment Process in the Companies
As the first phase of this project, a series of questions were tested as an initial safety review. A project team in each company carried out a self-assessment. The size of the team varied from three to eight members, depending on the size of the company.
The procedure was the same in all companies. Each self-assessment of OH&S management had four meetings in the company. These meetings were based on the following themes: background and the goals of the study, self-assessment, feedback meeting and selecting areas for improvement.
Before the self-assessment meeting the background and the goals of the study were explained to the project team. At the same meeting, the CEF model and the application model were introduced. It was also mentioned what kind of material and information must be collected for the self-assessment.
In the assessment, the chairman of the assessment introduced the assessed category to the project team and after this everyone wrote down the three most important strengths and areas of improvement on separate post-it notes, individually or in pairs. These post-it notes were then put on a blackboard and every paper was discussed to seek a consensus. For each category, thirty minutes of time was reserved. This included time for discussion. This made it possible to perform the assessment during one working day.
In the second phase, a program for improving the companies’ occupational safety and health management system was made. Each member of the project team was then given a maximum of three votes for each category. Votes were allotted to areas of improvement, which at least one member regarded as important. This procedure prevented the start of an improvement project based on a single opinion. The project teams carried out the development plan.
The second assessment round was executed after the improvement plans for each company had been completed. In the second round, the results of the improvement plans were assessed and new strengths and areas of improvement were sought in the same manner as in the first round. In addition, the OH&S management was scored. Each member of the project team scored a company’s OH&S performance individually. The results were entered into spreadsheets and total scores were calculated for each question and for the total performance.
Questionnaire and Interviews
One of the objectives of this study was to evaluate the use and suitability of the model. We tried to clarify this with the questionnaire and interviews that were carried out after the second assessment round. We organized a questionnaire for all project members at the end of the meeting “selecting areas for improvement”. This made possible to get everyone’s opinion and ideas.
The basic idea of the questionnaire was to make it as short and simple as possible. However, it also ought to be as comprehensive as possible. One idea was to collect improvement proposals that could be formed into a model. The questionnaire contains ten questions, which were either open or multiple-choice questions.
In addition, we interviewed a couple of people from every company. The idea of the interviews was to clarify and specify the results from questionnaire. Both of the interviewees were at the same place at the same time, in order to raise a free-form discussion situation.
RESULTS
Strengths and Weaknesses
In both assessment rounds we used same method to find strengths and areas for improvement. In Figure 1, the results from first assessment in all participating companies are presented. We have summarized all of the strengths and all weaknesses and then divided them with number of members and so we have got the presented values. This made it possible to compare different areas and changes between assessments. Strengths and weaknesses were found in every assessment area. From the areas of “Leadership” and “Human Resource Development” members found more weaknesses than strengths. Many thought that area “Customer and Market Focus” is one of their strength in safety management.
 |
Figure 1 Number of strengths and weaknesses per person in first assessment round.
 |
Strengths were emphasized in the second assessment round as expressed in Figure 2. In the second assessment round, organizations found more strengths then weaknesses. Especially, from the areas of “Customer and Market Focus” and “Impact on Society” organizations found much more strengths then weaknesses. Only from area of “Results” did group members find more weaknesses then strengths.
Figure 2 Number of strengths and weaknesses per person in second assessment round.
Improvement Projects
Every member of the assessment group had three votes and they were asked to give a vote to those three strengths and weaknesses that they regard to be the most important. The idea was to methodically find the most important strengths and areas of improvement. Improvement projects were selected from those areas of improvement that received many votes. Organizations chose about five development projects after both assessment rounds.
The improvement projects that organizations chose from the different assessment areas are presented in figure 3. Most of the projects came from areas of “Planning” and “Operations Management”. It was only in the area “Impact on society”, that organizations didn’t find any new projects.
 |
Figure 3 Improvement projects in different assessment areas.
Questionnaire and Interviews
One of the objects of the study was to find out how useful the model is for companies. This was clarified with the questionnaire after the second self-assessment. The largest part of participants thought that the project was good or quite good (80%). In addition, 70 % thought that criteria are good or quite good. People were highly satisfied with the self-assessment process, voting and scheduling. The respondents thought that the scoring system needed improvement; only 4 % thought that it was good.
Question two was an open question. People were asked to tell in their own words their ideas and images of the project. Currently, companies not have this kind of an all-inclusive method in use. Organizations were interested to know what their occupational safety level is. Moreover, they were very interested to hear others’ results. So that they could benchmark. More consideration has to put into the selection of improvement projects. The method raised important issues and it gave a positive direction to safety improvement actions.
Question three attempted to ascertain thoughts about criteria. Members thought that the questions in the criteria were too difficult and hard to interpret. Questions were considered to be very general. The chairman of self-assessment needs to know the method and also the company so that s/he can “translate” the question into organization language.
The importance of assessment areas was clarified with question four. Respondents regard all assessment areas as important. Excluding the areas of “Customer and Market Focus” and ”Impact on Society” didn’t seem to have impact on safety. People thought that the criteria were comprehensive and every safety areas were included. This was determined with question five, where people were asked to tell if they wanted to evaluate other issues as well. Some interviewees hoped that the criteria could also deal with environment issues and human resources.
Self-assessment brings up the most important strengths and weaknesses of safety activities. Interviewees wished more time for discussion because it is important to consider carefully the development of improvement projects. The assessment group had an impact on the results and this is why there should be experts from every assessment area.
Question seven dealt with self-assessment – was it easy, was it too heavy to carry out in one day, and was it easy to evaluate your own activities. Interviewees thought that self-assessment was quite difficult and carrying it out in one day was demanding (almost 50 % of people). The scoring system was demanding or quite demanding according to over half of the interviewees.
Almost 90 % were willing to continue self-assessment every two years. They considered that self-assessment would be suitable to the evaluation of safety activities. Furthermore, people thought that when an organization starts to use a self-assessment model they would need help and advice. After one or two assessment rounds they thought that they could use it by themselves.
With question nine we wanted to figure out what kind of people should take part in the assessment group. Most of interviewees considered that people from top management, employees, lower management, and members of safety organizations, as well as the industrial safety officer should be involved. Over half of the people wanted also representatives from occupational health care.
Question ten was an open question where people could give their own opinions and comments. They were satisfied with the project and they wanted a meeting with other participating companies.
DISCUSSION
The occupation safety self-assessment model received good feedback from participating companies. Experiences were quite similar from those companies that have used the CEF model. If we want to get good results, the most important thing is the commitment of the top management and the broad participation of all personnel groups. The composition of the assessment group affects the results. And for this reason, the results can vary inside a company depending on the group. It is equally important that if we want to have successful self-assessment, we need to consider the scheduling and informing. The biggest problem was that people didn’t have enough time and information – they were not ready to do a self-assessment.
It seems that organizations need this kind of safety assessment model. Companies don’t have precise knowledge about their occupational safety level. There are currently many different kind of assessment methods in use at companies but they are not as all-inclusive and often they concentrate on the past, for example, on occupational accidents. With the help of the safety self-assessment model, an organization can clarify the strengths and weaknesses of its safety management. This is important because an organization needs to know its strengths and areas for improvement in order to improve its safety management
There is still much to do with the model and it should be tested in different organizations to see how it suits, for example, small and medium sized companies and companies that have not used self-assessment before. Furthermore, we should clarify the best safety activities and improve criteria according to them.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Participating companies, the Finnish Work Environment Fund, and the European Commission DG V (FILE No: SOC 97 202339 05F05) supported the study. The authors wish to thank all the members of the study and the study’s executive board and participating companies.