You are on page 1of 9

Safety Management

Peer-Reviewed

Safety Management
Systems
Comparing Content & Impact
By Joel M. Haight, Patrick Yorio, Kristen A. Rost and Dana R. Willmer

O
ccupational health and safety manage- With so many systems being promoted,
ment systems (OHSMS) have become it has become confusing. This confusion
popular as agencies such as OSHA expect is tempered in industries guided either by
to propose regulations and as consensus standards regulations (e.g., OSHA PSM standard in
and industry programs such as ANSI/AIHA/ASSE process industries) or by their professional in-
Z10, OHSAS 18001 and Nation- dustry organization (e.g., NMAs CORESafety).
al Mining Associations (NMA) This article aims to identify differences between
IN BRIEF CORESafety are implemented. systems to provide readers with some basis for
tOccupational health and safety Other management-system-like their selection of an OHSMS.
management systems (OHSMS) processes have been implemented Although Responsible Care has existed for more
are receiving much attention in the over the years as well, including than 25 years and the PSM standard for more
safety community and among regula- OSHAs Process Safety Man- than 20, empirical evidence of their effectiveness
tors and consensus industry groups. agement of Highly Hazardous is lacking. Furthermore, since many management
tFew differences exist between Chemicals (PSM) standard, pro- system consensus standards are relatively new,
individual systems, but signicant mulgated in 1992, and American not enough time has passed to let them work and
differences exist in their implemen- Chemistry Councils Responsible to subsequently provide evidence to demonstrate
tation. Differences also exist be- Care program, introduced in 1988. whether and to what extent they effectively ac-
tween the OHSMS approach and the But what is the difference be- complish safety objectives (e.g., prevent injuries).
traditional safety program approach. tween an OHSMS and how
So, why are regulators, consensus organizations
tIf a company elects to implement occupational safety has tradition- and industry associations actively supporting the
an OHSMS, the challenge is not ally been managed? Why do many management system approach to safety? Why is
deciding which one to use; rather, it practitioners and researchers per-
more than one system available? How can the effec-
is implementing the many policies, ceive management systems to be tiveness of such a system be measured? The authors
processes, intervention initiatives a better way to manage occupa- attempt to answer these questions by examining the
and activities and protocols that tional safety and health? How similarities and potential differences in the content
make up the specic system used, can one know that the content of various OHSMS models, and by discussing the
then measuring its effectiveness. of these systems and the content benets associated with their implementation and
mix are appropriate and that their current thinking relative to measuring effective-
implementation will be effective? ness. The goal is to help readers better understand

Joel M. Haight, Ph.D., P.E., is an associate professor of industrial holds a B.S. in Psychology from Western Michigan University, an
engineering at the University of Pittsburgh, where he teaches and M.S. in Applied Behavior Analysis from Florida Institute of Technol-
conducts research in the industrial engineering eld, and coordinates ogy and a Ph.D. in Psychology from City University of New York.
the departments masters degree program. From 2009 to 2013, Haight
was chief of NIOSHs Human Factors Branch. Prior to that, he was Dana R. Willmer, Ph.D., is a lead behavioral scientist in the Hu-
an associate professor of energy and mineral engineering at Penn- man Factors Branch of NIOSHs Ofce of Mine Safety and Health
OVCHYNNIKOV IGOR/HEMERA/THINKSTOCK

sylvania State University and worked as a manager and engineer for Research. She holds a B.A. in Sociology and Organizational Com-
Chevron Corp. He holds a Ph.D. and an M.S. in Industrial and System munication from Alma College, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Sociology
Engineering, both from Auburn University. Haight is a professional from University of Pittsburgh. Over the past 12 years, Willmer has
member of ASSEs Western Pennsylvania Chapter, a member of the led several research projects designed to improve miners safety and
Engineering Practice Specialty and an ASSE Foundation Trustee. health. She is the principal investigator of a project assessing the
effectiveness of health and safety management systems in the U.S.
Patrick Yorio, CSP, SPHR, is a technical analyst in the Human Fac- mining industry. Other research interests include improving miners
tors Branch of NIOSHs Ofce of Mine Safety and Health Research. adoption of self-protective behaviors to prevent noise-induced hear-
ing loss and strategies for improving the diffusion and adoption of
Kristen A. Rost, Ph.D., is a research scientist in the Human Factors NIOSHs mining research outputs and recommendations.
Branch of NIOSHs Ofce of Mine Safety and Health Research. She

44 ProfessionalSafety MAY 2014 www.asse.org


A system is a
grouping of
interrelated and
often interdepen-
dent components
brought together
in nature or in
the manufac-
tured world
to achieve a
common
objective
or perform
a common
function.

what OHSMSs sys-


are, how they are tem is
expected to work, and any process
the complexities involved that converts
in measuring system perfor- inputs to out-
mance and establishing the relative puts (p. 3).
performance of each element and practice Many types of sys-
used within an organization. This information will tems exist in both the
help readers be better prepared to develop and im- natural and manufactured worlds. An example of a
plement an OHSMS should they deem it right for natural system is the respiratory system. It is made
their workplace. up of trachea, bronchioles, lungs, alveolar ducts and
more. These components work together to oxygen-
What Is a Health & Safety Management System? ate and remove carbon dioxide from the blood.
A system is a grouping of interrelated and often People rely on systems to improve the quality
interdependent components brought together in and efciency of industrial processes. For example,
nature or in the manufactured world to achieve a in the manufacturing world an electric power sup-
common objective or perform a common function. ply system includes components such as power
Common attributes present in most denitions of generation turbines, transmission lines, trans-
a system are interrelatedness or interdependence formers and distribution lines. These components
of system components and the notion of a com- work together, with human contribution, to bring
mon objective. electricity to customers to light and heat (or cool)
The literature contains more formal denitions of buildings and homes.
a system (Haight, Yorio & Willmer, 2013). Elsayed To move this discussion into a specic category,
and Boucher (1994) dene production system as a consider the concept of a management system. A
collection of material, labor, capital and knowledge management system may be described as a struc-
that goes into the manufacture of a product. How this ture and set of processes, procedures, policies and/
collection of components is put together in any spe- or actions that an organization implements to
cic situation denes the particular system (p. 1). achieve a dened objective or perform a common
Eisner (2002) offers a more simplied denition: A function in an efcient, structured way.
www.asse.org MAY 2014 ProfessionalSafety 45
For example, companies use accounting and - one system and one management philosophy, pol-
nance management systems to manage revenue icy and strategy. This big-picture oversight is what
and debt by integrating people, software and pro- brings the oneness of purpose and the interaction
cesses that work interdependently to identify, re- of OHSMS that is not necessarily found in the tra-
cord and track income, issue bills and ensure that ditional safety program approach.
the organizations bills are paid. This management
system may include an investment component, a tax Systems vs. Programs: Important Differences
component and a debt management component, all As suggested, a general systems approach brings
of which work collectively to ensure that the organi- together oneness of purpose and interdependence
zations nancial goals are met. It can be argued that between system elements with a level of organiza-
a systems approach to management can be charac- tion and structure necessary to support system ef-
terized based on a common objective and strategic fectiveness. Logically, the fundamental attributes
interrelatedness or interdependence of the compo- that underpin a systems approach should then
nents that comprise it, along with the structure nec- result in some practical, observable differences be-
essary to ensure their collective effectiveness. tween an OHSMS and the more traditional pro-
An OHSMS is perhaps more specic and fo- gram approach to occupational safety management.
cused than the previous examples. ANSI/AIHA/ An OHSMS emphasizes system-wide record-
ASSE Z10 (2012) denes an occupational health keeping, document control and integrated interele-
and safety management system as a set of inter- ment tracking (and correction) of nonconformance.
related elements that establish or support occu- This is important because it illuminates the inter-
pational health and safety policy, objectives and dependence qualities of an OHSMS. When all pro-
mechanisms to achieve those objectives in order to cedures are written in the same format and quality,
improve occupational health and safety. they create a familiarity that enhances their use.
British Standard Institutes OHSAS 18001:2007 When nonconformance records are stored in one
and its guidelines for implementation (OHSAS tracking system, whether they are the result of in-
18002:2008) dene an OHSMS as part of an or- cident investigations, compliance audits, preventive
ganizations management system used to develop maintenance ndings or other activities, they can be
and implement its OH&S (Occupational Health addressed with the same risk-ranking process.
and Safety) policy and manage its OH&S risks. This consistency allows for sound, cost-effective,
Notes provided as a component of the OHSAS risk-reducing interventions that are consistent with
180001:2007 denition help to illuminate the sys- overall system objectives. Document control across
tem qualities: A management system is a set of all elements also ensures consistent updating that
interrelated elements used to establish a policy and is reected in up-to-date equipment specications,
objectives and to achieve those objectives; A man- inspection records, operating procedures, risk as-
agement system includes organizational structure, sessment results and nonconformance documen-
planning activities (including, for example, risk as- tation. Although these important activities may be
sessment and the setting of objectives), responsibili- part of traditional safety programs, they are likely
ties, practices, procedures, processes and resources. not integrated within the management structure.
Much similarity can be noted between the fun- Another difference is the structure of an OHSMS
damental denition of a system, the concept of a compared to a structureless traditional program.
management system and cited denitions of an Dening responsibilities and accountabilities, in-
OHSMS. Key similarities include: 1) multiple com- terelement interdependence, nonconformance
ponents (or elements) with different functions but tracking, system-wide management reviews and
the same objective; and 2) the interrelatedness, risk assessments, as well as resource allocation and
interdependence and/or complementary way the investment decisions based on comprehensive in-
elements interface with each other to achieve the formation, produce a greater potential to guarantee
common objective. Because occupational safety and successful implementation and the subsequent re-
health risks encompass complex physical, cognitive alization of injury prevention objectives.
and/or behavioral phenomena that can originate in To further visualize the differences between the
both the natural and the man-made world, effective traditional approach and the management system
mitigation necessarily involves a proactive manage- approach, consider the plan-do-check-act cycle
ment system that can address such complexities. It (Deming, 1982, 2000). The rst step of the cycle is
is surmised that this is the reason OHSMS have re- to develop a plan, so much must be done before
ceived so much recent attention. any intervention occurs. In the planning process,
One way to visualize an OHSMS is to consider an organization must rst identify and prioritize
all the activities that go into a traditional safety and its risks, then develop plans necessary to minimize
health program, such as safety training, behavioral this risk, set performance objectives, and facilitate
safety observations, safety meetings, safety inspec- management buy in and employee ownership.
tions, audits and other safety-related nonconfor- Several of the current OHSMSs support elements
mance work, hazard and risk assessments, safety that target this planning stage, while traditional
awareness campaigns and organizational culture safety programs do not necessarily have built-in
activities. Each activity can t into one or more of planning provisions.
the dened OHSMS elements and can then be Intervention occurs during the do phase of the
tracked for both implementation and effect under cycle. Interventions may include safety training,
46 ProfessionalSafety MAY 2014 www.asse.org
physical hazard inspections, preventive mainte- MSHA are pursuing
nance inspections, safety meetings, awareness related regulations.
campaigns, behavioral safety observations, risk Much overlap exists
analyses and work permit system implementation. between the various sys-
How these elements are built and implemented is tems. One might even say
critical. While some of the same physical, cognitive that because each may be
and behavioral activities occur during implementa- considered a performance-
tion, the differences in the whom and the how based standard (i.e., imple-
elements of implementation may be stark. mentation activities are context
In a traditional safety program, these activities specic) any of the system standards
may be implemented independently, by different would sufce. Although terminologies
people, each with their own objectives. Implementa- used to reect system elements may dif-
tion of these same activities within the framework of fer slightly between the standards, strik-
an organized system ensures a unied objective and ing similarities are evident regarding the
complementary (rather than competitive) functions. spirit and intent of the operational denition
In an OHSMS, it is planned for each element to of each. The systems
complement, interact with or depend on the proper Based on a review of the corresponding content approach
implementation of each other. The intervention ac- of the prominent OHSMSs and consistent with creates
tivities are implemented so as to optimize them in the plan-do-check-act cycle, these elements are
terms of quality and amount of effort. The ultimate evident in each: management commitment, em- oneness of
goal is to optimize the overall objective to reduce the ployee involvement, planning, implementation purpose,
number and/or severity of injuries and illnesses. and operation, proactive checking and corrective an interde-
While one would see similar activities in a tra- action, reactive checking and corrective action, and
ditional program approach, the OHSMS structure management review. Therefore, it can be generally pendence
contains elements to address the check and act said that all OHSMSs have a similar purpose, they between
phases of the cycle as well. It is proposed that this are all performance based, and they all set stan- system ele-
structure then helps to ensure or at least improve dards and guidelines to help organizations achieve
the probability of success. The management review their safety objectives. ments, and
and proactive and reactive checking (e.g., audits, Most of the differences between the various sys- a structure
inspections, investigations) elements contribute to tems will likely not become apparent until individu- and level
the check phase. The act phase would encompass al organizations begin to implement each particular
elements related to corrective actions. This entire element through intervention actions. For example, of organi-
structure and the continuous improvement nature while most systems have an employee participa- zation not
of OHSMS (or any management system) also help tion element (or something similar), how each in- achievable
to increase the likelihood of success. While mea- dividual organization engages employees may be
suring system effectiveness is addressed in more completely different. One organization may give with tradi-
detail starting on p. 48, it is proposed that using employees an advisory role (e.g., only to suggest tional safety
a system-based approach to safety management revisions to safety and health policy), while anoth- programs.
allows more opportunity to measure effectiveness, er may give employees a more hands-on role that
another advantage over the traditional approach. involves, for example, making decisions on inter-
In sum, the authors believe that the fundamen- vention priorities, conducting risk analyses and/or
tal principles of a systems approach to safety man- developing safe operating procedures. These imple-
agement deliver three signicant benets beyond mentation differences may result from differences
those provided by a traditional safety program ap- in leadership and its level of commitment, and from
proach. The systems approach creates oneness of the type of organizational culture present.
purpose, an interdependence between system ele- Given content consistency of elements across
ments, and a structure and level of organization not available systems, it is difcult to go wrong in se-
achievable with traditional safety programs. These lecting one over another. The nal selection may
improvements also increase the ability to measure also depend on an organizations particular in-
effectiveness and establish accountability, both of dustry. For example, NMA CORESafety targets
which increase the likelihood of organizational the mining industry, Responsible Care targets the
safety performance success. They also provide an chemical manufacturing industry and OSHAs
opportunity to optimize the organizational quest to PSM covers the process industries. Implementa-
minimize injuries while concurrently minimizing tion of ANSI Z10 or OHSAS 18001 is less restricted
resources and maximizing implementation quality when considering specic industries.
(Haight, Thomas, Smith, et al., 2001b; Iyer, Haight, Thus, the real challenge is to develop and imple-
del Castillo, et al., 2004). ment specic interventions or program activities.
Thankfully, many traditional safety program prac-
Management Systems Comparison tices and intervention activities t management
In addition to ANSI/AIHA/ASSE Z10 and system element expectations and their implemen-
OHSAS 18001, other management system stan- tation. Furthermore, it seems plausible that an orga-
dards have been adopted or proposed. For example, nization may sufciently cover a given management
within the past year, NMA began implementing system element with continued use of practices de-
its CORESafety OHSMS. In addition, OSHA and veloped for use in its traditional safety program.
www.asse.org MAY 2014 ProfessionalSafety 47
Assuming that the injury prevention goal remains true measures of OHSMS effectiveness. More real-
consistent between traditional occupational safety istically, they provide by-chance, intermittent feel-
practices and existing OHSMS elements, one may good-sense-of-reason-based measures of variation
nd comfort in knowing that OHSMS implementa- (Shakioye & Haight, 2010). Much of the published
tion may begin with the addition of structure, an as- literature does not adequately address the interac-
sessment of the complementary and interconnected tive effects between performance variables and the
nature of existing practices, and the development cause-and-effect relationships between leading and
of ways to measure and track the effectiveness of lagging indicators.
existing processes. It is also important to note that To complicate the measurement puzzle, the sys-
each element and activity is likely to interact with tems-based approach suggests that some driving
other elements and/or activities to enhance both (or forces necessary for OHSMS success (e.g., leader-
more) of the interacting elements (Haight, Thomas, ship or management commitment, employee own-
Smith, et al., 2001a). ership, organizational culture), which now need to
Care should be taken, however, as much foun- be measured and tracked, have arcane or esoteric
dation building may be needed up front if lead- characteristics. In other words, they are difcult to
ership support, ownership and commitment are measure. It has been written that a sign on Albert
lacking; if nding creative and impactful ways to Einsteins ofce door at Princeton read, Not ev-
facilitate employee ownership is difcult; or if the erything that counts can be counted, and not ev-
organizational culture does not yet support such a erything that can be counted counts (Cameron,
change. A supportive organizational culture is es- 1963). This philosophy illustrates the difculty of
sential because of the accompanying generalized measuring OHSMS effectiveness.
trust and value congruence between organizations Given these factors, one can use many non-
and their employees (Burns, Mearns & McGeorge, quantitative techniques to assess the effectiveness
2006; Choudhry, Fang & Mohamed, 2007). or the contribution of the more arcane elements of
Organizational culture attributes, such as sup- an OHSMS. Surveys can measure the presence of
portive management and supportive employees these drivers, and experienced professionals can as-
who are interested in taking ownership of the new sess whether these elements are present in high lev-
OHSMS, are critical to initial as well as long-term, els. For example, OSHAs (1989) Voluntary Safety
sustainable performance success. This premise is and Health Program Management Guidelines offer
formally recognized and integrated into the NMA numerous programmatic, procedural and behavior-
CORESafety system through an explicit cultural al examples of observable ways that organizations
enhancement element. can demonstrate management commitment and
employee participation.
Measuring Intervention Effectiveness However, it is not easy or even possible some-
Quantitative measurement of safety program times to dene or present a number that represents
effectiveness has historically been difcult. Injury a conducive organizational culture, a committed
and illness prevention is a stated goal of most pro- leader or an employee who feels ownership over
grams, but if an injury or illness has been prevented aspects of an OHSMS. Instead, the focus should
by some action taken as a result of the safety pro- be on qualitatively measuring existing levels of the
gram, how would one know? One cannot count dening characteristics of elements such as leader-
things that do not happen. Even if one fewer injury ship, ownership and organizational culturethat
was recorded this year than last year, how does one is, to show some measure or index of their levels
know whether that reduction was due to chance or that will allow comparison of those levels to system
resulted from the safety initiative? outputs over time and/or to compare those levels
Safety professionals have historically measured to the experience of other organizations (similar
program effectiveness by comparing the year-end and nonsimilar) to establish baseline measures. At
incident rate to the previous years rate or to an aver- that point, continuous measurement of those val-
age rate over some period. Some in the safety com- ues over time can indicate some sense of improve-
munity recognize that this approach only produces a ment or lack of improvement.
yo-yo effect on the injury rates as more resources are In addition, an OHSMS enables a risk-based ap-
allocated to injury prevention when the rate is high proach to implementation. By dening a baseline
and fewer resources are allocated when the rate is level of operating risk, then establishing a level of
low. Therefore, it may not be enough to measure acceptable risk, an organization has a basis to com-
what are often referred to as lagging indicators. pare implementation quantity and quality across
Recognized limitations of lagging indicators have the whole system on an instantaneous and a lon-
led to an emphasis on leading indicators. Leading gitudinal basis.
indicators reference the quality of an interventions While risk itself cannot be measured by math-
implementation (Haight & Thomas, 2003; Manu- ematical or quantitative means, it can be indexed,
ele, 2009; Wachter, 2012). Such indicators are ad- which provides a means to perform relative rank-
vocated as an improved measure within the safety ing of intervention options or levels or quality of
community because they are proactive and allow intervention implementation with consistency.
program adjustments before an injury happens. Risk is semiquantitative at best, but because of its
However, it is difcult to argue that either lag- consistent quality, this approach provides a means
ging or leading indicators have been proven to be and a measure to make decisions regarding the
48 ProfessionalSafety MAY 2014 www.asse.org
level of investment, amount
and quality of effort, and ad- Figure 1
equacy of performance, as
well as the overall direction Actual Incident Rates vs.
the system should take.
Looking optimistically to-
Model-Generated Estimation
ward the future, the OHSMS
paradigm provides an op-
portunity for measuring an
interventions true effec-
tiveness. Research has been
scratching at the surface of
statistically signicant mea- The OHSMS
sures of performance for paradigm provides
the past 12 years. Several an opportunity
researchers (Haight, et al., for measuring an
2001a, b; Haight & Thomas, interventions true
2003; Iyer, Haight, del Cas- effectiveness.
tillo, 2004; and Iyer, et al.,
2005) determined that to
measure safety intervention
effectiveness, one must es-
tablish a mathematical rela-
tionship between the leading Note. Adapted from Modeling Using Dynamic Variables: An Approach for
and lagging indicators. the Design of Loss Prevention Programs, by S.O. Shakioye and J.M. Haight,
If well designed and con- 2010, Safety Sciences, 48(1), pp. 46-53.
ducted with sufcient atten-
tion to intervention detail,
these research-based, empirical approaches are an The research of Shakioye and Haight (2010) and
opportunity to understand and explain variation Oyewole, et al. (2010), has yielded some interest-
in injury rates. This also provides an opportunity ing results. Through extensive operations research
to measure the interactive effects between perfor- methodology, Shakioye and Haight (2010) show
mance variables. that the incident rates predicted by the mathemati-
Haight, et al. (2001a), were the rst to establish cal model representing the effectiveness of the
this mathematical relationship and much work has safety system is predictable and the model is valid
been conducted since then to understand and use (Figure 1).
this mathematical relationship. As with any input/ Oyewole, et al. (2010), took the work a step
output model, the resulting mathematical function further by using surface response methodologies.
provides an opportunity to explain, in model form, These researchers also treat the interactive effects
a real system as it operates. Care should be taken between intervention activities more thoroughly
here as mathematical models are only representa- than the previous researchers. As shown in both
tions of real processes and, as such, present some Figures 2 (p. 50) and 3 (p. 51), the 3-D surface
margin of error. However, some can still be use- shows that the incident rate responds to the inter-
ful as decision-making tools, provided uncertainty active effect of two variables from the OHSMS be-
in the results can be minimized and the residual ing studied. One can then adjust implementation
uncertainty can be accepted or at least considered. of variables C and E of this particular OHSMS so
The level of certainty is the amount of variation one can attempt to more efciently minimize the
one can explain through the experimentation and incident rate. The same model information is pre-
subsequent modeling. For example, if the incident sented in two ways to allow better visualization.
rate does not respond to a change in the amount From Figure 3, one can discern that the minimized
or quality of implementation of one or more inter- incident rate is achieved at the indexed value of the
ventions, the variation or lack thereof in the output implementation quality or quantity of the two sub-
may not be explained with acceptable certainty. ject variables to just under level 2 for variable C and
With any human-based system, uncertainty in approximately level 6 for variable E.
the results will be higher than when analyzing a This information should not be construed as the
system driven by the more predictable natural and answer to the safety problem, but as an answer that
physical laws. However, without data collection, suggests certain adjustments that can be made to
experimentation, analysis and modeling, the un- improve OHSMS implementation. It is encourag-
certainly level around any decision made about the ing work and, as is, can inform those charged with
systems performance is high. More recent research OHSMS implementation; however, much more
in this area has shown that the level of uncertainty work needs to be done. The key takeaway is that it
has been reduced to roughly 30% (Al-Mutairi & appears to be possible to measure OHSMS imple-
Haight, 2009; Oyewole, Haight, Freivalds, et al., mentation effectiveness, at least with the current
2010; Shakioye & Haight, 2010). proven levels of certainty around 68% to 70%.
www.asse.org MAY 2014 ProfessionalSafety 49
include safety training hours,
Figure 2 safety meeting preparation
Response Surface Plot and attendance hours, inspec-
tion and auditing hours, and
of Incident Rate vs. hazard and risk assessment

HSMS Variables C & E


hours. Any intervention activ-
ity that is part of an OHSMS
and aims to contribute to in-
jury prevention is measurable.
More recent research has
identied quality measures
of OHSMS activities as be-
ing important performance
variables. Quality measures to
consider include safety train-
Research-based ing test scores, correction
empirical approach- rates of inspection noncon-
es are an opportu- formance ndings, and per-
nity to understand ception survey results on the
and explain varia- state of the organizational cul-
tion in injury rates. ture and its conduciveness to
This also provides safe operations. Whatever an
an opportunity organization selects to mea-
to measure the sure OHSMS performance,
interactive effects it should assess those factors
between perfor- over time (years are suggest-
mance variables. ed) so it can identify trends
and document the lasting ef-
fects of each OHSMS element
Note. Adapted from The Implementation of Statistical and Forecasting Tech-
and intervention.
 -
Validation would have to
tion (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), by S.A. Oyewole, 2009, Pennsylva-
involve statistical analysis of
nia State University, University Park, PA.
these measures and their re-
sulting effect on incident rates.
Once the measures have been
validated, one should be able
Conclusion to predict, at least with the current proven levels of
OHSMSs are becoming more popular, with sig- certainty of 68% to 70%, injury prevention perfor-
nicant regulatory, consensus organization and mance based on OHSMS changes to the allocations
industry group activity surrounding this move- made or discontinued. For more in-depth how-to
ment. An OHSMS provides structure, integration information, see Haight, et al. (2001a, b); Haight &
and oneness of purpose that are not provided by Thomas, 2003; Iyer, et al. (2004, 2005); Shakioye &
a traditional approach. However, the success of an Haight (2010) and Oyewole, et al. (2010).
OHSMS depends on strong leadership/manage- It may be some time before we can truly deter-
ment support, active employee participation and mine the effectiveness of OHSMS or even know
a conducive, organizational culture. None of these that OHSMS is truly better than the traditional ap-
are easy to create, and all are difcult to measure proach. However, a high level of energy currently
and maintain. surrounds OHSMS and sometimes that energy
Through comparative analysis, an organization alone can contribute to overall improvement. One
can rely on many of the intervention activities that thing remains clear, the main objective of any safe-
make up existing safety programs to form the foun- ty and health strategy is to prevent occupational in-
dation for OHSMS implementation. The state of the juries. Therefore, any effort to prevent people from
available research is such that anyone can deter- being injured is worth it even if SH&E profession-
mine what variables indicate OHSMS performance; als are still working on a way to demonstrate that
they can determine how best to quantify and mea- what practitioners are doing is truly working. PS
sure those variables.
Haight, et al. (2001a, b), have shown that the References
amount of effort (in terms of percentage of avail- Al-Mutairi, A. & Haight, J.M. (2009, Sept.). Predict-
able work-hours allocated to implement OHSMS ing incident rates: Articial intelligence as a forecasting
elements) can effectively measure the effort level tool. Professional Safety, 54(9) 40-48.
that goes into OHSMS implementation. It has American Chemistry Council. (1988). Responsible
been shown that incident rates vary from week to Care. Retrieved from http://responsiblecare.american
week as a function of variations in this level of ef- chemistrycouncil.com
fort. Examples of these resource allocation variables ANSI/AIHA/ASSE. (2012). Occupational health
50 ProfessionalSafety MAY 2014 www.asse.org
and safety management systems
(ANSI Z10-2012). Des Plaines, Figure 3
IL: Author.
British Standards Institute Contour Plot of Incident Rate
(BSI). (2007). Occupational
health and safety management vs. HSMS Variables C & E
systems: Requirements (OHSAS
18001:2007). London, U.K.:
Author.
BSI. (2008). Occupational
health and safety management
systems: Guidelines for imple- The state of the
mentation of OHSAS 18001:2007
available research
(OHSAS 18002:2008). London,
U.K.: Author. is such that anyone
Burns, C., Mearns, K. & can determine
McGeorge, P. (2006). Explicit what variables
and implicit trust within safety indicate OHSMS
culture. Risk Analysis, 26(5), performance; they
1139-1150. can determine how
Cameron, W.B. (1963). Infor- best to quantify
mal sociology: A casual introduc- and measure those
tion to sociological training. New
variables.
York, NY: Random House.
Choudhry, R.M., Fang, D. &
Mohamed, S. (2007). The nature
of safety culture: A survey of the
state-of-the-art. Safety Science,
45(10), 993-1012.
Deming, W.E. (1982). Qual- Note. Adapted from The Implementation of Statistical and Forecasting Tech-
ity, productivity and competitive  -
position. Cambridge, MA: Massa- tion (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), by S.A. Oyewole, 2009, Pennsylva-
chusetts Institute of Technology, nia State University, University Park, PA.
Center for Advanced Engineer-
ing Study.
Deming, W.E. (2000). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, Johnson, W.G. (1973). Management oversight and
MA: MIT Press. risk tree (MORT) (No. DOE/ID/01375-T1; SAN-821-2).
Eisner, H. (2002). Essentials of project and systems Scoville, ND: Aerojet Nuclear Co.
engineering management (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Manuele, F.A. (2009, Dec.). Leading and lagging
Wiley and Sons. indicators: Do they add value to the practice of safety?
Elsayed, E.A. & Boucher, T.O. (1994). Analysis and Professional Safety, 54(12), 42-47.
control of production systems (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle OSHA. (1989). Voluntary safety and health program
River, NJ: Prentice Hall. management guidelines. Federal Register, 54(16), 3904-
Haight, J.M. & Thomas, R.E. (2003). Intervention 3916.
effectiveness research: A review of the literature on OSHA. (1992). Process safety management of highly
leading indicators. Chemical Health and Safety, 10(2), hazardous chemicals (29 CFR 1910.119). Retrieved from
21-25. www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show
Haight, J.M., Thomas, R.E., Smith, L.A., et al. _document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9760
(2001a, May). Evaluating the effectiveness of loss Oyewole, S.A. (2009). The implementation of statisti-
prevention interventions: Developing the mathematical cal and forecasting techniques in the assessment of safety
relationship between interventions and incident rates intervention effectiveness and optimization (Unpublished
for the design of a loss prevention system (Phase 1). doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University,
Professional Safety, 46(5), 38-44. University Park, PA.
Haight, J.M., Thomas, R.E., Smith, L.A., et al. Oyewole, S.A., Haight, J.M., Freivalds, A., et
(2001b, June). An analysis of the effectiveness of loss al. (2010). Statistical evaluation of safety intervention
prevention interventions: Design, optimization and effectiveness and optimization of resource allocation.
verication of the loss prevention system and analysis Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 23(5),
model (Phase 2). Professional Safety, 46(6), 33-37. 585-593.doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2010.05.014
Haight, J.M., Yorio, P. & Willmer, D.R. (2013). Shakioye, S.O. & Haight, J.M. (2010). Modeling
Health and safety management systems: A comparative using dynamic variables: An approach for the design of
analysis of content and impact. Proceedings of ASSEs loss prevention programs. Safety Sciences, 48(1), 46-53.
Safety 2013, Las Vegas, NV. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.04.008
Iyer, P.S., Haight, J.M., del Castillo, E., et al. (2004). Toellner, J. (2001, Sept.). Identifying and measuring
Intervention effectiveness research: Understanding and leading indicators. Professional Safety, 46(9), 42-47.
optimizing industrial safety programs using leading indi- Wachter, J.K. (2012, April). Trailing safety indicators:
cators. Chemical Health and Safety, 11(2), 9-19. Enhancing their value through statistics. Professional
Iyer, P.S., Haight, J.M., del Castillo, E., et al. Safety, 57(4), 48-53.
(2005). A research model: Forecasting incident rates
from optimized safety program intervention strategies.
Journal of Safety Research, 36(4), 341-351.

www.asse.org MAY 2014 ProfessionalSafety 51


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.