Leadership and management for safety - an article from IAEA

Today, I read a very good article about above topic, which is simple to understand and to follow. 

The link is given below to go through.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/leadership-and-management-for-safety

Corona virus - lockdown - employment - financial management - some thoughts

Now, a month of lockdown period is experienced by us with not much physical activity. Don't know how many more days it will continue. Seeing what was done in its origin, may be we have to undergo another month or more like this.

One observation made is that public is not going for panic stocking of house hold items. As promised by governments, vegetables, fruits, groceries are available, though shopping time is limited. I feel that restriction of timings for purchase of these items by public should not be limited. Limited time means crowds in shops thereby defeating the norm of social distancing. To avoid public roaming around in the name of shopping, present checks by police shall be continued. Persons found at distance far off than from their residence (3 km) shall be charge sheeted unless valid reason as required by government is available. 

I also feel that keeping the vehicles caught on roads by police will be a headache for them. Instead, hefty penalties shall be collected on the spot to discourage them. The amounts can be like Rs 2000 for person plying on the road without valid need, additional amounts for having more than one on bike and more than two in four wheeler, like wise. In addition, routine penalties like not having helmet, or not wearing seat belt, over speeding, etc amounts shall be charged. 

It is observed in some places that vehicles were parked on the road. Public road can't be a parking place for private vehicles. Owners of these vehicles shall be charged for this and asked to remove them. They can't make profits at the cost of public.

Industries in which chemical storages are in place shall have proper surveillance round the clock to ensure that there will not be any untoward incident. No operation does not mean that everything will be safe. House keeping shall be ensured at all times. Protections systems like fire detection and alarm system, fire extinguishing system etc shall be checked for their functionality. Weekly checks shall be done for this. Necessary permissions shall be taken from local authorities for personnel engaged in these essential services to attend their duties.

Government suggested not to operate canteens in industrial premises. But, I feel that under proper checks, persons shall be engaged for operating canteen services. There can be several issues in bringing the food from home. They can be odd hours, stress on the person making food, etc. Canteens can serve food packets to make it easier for preparation as well as for employees. 

Regarding continuation of personnel in the jobs, tt will be stressful for both the management as well as employees under conditions when plants are not operating, but management has to pay salaries without getting any income. At the same time, if they want to remove persons, it will be painful to the employees and their families. It is also problem for the managements to hire such trained and skilled persons, once things become normal. Governments advised not to remove anybody from service and to ensure monthly payment. I read somewhere that even few decades ago during lockdown because of cholera, the then governments gave paid leaves.

As a middle level solution, I feel that industry should have two types of components in the salary package. One is minimum pay which will be paid irrespective of person is working or not. It is like the pay for qualification and experience. This can include PF, house rent allowance and medical insurance/allowance. Second payment is for the performance. That is for the output delivered when works are allotted. This can include various perks like transport allowance, performance incentives, LTC, etc. When person is not given work, but to retain talent, the assured pay can make the employee to be available and even can motivate him to acquire additional skills so that he can make himself more useful to the organization and that he will be engaged so that he can get performance pay. In order to retain the person, certain minimum number of days / weeks of work can be assured in the offer letter. This way, I feel both the organization and employees should find it reasonable and will not cause much problem financially. 

If organizations are forced to make pay irrespective of whether persons are working or not, it can lead to bankruptcy and can lead to closure and employees will become jobless.

Some thoughts on fall of safety standards - forgetfulness, over-confidence, complacency, arrogance

Anybody or any organization, immediately after an event not to like to happen will have several commitments to itself. I/we will do this or that, now on wards.
Even a student also makes such resolutions in or after an examination, which he did not do better.
But, in most of the cases, nothing will be done.
Some will start, but, the steam is lost.
Very few will sustain to a great extent. Even in such persons/organization will make exemptions, here and there.

This week, I attended a meet organized by a regulator. It was told in the opening remarks that regulators have to do the act of listening, observe the things and make informed decisions. This is applicable even to all those who are in the job of monitoring / advising and they need not be necessarily the designated regulators.

In case of individuals also, we are our own regulators and doers. As a proverb goes, we have one mouth, two ears and two eyes, indicating see and hear more, but talk less.

Coming back to the title, I observed that even in those entities who have developed highest standards, became role models and even are in the business of training, events have taken place for simple reasons which can be avoided / addressed totally before the occurrence of the event. Events in these places make me to think that whether they are wrong in the lessons learnt i.e. whether the lessons learnt for implementation are impracticable.

In many post accident recommendations, training and supervision aspects are listed routinely. Even if the training is good, absorption of the knowledge and its use in the day-to-day affairs is highly doubtful factor. Even those who understood the information too do not implement inspite of knowing that this may lead to incidents.

Like in financial sector, as I read somewhere, risk and returns are proportional. Low risk investments yield less returns and so high risk investments generate huge returns. I had my own experience in share market investment at two different periods and on both occasions, I had the opportunity (!) to learn the lessons to come out with some loss.

I think, it is in human behavior to take risk when it comes our activities, let it be on the roads or work place. And, it is the other way when it comes to our home.

I commute to my work place which is at 13 km from my house, by bike and these thoughts do occur generally, but I am yet to get any reason.

In nuclear field, ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) concept is preached and is genrally followed to limit radiation dose to occupational workers and public. Whereas in industrial safety, it is ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) implying that we have to be practicable in taking measures to ensure safety and health of the persons. This also implies (to me) that certain value is attached to human lives for dispensation. If an accident takes place leading to injuries / fatalities, generally we read declaration of compensation. Though enquiry takes place, hardly there are cases where the wrong doers i.e. those responsible for the occurrence of accidents are punished. Every year, lakhs of persons are dying in accidents (on the roads / work place), equal or similar number of persons responsible for these are not punished and it shows that human life got only some number and things will proceed as usual as if nothing happened. Reasons for recurrence are generally as in title of this post. This makes the job of the safety advisers / regulators, a difficult task.

If some disturbance takes place in an inhabited place, police will be blamed for not doing the job. If some emissions take place in a factory, pollution control authorities will be blamed that they are sleeping or accepted something. If some accident takes place, safety adviser will be blamed internally and factory inspectors externally. And so on.
But, little or no action is taken to identify the wrong doers and punish them.

Authorities for control of activities have a difficult task of facing pressures from all around and at the same time, not to succumb to these pressures. They have to be like stones not having any emotions to keep their health and family not to get affected by workplace pressures. Some will resign the post to look for different type of jobs or bade good bye forever (if they are financially resourceful to lead the rest of the life).

Any management would like to have highest productivity at minimal cost. Availability of qualified human resources is an issue face by many. Most of the educational institutions have become factories to churn out the students with good grades / marks but many of them fail miserably in getting suitable employment commensurate with the certificate as they can't answer the questions of the interviewers. Hence, they settle for jobs whatever they can get. They may get satisfied or may not. This can lead to dissatisfaction and doing the job for the sake of earning money only. It requires lot of efforts from the side of managements too train such people and I am not sure how many organizations have the policy of training their manpower before engaging them and then even doubtful case of retraining at regular intervals or change of job / modifications in workplace.

With these things, may be there is some optimal safe production i.e. under present set of conditions, it can deliver X numbers of their products. If we try to stretch production on higher side without commensurate additions / improvements, accidents / failures do take place, if not immediately, but definitely at a later date. This is because, it requires some time, even for the established systems to degrade. Now, if there is a change of management, persons at top can claim for success even at higher production in the beginning (higher production is initially possible because degradation also needs some time), but the person coming later can't deliver the same, because degradation process starts accelerating.

Hence, those with safety in mind have to conclude / decide what is their optimum safe production capacity and stick to it. Else, what we are seeing or reading in papers will continue to happen.

Accident prevention - sharing of information between the Japan factories

A news item on the above subject is interesting to read.

A good effort by Japanese factories to share information to prevent accidents. It is worth emulating by others also. Only that, the participants should not criticize the speakers for sharing the information about the accidents in their facilities. The speakers and their factory management should be appreciated that they came out boldly to tell about accidents  and the lessons learnt to others with a godly view of preventing such accidents in other facilities.

Trade off between production and safety

Safety is our first concern, so say, everybody in public forums. But, there is also something called, ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable). What is the measure of this ALARP. What is ALARP for me need not be the same for others. Still, we have to put our wisdom so that we do not endanger the lives of workmen, public and the environment. One should not go by apparent/immediate effects. Instead, one should see for invisible but disastrous and also long term effects.
Mostly, shop floor managers see the the visible effects whereas safety professionals see the invisible effects. Here comes the friction and safety managers will be pressurized to yield to the arguments of "there are no effects and not to imagine wildly".
Safety managers are treated as untouchables / non-entities and ridiculed at every next opportunity. It is known that every known hazard will not lead to a disaster and this gives strength to the arguments of short sighted shop floor managers and safety managers have to watch in despair.
One does not try to learn from the case studies and safety managers are shouted when pointed about similar occurrences and may be branded as brainless fellows.
But, when something happens, the black sheep will be the safety manager. At that time, again, safety managers are ridiculed for not foreseeing the hazards and that they do nothing.

The solution is to fix responsibility. If safety manager is lax, he should be responsible. If production  manager doesn't listen in spite of pointing out by safety, he should be responsible. Management should not try to protect production managers in those situations. And, every near miss/incident, irrespective of its severity, should be investigated and responsibility should be fixed. Only then, I feel that everybody understands safety and its benefits.

Design changes - no compromise for safety

Operating facilities, in order to increase capacities, try to carry out modifications in the equipment, replace some, change process parameters, etc. This can also be done through bypassing of safety systems, to achieve quick gains. While doing all these, if the consequences on safety of the personnel, environment and property are not analyzed, then it is likely that some foolish action will lead to total closure of the plant one day. Any change proposal should undergo HAZOP/WHAT IF/ETA/FTA studies. The design should be carried out only by experienced persons and safety studies should be carried out by safety professionals. If it is done by some entry level person and is endorsed by higher ups without review, we may be inviting the disaster.

Even though the safety studies will be time consuming, it is worth doing before carrying out changes rather than repenting later. Top management should recognize this and support the safety programmes. Else, shortsightedness will shut the plant at a later date. Though, it is easy to blame safety department at that time for not doing their job, one should introspect whether the advise of safety officer was given due importance or not.

Management of change is an important activity and shall be followed by all facilities, irrespective of their size, nature of work and product.