|
|
Participation and Involvement |
|
Operational integrity and process safety management programs are often conceived of primarily in technical terms — topics such as hazards analysis, risk quantification and fire and explosion modeling often take center stage. Yet, as noted in Chapter 1, the involvement of all employees at every level (including contract workers) is fundamental to the success of such programs. When employees feel involved they are much more likely to make suggestions for improvement, participate in new initiatives and “walk the extra mile”. Moreover, the effective involvement of the workforce provides a sanity check for new ideas, projects and analyses. Anything new or unusual should be reviewed by the employees; they will immediately identify any common sense problems because they are the ones who know the facility best. Overall, the best way of building trust can be summarized in one phrase: ‘Communicate, communicate, communicate’. However, involvement and participation are not just about communication. It is not sufficient just to make information available to workers; they must be involved in the creation and execution of all parts of the operational integrity program. For example, the OSHA PSM standard requires that employees be consulted regarding the conduct and development of Process Hazards Analyses (PHA). Simply placing a copy of the PHA report in the control room does not satisfy this requirement. Instead, the PHA teams should always include operators (often on a rotating assignment), and all findings should be thoroughly explained to those who were not on the team. They should also be encouraged to comment on the findings and to suggest fresh insights as to how those findings could be addressed.Workforce InvolvementWorkforce involvement is not a stand-alone activity; instead it should be woven into the fabric of all the elements of an OIM program. For example, the purpose of a PHA is not just to identify hazards, but also to encourage a particular way of thinking among all employees. So, an operator working by himself at one o’clock in the morning may be about to open a valve on a line that connects two tanks. If, before doing so, he spends a few moments going through some of the PHA guidewords such as “reverse flow” or “contamination” he may identify a possible accident situation, and decide not to open the valve until he has talked over the proposed action with his supervisor or colleagues. When the operator acts in this manner both the participation and the PHA elements of the process safety program are working perfectly.Additional examples of workforce involvement occur when a pipefitter learns that a new chemical is about to be used in the process. He may question whether the current gaskets are safe in the new service. Or an outside contractor may feel that he or she has not been given sufficient instructions as to what to do and where to go in an emergency, and makes that concern known to the host company. The effectiveness and importance of involvement is discussed by Slaughter and Ghormley (1991). A company with a deteriorating safety record successfully addressed the situation by making it clear that “each employee was responsible for his/her own safety”, and “Each employee was considered a safety engineer.” This understanding to do with workforce involvement can be taken further; a truly effective operational integrity management program will also involve a wider range of stakeholders including people living near the facility, stock holders and local businesses. They all want to be associated with a facility that operates safely, cleanly and profitably. Although there are many advantages to a company when their employees become active participants, management has to recognize that, by asking employees to get involved in decision making they are also asking those employees to take more risk with regards to their career and reputation. It is much easier for an employee merely to follow orders — even if he or she knows that those orders are not sensible — than to take initiative. Moreover, increased employee participation may run into road blocks with unions and other organizations that represent those employees. Consequently, employees must feel that they are sufficiently rewarded for participating in management programs. Strack (1995) suggests that the best way of achieving this is to provide employees with long-term rewards if the company does well, for example by giving them stock rather than year-end bonuses. The same article quotes Bilaxi and Kruse, whose research into the performance of publicly quoted companies showed that those companies which had an employee ownership of 10% or more, consistently outperformed companies which did not. Safety CommitteesSafety committees provide a formal channel through which management and the employees can communicate with regard to process safety issues and overall company culture. There are many references to employee representatives in the OSHA standard. These would usually be on the safety committee. If the facility is non-union, it is essential that the employees’ representative is selected by the employees, not appointed by management.Involvement in OIM ElementsEmployees can participate in the operational integrity program by taking leadership of some of the elements of process safety. This type of involvement does not have to be universal; employees will be selected based on their understanding and knowledge of the topic in question. Nevertheless, it is a good idea to involve employees with lower levels of experience wherever possible in order to train them in the details of the process safety program.Difficulties with Workforce InvolvementAlthough effective workforce involvement and employee participation bring many benefits, there are costs and drawbacks, as discussed below.InefficienciesIncreased participation of employees in the OIM program can lead to short term inefficiencies brought about by spreAnother example of this type of problem (and opportunity) occurs when the operators are each asked to check the P&IDs for a small section of the plant. It would be much quicker to have one designer go out and do the whole job — but doing so would lose the important benefits that would be gained when the operators check their own unit line by line and valve by valve. Furthermore, the operators may be able to identify problems with the P&IDs because they know how “things really are”. Ultimately, the short term inefficiencies consequent on using all the operators to perform such tasks will be more than compensated for by the gains in the overall knowledge and understanding of the operational integrity system. Unwillingness to Accept ChangeImplementation of workforce involvement can create anxiety — particularly among managers — because they are likely to hear facts about their organization that are critical of their efforts. Moreover many workers prefer to work in a “command and control” management system because they can thereby avoid the responsibility for mistakes that are made and because thinking is such hard work.Labor / Management RelationsIt has to be recognized that the ideal workforce involvement situation depends heavily on good labor/management relations. If there is a good deal of strife and disagreement between the two parties, then, realistically, progress in this area is likely to be difficult. For this reason, it is important to set realistic goals, and not to over-commit as to how much progress can be made in this area. |
Copyright © Sutton Technical Books 2007-2012. All rights reserved 6340 N. Eldridge Parkway, Ste-I #206 |
