R. Stricoff, Behavioral Science Technology Inc., Ojai, CA.
We all know that leadership is important in the creation of a culture that supports and promotes strong EHS performance. To improve EHS leadership, it is important to understand what specific practices constitute strong EHS leadership, and which of these represent the prevalent performance gap. To explore these questions, an EHS leadership practices model was developed based on literature and direct observation. Then direct reports of more than 300 executives from more than 20 companies, ranging from senior corporate executives to site leadership, were surveyed about the executives’ EHS leadership practices. The practices examined included those that create expectations, those that create demand for results, and those that develop capabilities with the organization.
Results of this survey indicated that weakness was most often seen in practices related to developing capabilities (such as feedback and collaboration). In addition, certain patterns were identified. For example, some leaders tend to be weak in practices that set expectations, while others are strong in setting expectations and demanding results, but are weak in developing the organization. These results help leaders to recognize specific improvement areas and help EHS professionals to diagnose the leadership situation. With that knowledge, interventions to strengthen leadership can be designed.
P. Esposito, STAR Consultants Inc., Annapolis, MD.
Purpose and reasons for work: One of the hot topics of discussion today for many company health and safety professionals is the debate of implementing either a management system or a culture. Which is more important? How do you define each? Area they necessarily independent of each other?
Experimental procedures and discussion: With more than 20 years of practice in implementing a management system and proposing a culture for work site through the U.S., OSHA expects that by implementing the management system proposed by their Program Management Guidelines, a corporate culture is created or modified, where involvement and teamwork raises safety awareness and behavior to the point where everyone owns responsibility for safety, not just workers, not just management, and not just H&S professionals. Site and company specific examples of the system elements will be compared and contrasted to an expectation of culture, explaining how one influences the other, and vice versa.
The application for this approach is universal for companies, whether a small work site of 10 people, or large conglomerates of Fortune 50 companies. All companies try to instill a culture in their staff, where certain business philosophies become universal. This is no less important in a safety and health program.
The conclusion, seen after visiting over 250 companies during the past 13 years, is that there is a definite and symbiotic relationship between having systems in place and an ability to develop, implement, or change a culture of an organization. We have also found that there are distinct sequences of events that are followed to achieve both culture and systems improvements concurrently.
This topic should appeal to any site or corporate person with H&S responsibilities.
C. Mellinger, Crompton Corporation, Middlebury, CT.
The increasing emphasis on management systems as a means for achieving continual EH&S performance within industry and government is creating new demands on EH&S professionals to acquire new sets of core competencies. A core competency often overlooked in the transformation to management systems is the capacity to understand and utilize systems thinking in the design and implementation of the system. Acquiring competency in systems thinking involves a paradigmatic shift from the traditional mode of inquiry known as analytical thinking or analysis. This paper describes the approach taken by a multinational chemical company to incorporate an organizational learning system for acquiring system thinking skills as part of a global initiative to design and implement EH&S management systems. The lack of systems thinking skills among key EH&S staff was seen as the primary cause of confusion and delays in the early stages of the design and implementation process. A solution to this problem was achieved by embedding a learning subsystem in the larger EH&S management system that allowed key members of the organization to acquire systems thinking skills as they engaged in the design and implementation of the system. As the number of key EH&S professionals with system thinking skills increased throughout the organization, the design and implementation process greatly improved as monitored by several key indicators. The learning system model presented here is adaptable to any EH&S management system designed for continuous improvement.
C. Redinger, Redinger & Associates Inc., San Rafael, CA.
We wrestle with ways to improve EHS performance on a daily basis. One key set of variables associated with EHS performance is leadership issues. The problem is that there are many ways to address leadership. The question is how to define EHS leadership in a way that can then be effectively measured. This paper presents the findings of a research project initiated to answer two questions: how to define EHS leadership and how to measure it. One goal of this effort was to develop a simple tool that could be used in a manufacturing setting for middle and upper management to assess their own leadership characteristics. The methods included performing a literature review for information on the two questions and conducting on-site interviews with middle and upper management at a facility of a Fortune 500 manufacturing company. The leadership measurement tool was pilot tested at the facility and then benchmarked with peer companies. The instrument will be presented along with the findings of benchmarking activities. This study shows that, while there are numerous ways that EHS leadership can be defined and measured, it is possible to develop a measurement tool that is simple to use and has strong face validity. Suggestions on how these findings can assist attendees in measuring overall EHS performance in their organizations are provided.
C. DuBois, J. Mulhausen, 3M Company, St. Paul, MN.
In recent years there has been a growing interest in EHS management systems/metrics programs. These programs are receiving broad support from upper management in the companies where they have been implemented and are predicted to be one of the EHS areas of expertise in demand over the next 10 years.
In 2001, a formal EHS management system was introduced to improve EHS performance. It builds on existing EHS systems by coordinating them into a centrally-focused effort that allows for efficiencies that are not possible when the activities are performed or managed individually. It puts discipline in place around EHS management.
Implementation of the EHS management system was accomplished by adding more leading indicators to those measures already being collected, increasing engagement of business units (traditionally, facilities were most engaged in EHS efforts), changing from process-focused programs to those focused on results, and increasing visibility of and accountability for EHS performance. Once the program requirements were determined, enhancement of the infrastructure necessary to support this process was needed. This included gathering information from existing reporting databases, building databases to support new metrics, and development of a scorecard. Training and communications were also critical to ensure that everyone expected to be involved in this program understood the role that they were to play, program requirements, and use of the databases and reports. This EHS management program has resulted in improved visibility of EHS within the company, increased accountability for EHS performance, and improved EHS performance.
This discussion will summarize why this program was conceived, the process of securing upper management support, how it was set up, some of the challenges to be overcome, and the positive impacts that it has had in elevating the importance of EHS and program improvement.
J. Haas, STAR Consultants Inc, Orange Park, FL.
Background: Motorola, General Electric, and other manufacturers have implemented Six Sigma programs in an effort to improve quality, meet customer expectations, and reduce costs. Training in the Six Sigma processes consumes many days. Surprisingly, the “Recognize, Evaluate, and Control” process of industrial hygiene is very similar to the “Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control” process of Six Sigma.
The Issue: Because of organization structure, industrial hygienists may be in some of the last employee groups trained in Six Sigma. Upper management expectations for utilization of statistical analysis tools, data presentation, and documentation of the need for controls may be a year or more ahead of the industrial hygienist’s training.
The AIHce Proposed Presentation: Six Sigma terms, tools, and statistical processes will be compared and contrasted with current industrial hygiene terms, tools, and statistical processes.
P. Esposito, STAR Consultants Inc., Annapolis, MD.
Lagging metrics, such as incidence and lost time rates, have been used for years to try to measure S&H performance, but do little in explaining to management what was successful or what didn’t happen when desired results were not achieved. As a result, there is an ongoing need, and a bit of work done the last 10–15 years, discussing and presenting “leading” metrics. The problem with “leading” metrics is that what might be a leading metric under one circumstance is a lagging metric for another process. For example, is the number or percentage of people completing training a (1) leading metric for program success, or (2) a lagging metric where communication of expectations is the final step of a program? In this example, neither actually measures the quality of the training, nor the program itself, but it is a necessary/useful measure as the training activity needs to occur.
In comparing the use of metrics to business standards such as quality and management, they suggest the term “leading” is misleading. The focus of metrics—to truly measure prospective and retrospective expectations—is one of process metrics—input and outcome data. For example, this presentation will describe the successful measurement and implementation of a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) program as being more than just the number of JHAs completed. Process metrics will be presented that can be used to measure the quality of a JHA program, or any program or process.
The application of this topic is important for anyone with responsibilities for implementing S&H programs and expected to have a tangible measurement as a result of their efforts. Process metrics will allow professionals a means to measure their programs, specific improvements, and better demonstrate program need and value to workers and management alike. This will appeal to all professionals.
T. Dunmire, ENLAR Compliance Services, Largo, FL.
Many organizations are in the process of extending their existing management systems to cover their safety and health, as well as their environmental programs. As of the end of 2002, over 49,000 organizations worldwide had sought third-party registration of their environmental management system against the requirements of ISO 14001, the international environmental management system standard. One of the key requirements of ISO 14001 is establishing a systematic process for the identification of environmental hazards.
This presentation will detail the steps an organization must take in identifying and evaluating its environmental hazards, or as ISO 14001 standard defines them, environmental aspects. In addition to outlining the ISO 14001 requirements, the presentation will provide real-world examples of a variety of approaches organizations have taken to accomplish this hazard assessment task. The presentation will explain what processes have worked, along with what processes have not worked and why.
As organizations continue to merge their quality environmental and occupational safety and health programs, pressure will increase to develop integrated and consistent processes across these functional areas for the assessment of hazards and risks.
M. Tschida, 3M Company, Cottage Grove, MN.
The ventilation management system responsibilities, implementation challenges, and database will be presented in detail. A ventilation management plan is necessary to assure that local ventilation systems installed to control occupational exposures at the source are properly designed for the purpose, function as designed, and will continue to function properly in the future.
The 3M Cottage Grove site is a multi-division facility with 12 divisions and approximately 800 employees. Divisions vary from batch chemical processing, abrasives manufacturing, tape manufacturing, corporate waste management, as well as several pilot plants and research facilities. The divisions own, and are responsible for operation and upkeep of, their ventilation systems. Each group brings its own challenges for contaminant control.
The approach chosen was to appoint a site ventilation coordinator who had overall responsibility for ventilation management. The site ventilation coordinator developed the site-specific ventilation program and selected a coordinator from each division. The division coordinators would be responsible for the systems overseeing the ventilation within their group. The ventilation management process was separated into two classes: existing systems and new installations or systems to be modified. The ventilation management process for existing systems was broken down into five sections; inventory, performance evaluation, prioritization, repair and renovation, and operation and maintenance. New systems require the review and approval of the site coordinator before installation. Modified systems must follow the CG site management of change (MOC) procedures. Data collected is entered into a web-enabled database developed for the program. The ventilation coordinators have “edit” access to the database and all others have “read only” access. The database is currently being populated with system inventories, drawings, system performance data, chemical data, maintenance procedures, and MOCs.
Posted May 30, 2004