PROCESS INDUSTRIES SAFETY MANAGEMENT (PRISM) THEMATIC NETWORK ON HUMAN FACTORS
HUMAN FACTORS IN SMALL TO MEDIUM SIZED ORGANISATIONS
DRAFT 1; DATE March 2004
Author Tony Fishwick,
Edited byRobin Turney
CONTENTS
ChapterTitle
1Summary
2Introduction
3Scope of Study
4What is an SME?
5Some views expressed by SMEs
6Discussions with SMEs
6.1) SMEs taking part on discussions
6.2) Some consistent safety features of SMEs
6.3) Safety Challenges for SMEs
7) Needs of SMEs outside the UK
7.1)European agency for Safety & Health
7.2) CEFIC & National Organiastions
7.3) World Conference on Safety & Health at Work
7.4) Other sources of information
8) Some issues common to SMEs in Europe
9)Conclusions & Approaches which could assist SMEs
10) References
Appendices
1) The SME Questionnaire
2SMEs Contributing the study
1) Summary
2) Introduction
An important part of the PRISM project has been an assessment of the extent to which small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) appreciate and apply Human Factors techniques in the improvement of safety performance.
Whilst many companies have reported on the improvements in safety which they have derived from the application of HF techniques those reporting are primarily large multinational companies. Whilst some SMEs have attended PRISM seminars they are in the minority and none have reported on their own programmes, despite the fact that they play an important role in the European economy.
There are many indications that accident rates in SMEs are higher than those in larger companies. The website of the European Agency for Safety & Health at Work contains the following information.
- ‘Every year about 5,500 people are killed in workplace accidents across the European Union. There are over 4.5 million accidents that result in more than three days absence from work, amounting to around 146 million working days lost. The problem is particularly acute in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)’.
- ‘There are 19 million SMEs in the European Union. There contribution to accidents is out of proportion to the number employed and SMEs account for 83% of all major accidents and 90% of all fatal accidents at work.’
The above figures are based on a community of 13 and will obviously increase with enlargement.
Clearly any approaches which can help to SMEs to reduce the number of injuries and deaths will have significant benefits. The major benefit will of course be the reduction in suffering but secondary benefits will be the avoidance of the disruptions to the work of SMEs which inevitably follow serious accidents.
This note reports the results of a number of approaches within PRISM aimed at assessing needs in this area and measures which could be taken to improve the situation.
3) Scope of Study
The study reported here is based on both the responses to questionnaires and a number of in depth interviews. A number of different contact routes were established. The organisations, and individuals, consulted during the course of this study have included:
-UK Health and Safety Executive
-UK Chemical Industrial Association (CIA) and their Responsible Care Networks and, through them, SORIS (Specialised Organic Chemicals Information Service)
- UK National Learning and Skills Council
-SMEs themselves (management and their workforces)
-Conseil European des Federations de l’Industrie Chemique (CEFIC) and other employer organisations in Europe.
-Verien Chemische Industrie (VDI), Germany
-Trade Unions
-Safety consultancies
-Website of European Agency for Safety & Health
-PRISM Network Focus Groups, end user advisor, members
and others
-Industrial, and commercial, partnerships, in particular the Engineering Partnership, Lancashire.
As with other studies into the requirements of SMEs, it has proved difficult to obtain a comprehensive view of their needs. The reasons for this include; SMEs focus on immediate market needs, (responding to a survey on safety is well down on this list), the limited resources of most SMEs, language differences (use of local language is more important for SMEs). Due to these factors this survey is based on a small sample with the majority of the responses coming from companies working within the UK. To offset this much of the information has been obtained from detailed interviews, both face to face and by telephone which means that the quality of the information is much better than obtained from questionnaires alone. The limited amount of information obtained from other sources (ref 1, 2) supports the views of the authors that the factors identified are shared by SMEs in other countries.
4) What is an SME?
The first baseline to be established is what constitutes an SME. At least two definitions, as well as a range of perceptions, exist. The two definitions are:
(i) an EU definition (Ref 31) – not greater than 250 on the payroll; not more than 40 million euro per year turnover; not more than 33% owned by a larger corporation.
(ii) a UK Health and Safety Commission definition (Ref 32) – firms with fewer than 50 employees.
Perceptions seem to range from about 200 payroll right down to the very smallest with just two or three employees and, even, “one man firms”. For the purpose of this study a flexible definition has been adopted with a payroll number of up to 250 being used and the “disqualifications” regarding annual turnover and ownership have been noted but not regarded as binding since safety cultures and behaviours are at least as often locally based as determined centrally.
5) Some views expressed by SMEs
During the survey we received a number of consistent views from SMEs
SMEs can be found in a very wide range of industries and activities. Despite this, their commonality in terms of size means that they share many similar needs. Examples of this are:
- they do not have large budgets and, therefore, will be receptive to simple, easily manageable (cost effective) solutions
- many will not have separate, dedicated personnel to advice on health and safety. For this reason solutions that can be readily understood and implemented by individuals, and teams, in the workforce may be attractive
- degree of commitment to safety improvement is variable
- however in may organisations the concern over employee safety and health is as high as that in most larger organisations, however sometimes they lack the information, and motivation to put safety solutions into effect
- financial constraints often force safety lower down the priority list than production
- recognition of the importance of avoiding unsafe situations and acts, in order to prevent escalation into accident and injury (the “accident triangle”, ref 4 and 6) is often low
- longer-term financial benefits of improving safety standards get overtaken by shorter-term benefits of reducing costs e.g. man-power, engineered safety improvements etc.
- the general importance of “human” rather than “engineered” factors, in safety management is not always fully appreciated
Notwithstanding all the above, it was evident from the very early stages of discussions with SMEs, that many of them are working hard, and successfully, to put in place effective, and continuously improving, safety management systems. Some of the solutions encountered fell clearly into the category of “human behavioural”. A commentary on these discussions is now presented.
6) Discussions with SMEs
6.1) SMEs taking part in the detailed discussions
Detailed discussions have been held with UK SMEs in the following areas:
- North-West of England, covering Cumbria, Lancashire and Cheshire.
-West Yorkshire
- South of England, extending from Dorset, through Hampshire to East Anglia.
-County Durham, in the North-East
Thus, a reasonable geographical cross-section of the UK has been addressed.
The method of discussion was either a face-to-face meeting, or an extended telephone call, both initiated by a brief introductory phone call. In all cases, the SMEs representative had been asked to fill in a specifically designed questionnaire (Appendix 2). The questionnaire was designed by JOMC with input from The Keil Centre and the Chemical Industries Association. It consisted of about 30 questions, requesting information on topics grouped as follows:
-details of the company itself
-how accidents, injuries, near misses and unsafe acts are recorded and measured, if at all
-safety challenges and attitudes to safety within the company
-safety policies and safety management structures
-knowledge and experience of behavioural modification, safety culture and team working.
These were all underpinned by open questions inviting comments on how PRISM might provide further help.
The response to this programme of discussions was enthusiastic and rewarding. Every SME consulted saw human factors and the objectives of PRISM as potentially helpful to their businesses and they were happy to participate. The rate of return of the questionnaires from this group exceeded 70%. The justification, and need, for this part of the PRISM Project has been amply demonstrated.
A total of 15 companies participated in detailed discussions, a summary of these being given in Table 2. It can be seen that a wide range of processes, company sizes and managerial/workforce ratios is incorporated.
Table 2 – Interactions with SMEs
Industry Type / Number of employees (approx numbers)Total / Management/ Supervisory / Workforce
Speciality chemical
/ 50 / 10 / 40Distribution / 14 / 3 / 11
General chemical / 100 / 35 / 65
Polymer/plastics / 240 / 35 / 205
General chemical / 235 / 70 / 165
Food freeze dry / 20 / 8 / 12
Electronic-related components / 214 / 44 / 170
Waste management/landfill / 120 / 36 / 84
Specialised fine chemical / 70 / 22 / 48
Lab-scale organic chemical / 165 / 15 / 150
Waste management/recycle / 40 / 8 / 32
Packaging / 101-250 (1) / 30% / 70%
Chemical-production of gases / 51-100 (1) / 10% / 90%
Speciality Chemical / 101-250(1) / 15% / 85%
Note: 1. Exact numbers not specified.
6.2 Some Consistent Safety Features of SMEs
Despite this variety in the types of SME, a high degree of commonality was found in their approaches to safety management and in the systems that they already have in place. These common factors are summarised in Table 3.
Table 2 – SME – Consistent Safety Features
Feature / Qualitative proportion of SMEsusing
Safety policy / All
Accidents reported / All
Risk assessment / Most
Team safety initiatives
/ ManyPositive reinforcement / Some
Interactive one-to-one discussion / Some
Near misses reported / Some
Team safety briefings / Some
In house publications on safety / Some
Training in manual handling / Some
The discussions also showed that a number of companies are already undertaking safety related activities which incorporate good human factors practice. These are listed in Table 4
Table 4 – SMEs – Safety Features Unique to One (or Few) Company(ies)
Feature
/ Comment- Use of behavioural safety consultant / Can be expensive. Probably not for the very small SME
- Use of some behavioural modification
approach / One-to-one discussions; hazard spotting, accident causes
- Behavioural-based hazard rating
- Joint management/workforce teams,
workshops and other groups / Potential for all SMEs
- Review of risk assessment by new
company recruits / A useful, “fresh mind” approach. Could be used by all
- Plant/area based health and safety
“cells” / Useful for the larger SMEs
These all demonstrate the potential for useful cross-fertilisation between SMEs.
In general, but not always, it was the “larger” SMEs, of say 100 employees or more, which had the most well developed systems of safety management and were more likely to be using some form of behavioural approach already. They would, for example, be more likely to employ specific, dedicated safety advisory managers and/or other personnel, record near misses and do risk assessments. However, this was not a universal factor. The special chemical firm employing 50 people, for example, had all of these things and others, in place and the distribution firm used a robust system of risk assessment despite having a total complement of only 14.
6.3) Safety challenges for SMEs and help that PRISM can provide
Analysis of the questionnaires completed by the SMEs, together with points raised in discussion, produced an interesting range of challenges faced by SMEs in the field of safety management. Prominent amongst these was the resource factor – financial and managerial time – in the face of competition from other areas such as production and keeping cost of the product as low as possible. Almost all the SMEs encountered faced this problem. Managing safety during times of company change, lack of understanding of the role played by near misses and unsafe acts in the “incident hierarchy”, and lone worker safety, were emphasised by several. Other factors cited by one, or more of the SMEs included:
-in very small companies, “everyone knows everything” and this breeds complacency
-outside pressures to improve safety from, for example, customers and stakeholders as well as regulators
-difficult to make changes
-vague definitions of near misses and unsafe acts and fear of a “blame culture”, make regulation, and action, difficult
-government gives out advice and publications on pensions, tax, national insurance and many other things free, but always charge for safety publications
-some small company managers are so “hands on” and driven by the need for profit (to keep the company solvent and maintain jobs) that they never stand back and view safety in perspective.
-very senior management have good intentions but not much positive input; safety initiatives mainly plant/workforce derived
-during times of change, it is different to maintain workforce morale and individual competency standards
-accidents and injuries reported because the company has an “insurance claim” culture
They all felt that initiatives on human factors such as PRISM could help them. However, they emphasised that the solutions that they would be looking for would have to be:
-cost effective (what they mean is as low cost as practicable)
-simple to apply
-useful for individuals (e.g. lone workers) and/or small teams
-usable by management/supervisors/workforce in a joint, integrated, participative manner.
Some specific requirements and interests were:
-how to implement a system for recording unsafe acts and taking appropriate action on them/removing “blame culture”
-any one-to-one discussion techniques
-use of key safe behaviour analysis
-use of mental imaging
-use of positive reinforcement
-help in formulation of a cogent rationale to present to the workforce
-improve the awareness of human factors in the management of safety
-best practice/benchmarking information in related fields
What comes out clearly from all of these discussions is that only the larger SMEs, (if any) with the larger financial turnover will employ the services of safety consultants and other providers on anything other than the short term. They simply cannot afford it and this has to be recognised. If they believe that there are tools and techniques available to help them, then they will certainly invest reasonable sums of money to find out about them and how to use them. The discussions have amply confirmed a view that SMEs are every bit as concerned about their employees’ health and safety as are larger organisations and that will drive them to seek such information. However, the oft-stated requirement for cost-effective solutions will result in a need for techniques that can be put into practice and developed “in house” once a basic understanding has been established. The guide produced by PRISM , ‘Behavioural Safety Application Guide’, provides information on several such potentially helpful tools, for example TOFS, SUSA, mental imaging, key safe behaviour analysis and others.
The financial constraints may also result in an approach that is, or tends towards, “behaviour modification only” without being underpinned by any co-ordinated thrust to change safety culture. Whilst this could be detrimental, or even fatal, to safety improvement in very large organisations, it is not necessarily so in SMEs, particularly those with small workforces, say 100 or less. Chains of command, from senior managers/directors/company owners to working level are often very short, and integration and daily contact between levels is frequent. Thus, a well managed behavioural change programme will have a much better chance of carrying a change in culture along with the betterment in safety performance. However, this approach will require a high degree of resource input in terms of support, monitoring and follow up, to ensure that improved behaviours are maintained.
Having said all this, there are organisations which sometimes provide financial support for approved training schemes. These can include safety training. One such organisation in the UK is the National Learning and Skills Council, whose headquarters is at Coventry (telephone, UK, 08450194156). They will, via this number, give advice on how to proceed with any proposals, requests, and schemes for financial aid either through them or one of their regional offices.
7) Needs of SMEs – outside the United Kingdom
7.1) European Agency for Safety & Health
Searches were made of the website of the European Agency for Safety & Health. These resulted in the information on accidents and SMEs reproduced in the introduction. However a search on the key words ‘human factors’ provided no further information. This is rather surprising since, having recognised the problem with SMEs, human factors techniques are amongst the techniques most likely to be adopted and to lead to a reduction in injuries.
7.2) CEFIC and National Employer Organisations
Approaches were made to CEFIC and to employer organisations in both Germany and in the Netherlands. The questionnaire was translated into German and circulated to over 1000 organisations by the VDI. Despite such a wide circulation the response was poor. Those returns made broadly supported the conclusions drawn from the survey in the UK, the number of returns being too small for separate analysis.
7.3) World Conference on Safety & Health at Work
A number of presentations were made at the XVI World Conference on Safety and Health at Work which was attended by JOMC. The presentations provided a global perspective on some of the problems relating to SMEs. The following comments are extracted from the presentations given at the conference (Ref 50).