Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety (2022)

This PDF is available at http://nap.naptionalacademies.
org/26672
Use of Safety Management Systems in

Managing Highway Maintenance Worker
Safety (2022)
DETAILS
234 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-69225-0 | DOI 10.17226/26672
CONTRIBUTORS
Gabriel B. Dadi, Roy E. Sturgill, Jr., Zamaan Al-Shabbani, Ashtarout Ammar;
National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation Research Board;
BUY THIS BOOK National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Research Council 2022. Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing
Highway Maintenance Worker Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26672.
Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts
All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)
This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP SYNTHESIS 591

Use of Safety Management Systems
in Managing Highway Maintenance
Worker Safety
A Synthesis of Highway Practice
Gabriel B. Dadi
Roy E. Sturgill, Jr.
Zamaan Al-Shabbani
and
Ashtarout Ammar
Blue Hardhat Consulting LLC
Lexington, KY
Subscriber Categories
Administration and Management • Maintenance and Preservation • Safety and Human Factors
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2022
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 591

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 20-05, Topic 52-09
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 0547-5570
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISBN 978-0-309-68710-2
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by Library of Congress Control Number 2022939770
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities
© 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade-
tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high-
marks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by published or copyrighted material used herein.
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with
(FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree- the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA,
FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or
ment No. 693JJ31950003.
practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
NOTICE
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer-
by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the
directly to those in a position to use them. FHWA; or the program sponsors.
The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden-
The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifi-
tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and cations. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which pro-
transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by vide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors,
the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures,
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year or specifications.
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not
endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein
topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are
solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of
research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies
and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 591

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab, Associate Program Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Leslie C. Harwood, Senior Program Officer
Stephanie L. Campbell-Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant
Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications
Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications
NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

Joyce N. Taylor, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, ME (Chair)
Melissa Batula, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA
Anita K. Bush, Nevada Department of Transportation, Carson City, NV
Joseph D. Crabtree, Kentucky Transportation Center (retired), Lexington, KY
Mostafa Jamshidi, Nebraska Department of Transportation, Lincoln, NE
Cynthia L. Jones, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH
Jessie X. Jones, Arkansas Department of Transportation, Little Rock, AR
Brenda Moore, North Carolina Department of Transportation (retired), Cary, NC
Randall R. Park, Avenue Consultants, Taylorsville, UT
Cynthia J. Smith, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson, MS
Brian Worrel, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, IA
Jack D. Jernigan, FHWA Liaison
Jim McDonnell, AASHTO Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison
TOPIC 52-09 PANEL

Anita K. Bush, Nevada Department of Transportation, Carson City, NV
Anthony Courtwright, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort, KY
Wende Giorgi, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Concord, NH
Derrick Greenfield, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, IA
Lubov Koptsev, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, NY
Chukwuma Nnaji, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
Philip Bobitz, FHWA Liaison
James W. Bryant, Jr., TRB Liaison

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information
already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor-
mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has
been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings
may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to
recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers.
Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-
to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information
and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials—through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program—authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study.
This study, NCHRP Project 20-05, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices,” searches
out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis
of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the
detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides
a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful
in resolving specific problems.
FOREWORD
By Leslie C. Harwood
Staff Officer
State department of transportation (DOT) employee safety and health programs are vital to the
success of a DOT. While the safety of all DOT employees is paramount, maintenance and other field
workers are exposed to unique hazards that demand a higher level of management than traditional
office-based positions. Safety management systems (SMSs), both formal and informal, allow a DOT
to electronically report, manage, control, and audit issues related to employee safety. However, the
use of SMSs, as well as the scope and content of each SMS, varies. The objective of this synthesis is
to document the state of the practice of SMSs by DOTs, including various system capabilities and
related policies and procedures.
Information for this study was gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and
follow-up interviews with selected agencies. Five case examples provide additional information on
the topic.
Gabriel B. Dadi, Roy E. Sturgill, Jr., Zamaan Al-Shabbani, and Ashtarout Ammar of Blue Hardhat
Consulting LLC collected and synthesized the information comprising this report. The members of
the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that
records practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time
of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to
that now at hand.


CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter 1 Introduction
3 1.1 Background
3 1.2 Synthesis Objective
4 1.3 Study Approach
5 Chapter 2 Literature Review
5 2.1 Safety Management System for the Construction Industry
7 2.2 Safety Management System for Departments of Transportation
10 Chapter 3 Results of the Survey Questionnaire
10 3.1 General Safety Management System Use
13 3.2 Specific Safety Management Practices for SMS User DOTs
19 3.3 Feedback on Performance for SMS User DOTs
22 3.4 Written Policies and Procedures for SMS User DOTs
24 3.5 Specific Safety Management Practices for DOTs Without an SMS
29 3.6 Feedback on Performance for DOTs Without an SMS
31 3.7 Written Policies and Procedures for DOTs Without an SMS
34 Chapter 4 Case Examples
34 4.1 Connecticut
37 4.2 Nevada
40 4.3 Tennessee
43 4.4 Texas
47 4.5 Virginia
52 Chapter 5 Summary of Findings
52 5.1 Key Findings
54 5.2 Research Needs
56 References
58 Appendix A Survey Questionnaire
78 Appendix B Survey Results
227 Appendix C Case Example Questions
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.nap.edu) retains the color versions.


SUMMARY
Use of Safety Management

Systems in Managing Highway
Maintenance Worker Safety
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines a safety manage-
ment system (SMS) as an organized approach to manage and reduce safety and health
hazards. Safety management systems have been shown to greatly reduce the number and
severity of work-related incidents by allowing for proactive management. This National
Cooperative Highway Research Program synthesis project explored issues related to the
process to implement and use SMSs to manage maintenance worker safety throughout
the United States.
An electronic survey was created and distributed to members of the AASHTO Committee
on Maintenance and the North American Association of Transportation Safety & Health
Officials (NAATSHO). A total of 41 completed responses were received across 41 different
departments of transportation (DOTs). Subsequent case example interviews were conducted
with five state DOTs to gather additional details.
The key findings were in regard to the type of SMS used, the data collected, the approach to
data management, reporting features used, SMS costs, implemented policies and procedures,
and organizational structure impact on safety.
• Type of system or mechanism used: The survey indicated 49% (Figure 3.6) of the respon-
dents noted using an in-house developed system; the other options were a commercial
system or none at all. The case examples illustrated that all of these approaches have
benefits and challenges.
• Data collected by SMS: The survey respondents with SMSs indicated they were used for
collecting incident occurrences with 65% (Figure 3.9) of those using the system for
incident investigations. Other significant uses were seen in collecting near misses (42%)
and training records (39%) (Figure 3.9).
• Approach to data management: Most (70%) SMSs are web-based (Figure 3.10). There
are efficiency gains to be realized where the SMS is integrated with personnel and train-
ing systems. However, this also presents challenges in data security and protection of
personally identifying information.
• Reporting features: Survey respondents noted several internal and external reporting
functions of the SMSs including incident investigation reports (65%), workers’ com-
pensation reports (62%), OSHA 300 logs (54%), training records (39%), and behavior
observation reports (15%) (Figure 3.13). Other reporting mentioned included monthly
property damage and injury data, incident counts by location, safety huddle reports,
fleet safety records, job safety analyses (JSAs), and accident code trending.
• SMS cost: Cost data was often not specifically noted. However, for those state DOTs
using SMSs, neither cost to acquire the system nor cost to manage the system were noted
as significant challenges (Figure 3.18). It is noteworthy that cost was only noted as a
significant challenge to those not currently using SMSs (Figure 3.33).
1

2 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety
• Policies and procedures: Written policies and procedures around the use of SMSs trended
toward being a need for development. Survey respondents noted that many (44%) had
no policy documented for the use of SMS (Figure 3.20). Where there was documentation,
it was largely procedures for roles and responsibilities in data entry and reporting and
not policy.
• Organizational structure impact: Organizational structure was noted during several of
the case interviews as a strength within the safety programs (Chapter 4). The most expe-
rienced DOTs noted the importance of occupational safety being a separate and unique
division, as opposed to being contained within human resources or another business unit.
Also noted was a need for a close organizational relationship with executive leadership,
which provides an indication of safety as a core value.
• Gaps/research needs: Based on the survey and case examples, research to understand the
benefits and challenges of in-house versus commercial SMS would help DOTs in their
decision-making process. Also, investigating formal policies, procedures, and guidance
for adopting and using SMSs as well as a cost-benefit analysis would be valuable.
An introduction to SMSs and the methodology used in the study is presented in Chapter 1.
A literature review on SMSs and safety practices for highway maintenance workers is dis-
cussed in Chapter 2. Results of the national survey are presented in Chapter 3. Specific case
example interviews are detailed in Chapter 4. A summary of findings from the study is
outlined in Chapter 5, with references and three appendices following.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines a safety management
system (SMS) as an organized approach to manage and reduce safety and health hazards. Safety
management systems have been shown to greatly reduce the number and severity of work-
related incidents by allowing for proactive management. As the highway industry seeks to
improve safety records, knowledge of effective SMS practices is critical. Thus, this National
Cooperative Highway Research Program synthesis project explored issues related to the process
to implement and use SMSs to manage maintenance worker safety throughout the United States.
This chapter of the report provides an overview of the topic and synthesis study to inform about
relevant issues with SMSs while also highlighting the issues to be covered in this report.
1.1 Background
The relatively high recordable incidence rate among department of transportation (DOT)
maintenance and field crews can be attributed to a variety of causes, but certainly the hazardous
characteristics of the work environment is significant among those (Al-Shabbani et al. 2017).
Working in close proximity to speeding traffic, extreme weather conditions, and continuing
movement of large quantities of materials and equipment expose field crews to unique safety
hazards. This uniqueness in the work environment and work hazards makes it difficult for
DOTs to use safety best practices from other sectors, such as the building construction industry.
Coupled with the lack of research to address the occupational safety of DOT field workers, this
presents significant challenges for DOTs to effectively manage the safety of their maintenance
and field crews. However, there is a considerable opportunity for DOTs to learn from each other.
By identifying the characteristics of SMSs and effective practices, policies, and procedures of
these systems, DOTs can use this knowledge to improve the safety performance of maintenance
and field crews.
1.2 Synthesis Objective

This synthesis seeks to gather state-of-the-practice information regarding the current pro-
cesses and strategies for effective use of SMSs in managing highway maintenance-worker safety.
As DOTs seek to make actionable decisions with safety metrics, SMSs present an opportunity
to collect, synthesize, present, and disseminate safety information rapidly. The purpose of
this synthesis is to document the state of the practice of DOT SMSs, including various system
capabilities and related policies and procedures. This synthesis collected the following infor
mation regarding the use of SMSs:
• Type of system, tools, or mechanism used;
• Data collected and entered in SMSs (may vary by system type);
3

• The means and methods of entering, accessing, analyzing, and retaining safety data;
• Internal and external reporting;
• Associated costs; and
• Written policies and procedures.
1.3 Study Approach

An extensive literature review on the topic provides the initial understanding on the current
state of research and practice regarding SMS use for highway maintenance-worker safety. The
findings of the review can be seen in Chapter 2. The existing literature and previous discussions
with DOTs assisted with the development of the survey questionnaire.
A survey was created to capture the state of the practice of SMSs within DOTs. Under the
guidance of the topic panel, the survey was divided into the following categories: Demographic
Information, General SMS Use, Specific Safety Management Practices, Feedback on Performance,
and Written Policies and Procedures. Acknowledging that not all DOTs will have experience with
a SMS, question logic guided respondents accordingly, and those without SMS experience were
led to a series of questions worded in such a way that use of an SMS was not a prerequisite.
This line of questioning, while worded differently, was similar to the questions provided to
those with SMSs. Alchemer provided the platform for creating and distributing the electronic
survey. Once the final draft of the survey was approved, an email request with the survey link
was distributed to the membership of the AASHTO Committee on Maintenance (COM) and
the North American Association of Transportation Safety and Health Officials (NAATSHO).
The committee members were asked to distribute the survey to individuals with knowledge of
SMS use within their organizations. The complete survey is given in Appendix A, with aggregate
results presented in Appendix B.
A total of 41 responses were collected from the survey, representing 41 different DOTs and
providing an 82% response rate. Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3 shows the map of state DOTs that
responded to the survey.
Following the analysis of survey responses, subsequent case examples were conducted to
gather further information on the topic. Since SMS use is inconsistent nationally, a strategy
was needed to select the DOTs for the case examples. A total of five state DOTs were chosen
for the examples to get an in-depth understanding of the successes, challenges, and barriers to
using SMSs in managing safety. The chosen state DOTs had significant experience with SMS but
had a variety of capabilities and types of systems (i.e., developed in-house versus a commercial
product customized for the agency). The state DOTs were contacted for assistance with the
study, and all five agreed to participate in the interviews. Details of the individual case examples
are outlined in Chapter 4, and the questions asked during the conversations can be found in
Appendix C.

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
This review focuses on previously published academic literature on SMSs and their use.
However, little documented knowledge exists in this domain, especially related to SMS use in
managing highway maintenance-worker safety. Thus, the review begins with an introduction
to SMSs, how they fit in a broader safety program, their use in the construction industry, and
then their use in departments of transportation. A higher-level overview of maintenance-worker
safety management in the United States highway industry can be found in the Background
section of the Introduction (Section 1.1).
2.1 Safety Management System

for the Construction Industry
SMSs were first presented to the construction industry in 1980 by the European Union,
aiming to mitigate the hazardous conditions associated with the construction industry’s volatile
nature and to reduce injuries and accidents at construction sites (Vassie et al. 2000). Several
countries worldwide adopted SMSs either mandatorily or voluntarily. This adoption resulted
from the increasing awareness of the importance of implementing a more systematic approach
toward risk management and strengthening primary prevention (Kogi 2002).
Several international standards were generated to provide organizations with effective ele-
ments of occupational health and safety (OH&S) management systems that can be integrated
with other management requirements and provide practical guidance for implementing the
OH&S management system. Those standards include BS 8800:2004 (British Standards Institute
2004), BS OHSAS 18001:2007 (British Standards Institute 2007), HSE HSG65 (Health and Safety
Executives 2013), AS/NZS 4804:2001 “Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems”
(Australian/New Zealand Standard 2001), ANSI/AIHA Z10-2012 “American National Stan-
dard for Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems” (American National Standards
Institute 2012), and OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program (Occupational Safety and Health
Administration 2011). Moreover, ISO recently published the ISO 45001:2018 “Occupational
Health and Safety Management Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use” (International
Organization for Standardization 2018).
Occupational health and safety management systems can be defined as “part of an organi-
zation’s management system used to develop and implement its OH&S policy and manage
its OH&S risks” (International Organization for Standardization 2004), or, in other terms,
a “set of interrelated elements used to establish policy and objectives and to achieve those objec-
tives” (British Standards Institute 2007). As such, Robson et al. (2007) conducted a systematic
5

review on the effectiveness of OH&S management system interventions, and they found that
there exist four major elements in implementing SMSs:
1. Overall commitment from the management, including occupational health and safety
policy, goals and objectives, and allocation of resources, system integration, and system
communication;
2. Project planning, including planning and development, safety manual and procedures,
participation in conducting safe working procedures, and procurement and contracting;
3. Project operation, including training, hazard control, and prevention and corrective action
systems; and
4. Performance review, including performance measures, evaluation, continual improvement,
and management review.
Similarly, the ISO outlined seven elements in 2018 for occupational health and SMSs. Those
elements are as follows:
1. Context of the organization,
2. Leadership and worker participation,
3. Planning,
4. Support,
5. Operation,
6. Performance evaluation, and
7. Improvement (International Organization for Standardization 2018).
In general, the presence of a SMS could be linked with a reduction in incident rates and is
considered a critical step in accident prevention. However, it is worth mentioning that when
organizations are willing to invest in implementing a SMS to reduce injuries and accidents
and improve safety performance, Wachter and Yorio note the value of also focusing on the
“minds and hearts of their workers through human performance-based SMSs designed to
promote and enhance worker engagement” (Wachter and Yorio 2014). Similarly, for the
construction industry, SMSs are also considered effective in preventing injuries and illnesses
where the expected benefits include decreased accident-related costs, reduced absenteeism,
increased productivity, improved worker morale, and lower turnover (OSHAcademy 2020).
Ismail et al. (2012) investigated influential factors that impact the success of SMSs for
construction sites. They defined five clusters of factors with a total of 30 elements of an SMS.
The researchers conducted a survey for three different construction sites ranging from high-
rise buildings to an infrastructure renovation project. It was found that the most influential
factor impacting the effectiveness of an SMS is the Personal Factor. The sub-factor making this
cluster the most prominent is safety awareness. The five clusters with their corresponding
elements are listed as follows (Ismail et al. 2012):
1. Resources Factor: includes safety equipment, personal protective equipment, first aid,
emergency shut-down systems, and control systems;
2. Management Factor: includes leadership, vision, direction, supervision, commitment,
statement of objectives, safety analysis, and prevention planning;
3. Personal Factor: includes awareness, good communication, personal attitude, positive groups,
and personal competency;
4. Human Resource Management/Incentive Factor: includes safety practices, training expert
staff, teamwork, frequency of staff group meetings, safety promotion, campaigns, personal
motivation, workplace conditions, and safety rules; and
5. Relationship Factor: includes globalization, interfaces, and personal relationships.

Literature Review 7
In other similar work, Yiu et al. (2019) grouped SMSs used in the construction industry
in Hong Kong into four categories: directive, operational, review, and promotional. Directive
represents the management’s commitment toward safety in setting safety policies and proce-
dures and safety organizational structure. It is critical to have well-organized programs for
active operational purposes such as safety inspection programs, hazard control programs, and
accident and incident investigation programs. Also, it is essential to review the performance of
SMSs through regular safety committee meetings and job-related hazard evaluation. Review
results might be used for decision making and taking operational actions to maintain the SMS.
Moreover, the researchers categorized the benefits of implementing SMSs on construction sites
into five major categories: (1) accident reduction and hazard elimination, (2) safety awareness
and perception, (3) operational efficiency, (4) profit maximization, and (5) recognition of
safety standards. The researchers found that accident reduction and hazard elimination ranked
number one. Under this category, “safer working conditions” and “reduced harm to workers”
were found to be the most significant benefits.
In their course, “Developing a Construction Safety Management System,” OSHAcademy
suggested that the construction industry can be a safe occupation when the workers are aware
of the hazards and use effective construction safety management systems (CSMSs), where an
effective CSMS can significantly prevent injuries and illnesses at the worksite. Moreover, creating
an effective CSMS might start by determining the standards and rules that apply. CSMSs could
comply with OSHA’s construction standard within CFR 29 1926. Using the “3D” model process,
the CSMS can be implemented using the following three phases (OSHAcademy 2020):
1. The Design phase: the employer designs vision and mission statements, goals, objectives,
roles, and responsibilities.
2. The Development phase: the employer develops policies, plans, programs, processes, proce-
dures, and practices.
3. The Deployment phase: the employer deploys the CSMS to everyone through instruction,
training, feedback, CSMS analysis and evaluation, and continuous improvement.
Since the development of the CSMS should include the “6P” components: Plans, Programs,
Policies, Processes, Procedures, and Practices, the major characteristics of each of the 6P
components are summarized in Table 2.1.
2.2 Safety Management System for

Departments of Transportation
In the United States, DOTs are the primary highway system owners responsible for the
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of those highway systems. DOTs employ
almost 55,000 people across the United States, and each DOT has its own management and
organizational structure (U.S. DOT 2021). However, within the workforce of the DOTs, highway
and maintenance workers face unique hazards on job sites. Those hazards are associated with
the work mainly being conducted in locations adjacent to high-speed traffic, working with and
around large construction and maintenance equipment, loading and hauling massive amounts
of materials, and working in extreme environmental conditions (Al-Shabbani et al. 2017).
Based on the FHWA’s Work Zone Facts and Statistics, between 2018 and 2019, fatal crashes
in work zones increased by 11%, while fatal crashes outside of work zones decreased by 2%.
The 11% increase in work zone fatalities overtook the modest 0.3% increase in overall high-
way construction spending and the 0.8% increase in overall vehicle miles traveled nationally
(FHWA 2021). In terms of magnitude, there were 135 worker fatalities within the work zone
in 2019, which was up from 124 in 2018 (National Work Zone Safety 2019).

Table 2.1. 6P model components adopted from OSHAcademy (2020).
“6P” Model
Definition Should include
Component
• Vision and mission statement

“a formal document that contains all of the
• Goals and objectives
important information needed to deploy the
Plans • Roles and responsibilities
CSMS, it is formed of all of the program plans
• Programs, policies, processes,
combined”
procedures, and practices
• Hazard identification and
control program
“ a plan of action to accomplish safety
• Emergency response program
Programs
objective”
• First-aid and medical program
• Training program
“help to set standards and guidelines for • Common rules generally found
Policies
decision making” at construction sites
“a sequence of interdependent and linked • Accident investigation process

Processes
procedures” • Accountability-disciplinary process
“safe job procedures are a series of specific

• Lockout/tag-out procedures
Procedures instructions presented in steps that outline the
required by OSHA
preferred method for performing a task”
“written methods outlining how to perform a

• Specific OSHA standards to
Practices task with minimum risk to people, equipment,
recognize hazards
materials, environment, and processes”
As such, DOTs aim to implement effective safety programs and policies to eliminate
workers’ and public safety risks at highway work sites. Even though all DOTs share the same
responsibility of managing and maintaining their highway systems, each DOT has its own
structure for safety programs and safety management (Gambatese et al. 2017). Often DOTs
have data about health and safety; however, this data is not integrated with other institutional
data available to DOTs such as insurance and claims management. This lack of integration
might reduce the effectiveness of the implemented worksite safety-management techniques.
In contrast, establishing this integration can benefit a DOT’s safety program in optimizing
the use of health and safety data where safety officers can detect injury and fatality trends in
their state and allow the establishment of effective safety programs (Gambatese et al. 2017).

Literature Review 9
Minimal research has been done to investigate occupational safety and health for DOTs
on a state and national level (Hallmark et al. 2002, Chung et al. 2013, Gambatese et al. 2017),
and even further limited research has a focus on the safety of maintenance workers within
DOTs (Al-Shabbani et al. 2017). Also, no investigation has been done to document the state
of the practice of DOT SMSs, the types of systems used, methods for storing and retrieving
the collected data, policies and procedures adopted, or the associated costs of these systems.
As such, this study aims to fill this knowledge gap by surveying DOTs to understand the current
state of the practice regarding their SMSs and interviewing selected state DOTs to develop case
examples of exemplary practices.

CHAPTER 3
Results of the Survey Questionnaire
As noted in Chapter 1, an online survey questionnaire was built in Alchemer (formerly

SurveyGizmo) and distributed by email to the membership of the AASHTO COM and NAATSHO.
A total of 41 fully complete responses across 41 state DOTs were received (Figure 3.1). Appendix B
contains the aggregate survey results collected in Alchemer. This chapter reports on results
from key survey questions.
Survey respondents were asked what division their position places them in within their DOT.
Figure 3.2 shows that most of the respondents (51%) are in a division related to employee
safety. Other major areas were human resources divisions (17%) and maintenance divisions
(15%). There were also several write-in responses (17%) that included areas such as administrative
services, safety and emergency management, and office of homeland security and occupational
safety. Given that the survey was distributed to the AASHTO COM and NAATSHO, with a
request to share with the individual responsible for maintenance worker safety, these responses
seem to be appropriate.
In addition, survey respondents were asked for an approximate size of their maintenance
employee division to give an idea of the magnitude of coverage that is needed from a safety
management program. Figure 3.3 shows the distribution of state DOTs and the approximate
number of their maintenance employees.
The survey consisted of two divisions with four sections. The two divisions aligned questions
for DOTs that have an SMS and those that do not. An SMS was defined in the survey as a system
that “allows a DOT to electronically report, manage, control, and audit issues related to employee
safety. SMSs allow safety and health divisions in DOTs to become more agile, effective, and
knowledgeable about the safety of employees. SMSs could be a commercial product, an in-house
developed system, or even an Excel spreadsheet.” The four sections within the survey divisions
include general SMS use, specific safety management practices, feedback on performance, and
written policies and procedures. Each division and section of the survey, along with its results,
is described in detail in this chapter.
3.1 General Safety Management System Use

This section covers general items related to an SMS such as the existence of a system, years
of use, and the sourcing of the system.
3.1.1 SMS Usage

As an initial vetting question, survey respondents were asked whether they have, or ever have
had, an SMS. An SMS was described as “a DOT system to electronically report, manage, control,
10

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 11
Figure 3.1. Map of DOTs responding to survey; n = 41.
and audit issues related to employee safety. SMSs allow safety and health divisions in DOTs to
become more agile, effective, and knowledgeable about the safety of employees. SMSs could be
a commercial product, an in-house developed system, or even an Excel spreadsheet.” Based on
that description, Figure 3.4 shows that 27 DOTs have or have had such a system, 14 DOTs do
not, and 9 DOTs did not reply. As noted, this question guided respondents into different but
similar sets of questions based on whether or not they had an SMS. Sections 3.1 through 3.4
outline results for DOTs that have an SMS. Sections 3.5 through 3.7 discuss results for DOTs
that do not have an SMS.
Maintenance
15%
Other - Write In Employee Safety

17% 51%
Human
Resources
17%
Figure 3.2. Distribution of the division

of respondents in DOTs; n = 41.

Figure 3.3. Map of DOTs with approximate number of maintenance employees; n = 41.
Figure 3.4. Map of DOTs that use an SMS; n = 41.

Figure 3.5. Map of years of SMS use; n = 41.
3.1.2 SMS Usage Timeline

For DOTs with an SMS, a question was asked related to the number of years of use. The results
are presented in Figure 3.5 and show that 11 DOTs have been using such a system for more than
10 years. A total of five have been using their system for between 5 and 10 years, five have used
them for between 3 and 5 years, and six have used their system for between 1 and 3 years.
3.1.3 SMS Development

A variety of options exist for creating or adopting an SMS. As many hazardous industries seek
to obtain richer and actionable safety information, a series of commercial options have arisen.
As an alternative, many DOTs are able to leverage existing software and information technology
(IT) expertise to create their own. Figure 3.6 maps the variety of development options used
by DOTs. A total of 20 DOTs developed in-house SMSs; three DOTs purchased commercial
products but customized them for their needs; one state purchased a commercial off-the-shelf
system that was ready for use; four DOTs provided write-in options; and 22 DOTs either do not
have SMSs or did not respond to the survey. The write-in options to this question were some
combination of an in-house developed and commercially purchased system or transitioning
from one to the other.
3.2 Specific Safety Management Practices

for SMS User DOTs
This section provides information on the specific safety management practices for DOTs
that responded as SMS users. The questions cover components, elements, and characteristics of
SMSs; information collected; data entry methods and responsibilities; data retention; reporting
capabilities; and access frequency and responsibilities.

Figure 3.6. Map of development of SMS across DOTs; n = 41.
3.2.1 SMS Components, Elements, and Characteristics

Respondents were asked what components, elements, or characteristics of safety management
are included in their SMS. Figure 3.7 reports the results. It is important to note that respondents
had an option to select all that apply. Nearly all SMSs (89%) track safety reporting, documen-
tation, and archiving of information. There is a significant decrease to other elements where
hazard identification (48%), hazard prevention and control (44%), worksite analysis (41%),
safety and health training and competence (41%), evaluation and continuous improvement
(33%), employee engagement (26%), and management leadership (19%) all received inconsis-
tent responses. A total of 15% of respondents included a write-in option that describes elements
such as daily safety huddles, near-miss investigations, medical monitoring, clinical visits, and
inspections.
When it comes to the actual operation of the SMS, Figure 3.8 reports that slightly over half
of DOTs (56%) use Excel spreadsheets, while 48% integrate other data management systems,
41% include a single point of access through a portal, 37% use an enterprise-wide system, and
22% provided additional information through the write-in option. The write-in responses pro-
vided comments such as a learning management system, the use of Oracle Business Intelligence
(BI) for pivot tables and charts, and the inclusion of auditor systems.
3.2.2 SMS Information Collected

The previous question focused on higher-level themes and element tracking in the SMS.
Figure 3.9 focuses on specific information that is collected, tracked, or available within their SMS.
Every DOT includes the tracking of incidents in their SMS (100%) and most can input incident
investigation information (65%), but no other information item is collected in greater than half

100% 89%
90%
80%
70%
Percentage
60%
48% 44%
50% 41% 41%
40% 33%
30% 26%
19% 15%
20%
10%
0%
Other - Write In
Worksite Analysis
Hazard Identification
Hazard Prevention and
Employee Engagement
Management Leadership
Reporting, Documentation,
Safety and Health Training
Evaluation and Continuous

and Competence
and Archiving
Improvement
Control
Figure 3.7. SMS components, elements, or characteristics; n = 27.
of the DOTs that have an SMS. A total of 23% of respondents included a write-in option. A select
reporting of those options are job safety analyses (JSAs), facility inspections, personal protective
equipment (PPE) information, and medical monitoring.
3.2.3 Data Entry and Responsibilities

A variety of options exist for data entry because of the way an SMS was defined as noted in
Section 3.1.1. Most of the SMSs (70%) used by DOTs enter data through a web-based portal.
Data entry options other than through a web-based portal did not see frequent use. After a
web-based portal, 41% collect data on paper and then have it manually entered into an electronic
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 56%
Percentage
50% 48%
41%
40% 37%
30%
22%
20%
10%
0%
Uses Excel Integrates data Single point of access An enterprise-wide Other - Write In
spreadsheets management systems (i.e. one log-in system
portal)
Figure 3.8. SMS operational characteristics; n = 27.

100%
100%
90%
80%
70% 65%
60%
Percentage
50% 42%
39%
40%
30% 23% 23% 23% 23%
19%
20%
10%
0%
Near Misses
Training Guides
Other - Write In
Training Records
Policy Manuals
Behavior Observations
Incident Occurrence
Incident Investigations
Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings

Figure 3.9. SMS Information collected; n = 27.
system, 30% enter through an Excel spreadsheet or similar software, 30% collect data on paper
and then scan it into a PDF, 19% enter data through a mobile application, and 11% collect data
on paper and archive the paper. A total of 7% selected “Other” and noted SharePoint forms or
a generic electronic system as the data entry method (see Figure 3.10).
Knowing something about how data is entered, a DOT would have to assign responsibility
for that data entry to a personnel group. Figure 3.11 shows that most DOTs (89%) assign data
entry responsibility to a safety coordinator or safety manager. They also assign this responsibility
to maintenance superintendents or supervisors (67%), maintenance engineers or managers
(33%), safety executives (26%), or maintenance workers (22%). A total of 30% of DOTs wrote
in options that included human resource specialists, office managers, workers’ compensation
administrators, and area administrative staff.
3.2.4 Data Retention

As public agencies, DOTs often have data retention plans for their operational work. Safety
information is no different for a variety of reasons. SMS safety data is typically retained within
the SMS infrastructure (89%). Some DOTs (37%) also exported this data to an electronic archival
format such as a comma-separated values (CSV) or PDF file. Others (22%) will print hard copies
for archiving (Figure 3.12).
3.2.5 SMS Reporting Capabilities

One of the value propositions noted by the use of SMS is the ability to automate both required
and desired reports. Of those currently using SMSs, the frequently noted reporting options
include incident investigation reports (65%), workers’ compensation reports (62%), OSHA 300
logs (54%), training records (39%), and behavior observation reports (15%) (Figure 3.13).
Other reporting options include monthly property damage and injury data, incident counts
by location, safety huddle reports, fleet safety records, JSAs, and accident code trending.

Percentage Percentage
100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0%
100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0%
Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager Through a web-based portal
70%
89%
or equivalent
Data collected on paper and then

manually entered into electronic
41%
Maintenance
Superintendent/Supervisor or system
67%
equivalent
Through a Microsoft Excel

30%
spreadsheet or similar software

Maintenance Engineer/Manager or
33%
equivalent
Figure 3.11. SMS data responsibility; n = 27.

Figure 3.10. SMS data entry method; n = 27.
30%
scanned to a PDF
Other - Write In
30%
Through a mobile app
19%
Safety Executive or equivalent
26%
Data collected on paper and
11%

archived
Maintenance Worker
22%
7%
Other - Write In
100%
89%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Percentage
50%
40% 37%
30%
22%
20%
10%
4%
0%
Kept within the SMS Exported to CSV, PDF, or Printed for hard-copy Other - Write In
infrastructure other electronic records records
Figure 3.12. SMS data retention methods; n = 27.
3.2.6 SMS Access Frequency

The frequency of access to SMSs is high, which makes sense given the capabilities of the
systems reported in previous sections. Figure 3.14 shows that most systems (59%) are accessed
multiple times per day, some (19%) are only accessed after an incident, or a few times per week
(11%) when data entry is needed. Some DOTs noted in the “Other” option that access frequency
varies depending on the activity that is needing to be reported. Similarly, Figure 3.15 shows
that those who are responsible for managing safety data will access the system multiple times
per day (56%) for a variety of tasks. Some will only access the SMS a few times per week (22%),
once per day (11%), or after an incident occurs (7%).
100%
90%
80%
70% 65%
62%
60% 54%
Percentage
50%
39%
40% 35%
30%
20% 15%
10%
0%
Incident Workers’ OSHA 300 logs Training records Other - Write In Behavior
investigation compensation observation
reports reports reports
Figure 3.13. SMS reporting capabilities; n = 27.

Other -
Write In
11%
A few
times per
week
11%
After an Multiple times

incident per day
occurs 59%
19%
Figure 3.14. SMS access frequency

for data entry; n = 27.
Other - Write
After an In
incident 4%
occurs
7%
Once per day

11%
Multiple times
per day
A few times
56%
per week
22%
Figure 3.15. SMS access frequency

by safety managers; n = 27.
3.3 Feedback on Performance for SMS User DOTs

This section summarizes the respondents’ experience with SMSs. The section also reports
their perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and satisfaction with their SMSs.
3.3.1 SMS Information Deployment

Now knowing the capabilities of the SMSs, what information is collected, and what reports
are generated, it is valuable to understand what happens with that information. Figure 3.16
shows that most DOTs (78%) will provide that information to a safety coordinator or safety
manager for their information, while others will also provide that information to the same
parties with responsibility for corrective actions (67%). Fewer DOTs (59%) provide the data to
a maintenance engineer or manager for their information or because they have responsibility
for corrective action (52%). Few DOTs (19%) post the information for employees to see and

Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety

78%
Manager
Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety

67%
Manager with responsibility for corrective actions
Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager 59%
Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager

52%
with responsibility for corrective actions
Other - Write In 19%
Information posted for employees to see and self-address 19%
Information is collected as a requirement. The information

7%
is not used for any action
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentage
Figure 3.16. SMS information deployment; n = 27.
self-address or post the information as a requirement without the expectation of action (7%).
Other options provided included sharing via a safety flash across the agency, used for strategic
decision making or for policy writing.
3.3.2 SMS Benefits

With the use and details of SMSs discussed previously, a look at how DOTs have perceived
their use is warranted starting with the benefits realized in Figure 3.17. There are a wide range of
benefits that DOTs have realized, with three reasons noted most frequently: improved regulatory
compliance documentation (63%), improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety
(59%), and improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (56%).
Other notable benefits are improved organizational and social responsibility (41%), reduced
costs associated with accidents and incidents (37%), improved health and safety performance
according to leading indicators (33%), improved worker relations and morale (33%), and lower
insurance premiums (15%). Other items noted were the benefit of focus on established priori-
ties and that it was too early to document the benefits.
The disconnect between leading and lagging indicator improvements (56% versus 33%) is
notable and could be a result of the lack of tracking of leading indicators in DOTs. In addition,
lower insurance premiums were a rare benefit (15%), which could be because of the fact that
many DOTs are self-insurers and likely would not have premiums to evaluate.
3.3.3 SMS Challenges

Implementation and use of SMS has not been without challenges. Figure 3.18 shows that
DOTs have had process issues such as integrating the SMS into operational procedures (73%)
and building internal support (42%). There are also challenges with additional administrative
time for data entry (39%) and the ability to access, interpret, and make decisions from the
information (35%). There is a slight concern with the accuracy of the data in SMSs (31%).

Improved regulatory compliance documentation 63%
Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety 59%
Improved health and safety performance according to

56%
lagging indicators (e.g. TRIR)
Improved organizational and social responsibility 41%
Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents 37%
Improved worker relations and morale 33%
Improved health and safety performance according to

leading indicators (e.g. participation in safety 33%
committees)
Lower insurance premiums 15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentage
Figure 3.17. SMS benefits realized from use; n = 27.
100%
90%
80% 73%
70%
60%
Percentage
50% 42%
39%
40% 35%
31%
27%
30% 23% 23%
20%
10%
0%
Other - Write In
Accuracy of results
Time for data entry
Building internal support
Integrating into operational
Time to access, interpret, and
Cost for system maintenance

Cost for system development
make decisions from results
procedures
Figure 3.18. SMS challenges encountered; n = 27.

Will continue
current use of
the SMS
30%
Will expand
use of the
SMS
70%
Figure 3.19. Planned future use

of SMS; n = 27.
While costs were the least frequently noted challenges, they did show up in the form of cost for
system development (23%) and for system maintenance (23%). Other challenges include train-
ing on system use, upgrading an older system, and managing the technology infrastructure.
3.3.4 SMS Level of Satisfaction

After reporting benefits and challenges, respondents were asked what their future plans for
use of the SMS is considering the costs and benefits (see Figure 3.19). The majority of DOTs
(70%) plan to expand use of the SMS, while only 30% plan to maintain its current level of use. It
is notable that no DOT that currently uses SMS plans to reduce or limit its current use of them.
3.4 Written Policies and Procedures

for SMS User DOTs
This section summarizes the written language in policy manuals for SMS use, the responsi-
bility for acting on information from the SMS, and the division responsible for managing safety
in the DOT.
3.4.1 Documented Language in Policy Manual Regarding SMS

With any initiative seeking to be integrated into business procedures, policy language can
often be looked to in facilitating that integration. According to survey respondents, written
policy language is not prevalent as it relates to SMS use (see Figure 3.20). In fact, the most
frequent response (44%) is that no policy manual documents SMS use. To the degree it exists,
it contains roles and responsibilities for data entry (41%), the contents of the SMS (37%), the
roles and responsibilities related to data management (37%), goals for the SMS (30%), corrective
action roles and responsibilities (30%), and executive management support for safety and
the SMS (22%).
3.4.2 Responsibility to Act

With any data tracking tool, designating responsibility to a personnel group to respond to
that data is important. With DOTs that have an SMS, the majority designate the responsibility to

To my knowledge, no policy manual documents

44%
SMSs
Roles and responsibilities for data entry 41%
Roles and responsibilities for data management 37%
The contents of the SMS 37%
Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions 30%
Goals for the SMS 30%
Executive management support for safety and the

22%
SMS
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentage
Figure 3.20. Written language in policy manuals regarding SMS; n = 27.
act to a safety coordinator or safety manager (41%) (Figure 3.21). Some will assign those duties to
a maintenance superintendent or supervisor (15%), a safety executive (11%), or a maintenance
engineer or manager (7%). A total of 15% of respondents do not formally assign a responsibility
based on job description. Other respondents stated that everyone shares in that responsibility
or that different results are assigned to different personnel.
3.4.3 Division Responsible for Managing Safety

Recognizing the scale of DOTs and the variety of organizational structures used by those
state DOTs, Figure 3.22 reports on the division responsible for managing maintenance worker
safety within DOTs that have an SMS. The most frequently noted division is one for employee
Maintenance
Engineer/Manager
or equivalent
7%
Other -
Write In
11%
Safety
Safety Executive or
Coordinator/Safety
equivalent
Manager or
11%
equivalent
41%
There is no formal
assigned Maintenance
responsibility based Superintendent/Supervisor
on job description or equivalent
15% 15%
Figure 3.21. Responsibility to act on SMS information; n = 27.

Human
Resources or
equivalent
15%
Other - Write In Employee Safety

19% and Health or
equivalent
48%
Maintenance/
Operations
or equivalent
18%
Figure 3.22. Division responsible

for managing safety; n = 27.
safety and health or an equivalent (48%). Some DOTs have that responsibility within the main-
tenance or operations division (18%), while others house it in a human resources division or
equivalent (15%). Other responses include a combined division either with human resources
and occupational safety or operations and occupational safety.
3.5 Specific Safety Management Practices

for DOTs Without an SMS
This section provides information on the specific safety management practices for DOTs that
do not have an SMS. The questions cover safety elements that are evaluated, safety information
that is collected, data entry methods and responsibilities, data retention, safety reports, and data
collection frequency and responsibilities.
3.5.1 Elements in Safety Management Programs

For DOTs that do not have an SMS, they still may have a robust safety management program
for their maintenance workers. For those 14 DOTs that responded to the survey and do not have
an SMS, nearly all of them (93%) have a safety program that analyzes the worksite for safety
hazards (see Figure 3.23). Many also have a program for hazard identification, hazard preven-
tion and control, safety and health training and competence, and reporting, documentation, and
archiving of information (86%, 71%, 71%, and 64%, respectively). About half of respondents
evaluate management leadership and employee engagement. Few (36%) document continuous
improvement and evaluation within their safety programs.
3.5.2 Safety Information Collected

Similarly, DOTs may not have an SMS as defined in Section 3.1.1., but they may still collect
a significant amount of safety-related information. According to the survey, the respondents
most frequently track incident occurrence (93%), incident investigation (79%), toolbox talks
and pre-job briefings (64%), and training records (64%), as shown in Figure 3.24. Half the
respondents track near misses, and few (36%) track behavior observations.

100% 93%
90% 86%
80% 71% 71%
70% 64%
60%
Percentage
50% 50%
50%
40% 36%
30%
20%
7%
10%
0%
Other - Write In
Worksite Analysis
Employee Engagement
Evaluation and Continuous

Reporting, Documentation, and
Safety and Health Training and
Hazard Prevention and Control
Improvement
Competence
Archiving
Figure 3.23. Components, elements, or characteristics of a DOT Safety Program; n = 14.
100%
93%
90%
79%
80%
70%
64% 64%
60%
Percentage
50%
50%
40% 36%
30%
20%
10% 7%
0%
Incident Incident Toolbox Training Near Misses Behavior Other - Write
Occurrence Investigations Talks/Pre-Job Records Observations In
Briefings
Figure 3.24. Safety information collected; n = 14.

3.5.3 Safety Information Data Capture and Responsibilities

DOTs that lack a formal SMS have few ways to capture safety-related information. Slightly
over half collect data on paper and then scan it to a PDF (see Figure 3.25). Other methods
include collecting data through an Excel spreadsheet (46%), on paper and then entering it into
an electronic system (46%), through a mobile app (31%), through a web-based portal (31%), or
strictly on paper (31%).
Most DOTs without an SMS rely on a safety coordinator or safety manager to collect safety
information (86%) or on a maintenance superintendent or supervisor (64%) (see Figure 3.26).
Other DOTs look to maintenance workers (36%), maintenance engineers or managers (36%),
or a safety executive (29%).
3.5.4 Data Retention

Although respondents lacked a formal SMS, the vast majority (93%) retained their safety-
related information in a CSV, PDF, or other electronic format (see Figure 3.27). A total of
29% of respondents keep records in hard-copy format, while one DOT noted that their counties
are responsible for maintaining safety records per their own policies and procedures.
3.5.5 Safety Reports Generated

With any type of effective management program, reports are helpful to understand trends
and to make data-driven decisions. The survey respondents indicate, in Figure 3.28, that they
primarily produce workers’ compensation reports (71%), training records (64%), OSHA 300
logs (57%), and incident investigation reports (57%). A few DOTs will also generate behavior
observation reports (21%).
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 54%
Percentage
50% 46% 46%

40% 31% 31% 31%
30%
20%
8%
10%
0%
Other - Write In
Data collected on paper and
spreadsheet or similar software

Through a web-based portal

manually entered into electronic
Through a Microsoft Excel
scanned to a PDF
archived
system
Figure 3.25. Safety data capture method; n = 14.

100%
90% 86%
80%
70% 64%
60%
Percentage
50%
40% 36% 36%
29%
30%
20%
7%
10%
0%
Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager
Maintenance Engineer/Manager or

Superintendent/Supervisor or
Maintenance worker
Other - Write In
Maintenance
equivalent
or equivalent
equivalent
Figure 3.26. Safety data collection responsibility; n = 14.
100%
93%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Percentage
50%
40%
29%
30%
20%
10% 7%
0%
Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other Printed for hard-copy records Other - Write In
electronic records
Figure 3.27. Safety information data retention methods; n = 14.

100%
90%
80%
71%
70% 64%
60% 57% 57%

Percentage
50%
40%
30%
21%
20% 14%
10%
0%
Workers’ Training records OSHA 300 logs Incident Behavior Other - Write In
compensation investigation observation
Figure 3.28. Safety reports generated; n = 14.
3.5.6 Safety Data Entry and Access Frequency

The frequency with which these DOTs enter safety data and access safety data for deci-
sion making varies, especially when compared to DOTs that have an SMS (Figure 3.14 and
Figure 3.15). For DOTs without an SMS (Figure 3.29 and Figure 3.30), data is typically
entered after an incident occurs (43%). Other DOTs will enter safety data multiple times per
day (22%), once per day (7%), or once per month (7%). When it comes to the frequency of
accessing data by those responsible for managing safety, most respondents suggest they will
only access the data after an incident occurs (29%). Several respondents stated that access
would occur multiple times per day (22%), a few times per week (21%), once per week (14%),
or once per month (7%).
Once per
Once month
per day 7%
7%
After an
incident
Other -
occurs
Write In
43%
21%
Multiple
times per
day
22%
Figure 3.29. Safety data entry

frequency; n = 14.

Other -
Write In
Once per 7%
month
7%
After an
incident
occurs
Once per 29%
week
14%
A few
Multiple
times per
times per
week
day
21%
22%
Figure 3.30. Safety data access

frequency by safety managers;
n = 14.
3.6 Feedback on Performance for DOTs

Without an SMS
This section summarizes respondents’ experiences with collecting safety-related information
and reports respondents’ perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and satisfaction with collecting
safety-related information for maintenance workers in their current programs.
3.6.1 Safety Information Deployment

When safety information is collected for maintenance workers, most DOTs will distribute
that information to a safety coordinator or safety manager for their reference (86%) or to a
maintenance engineer or maintenance manager with a responsibility for corrective actions
(64%) (Figure 3.31). Many also provide the information to a safety coordinator or manager with
a responsibility to correct or to a maintenance engineer or manager for their information (57%).
A few DOTs will post the information for employees to see and self-address (14%) or collect
safety information as a requirement with no follow-up action required (14%).
3.6.2 Safety Information Benefits

Even without a formal SMS, DOTs still realize significant benefits from tracking safety infor-
mation related to maintenance workers. A total of 71% of respondents have seen improved
health and safety performance according to leading indicators, as well as a reduction in costs
associated with accidents and incidents (Figure 3.32). DOTs have also seen improvements in
worker relations and morale, improvements in business efficiencies, improved health and safety
performance based on lagging indicators, improved regulatory compliance documentation, and
improved organizational and social responsibility (57%, 57%, 50%, 36%, and 29%, respectively).
A few DOTs have also seen lower insurance premiums (14%).
3.6.3 Safety Information Challenges

Even with the realized benefits noted in Section 3.6.2, there are challenges with collecting
safety information related to maintenance workers without an SMS. In Figure 3.33, DOTs noted

Percentage Percentage
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0%
100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
Improved health and safety
performance according to leading
71%
indicators (e.g. participation in Information provided to Safety
86%
safety committees) Coordinator/Safety Manager
Reduced costs associated with
71%
accidents and incidents Information provided to
Maintenance Engineer/Manager
64%
with responsibility for corrective

Improved worker relations and actions
57%
morale
Information provided to Safety
Coordinator/Safety Manager with
57%
Improved business efficiencies responsibility for corrective actions
57%
relating to health and safety
Improved health and safety

Information provided to
performance according to lagging
50%
57%
indicators (e.g. TRIR)
Figure 3.31. Safety information deployment; n = 14.

Improved regulatory compliance
36%
documentation
Information posted for employees to

14%
see and self-address
Improved organizational and social
29%
responsibility
Information is collected as a
requirement. The information is not
14%
used for any action.

Other - Write In
21%
Figure 3.32. Benefits realized from collecting safety information; n = 14.

7%
Other - Write In
Lower insurance premiums
14%
100%
90%
80%
70% 64%
Percentage
60%
50% 43%
36% 36% 36%
40% 29%
30% 21%
20% 7%
10%
0%
Integrating Building Cost for Cost for Time for data Time to Accuracy of Other - Write
into internal system system entry access, results In
operational support development maintenance interpret, and
procedures make
decisions
from results
Figure 3.33. Challenges encountered from collecting safety information; n = 14.
Will reduce/limit
current procedures
due to lack of
funding
7%
Will continue
current procedures
29% Will expand
procedures
64%
Figure 3.34. Future plans for safety

procedures; n = 14.
struggles with integrating the information into operational procedures (64%), building internal
support (43%), costs for system development (36%), costs for system maintenance (36%), time
for data entry (36%), time to access and manage information (29%), and accuracy of results
(21%). Costs for the system show up as the third and fourth most-significant challenges.
3.6.4 Future Plans for Safety Procedures

Survey respondents were asked for their DOT’s future plans for collecting safety information
in Figure 3.34. Most noted that they will expand their procedures for safety management (64%)
while some noted that they will continue their current practices (29%). Only one DOT noted
that they will reduce or limit current safety procedures as a result of lack of funding.
3.7 Written Policies and Procedures

for DOTs Without an SMS
This section summarizes the written language in policy manuals for safety management,
the responsibility for acting on safety information, and the division responsible for managing
safety in the DOT.

3.7.1 Documented Language in Policy Manual

Regarding Safety Information
Policy language for DOTs without an SMS, related to tracking and managing safety infor
mation, varies from policy language that might exist for an SMS specifically (recall Figure 3.20).
For DOTs without an SMS, their written policy language most frequently includes executive
management support (79%) and goals for the safety program (71%) (Figure 3.35). Also included
are the specific safety information to be collected (50%), roles and responsibilities for data
collection (36%), roles and responsibilities for corrective actions (21%), and roles and respon-
sibilities for data management (14%). A select few DOTs do not have policy manuals that
document procedures around collecting maintenance-worker safety information (14%).
3.7.2 Responsibility to Act

With the safety information that is collected with these DOTs, most (57%) assign responsibility
to a safety coordinator or safety manager (Figure 3.36). Only a few respondents suggested that
maintenance engineers or managers (15%), maintenance superintendents or supervisors (7%),
or safety executives (7%) were responsible for correcting safety issues. One DOT noted that
there is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description, and one DOT noted that that
responsibility is pushed down to the county level for their determination.
3.7.3 Division Responsible for Managing Safety

For DOTs that do not have an SMS, the responsibility for managing safety typically falls
into an employee safety and health division or equivalent (65%) (Figure 3.37). A few DOTs
noted that a human resources or maintenance and operations division has that responsibility
(14% for both options). Last, one DOT noted that the counties are responsible for managing
safety within their county office.
100%
90%
79%
80% 71%
70%
Percentage
60% 50%
50%
40% 36%
30% 21%
20% 14% 14%
7%
10%
0%
around collecting maintenance
manual documents procedures
Other - Write In
Executive management support
The information to be collected
Roles and responsibilities for

Roles and responsibilities for data
Roles and responsibilities for data

Goals for the safety program
To my knowledge, no policy
worker safety information

corrective actions
management
for safety
collection
Figure 3.35. Written language in policy manuals regarding safety information; n = 14.

There is no formal
assigned responsibility
based on job description
7% Other -
Write In
7%
Safety Executive
or equivalent
7%
Maintenance Superintendent/
Supervisor or equivalent Safety
7% Coordinator/Safety
Manager or
equivalent
Maintenance 57%
Engineer/Manager
or equivalent
15%
Figure 3.36. Responsibility to act on SMS information; n = 14.
Maintenance/Operations Other -
or equivalent Write In
14% 7%
Human Resources
or equivalent Employee Safety
14% and Health or
equivalent
65%
Figure 3.37. Division responsible for managing

safety; n = 14.

CHAPTER 4
Case Examples
As noted in Chapter 1, follow-up case examples were conducted to gather further details
regarding processes and strategies for effective use of SMSs in managing highway maintenance-
worker safety. The case examples were executed by web interviews between the study team and
selected DOTs. The DOT’s survey respondent was contacted to participate in the case example
and was encouraged to invite individuals experienced with their SMSs to participate in the
conversation. The semi-structured interviews followed the questions outlined in Appendix C
but often drifted toward unique experiences with each state.
Five state DOTs were selected for case studies based on their survey responses. These state
DOTs were specifically targeted based on their experience with SMSs and, thus, being able to
share lessons learned and effective practices. The criteria used to select the experienced case-
example state DOTs included that they
• Have an implemented SMS.
• Use the SMS for reporting and tracking.
• Have used their SMS for more than 3 years.
The five state DOTs experienced with SMSs selected for interviews were Connecticut, Nevada,
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Each state’s interviews are summarized in the following sections
and broken into seven distinct sections: the decision process for implementing an SMS, an over-
view of the organizational structure, deployment and management of the SMS, features and
benefits of the SMS, policies and procedures regarding the SMS, cost, and lessons learned.
4.1 Connecticut
The Connecticut DOT was created in 1895 and renamed in 1969. With approximately
3,000 employees, the agency serves the fourth-ranked state by population density in the United
States, with a mission to “provide a safe and efficient intermodal transportation network that
improves the quality of life and promotes economic vitality for the State and the region”
(Connecticut DOT 2021). With more than 1,000 maintenance employees, as indicated in the
Connecticut DOT survey response, this mission involves maintaining 3,719 centerline miles
of state-maintained roadways and 4,028 bridges. In 2019, the Connecticut DOT implemented
a $2.6 billion budget for their capital and operating program.
4.1.1 Decision-Making Process

Safety-related decisions in the Connecticut DOT are often driven by data management and
information systems. To achieve better data and information management and make better-
informed decisions, the agency transitioned from a paper-based SMS to a new electronic SMS.
34

Case Examples 35
The previous system involved a handwritten and paper-based process for documentation. In terms
of the capacity to predict safety performance, the previous system was reactive in nature and
allowed statistical overview of the types of injuries and incidents on a broad scale. However, the
new SMS system, which is completely electronic, allows the agency to gain a deeper insight into
particular cases and draw on data in a way that indicates areas of safety concern. Although the
Connecticut DOT is still using a relatively small component of the SMS, it helped the agency
to move from looking to reactive data, such as workers’ compensation, to obtaining analytical
insight and relationships between safety variables. This helped the agency to be more proactive
and point out areas of improvement based on performance leading indicators. As a result, the
new system enables the Connecticut DOT to make data-driven decisions, especially long-term
strategic decisions such as resources allocation.
4.1.2 Organizational Structure

The Connecticut DOT has a Division of Occupational Health and Safety. Historically, the
division reported through the Department of Human Resources. Recently, this structure has
changed, with occupational health and safety moved from human resources to the Commis-
sioner’s Office. In other words, the reporting chain formerly funneled up to the Chief of Bureau
of Finance and Administration. Today, the Division of Occupational Health and Safety reports
directly to the Commissioner’s Chief of Staff. The new dynamic in the organizational structure
helped the agency to make employee health and safety more effective and visible as one of the
cornerstones of the organization. With four districts under highway operations and five districts
under engineering and construction, the Division of Occupational Health and Safety is staffed
with two tiers of safety advisors (Advisor I and Advisor II) reporting to the director of the
division, who reports to the commissioner’s chief of staff. The Connecticut DOT also employs
nurses on staff and a medical clinic running under the medical control of the University of
Connecticut. In addition, within the chain of command of highway operations, each district
has a training coordinator responsible for coordinating health and safety training. This organi-
zational structure helps the division to effectively work with employees in highway operations
and construction and engineering.
4.1.3 SMS Deployment and Management

To manage safety, the Connecticut DOT uses a commercial safety-database solutions system.
The system is a cloud-based enterprise safety-database system that provides a centralized
repository to manage and track safety data and safety trends. Protected by approved firewalls,
the system is used by different state and federal agencies such as NASA. The Connecticut DOT
uses it to collect, track, and manage health and safety data and identify safety trends. For pro-
gram administration purposes, the occupational health and safety division of the Connecticut
DOT assigned two staff members with safety and computer science backgrounds to manage and
customize the program to a certain degree. The administrators can locally customize the system
according to the agency’s needs. However, some customization requires collaborating with the
system developers.
4.1.4 SMS’s Features, Functionality, Benefits, and Mechanisms Used

Although the Connecticut DOT uses a relatively small component of the commercial product,
its SMS system was described as powerful and capable of performing different functions, including
safety data collection, accidents and injury management, data analysis and trend identification,
medical monitoring, and the like. The system is not only capable of performing such functions
internally but also has been used by the Connecticut DOT to manage construction contractors’

safety incidents. Although contractors are not required to use the system at this stage, the
Connecticut DOT relies on its own safety staff to use the system and report and document
construction contractors’ work incidents. The system has different features and modules,
such as occupational health, safety, training, industry hygiene, and other modules that can be
customized based on the user needs. Within each module, there are different functions and
capabilities. For example, in addition to managing the safety aspect related to incident reporting
and corrective actions, the safety module provides functions that handle audits and inspections,
compliance management, risk, and other functions related to safety. One of the important
features is the capability of the system to customize data points in different ways, allowing for
various analytical insights. The analysis can be powerful as the incident data-entry portal allows
detailed input of safety incidents ranging from the type of incident, reasons and description
of incidents, actions that have been taken or recommended by supervisors, photographs of
incidents, cause analysis, findings and actions, and other features that support different data
analysis. The system allows direct uploading of different files, such as PDF incident forms and
reports and incident photographs, and a feature that enables the agency to use the system for
safety records and documentation purposes. Some components of the Connecticut DOT SMS
can only be accessed through the intranet, a feature that limits employee’s accessibility to these
components of the system. The Connecticut DOT is looking to make the system more accessible
to the average employee through the Internet.
When it comes to benefits realized from using the system, the agency has not conducted an
analysis to quantify tangible immediate returns, such as reduction in injury rates or workers’
compensation. However, several other benefits associated with managing safety were cited. Such
benefits include gaining a proactive view of performance that allows for informed decisions
based on leading indicators. Another benefit realized from the system is the ability to customize
data in different ways that not only helps the agency to gain a deeper look into the drivers of
safety trends but also inform a better allocation of safety resources, such as training, equipment,
and other resources.
4.1.5 Policies and Procedures

When it comes to policies pertaining to the SMS system, the Connecticut DOT specifies,
in its internal safety policy, the name of their commercial product as the system that has been
adopted to manage occupational health and safety. The Connecticut DOT procedures for
licensed administrators allows them to log into the system portal using their license credentials.
The administrators’ license allows them to have in-depth administrative access where they can
enter cases and manage data even from their cell phones. The system is capable of providing
access to all employees.
4.1.6 Costs of SMS

The cost of acquiring, maintaining, and managing the SMS system depends on the custom-
ization, features, and capacity of the module(s) used. For the Connecticut DOT, the cost
of acquiring the system was approximately $120,000, with an annual license cost of $7,000
that varies depending on the number of licenses used. A reasonable description of the cost
model for this system is “you get what you pay for.” Therefore, additional costs may apply
for additional programming, customization, and adjustments of the system. In addition, the
cost of managing the system depends on the extent the system is used to manage safety. For
example, as the Connecticut DOT is moving toward a data-driven decision-making model,
the cost of managing the system increases as collecting, tracking, and analyzing the data
requires more time and effort.

Case Examples 37
4.1.7 SMS Implementation Suggestions and Lessons Learned

Lessons learned by the Connecticut DOT occupational health and safety division include the
“how-to” and “how-long” aspects of the SMS implementation. Adopting and implementing
a new SMS requires significant efforts and resources. As a result of resource availability and
limitations, the Connecticut DOT gradually implemented the new SMS. However, the occupa-
tional health and safety division recommends a 1-year time frame for implementing the system
with dedication of the required resources to train the staff and roll out the system. Another
suggestion related to acquiring and implementing the system was associated with commitment
from leadership and crews. To gain the leadership support and maintain the resources neces-
sary to operate and maintain the system, the impact of the system has to be shown and made
visible to everyone so people can see the results and invest in the system. While the execu-
tive team has to set the stage and show commitment to achieve the goals, another important
aspect to successfully implementing the system is gaining the commitment of the field crews.
It is of crucial importance for the system to successfully work that managers, supervisors, and
superintendents understand and accept the system and are willing to actively participate in
and support it.
4.2 Nevada
The Nevada Department of Highways was established in 1917 and later became the Nevada
Department of Transportation (the Nevada DOT). The Nevada DOT has grown into an active
roadway program with approximately $600 million in annual capital outlays. The Nevada
DOT plans, designs, constructs, operates, and maintains 5,400 miles of highway and more than
1,000 bridges. The program is managed through three districts and 1,800 employees. Among
their organizational goals is a safety-first mentality (Nevada DOT 2021).

The Nevada DOT hosts an in-house developed SMS, developed by what was described as a
supportive IT office. The SMS has been in place for some time but has been taking its current
form since 2012. In 2012, the incoming safety manager reviewed the SMS in comparison to
OSHA-required programs. Nevada, having a state-plan OSHA program, adopted all of the
federal OSHA requirements. At that time, the SMS was not fully functional across all of
the required safety and health programs, as some were either out-of-date or not completed.
The state OSHA program has many requirements, including one for an SMS of any employer
with more than 10 employees. The safety program is also required and should have written
elements for identifying hazards, conducting accident investigations, providing training, track-
ing disciplinary actions, and maintaining a top management commitment. The Nevada DOT
decision to invest in the SMS and safety program in general comes from a top-down commitment
to safety and a strong safety culture.

The Nevada DOT central-office safety group is led by a safety manager with five programs,
including drug and alcohol enforcement, commercial driver licensing, safety training, safety
inspections, and workers’ compensation. The staff includes a workers’ compensation claims
manager, safety trainer, and a safety inspector. The Nevada DOT is insured by the Nevada Risk
Management Department and contracts with a third party to manage worker-compensation
claims data and payments.

The safety group reports to a human resources director who then reports directly to the
deputy director of the Nevada DOT. This short chain of command to executive leadership of
the Nevada DOT is beneficial to the safety program and allows for quick resolution of safety-
related issues. Any resistance to compliance or misunderstanding of OSHA or American
National Standards Institute (ANSI; regarding safety apparel) requirements at a district level
can quickly and easily be resolved through meeting at the deputy director level to address
challenges and obstacles.
As mentioned previously, there are three Nevada DOT districts. Each district has a training
officer who may coordinate with the central-office safety group on safety and health issues and
to seek recommendations. The central-office safety group is responsible for providing the safety
training and inspections.

The Nevada DOT SMS entails several modules with controlled workflows as developed
through collaboration with the Nevada DOT’s IT group. The Nevada DOT has a database for
tracking and managing crashes that occur with their commercial vehicle drivers. When crashes
occur, safety inspectors will submit information to the database and can use the data to investi-
gate trends, schedule loss-control meetings with district safety officers, and address issues. The
central-office safety inspector is a certified accident investigator. This results in a data-driven
program regarding commercial vehicle crashes.
The Nevada DOT also has incident reporting for noncommercial vehicles. If a noncommercial
crash or accident occurs, an employee is trained to notify their supervisor, who will gather a team
to complete an investigation and a crash report form that is uploaded to a Microsoft SharePoint
database. The “who, what, when, where, why, and how it could have been prevented” of the
incident are captured. This is inclusive of a review of equipment maintenance and operators
prior to the incident. The report workflow then processes the report to include the district engineer
and central office. All review and sign the report. The system then allows for investigating trends,
looking for prevention measures, and calling meetings to review specific incidents if needed.
The Nevada DOT also has a workers’ compensation system that can examine injury trends
by type or other factors. Doing so allows the safety group to consider prevention measures and
recommendations to address repetitive injuries, traumatic injuries, or accidents in work zones.
The Nevada DOT safety group worked closely with their internal IT office to create the database
and SMS. The IT group was able to include controls within the system to share the data with
those who need it and who are approved to have it; the data is not shared with all employees.
The system also allows for developing an annual report for review.
Along with the previous functions, another module of the SMS is the safety training database.
This database helps district training officers ensure employees are trained in their specific job
duties and that the training is up-to-date. The district training officer, with assistance from the
central-office training officer, delivers all the required hands-on equipment training. The SMS
not only logs and tracks training hours data but allows a comparison of this information to
incident reports to determine additional training needs. In comparing incident trends and
training provided, they can identify gaps in knowledge delivered and recommend improve-
ments to their program.
4.2.4 SMS’s Features, Functionality, Benefits,

and Mechanisms Used
The Nevada DOT SMS includes features for crash investigation, workers’ compensation
claims, training tracking, and the review of trends. The benefits of completing this system are

Case Examples 39
apparent through a review of injury data from 2011 to the present. In 2011, there were 145 work-
related injuries and, while COVID-19 played a role, in 2020, there were only 55 work-related
injuries. A better comparison is to the 75 work-related injuries of 2019, which still shows a
significant improvement.
Further, improvement is noted in the workers’ compensation claims. The workers’ compensa-
tion claims manager conducts training with workers and supervisors every quarter. The training
performed is based on the noted injuries and claims. In 2011, the cost per claim was $18,000, and
the cost per claim in 2019 (pre-COVID-19) was $7,800. This demonstrates notable improvements
in both frequency and severity. The Nevada DOT pays nearly $2 million per year in claims, and
the department’s SMS has been able to demonstrate savings of up to $300,000 per quarter.

The Nevada DOT has written safety policy and procedures subdivided according to items
such as machinery, commercial driving, backing procedures, and the like. These documents are
the central guides for safety at the Nevada DOT. Further, the department has crash and inci-
dent policies laying out roles and responsibilities for reporting and investigation so that data is
collected, reviewed, and archived to find ways to improve safety within the Nevada DOT. The
Nevada DOT’s safety program starts with a new-hire 4-hour orientation course and extends
throughout the Nevada DOT, including training for their construction inspectors, and con-
struction and maintenance staff, including reviewing the SMSs and safety programs of their
construction contractors. The programs and policies are also adaptable, as was evident with the
COVID-19 pandemic. A directive from leadership led them to review areas to determine needed
barriers and markings to promote social distancing.
4.2.6 Costs of SMS

The Nevada DOT is not only safety-focused but is also fiscally conservative. They rely upon
their customer-focused IT department that not only developed their SMS but continues to tailor
the system to meet the needs and desires of the safety group. While their IT department’s time,
as well as the time for collaboration with the safety group, comes with an expense, the Nevada
DOT believes they have a product customized to their needs and fitting with their existing
systems, and with support for continued improvement and adaptation through their in-house-
produced SMS. When evaluating the cost of a vendor-provided system, along with the more
difficult-to-quantify costs of continued support, maintenance, and changes, often results in a
figure that could be met with resistance. When evaluating costs, the Nevada DOT has often
looked to innovative ways to find cost-effective solutions in-house, such as their approach to the
SMS and having internal staff certified in inspection and training.

The Nevada DOT SMS has reduced the cost of workers’ compensation, reduced crashes and
expenses for repairs, and increased the accountability of supervisors, drivers, and workers to
operate within the policies and procedures in place. These improvements have been driven by
the commitment of the Nevada DOT leadership and the central-office safety group.
The Nevada DOT has found other areas for savings in partnering with other government
agencies. For instance, by working with local fire, police, and rescue departments, they can avoid
the more costly response of third-party providers by having coordinated with the local agencies
prepared to respond to the needs of the Nevada DOT. This aligns with their other creative
approaches, from building in-house expertise and certifications to conducting in-house training

for topics that some state DOTs may seek third parties to provide. Keeping training in-house
offers benefits above cost as well, in that no one understands the Nevada DOT better than an
employee of the Nevada DOT.
An important aspect of a successful safety program is leadership commitment and holding
all staff accountable. Accountability is central to the OSHA model and must be fostered by a
safety commitment and culture. Changes to the program will not immediately impact the safety
culture; those attempting to change the safety culture need to be prepared for persistence and
slow improvements in culture. These changes require a “walk-the-walk” approach because
talking about safety is not effective without acting safely. While employees of the Nevada DOT
can report safety concerns directly to the state OSHA office, they are asked to report them first
to the Nevada DOT office for an opportunity for them to be resolved.
As mentioned, the Nevada DOT safety program is extensive and promotes a culture of safety.
This does not happen quickly. The central-office safety group strives to be proactive and vocal
in pinpointing issues and collaborating to produce safe resolutions. The Nevada DOT has been
fortunate to have a series of directors who support safety and safety culture. The Nevada DOT
recently created a Safety Strategic Plan committee that will help to continue the evolution and
continuous improvement of their program.
4.3 Tennessee
Established in 1915, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (Tennessee DOT) is a
multimodal agency with responsibilities in aviation, public transit, waterways, railroads, and
cycling and walking. With over 4,000 employees, the agency serves a state that was ranked
as “having one of the top five highway systems in the country by a national trade magazine”
(Tennessee DOT 2021). Responsible for managing a transportation system in four regions,
12 districts, and 95 counties, the agency implemented a $10 million budget in 2020. Similar
to all DOTs across the country, employees of the Tennessee DOT perform construction and
maintenance tasks with high-risk exposure that make safety a concern and a focus point for
the agency.

The road to adopting an SMS for the Tennessee DOT was not free of struggles and motivators.
Prior to 2016, one individual was in charge of safety in the Tennessee DOT, and each region
rolled safety up under facility management. That individual was a safety coordinator who reported
to a manager who oversaw facilities, environmental programs, and various other duties in the
regions. The safety coordinator spent most of their time performing administrative duties such
as conducting drug testing, managing claims, and scheduling law enforcement for work zones.
The Tennessee DOT has approximately 4,000 employees, and the SMS was not as successful as
desired. In 2016, the agency recorded three fatalities, a record that triggered significant efforts
to improve safety. The incident motivated the leadership to lead an effort that ensures that such
tragic loss does not happen again. As a result, the agency started to move toward establishing
a safety culture and a sustainable solution to managing safety. Part of the initial efforts that
led to the safety system used today was forming a team of a safety director and assistant director
supported by individual managers to oversee the development of written programs and safety
data collection and analysis, to develop a comprehensive safety training program, and to provide
technical support to field staff with respect to safety. In 2017, the team began to communicate
with other DOTs and met with field crews in every county in an effort to obtain their input,
such as concerns, needs, views, and what they would like to see in a safety program. This move

Case Examples 41
helped the agency to gain employee “buy-in” from the beginning. In addition, the team began
to examine and analyze safety records and identify the data trends to point out the areas of
improvement that need special attention and focus. These areas were also matched with the
crews’ input about the crews’ needs and what resources were lacking. To support the efforts, the
agency added staff, including a regional safety manager and two coordinators in each region.
In addition, the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Division was built at headquarters at
the same time. All of these efforts led to a road map that identifies the needs and missing items,
such as written programs and policies. This road map eventually led to the current SMS used
by the Tennessee DOT.

The Tennessee DOT has four regions, with a regional safety office in each region. As mentioned
previously, each regional safety office is staffed with a safety manager and two safety coordinators.
The current organizational structure of the Tennessee DOT OHS Division starts from safety
coordinators who report to the regional safety manager. Regional safety managers report up
through the assistant chief engineer at each region, but they do not report directly to the
headquarter safety divisions. The OHS group in each region reports to the director of the OHS
Division, who reports directly to the assistant chief engineer for operations. In addition, the
director of OHS Division is supported by a safety staff reporting directly to him or her, including
an assistant director, a state safety engineer, a state safety manager, a state training manager,
two supervisors, and two coordinators. The leadership in this organizational structure is directly
involved in safety-related efforts. In addition, to ensure that the crews’ input is included in the
system, the director and assistant director established a safety council that has a representative
from field operations of every district. This council ensures that crews’ participation and voices
in the programs are included and help leadership to gain employee commitment to the system.

As indicated in the survey results, the SMS used by the Tennessee DOT is developed in-house.
The deployment of the system began gradually with paper property damage and injury reports,
as well as some workers’ compensation data provided by a third-party administrator. The
Tennessee DOT Human Resources Division helped in the process by developing a return-to-
work program for workers. By 2018, the agency was able to use a Microsoft SharePoint platform
to automate the reporting process, a step that improved system efficiency with respect to data
analysis and trends identification. The established reporting process started by using SharePoint
to report property damage, injuries, and workers’ compensation. The reported data from each
region is collected and a report is produced on a monthly basis. To share information with crews
in every county, the SMS uses the SharePoint platform to share files, reports, guidance docu-
ments, training materials, and written programs that have been established and implemented.
To ensure the successful implementation and maintenance of the Tennessee DOT’s SMS, a full-
time data analyst was assigned to oversee the collection, analysis, and reporting of employee
injury and accident data.

and Mechanisms Used
One of the notable features of the Tennessee DOT SMS revolves around communication.
The SMS uses Tableau software, a dashboard reporting tool that communicates the visual story
of the data and helps in trends analysis. Tableau is used to communicate safety information with
executives, regional managers, and other departments of the Tennessee DOT. On a field level,

the agency uses the SharePoint platform to communicate safety information with the employees
in every county. For example, training materials are communicated with the crews through the
platform. Another example of communicating safety information is what the Tennessee DOT
calls “Safety Mondays,” where the agency communicates any guidance and training informa-
tion to the crews through a video that is displayed on a screen in every county shop. The Safety
Mondays videos are weekly videos similar to TED Talks that are assigned to staff through its
Learning Management System. The Tennessee DOT safety professionals found this practice to
be effective in communicating new safety information because it ensures that every one of their
crews has access to the intended content. Through Safety Mondays videos, safety professionals
can talk about anything from a new blood-borne pathogen to lessons learned from a recent
serious injury and communicate such information to crews in 95 county maintenance shops
or construction offices.
The move from a paper-based reporting process to an electronic system has helped the
agency to realize several benefits. In addition to improved communication, the agency became
more efficient in managing and analyzing safety records and trends as well as planning and
implementing corrective actions. The SMS also helped the agency to prioritize programs and
allocate resources based on urgency and priorities. With the electronic SMS, the data analysis
helped the safety staff to identify where the agency had property damage problems. As far as
the direct benefits realized from the SMS, the agency estimated that workers’ compensation
and property-damage cost savings were around $1 million in early 2019. Such cost savings
were correlated with the decline of severity of injuries, which led to a dramatic drop in workers’
compensation costs.

Although the department of human resources in the Tennessee DOT has a regulatory
compliance program and safety policies with boilerplate language regarding incidents and
injury reporting, there is no policy dedicated to the SMS. The OHS Division has begun draft-
ing a policy but has not yet finalized its adoption. As the SMS was formalized gradually,
some aspects of the related policies were established and developed at different times and in
different groups within the department but has not been integrated in one location or policy
tailored to the SMS.
4.3.6 Costs of SMS

Since the SMS was developed entirely in-house by using existing tools such as SharePoint
and Tableau, the only cost associated with the SMS as of now is the staff compensation. The
Tennessee DOT developed this system internally to minimize the direct cost, and since the
system is paying off through cost savings in property damage and workers’ compensation,
the agency considers the system to be self-sustaining. Realizing the benefits of using the system,
such as the drop in severity of injuries, helped the agency to see the return on investment from
the SMS and the cost associated with its development and maintenance.

The Tennessee DOT shared several lessons and suggestions. One of the important lessons
learned was the importance of the safety culture component in the system. The drop in severity
of injuries and workers compensation witnessed during the first few years are thought to be
attributed to the Tennessee DOT investment in safety culture. In 2018, the Tennessee DOT
launched an internal campaign called “Work 4 Us” that delivered safety training and proper

Case Examples 43
PPE to the crews. “Work 4 Us” included an important message about safety culture that the
agency wanted to deliver by words and actions. Some of these actions were part of the second
part of the campaign, which entailed giving the crews the option to identify their needs and select
the proper PPE, such as safety boots and gloves. For example, after identifying a trend of injuries
and realizing that the current gloves used were ineffective, the Tennessee DOT piloted a new
hand-protection program that offered different gloves for different uses and sought employee
feedback on them. Such actions highlighted the importance of safety and communicated that
leadership cared about employee safety. Another aspect that helped leadership to gain crew
commitment and “buy-in” to the safety program was the direct communication of safety leader-
ship with the field crews and the willingness to seek crew input and feedback, making them
an integrated part of the safety system. Such actions by the safety leadership highlighted an
important message that crew contribution is an integral part of safety and their voices are heard.
It also helped to build trust between leadership, management, and employees and in engaging
everyone in the program.
4.4 Texas
The Texas Department of Transportation (the Texas DOT) was established in 1917 as the
Texas Highway Department and became the Texas DOT in 1991. The Texas DOT is responsible
for 80,000 miles of roadway and 36,000 state-system bridges (Texas DOT 2019). The Texas
DOT’s $14 billion (2020 budgetary figure) operating budget serves these facilities along with
supporting aviation, rail, and public transportation across the state. The Texas DOT is driven
by 12,000 employees working to provide a safe and reliable transportation system for Texas
(Texas DOT 2021).

As a self-insured state for workers’ compensation and vehicle accident claims, the Texas
DOT developed a broad range of needs for organizing, tracking, and reporting safety data as
it evolved into one of the leading DOTs in occupation safety culture and programs. Before
its emphasis on occupational safety, the role of the safety division was largely in providing
insurance services, meaning it had only a basic need for a system to manage its claims. The Texas
DOT had an in-house system to manage claims, track costs, develop budgets, and so forth in the
1990s. This system evolved into a Microsoft Access database system that held data and tracked
claims. This collected data was useful for review in a basic manner. The Texas DOT’s safety
focus grew from the 1990s and was taken to a new level in 2011 with the Safety Mission Zero
approach. Agency and district-level leadership was committed to this vision of having no Texas
DOT employee fatalities and furthering the existing safety culture of the Texas DOT.
As the Texas DOT became more data-driven in safety programs, there was improvement.
Difficulty came when improvements began to slow down. As the Texas DOT advanced and
emphasis on occupational safety grew, a more robust tracking system was needed to visualize
trends and more specific details about safety information, not simply manage money. The Texas
DOT needed to identify the barriers and challenges to break through their safety floor. For the
next step, the Texas DOT wanted a web-based system that integrated and pulled data from other
parts of the agency. This new approach and system began in 2015 and was deployed in 2016.
The Texas DOT developed a specification for what it needed the system to do and advertised
for bids, with several entities submitting proposals. The Texas DOT continues to work with the
commercial product selected to modify the platform and fine-tune elements to fit with the Texas
DOT operations. DOTs and their hazards are unique across many industries, so changes have
been needed within the platform to meet the needs of the Texas DOT’s operations.


The Texas DOT’s Occupational Safety Division not only manages safety and employee safety
programs, but also houses their claims systems. The Texas DOT is self-insured for workers’
compensation and auto-accident liability claims, and the Occupational Safety Division manages
these claims as well as tort claims. Where many state DOTs have third parties provide services
for these claims services, the Texas DOT manages these in-house using their system.
Organizationally, prior to Safety Mission Zero in 2011, the Occupational Safety Division
was subordinate to the Texas DOT chief administration officer. With Safety Mission Zero,
leadership felt safety needed to report directly to the Texas DOT deputy executive director. Their
intent was to emphasize the importance of safety in having the direct report to a high executive
level. The Texas DOT wanted to show their commitment to safety and set an emphasized tone
by having safety close to executive leadership. Even with this change, the safety division still
works closely with operations, engineering, and the like, having strategy discussions to look at
trends and to find ways to mitigate and manage risk. These boots-on-the-ground groups are
those conducting the more danger-prone work, and this relationship has been productive to
address trends seen at the statewide level.
Overall, the Texas DOT has 25 districts, each district led by a district engineer. Regarding
safety, each district has at least one safety professional, and most have two or more. Urban or
metro districts may have three to five safety professionals since those districts may have between
500 and 800 employees. Within the districts, the safety officers conduct field assessments
looking at work-zone traffic control and safety, in addition to worker-related safety. The safety
officers report directly to the district engineers.
The central office Occupational Safety Division supports the districts and has safety profes-
sionals assigned to regions and will make field visits quarterly to do their own assessments and
reporting. These safety professionals conduct spot checks, provide assessment reports, and
look at trends from the SMS to target and help improve the trends. When the central office is
fully staffed, they have four field representatives who conduct the field visits and another four
safety professionals who manage the programs, policies, procedures, training, incident reviews,
coding of the incidents, and workings of their system.

As mentioned, the Texas DOT used a quality-based selection process in procuring their
SMS and was the first DOT to use this provider; as such, it has had to work with the provider to
customize the platform to fit DOTs, and Texas DOT processes specifically. The Texas DOT is
still working with the commercial solution provider to build out additional features. One benefit
provided by the system is that when a new module is developed at the request of one DOT, it is
then provided or offered to all. With other DOTs, such as the Iowa DOT, being onboarded to
the system, risk management tools are constantly updated. This provides learning opportunities
and opportunities to adapt and improve through using the new features.

and Mechanisms Used
The vendor has provided the Texas DOT some nice features through their claims’ module
and employee safety and health module. The system captures injury and incident reports and
is web-based so employees can access it through the Texas DOT’s intranet to complete those
reports. The system is integrated with the Texas DOT’s personnel database and will prepopulate
report forms with personnel information, such as a person’s supervisor and the like. This saves

Case Examples 45
time and reduces input errors. The system also captures vehicle incident reports. With the setup
workflows within the system, as the incidents are reported, supervisors and district safety profes-
sionals are automatically notified. In the event of a vehicle or equipment incident, maintenance
shops would be notified as well. This creates a quick and efficient system and provides situational
awareness, putting management on notice of the incident or injuries so planning can begin for
employee or equipment downtime and needs.
The system will also report the incident to the central office, where a claims adjuster will
begin to review the report and make decisions about whether the incident is compensatory
using workers’ compensation guidance, if there is a need for the tort liability adjusters to work
with third-party insurers, or if payments or collections are needed. This is a function of serving
as the insurance for the Texas DOT. The central office will also review the incident to determine
if it is a recordable personnel incident, or a recordable vehicle incident based on the ANSI stan-
dard. The incident is also preliminarily determined for preventability. Once these decisions are
coded, the incident is placed in a queue that will launch an incident analysis investigation at the
district level. In this investigation, a root-cause analysis and incident review are completed along
with any other required reviews, reporting, and checklists. The district review is performed by
an assembled Local Safety Review Team (LSRT) that conducts the previously described review
and is the final determination of the incident’s preventability. Predefined workflows then
progress through the review for the LSRT’s signature, the involved supervisor, district engineer,
and, finally, the occupational safety director. The incident report then receives a final review for
the root cause and preventability before the case is closed.
The workflows for incident reporting were developed working closely with the vendor.
Cybersecurity was a big concern, so this also entailed working closely with the Texas DOT
IT staff. There was a need to ensure firewalls, emails, and other controls were all appropriately
set and secure, so emails were sent and received by the correct personnel. This was managed
through the careful creation and continued adjustment of roles within the system to ensure
personal identifying information and other confidential information was protected.
With an integration of the system and Tableau, the creation of an agency dashboard plat-
form has been seamless. Data can be exported from the system and into Tableau for viewing and
reporting. The Texas DOT uses this feature to track and report many more metrics than most
DOTs, including the OSHA total recordable incident rate (TRIR); first-aid incidents; lost-time
injury rate; days-away, restricted, or transferred (DART); and vehicle accident rates. The Texas
DOT actually reports TRIR and first-aid cases together because being self-insured means both
situations incur an expense to the Texas DOT.
Many SMSs are created to track lagging indicators, but the Texas DOT is now looking to
review the leading indicators. It has been working with the vendor on an approach to automate
the Texas DOT’s leading indicator tracking, which is currently occurring on paper. The Texas
DOT anticipates integrating information on training, risk assessments, JSAs, near misses, close
calls, good catches, and the like. The objective is to get this leading indicator information into
the same system as their incident reporting to provide opportunities to review trends and the
effectiveness of programs. The Texas DOT sees anecdotal evidence of 100% training and self-
assessments leading to reduced incident rates, but they want to see these metrics and effects
through data analysis.

The Texas DOT’s policies and procedures manual integrates the use and features of the
platform and is primarily focused on reporting. The Texas DOT requires all reporting of
incidents be completed through the system within set time frames. For instance, the LSRT has

12 days to complete their review. The manuals also provide guidance on system use and reporting.
The Texas DOT is still working with the vendor regarding training and other tracking modules,
so policies for these are not yet developed, and is also working through the details and data
security needs of integrating its personnel system and the SMS.
4.4.6 Costs of SMS

The costs of an SMS are definitely a significant investment. For implementing the system,
the Texas DOT incurred not only a startup cost but also ongoing service fees. These fees are
flexible, taking into consideration the amount of programming time necessary for reports,
workflows, or other modifications. As modules are selected to be added to the platform, there
are additional costs incurred for them. The Texas DOT noted an estimated cost of $30,000 for
module additions.
If a DOT is considering an SMS, the Texas DOT suggests that it should consider the amount
of use the system will entail and what work it will provide. For the Texas DOT, the SMS not
only provides data and reporting, but it also uses it to manage its claims. Claims management
is a valuable role of the system, and an added bonus comes with the ability to review trends,
reports, and indicators. An organized approach to data management is needed if trend review
is an objective.

The Texas DOT’s approach is to determine needs and objectives upfront and then procure
a system that will provide those features through a best-quality procurement. When reviewing
products, the Texas DOT contacts customers, who ask questions to learn about the system.
An SMS is a significant investment and needs to be handled carefully, so the decision to provide
the best value to meet the needs and objectives was carefully considered. These needs and
objectives could be prioritized and systems that might provide a stepwise approach considered.
The Texas DOT began by focusing on the claims management module but knew they would
expand into safety and risk analysis.
The various SMS platforms are geared toward different elements such as dashboards, claims
management, and the like. The Texas DOT realized that taking on an SMS is a long-term invest-
ment, and a system that provides the most value to current and future needs would be ideal.
The Texas DOT sought to investigate what the vendors have to offer and ensured the features
complement needs and sought an alignment. For instance, if the Texas DOT did not need a
system to help report claims, perhaps focus could be paid on the systems that highlight leading
indicators.
One benefit of vendor-provided systems has been that they might have features or approaches
to reviewing data that could provide unexpected value or benefits. An SMS with the ability to
add modules is also helpful in future safety reporting and review needs as a DOT advances and
grows. Many of the SMS providers continue to advance as well. When the Texas DOT started
with their system, the Employee Safety and Health module was not as robust as it is today.
As the Texas DOT has seen their vendor solution advance, they see more that they can do
with the system. The Texas DOT has a good relationship with the vendor and feels it has been
mutually beneficial. Because the vendor has a DOT partner, future DOT implementations will
be smoother.
The Texas DOT historically has averaged one employee fatality per year, yet today, it is
approaching 3 years without an employee fatality. Its approach has been to begin a positive
trend. There was a time when the Texas DOT was seeing seven employee fatalities per year.

Case Examples 47
By considering what an acceptable number would be, the Safety Mission Zero was born. The
process has not been easy, but the success is real. Even with the organization-wide support for
safety, funding sometimes can be hard to find. An SMS helps present the value and continue
the mission.
4.5 Virginia
The Virginia Department of Transportation (the Virginia DOT) was originally established
in 1906 as the first State Highway Commission. With a 2020 fiscal year budget of $7.0 billion,
the Virginia DOT operates the third-largest state-maintained roadway system of 57,867 miles.
This program is managed through nine districts and approximately 7,500 employees (Virginia
DOT 2021).

In 2015, there was a significant movement in safety management at the Virginia DOT. Prior
to this time, records and reports were created on paper and then transitioned to a Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet, where they were seldom reviewed or analyzed. The leadership within the
safety division wanted to move toward a data-driven safety program to find trends and top
causes. This set into motion several changes.

Prior to 2015, the Virginia DOT safety managers were organizationally located within the
central office and served the districts. A 2015 reorganization moved personnel from the central
office to the districts as district safety managers reporting directly to the district engineers. The
central office safety division was originally under the Virginia DOT Chief Engineer (a nonpolitical
appointee). As a kickoff to the significant safety changes mentioned, a recommendation was to
move the safety division to report directly to the commissioner. The recommendation was
accepted, and the Division of Safety, Security, and Emergency Management was moved directly
under the commissioner. This short chain of command provides autonomy and influence on the
safety division within the Virginia DOT. While having autonomy, the safety division must still
consider and consult stakeholders prior to installing new guidance, policies, procedures, and the
like. The direct report to the commissioner also comes with dotted organizational lines to the
chief engineer and chief for maintenance and operations (executive leadership). The Virginia
DOT has an excellent commitment to safety from the executive leadership team. While this
commitment has not always been there, once it was developed it has been able to sustain leader-
ship transitions. The leadership now views safety as a key value to the Virginia DOT. An example
was a recent transition to KASK helmets instead of hard hats. The KASK helmet is considered
more appropriate to the work performed by the Virginia DOT. The safety division conducted
a study and made the recommendation, and the Virginia DOT purchased 6,000 KASK helmets
using commissioner-provided funding.
The development of the strong safety culture was largely attributable to their SMS. Providing
the information and numbers to support the safety initiatives and point to areas for savings
helped achieve buy-in, especially at the leadership level. If you build a strong safety program and
culture, transitioning management teams will have less of an effect. However, in the beginning,
to achieve that culture, you need a leadership commitment to safety.
In regard to safety, the Virginia DOT Safety, Security, and Emergency Management Division
has an assistant director, two area safety coordinators (who divide the nine districts of the

Virginia DOT), a statewide safety manager (who conducts field visits for training, equipment
inspection, and district support), a business analyst (who prepares system reports and applica-
tions), and a policy analyst (who reviews injury and illness reporting for proper coding and
conducts policy directive reviews). These five employees drive policy, guidance, and oversight
for the 7,700 employees of the Virginia DOT across their nine districts.
Within the districts, there is at least one, but usually two, safety officers. Having two officers
is a recent change, but the Virginia DOT is seeing the value in having two officers per district
when there are peaks in incidents or when trying to institute programs. The districts are also
supporting this, which is further evidence of the Virginia DOT’s strong and growing safety
culture.
Additional staff support for safety functions comes from the human resources division,
which has one and one-half positions dedicated to occupational health. These positions are
responsible for commercial-driver licensing requirements, coordinating drug and alcohol
testing, and managing medical evaluations (for exposures to silica, asbestos, lead, and the
like). This group also has access to a third-party physician group for physicals and the actual
drug and alcohol testing. The Virginia DOT also has one industrial hygienist for the state,
and additional contracts if this employee needs assistance to supplement monitoring or
evaluations.
The safety program is supported by a robust training group within human resources. This
central office group provides some training; however, each district also has a district learning
manager to coordinate training needs. Overall, it is a collaborative organizational operation,
involving multiple divisions and a central office working to support the districts.

The Virginia DOT’s SMS is a broad collaboration of systems, as will be described in the
following section. The information is collected largely through the use of Microsoft InfoPath
forms with automated workflows managed within a Microsoft SharePoint platform. The district
safety manager reviews the incoming information for quality issues and will request clarifi-
cations if needed. The workflow then moves the information forward to additional review to
ensure and improve quality with the central-office safety division also involved. This multi-
tiered review starts within the district and is finalized with the assistant director within the
central-office safety division.

and Mechanisms Used
The Virginia DOT is a large organization of 7,800 employees with a robust IT department
within the agency. This is where the safety division began before the program revisions in 2015.
First, the Virginia DOT developed a 24-hour toll-free phone number to provide a central injury-
reporting customer service line. This approach made it simple for supervisors and work unit
leaders to begin necessary paperwork and also make initial notifications to the district safety
manager and human resources. Then, through the use of Microsoft InfoPath electronic forms
for injury reporting, a database for injuries and illnesses was created and hosted using a
Microsoft SharePoint system. The Virginia DOT is a self-insured agency that uses a third-party
provider for administering its workers’ compensation program. By linking its SharePoint
system with the third party’s interface, the Virginia DOT created an automatic paperless process
for injuries and illness. This data is managed by the human resources division, while safety data
is managed by the safety division.

Case Examples 49
Begun in 2015 and launched in 2017, the Virginia DOT created InfoPath forms for vehicular
or equipment crashes or incidents. The definitions determining incidents or crashes are based
on its internal definitions and not law enforcement. These forms and processes are currently
being migrated from a local SharePoint system to a SharePoint online system, along with
revisions to the forms for crash and incident reporting. This migration will be followed by the
migration of the previously mentioned injury and illness form. The crash and incident process
is also automated. All field personnel can input crash or incident data using an email address to
log in and complete the paperwork. The SharePoint system is connected to additional internal
systems to help prepopulate forms with known details. For example, entering a vehicle identi-
fication number will query a vehicle database and fill in additional details for that vehicle. This
also occurs for the employees based on their employee identification number, which can link
to the call-in information of an incident, an employee’s supervisor, and more. Within the
form, district safety managers can rule an incident as preventable or nonpreventable and can
provide reasoning or recommend corrective action. The employee completing the form can
also provide their assessment of why the incident was preventable or nonpreventable. Once
complete, the form is processed to a statewide safety committee that rules on the preventable
nature of the incident, and then a safety director closes out the form with a final determina-
tion and issues corrective or disciplinary actions needed to the district. This SharePoint module
also allows for collecting witness statements, police reports, pictures, investigation reports, and
anything associated with the incident investigation.
Another module of the system is for occupational health, which is also controlled by
human resources but is accessible by the safety division. The Virginia DOT’s human resources
division has an industrial hygienist who reviews the information collected by this module, which
includes data on exposures to silica and lead, tracking of required physicals for employees, and
drug and alcohol screenings. This sensitive data, which is also entered through InfoPath forms,
is in a SharePoint system with strict permission controls. However, a Virginia DOT employee
with appropriate permissions can see information in this system and other systems described
here. Safety managers in the central office, for example, would be able to review injuries, prior
physical dates, and the like.
Another SharePoint module controlled by human resources is for civility training and pro-
grams in the workplace. This module includes data related to workplace violence and civil rights.
This system ties together information and incidents needing review by a Virginia DOT threat
assessment team. This team meets as necessary, and findings in the cases progress based on the
civil rights categorization of the incident.
The Virginia DOT also has a learning management system for training called the Virginia DOT
University. This system is a vendor-provided system using Cornerstone. The Virginia DOT is
able to build its own training and upload these trainings to the Virginia DOT University. Other
courses are collected or purchased from AASHTO or Skillsoft. The Virginia DOT is currently
working on training plans to assemble classes into modules for certifications for operating
specific equipment or performing certain operations. It is able to use the system to identify
training needs based on tasks. For employees without computer access in the field, the Virginia
DOT has provided electronic bulletin boards. These bulletin boards are smart, touchscreen
televisions with preloaded training presentations, videos, and other content pushed out by the
Virginia DOT IT division.
A couple of system elements linked to the safety division are controlled by the Virginia DOT
maintenance division. One is the Integrated Solutions program, which is for purchases of PPE,
chemicals, oil, and the like. This is also a SharePoint and InfoPath system. Purchases must meet
specific criteria or be previously approved within a catalog. Reviews and approvals are handled
electronically by the safety division, which has access to this system. One system not currently

linked to the safety system is the Virginia DOT’s Highway Maintenance Management System,
which manages work orders. The safety division is working toward creating this link so training,
work orders, and injuries could be reviewable for analysis. The safety division is also working
on a geographic information system through Esri ArcGIS for near-miss reporting and data
collection.
The Virginia DOT’s SMS is a large aggregation of modules and subsystems mainly using
Microsoft SharePoint. The development and linking of these modules into a system has been
a vast collaboration across various divisions. These components were developed in-house and
not within a singular-purchased system, which can make reporting more difficult. In 2019, the
safety division hired a business analyst with proficiencies in Microsoft Power BI, Microsoft
Power Apps, and SharePoint Online. This allowed for the creation of additional tools and
reporting. The Virginia DOT is able to use its SMS and data collected to produce monthly
safety reports and snapshot safety analytics, and review injury rates, among other metrics,
broken down by district level or other criteria. The Virginia DOT performs quarterly analyses
to review trends (improving or worsening) and are working to develop an overall safety score.
All of this reporting is automated. As facility inspections, near-miss reporting, or other data is
entered (all paperless data collection), the output is at the fingertips of the end user.

The policies and procedures regarding the Virginia DOT’s SMS are not overly detailed, with
the exception of covering information security. In regard to personal identifiable informa-
tion, policy and informational memorandums require data to be secure and server-protected.
Permission to access such data is only granted to specific positions and according to satisfactory
background checks. Data entry is less controlled; for example, anyone can start a report on the
injury and illness platform, but access to review the data once personal information is pulled
from systems is restricted.
There is no policy instructing the use of the InfoPath forms; however, those are the only
forms available, so there is no alternative. Job aids are provided to instruct how to use the forms
and system, but not a description of the official procedural policy. There are policy and safety
directives for the Virginia DOT OSHA compliance that are manually written and specific to
Virginia DOT needs. Additionally, there is policy on reporting incidents and vehicle crashes,
but these do not reference the SMS because there is no other alternative for reporting as required.
4.5.6 Costs of SMS

During the development of the Virginia DOT’s SMS, cost was never questioned. However,
because the SMS was developed in-house using existing systems and software, costs were
largely in personnel time. There are costs regarding software for licenses (ArcGIS Survey123,
Power BI, and the like); however, these systems were already acquired for other reasons.
Hardware costs for tablets or mobile devices for data entry also exist, but these devices were
also largely already available. Besides PPE, testing equipment, physicals, and other mandated
requirements, most costs were for salary in developing the Virginia DOT SMS.

The Virginia DOT’s most important lesson learned was the realization that the first attempt
may not be successful. The installation and adoption of an SMS approach is something that
takes iterations. It requires collaboration with stakeholders, getting feedback, and accepting
criticism. Request reviews for the considered approaches; the more reviews received, the better

Case Examples 51
to realize invaluable improvements. There is also a need to be open-minded. Additionally,

someone within the organization will have to make the case for safety to achieve executive-
level buy-in to realize a cultural shift. If that case can be data- and value-driven, it will provide
the best response. A safety division with a close organizational relationship and chain of
command to executive leadership is an indication of importance and elicits credibility from
the organization.
The Virginia DOT has witnessed pitfalls in its approach, but it did not allow them to be
“showstoppers.” For example, cellular service in not available in rural areas of Virginia. The
Virginia DOT developed contingency plans to work around these issues: find ways to work
together, collaborate, and communicate to make it happen. Communication and collaboration
lead to credibility and the ability to realize the improvements sought.
Collaboration can also occur outside an agency. Hold to a continuous improvement mindset
and look to other state DOTs for inspiration and opportunities to learn. The Virginia DOT
recently collaborated with Kentucky on the design of a sign and cone rack to assist in traffic
control safety. AASHTO and organizations such as NAATSHO can also be helpful communities
for inspiration. The Virginia DOT is willing to collaborate and provide feedback based on its
experiences.

CHAPTER 5
Summary of Findings
The primary objective of this synthesis was to document the state of the practice of DOTs
use of SMSs, including an understanding of the various system capabilities and related policies
and procedures. Secondary objectives were to identify types of systems used, data that they
collect, means and methods of entering and accessing the safety data, types of reports that are
generated, costs associated with the systems, and written policies and procedures.
Each objective was previously addressed in the survey results presented in Chapter 3 and
DOT case examples described in Chapter 4. The following sections revisit the primary findings
of this NCHRP synthesis study. The information used to generate the conclusions is inclusive
of the 41 DOTs that responded to the survey. When specific numbers are referenced, the non-
responsive state DOTs are not included in the findings.
5.1 Key Findings

5.1.1 Types of System, Tools, or Mechanism Used
A variety of approaches were seen in the implementation of state SMSs. While the survey
indicated 49% (Figure 3.6) of the respondents noted using an in-house developed system, the
case examples illustrated that both the in-house-developed SMS and vendor-provided SMS have
benefits and challenges. While in-house systems tend to rely on currently available database
platforms, they necessitate strong information technology support. Both Connecticut and
Texas (Sections 4.1 and 4.4, respectively), who use commercially available systems, noted good
functionality out of the box and a host of features available and not previously considered, though
these systems may require customization for integration and may come with a significant cost.
5.1.2 Data Collected by SMS

All survey respondents having SMSs indicated they were used for collecting incident occur-
rences, with 65% (Figure 3.9) of those using the system for incident investigations. Other signi
ficant uses were seen in collecting near misses (42%) and training records (39%) (Figure 3.9).
As noted from the Texas case, many state DOTs are beginning to see the value in reviewing
leading indicators, and the Texas DOT is actively working with its SMS provider to develop and
implement those aspects of its system (Section 4.4). The Connecticut DOT similarly noted that
it is gleaning improved intellectual insight from its SMS for understanding incident root causes,
which allows it to be proactive in implementing mitigation approaches (Section 4.1). The survey
also noted that data was collected and accessed more frequently by state DOTs having SMSs
versus those who do not. For state DOTs without SMSs, 43% were only collecting data once an
incident occurred (Figure 3.29), whereas 59% of those with SMSs collected data multiple times
per day (Figure 3.14).
52

Summary of Findings 53
Means and Methods of Data Management

A total of 70% of SMSs are web-based (Figure 3.10). There are efficiency gains to be realized
where the SMS is integrated with personnel and training management systems. However, this
also presents challenges in data security and protection of personal identifying information.
These web-based systems also provide opportunities for optimal data retention and recovery.
As an example of an SMS improving data use, the Tennessee DOT noted that its Microsoft
SharePoint–based system allowed it to distribute lessons learned quickly and efficiently statewide
with concepts such as “Safety Monday” videos, which shared safety data and training (Section 4.3).
Another improvement in using vendor-provided SMSs can be in data security. Connecticut
noted that its provider’s service entailed a federally approved firewall used by other agencies
such as NASA (Section 4.1).
Internal and External Reporting

The survey respondents noted several internal and external reporting functions of the SMSs,
including incident investigation reports (65%), workers’ compensation reports (62%), OSHA
300 logs (54%), training records (39%), and behavior observation reports (15%) (Figure 3.13).
Other reporting mentioned included monthly property damage and injury data, incident counts
by location, safety huddle reports, fleet safety records, JSAs, and accident code trending. These
reporting approaches present the power and flexibility of SMSs in using the collected data to inves-
tigate leading and lagging indicators and trending toward a complete safety management solution.
SMS Costs
Cost data was largely not specifically noted. However, for those state DOTs using SMSs,
neither cost to acquire the system nor cost to manage the system were noted as significant
challenges (Figure 3.18). It is noteworthy that cost was only noted as a significant challenge
to those not currently using SMSs (Figure 3.33). Cost also does not seem to be a deterrent to
those using SMSs, as all noted they would continue using the system and 70% noted they would
expand the use of their system (Figure 3.19). The Tennessee DOT, which uses an in-house-
developed and -maintained SMS, does not consider cost a challenge. It considers its system to be
self-sustaining because of a savings of more than $1 million through reductions in the frequency
and severity of workers’ compensation claims since adopting the system (Section 4.3). Those
with vendor-provided systems, like Connecticut and Texas (Sections 4.1 and 4.4, respectively),
noted a significant cost for initializing the system and the need for funding modifications,
customizations, and maintenance, but found the extended functionality and interoperability
with other systems created significant value-added benefits.
Written Policies and Procedures

Written policies and procedures around the use of SMSs trended toward being a need for
development. Survey respondents noted that many (44%) had no policy documented for the use
of the SMS (Figure 3.20). Where there was documentation, it was largely procedural for roles
and responsibilities of data entry and reporting and not policy. Few state DOTs noted the use of
SMSs to highlight trends, corrective procedures, and the like. This presents a need for guidance
in this area.
Organizational Structure
Organizational structure was noted during several of the case interviews as a strength within
the safety programs (Chapter 4). A total of 48% of the survey respondents noted division
responsibility for safety was an employee safety and health division or equivalent division
(Figure 3.22). Depending on the DOT’s organizational structure, this division could have
various reporting hierarchies. Some of the most experienced DOTs noted the importance of
occupational safety being a separate and unique division, as opposed to being contained within

100%
100% 93%
90%
79%
80%
70% 65% 64% 64%
Percentage
60% 50%
50% 42%
39% 36%
40%
30% 23% 23% 23% 23%
19%
20%
7%
10% 0% 0%
0%
Near Misses
Training Guides
Policy Manuals
Other - Write In
Training Records
Incident Occurrence
Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job
Briefings
SMS Users non-SMS Users
Figure 5.1. Comparison between SMS users and non-SMS users on the safety
information collected.
human resources or another business unit. Also noted was a need for a close organizational
relationship with executive leadership. Having a standalone business unit and a short chain
of command sets a tone and strength for safety within these state DOTs. These approaches
give safety representatives a seat at the table, potential standalone funding, and the backing of
executive leadership. They are not a supporting entity; they are a core entity.
Comparison Between SMS Users and Non-SMS Users

In comparing SMS user and non-SMS-user DOTs, the safety information collected and
data access frequency provided notable differences. Figure 5.1 shows that SMS users all collect
incident occurrence information through their SMS, and most collect incident investigation
information as well. However, non-SMS users seem to capture more information in their
traditional formats, as most DOTs stated that they collected information related to incident
occurrences, incident investigations, near misses, training records, and toolbox talks.
Looking at frequency for collecting safety information, SMS users capture safety informa-
tion multiple times per day, as seen in Figure 5.2. For DOTs without an SMS, most often data is
collected after an incident occurs. When safety information is proactively captured (i.e., not just
after an incident occurs), it provides an opportunity to proactively manage safety.
Between SMS users and non-SMS users, there is a difference in the frequency with which
safety managers accessed safety information as seen in Figure 5.3. For DOTs with an SMS,
most stated that their safety managers access the data multiple times per day, or at least multiple
times per week. For DOTs without an SMS, their safety managers most often access safety
information after an incident occurs. SMS users accessing real-time safety information more
frequently provides greater opportunity to actively manage safety.
5.2 Research Needs

This study identified a few gaps warranting further investigation. First, there is a need for
improved understanding of the benefits and challenges when choosing between an in-house-
developed SMS or a vendor-provided solution. These two methods of delivering an SMS function

Summary of Findings 55
For SMS Users For non-SMS Users
Other - Once per

Write In month
11% Once per 7%
day
A few 7%
times per
week
11% After an
incident
Other -
Multiple occurs
After an Write In
times per 43%
incident 21%
day
occurs 59% Multiple
19% times per
day
22%
Figure 5.2. Comparison between SMS users and non-SMS

users on safety data collection frequency.
differently in regard to system access, scalability, functionality, and agility. There are also many
differences in reporting functionality, the ability to review leading and lagging indicators, and
in approaches for data entry and management.
A second gap was noticed in regard to formalized policies, procedures, and guidance for
adopting and using SMSs. The development of guidance, such as an AASHTO implementation
guide for SMSs, would present approaches for data entry and management and also identify
leading and lagging metrics of value for DOT safety programs. This information is currently
not succinctly available.
A final gap noted is in regard to SMS cost and benefit analysis. Along with the previous
gap noted for the analysis between in-house and vendor-provided SMS solutions, there is no
guidance available to determine the organizational value provided by SMSs. Their value has
been restricted to reductions in workers’ compensation claims or incident rates, but studies
have shown the value of safety extends beyond these metrics and DOTs would benefit from a
thorough understanding of the value added by emphasizing safety.
For SMS Users For non-SMS Users
After an Other - Other -

incident Write In Write In
4% Once per 7%
occurs
month
7%
7%
After an
Once per
incident
day Once per
occurs
11% week
29%
Multiple 14%
A few times per
times per day A few Multiple
week 56% times per times per
22% week day
21% 22%
Figure 5.3. Comparison between SMS users and non-SMS users

on safety data access frequency.

References
Al-Shabbani, Z., R. E. Sturgill, Jr., and G. B. Dadi (2017). Safety Concepts for Workers from an OSHA Perspective.
Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
American National Standards Institute (2012). American National Standard for Occupational Health and
Safety Management Systems. (ANSI/AIHA Standard No. Z10). American National Standards Institute,
New York, NY.
Australian/New Zealand Standard (2001). Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems—General
Guidelines on Principles, Systems, and Supporting Techniques. (AS/NZS Standard No. 4804:200).
British Standards Institute (2004). Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems Guide. (BS Standard
No. 8800:2004). British Standards Institute, London, United Kingdom.
British Standards Institute (2007). Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series: Occupational Health and
Safety Management System Standard—Requirements. (BS Standard No. 18001:2007). British Standards
Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Chung, K., O. Grembek, J. Lee, and K. Choi (2013). Developing Safety Management Tools for State Depart-
ments of Transportation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2364(1), 36–43.
Connecticut Department of Transportation (2021). “Our Mission”, About CTDOT. https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/
General/About-Us [Accessed 05/19/2021].
FHWA (2021). FHWA Work Zone Facts and Statistics. Website: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/facts_
stats.htm.
Gambatese, J. A., D. Hurwitz, and Z. Barlow (2017). NCHRP Synthesis 509: Highway Worker Safety. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Hallmark, S. L., R. Basavaraju, and M. Pawlovich (2002). Evaluation of the Iowa DOT’s Safety Improvement
Candidate List Process (No. CTRE Project 00-74). Final Report. Center for Transportation Research and
Education, Iowa State University, Ames.
Health and Safety Executives (HSE) (2013). Managing for Health and Safety (HSE Standard No. HSG65).
International Organization for Standardization (2004). Environmental Management Systems—Requirements with
Guidance for Use (ISO Standard No. 14001:2004).
International Organization for Standardization (2018). Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems—
Requirements with Guidance for Use (ISO Standard No. 45001:2018).
Ismail, Z., S. Doostdar, and Z. Harun (2012). Factors Influencing the Implementation of a Safety Management
System for Construction Sites. Safety Science, 50(3), 418–423.
Kogi, K. (2002). Work Improvement and Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems: Common
Features and Research Needs. INDUSTRIAL HEALTH, 40(2), 121–133.
National Work Zone Safety (2019). Work Zone Fatal Crashes and Fatalities. American Road and Transportation
Builders Association (ARTBA), Washington, DC. Website: https://www.workzonesafety.org/crash-information/
work-zone-fatal-crashes-fatalities/#national.
Nevada DOT (2021). About NDOT. Nevada DOT, Carson City. Website: https://www.dot.nv.gov/doing-business/
about-ndot [Accessed 05/19/2021].
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2011). Voluntary Protection Program. U.S. Department of
Labor, Washington, D.C.
OSHAcademy (2020). Developing a Construction Safety Management System. Website: https://www.oshatrain.org/
courses/studyguides/833studyguide.pdf.
Robson, L. S., J. A. Clarke, K. Cullen, A. Bielecky, C. Severin, P. L. Bigelow, E. Irvin, A. Culyer, and Q. Mahood
(2007). The Effectiveness of Occupational Health and Safety Management System Interventions: A Systematic
Review. Safety Science, 45(3), 329–353.
56

References 57
Tennessee Department of Transportation (2021). “About TDOT”. https://www.tn.gov/tdot/about.html [Accessed

05/19/2021].
Texas DOT (2019). Pocket facts. Texas DOT, Austin. Website: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/gpa/pocket_
facts.pdf [Accessed 05/19/2021].
Texas DOT (2021). LinkedIn—About. Website: https://www.linkedin.com/company/texas-department-of-
transportation/about/ [Accessed 05/19/2021].
U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) (2021). U.S. Department of Transportation Administrations.
Website: https://www.transportation.gov/administrations [Accessed 05/21/2021].
Vassie, L., J. M. Tomàs, and A. Oliver (2000). Health and Safety Management in UK and Spanish SMEs: A Com-
parative Study. Journal of Safety Research, 31(1), 9.
Virginia DOT (2021). The Commonwealth’s Transportation Agency. Website: https://www.virginiadot.org/
about_vdot/default.asp [Accessed 05/20/2021].
Wachter, J. K., and P. L. Yorio (2014). A System of Safety Management Practices and Worker Engagement
for Reducing and Preventing Accidents: An Empirical and Theoretical Investigation. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 68, 117–130.
Yiu, N. S. N., D. W. M. Chan, M. Shan, and N. N. Sze (2019). Implementation of Safety Management System
in Managing Construction Projects: Benefits and Obstacles. Safety Science, 117, 23–32.

APPENDIX A
Survey Questionnaire
58

Survey Questionnaire 59
Email to Potential Participants
From: Gabriel B. Dadi, Ph.D., PE
To: Members of AASHTO Standing Committee on Maintenance Members and North American
Association of Transportation Safety & Health Officials (NAATSHO)
Subject: NCHRP Project 20-05/Synthesis Topic 52-09: “Use of Safety Management Systems in
Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety”
Dear AASHTO Committee on Maintenance (COM) or NAATSHO Member,
The Transportation Research Board (TRB), through the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP), under the sponsorship of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) is preparing a synthesis report on Use of Safety Management Systems (SMS) in Managing
Highway Maintenance Worker Safety.
The purpose of this questionnaire is to identify DOT use, evaluation, and perceptions of SMSs in
managing employee safety. Even if your DOT does not currently or has never used a SMS, this survey
wants to gather your experience. The results of the survey will be incorporated into a synthesis of
highway practice, with the intent of helping DOTs evaluate and improve their safety management
practices.
This survey is being sent to each DOT for distribution to applicable employees. If you are not the
appropriate person at your agency to complete this questionnaire, please forward this request to the
correct person. The questionnaire is attached as a PDF to help in that determination, but please use the
survey link to complete the questionnaire.
Please complete and submit the survey at the following link by Friday, February 19th. We estimate that it
should take no more than 20 minutes to complete.
https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/6115812/NCHRP-Synthesis-52-09-Use-of-Safety-Management-Systems-
in-Managing-Highway-Maintenance-Worker-Safety
If you have any questions or problems with operation or access to the questionnaire, please contact me,
the project principal investigator, Dr. Gabe Dadi.
Thank you for your time and expertise in completing this questionnaire!
Best,
Gabriel B. Dadi, Ph.D., PE

W.L. Raymond and R.E. Shaver Chair Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Kentucky

SMS Survey Questionnaire
NCHRP Synthesis 52-09: “Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway

Maintenance Worker Safety”
Dear Department of Transportation Representative,
The Transportation Research Board (TRB), through the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP), under the sponsorship of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) is preparing a synthesis report on Use of Safety Management Systems
(SMS) in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety.
The purpose of this questionnaire is to identify state DOT use, evaluation, and perceptions of
SMSs in managing employee safety. The results of the survey will be incorporated into a
synthesis of highway practice, with the intent of helping DOTs evaluate and improve their safety
management practices.
This survey is being sent to each DOT for distribution to applicable employees. If you are not the
appropriate person at your agency to complete this questionnaire, please forward this request to
the correct person.
Please complete and submit this survey by Friday, February 19th. We estimate that it should take
no more than 20 minutes to complete.
If you have any questions or problems with operation or access to the questionnaire, please
contact me, the project principal investigator, Dr. Gabe Dadi, at gabe.dadi@uky.edu.
Thank you for your time and expertise in completing this questionnaire!
NCHRP Synthesis 52-09 Demographic Information
Does your DOT currently use, or has it previously used, a safety management system
(SMS) to record, manage, and analyze safety-related data with your maintenance
employees? If one of the following answers is no, jump to Q24.

(1) Please enter the following information:
Name:
Title:
Email:
Phone Number:
(2) What department of transportation (DOT) do you work for?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky

Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina

South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
(3) What division do you work for within your agency?
Human Resources
Employee Safety
Management/Finance
Maintenance
Other - Write In:
(4) What is an approximate number of the maintenance employees in your DOT?
Less than 1,000
1,000-4,999
5,000-9,999
More than 10,000

(5) For the purpose of this survey, safety management systems (SMSs) allow a DOT to
electronically report, manage, control, and audit issues related to employee safety. SMSs
allow safety and health divisions in DOTs to become more agile, effective, and
knowledgeable about the safety of employees. SMSs could be a commercial product, an in-
house developed system, or even an Excel spreadsheet.
Does your DOT currently use, or has it previously used, a safety management system
(SMS) to record, manage, and analyze safety-related data with your maintenance
employees?
Yes
No
Safety Management System (SMS) Questions
(6) Approximately how many years has your DOT been using an SMS?
Less than a year
1-3 years
> 3-5 years
> 5-10 years
> 10 years
(7) How was your SMS developed?
In-house
Commercial product customized for your DOT
Commercial product purchased off the shelf (i.e. as-is EHS software)
Other - Write In:

(8) What is included in the written language of your DOT’s policy manual(s) regarding
SMSs? Please check all that apply.
The contents of the SMS
Executive management support for safety and the SMS
Goals for the SMS
Roles and responsibilities for data entry
Roles and responsibilities for data management
Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions
To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
Other - Write In:
(9) Which of the following components, elements, or characteristics of an SMS are in your
system? Select all that apply.
Worksite Analysis
Safety and Health Training and Competence
Employee Engagement
Evaluation and Continuous Improvement
Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
Other - Write In:
(10) What operational characteristics are in your SMS? Select all that apply.
Uses Excel spreadsheets
Integrates data management systems

An enterprise-wide system
Single point of access (i.e. one log-in portal)
Other - Write In:
(11) What information can be recorded, tracked, or available within your SMS? Select all
that apply.
Incident Occurrence
Near Misses
Training Records
Training Guides
Policy Manuals
Other - Write In:
(12) How is data entered into the SMS? Select all that apply.
Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software
Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system
Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF
Data collected on paper and archived
Other - Write In:

(13) Who is responsible for the data entered into the SMS? Select all that apply.
Maintenance Worker
Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent
Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent
Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent
Other - Write In:
(14) How does your DOT retain the safety data? Select all that apply.
Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
Printed for hard-copy records
Other - Write In:
(15) What types of safety-related reports are generated? Select all that apply.
OSHA 300 logs
ISO 45001 certifications
Training records
Behavior observation reports
Incident investigation reports
Workers’ compensation reports
Other - Write In:

(16) How often is the SMS accessed by those responsible for data entry?
Multiple times per day
Once per day
A few times per week
Once per week
Once per month
After an incident occurs
Other - Write In:
(17) How often is the SMS accessed by those responsible to manage safety with its
information?
Once per day
Once per week
Once per month
Other - Write In:
(18) How is the maintenance worker safety information used for improvement? Select all
that apply.
Information posted for employees to see and self-address
Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager
Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective

actions
Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective

actions

Information is collected as a requirement. The information is not used for any action.
Other - Write In:
(19) What benefit(s) has your agency realized through your use of an SMS? Select all that
apply.
Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g. TRIR, DART, etc.)
Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g. participation in
safety committees, etc.)
Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents
Improved worker relations and morale
Improved business efficiencies relating health and safety
Improved regulatory compliance documentation
Improved organizational and social responsibility
Other - Write In:
(20) What barriers has your agency encountered in your use of an SMS? Select all that
apply.
Time for data entry
Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results
Accuracy of results
Integrating into operational procedures
Other - Write In:

(21) Considering the costs and benefits of the SMS, what level of future use is planned in
your agency?
Will expand use of the SMS
Will continue current use of the SMS
Will not renew or continue current use of the SMS
Previously used SMS but stopped due to lack of value
Previously used SMS but stopped due to lack of funds
(22) Who is responsible for following up on safety actions from the SMS information?
Maintenance workers themselves
There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description
Other - Write In:
(23) What division, branch, or equivalent is responsible for monitoring and managing the
safety of maintenance workers in your DOT?
Human Resources or equivalent
Employee Safety and Health or equivalent
Management/Finance or equivalent
Maintenance/Operations or equivalent
Other - Write In:

Non-SMS Safety Management Questions
(24) What is included in the written language of your DOT’s policy manual(s) regarding
collecting maintenance worker safety information? Please check all that apply.
The information to be collected
Executive management support for safety
Goals for the safety program
Roles and responsibilities for data collection
Roles and responsibilities for data management
Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions
To my knowledge, no policy manual documents procedures around collecting maintenance

worker safety information
Other - Write In:
(25) Which of the following safety elements does your DOT evaluate in regards to its
maintenance crews? Select all that apply.
Worksite Analysis
Safety and Health Training and Competence
Employee Engagement
Evaluation and Continuous Improvement
Other - Write In:

(26) What maintenance worker safety information do you collect data on? Select all that
apply.
Incident Occurrence
Near Misses
Training Records
Other - Write In:
(27) How do you capture maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply.
Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software
Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system
Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF
Data collected on paper and archived
Other - Write In:
(28) Who is responsible for collecting maintenance worker safety information? Select all
that apply.
Maintenance worker

Other - Write In:
(29) How does your DOT retain the data? Select all that apply.
Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
Printed for hard-copy records
Other - Write In:
(30) What types of safety-related reports are generated? Select all that apply.
OSHA 300 logs
ISO 45001 certifications
Training records
Behavior observation reports
Other - Write In:
(31) How often is maintenance worker safety information data collected?
Once per day
Once per week

Once per month
Other - Write In:
(32) How often is maintenance worker safety information accessed by those responsible to
manage safety?
Once per day
Once per week
Once per month
Other - Write In:
(33) How is the maintenance worker safety information used for improvement? Select all
that apply.
Information posted for employees to see and self-address
Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager
Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective

actions
Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective

actions
Information is collected as a requirement. The information is not used for any action.
Other - Write In:

(34) What benefit(s) has your agency realized through collecting maintenance worker
safety information? Select all that apply.
Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g. TRIR, DART, etc.)
Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g. participation in
Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents
Improved worker relations and morale
Improved business efficiencies relating health and safety
Improved organizational and social responsibility
Other - Write In:
(35) What barriers has your agency encountered in collecting maintenance worker safety
information? Select all that apply.
Time for data entry
Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results
Accuracy of results
Other - Write In:

(36) Considering costs and benefits, what level of future use is planned with your current
procedures in regards to collecting maintenance worker safety information in your agency?
Will expand procedures
Will continue current procedures
Will reduce/limit current procedures due to lack of value
Will reduce/limit current procedures due to lack of funding
(37) Who is responsible for following up on safety actions from the maintenance worker
safety information?
Maintenance workers themselves
There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description
Other - Write In:
(38) What division, branch, or equivalent is responsible for monitoring and managing the
Human Resources or equivalent
Employee Safety and Health or equivalent
Management/Finance or equivalent
Maintenance/Operations or equivalent
Other - Write In:

(39) Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up phone interview for the
development of a case study? The case study interviews would include preliminary
correspondence to determine stakeholders who should participate in the case study, a
phone interview approximately one hour in length, with minor follow-up to finalize case
details, and a review of the case study prior to submission.
Yes
No
Thank you for taking our survey. Your response is very important to us.

APPENDIX B
Survey Results
Some percentages in tables and figures that follow may differ slightly due to rounding.
78

Survey Results 79
2. What department of transportation (DOT) do you work for?
Value Percent Count
Alabama 2.4% 1
Alaska 2.4% 1
Arizona 2.4% 1
Arkansas 2.4% 1
California 2.4% 1
Colorado 2.4% 1
Connecticut 2.4% 1
Delaware 2.4% 1
Georgia 2.4% 1
Hawaii 2.4% 1
Idaho 2.4% 1
Indiana 2.4% 1
Iowa 2.4% 1
Kansas 2.4% 1

Kentucky 2.4% 1
Louisiana 2.4% 1
Maine 2.4% 1
Maryland 2.4% 1
Michigan 2.4% 1
Minnesota 2.4% 1
Mississippi 2.4% 1
Missouri 2.4% 1
Montana 2.4% 1
Nebraska 2.4% 1
Nevada 2.4% 1
New Hampshire 2.4% 1
New Jersey 2.4% 1
New Mexico 2.4% 1
New York 2.4% 1
North Dakota 2.4% 1
Ohio 2.4% 1

Survey Results 81
South Carolina 2.4% 1
South Dakota 2.4% 1
Tennessee 2.4% 1
Texas 2.4% 1
Utah 2.4% 1
Virginia 2.4% 1
Washington State 2.4% 1
West Virginia 2.4% 1
Wisconsin 2.4% 1
Wyoming 2.4% 1
Total 41

3. What division do you work for within your agency?
Other - Write In Human Resources

17% 17%
Maintenance
15%
Employee Safety
51%
Value Percent Count
Human Resources 17.1% 7
Employee Safety 51.2% 21
Maintenance 14.6% 6
Other—Write in 17.1% 7
Total 41

Survey Results 83
Other—Write in Count
Admin Services—Safety 1
Administrative Services 1
Chief Engineer 1
Occupational Health and Safety 1
Office of Homeland Security and 1

Occupational Safety
Safety and Emergency Management 1
Safety, Security, and Emergency 1

Management
Total 7
What department of What division do you Other—Write in:

transportation work for within your
(DOT) do you agency?
work for?
Alabama Maintenance
Alaska Employee Safety
Arizona Other—Write in Administrative Services—Safety
Arkansas Human Resources
California Employee Safety

Colorado Employee Safety
Connecticut Other—Write in Occupational Health and Safety
Delaware Maintenance
Georgia Human Resources
Hawaii Maintenance
Idaho Employee Safety
Indiana Employee Safety
Iowa Other—Write in Administrative Services
Kansas Employee Safety
Kentucky Employee Safety
Louisiana Employee Safety
Maine Human Resources
Maryland Other—Write in Office of Homeland Security and Occupational

Safety
Michigan Employee Safety
Minnesota Employee Safety
Mississippi Other—Write in Chief Engineer
Missouri Other—Write in Safety and Emergency Management
Montana Employee Safety
Nebraska Human Resources
Nevada Human Resources
New Hampshire Maintenance

Survey Results 85
New Jersey Employee Safety
New Mexico Human Resources
New York Employee Safety
North Dakota Maintenance
Ohio Employee Safety
South Carolina Employee Safety
South Dakota Employee Safety
Tennessee Employee Safety
Texas Employee Safety
Utah Employee Safety
Virginia Other—Write in Safety, Security, and Emergency Management
Washington Human Resources
West Virginia Employee Safety
Wisconsin Maintenance
Wyoming Employee Safety

4. What is an approximate number of the maintenance employees in your DOT?
5,000-9,999 More than

5% 10,000
2%
Less than 1,000

27%
1,000-4,999
66%
Value Percent Count
Less than 1,000 26.8% 11
1,000-4,999 65.9% 27
5,000-9,999 4.9% 2
More than 10,000 2.4% 1
Total 41

Survey Results 87
State DOT What is an approximate

number of the maintenance
employees in your DOT?
Alabama 1,000–4,999
Alaska 1,000–4,999
Arizona 1,000–4,999
Arkansas 1,000–4,999
California 1,000–4,999
Colorado 1,000–4,999
Connecticut 1,000–4,999
Delaware Less than 1,000
Georgia 1,000–4,999
Hawaii Less than 1,000
Idaho Less than 1,000
Indiana 1,000–4,999
Iowa 1,000–4,999
Kansas 1,000–4,999
Kentucky 1,000–4,999
Louisiana 1,000–4,999
Maine 1,000–4,999
Maryland 1,000–4,999
Michigan Less than 1,000

Minnesota 1,000–4,999
Mississippi 1,000–4,999
Missouri 1,000–4,999
Montana 1,000–4,999
Nebraska 1,000–4,999
Nevada Less than 1,000
New Hampshire Less than 1,000
New Jersey 1,000–4,999
New Mexico 1,000–4,999
New York 5,000–9,999
North Dakota Less than 1,000
Ohio 1,000–4,999
South Carolina 1,000–4,999
South Dakota Less than 1,000
Tennessee 1,000–4,999
Texas More than 10,000
Utah Less than 1,000
Virginia 1,000–4,999
Washington 1,000–4,999
West Virginia 5,000–9,999
Wisconsin Less than 1,000
Wyoming Less than 1,000

Survey Results 89
5. For the purpose of this survey, safety management systems (SMSs) allow a DOT to
electronically report, manage, control, and audit issues related to employee safety. SMSs
allow safety and health divisions in DOTs to become more agile, effective, and
knowledgeable about the safety of employees. SMSs could be a commercial product, an in-
house developed system, or even an Excel spreadsheet. Does your DOT currently use, or
has it previously used, a safety management system (SMS) to record, manage, and analyze
safety-related data with your maintenance employees?
No
34%
Yes
66%
Value Percent Count
Yes 65.9% 27
No 34.1% 14
Total 41
NOTE: Detailed responses following Question 7.

6. Approximately how many years has your DOT been using an SMS?
1-3 years
25%
>10 years
39%
>3-5 years
18%
>5-10 years
18%
Value Percent Count
1–3 years 25.0% 7
> 3–5 years 17.9% 5
> 5–10 years 17.9% 5
> 10 years 39.3% 11
Total 28
NOTE: Detailed responses following Question 7.

Survey Results 91
7. How was your SMS developed?
Commercial
product purchased
oﬀ the shelf (i.e.
as-is EHS software) Other - Write In
4% 14%
Commercial
product
customized for
your DOT
11%
In-house
71%
Value Percent Count
In-house 71.4% 20
Commercial product 10.7% 3

customized for your DOT
Commercial product 3.6% 1

purchased off the shelf (i.e.,
as-is EHS software)
Total 28

State DOT Does your DOT currently Approximately How was Other—Write in:
use, or has it previously how many years your SMS
used, a safety has your DOT developed?
management system been using an
(SMS) to record, manage, SMS?
and analyze safety-related
data with your
maintenance employees?
Alabama Yes > 10 years In-house
Alaska Yes > 10 years Other— Combination

Write in
Arizona Yes > 5-10 years In-house
Arkansas No
California Yes > 10 years In-house
Colorado No
Connecticut Yes 1–3 years Commercial

product
customized
for your
DOT
Delaware Yes 1–3 years In-house
Georgia Yes > 10 years Other— Unsupported old

Write in software
dissembled and
used in Oracle BI
Hawaii No
Idaho No

Survey Results 93
Indiana Yes > 5–10 years In-house
Iowa Yes > 10 years Other— Started as in-

Write in house and
recently
converted to a
commercial
product
customized for us
Kansas Yes > 10 years In-house
Kentucky No
Louisiana Yes > 5–10 years Commercial

product
customized
for your
DOT
Maine Yes > 3–5 years In-house
Maryland No
Michigan No
Minnesota Yes 1–3 years In-house
Mississippi Yes > 3–5 years In-house
Missouri No 1–3 years In-house
Montana Yes > 5–10 years Other— We use a

Write in combination of
in-house Excel
spreadsheets and
iAuditor
programs
Nebraska Yes > 5–10 years In-house

Nevada Yes > 10 years In-house
New Hampshire No
New Jersey No
New Mexico Yes 1–3 years In-house
New York Yes > 10 years Commercial

product
purchased
off the shelf
(i.e., as-is
EHS
software)
North Dakota Yes > 10 years In-house
Ohio No
South Carolina Yes > 10 years In-house
South Dakota Yes > 10 years In-house
Tennessee Yes 1–3 years In-house
Texas Yes > 3–5 years Commercial

product
customized
for your
DOT
Utah Yes > 3–5 years In-house
Virginia Yes > 3–5 years In-house
Washington No
West Virginia No
Wisconsin No
Wyoming Yes 1–3 years In-house

Survey Results 95
8. What is included in the written language of your DOT’s policy manual(s) regarding
SMSs? Please check all that apply.
50
45
40
35
Percentage
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Value Percent Count
The contents of the SMS 37.0% 10
Executive management 22.2% 6

support for safety and the
SMS
Goals for the SMS 29.6% 8
Roles and responsibilities for 40.7% 11

data entry


data management

corrective actions
To my knowledge, no policy 44.4% 12

manual documents SMSs
State DOT What is included in the written language of your DOT's

policy manual(s) regarding SMSs? Please check all that
apply.
Alabama The contents of the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data
entry
Alaska Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and

responsibilities for corrective actions
Arizona The contents of the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for

corrective actions
Arkansas
California The contents of the SMS, Goals for the SMS, Roles and
responsibilities for data entry, Roles and responsibilities for data
management
Colorado
Connecticut The contents of the SMS, Executive management support for

safety and the SMS, Goals for the SMS, Roles and
management, Other—Write in: Expanding roles

Survey Results 97
Delaware To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
Georgia To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs, Other—

Write in: Executives support performance metrics manually
manipulated and entered into another division's tool
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana The contents of the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data
entry, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles
and responsibilities for corrective actions
Iowa To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
Kansas To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
Kentucky
Louisiana The contents of the SMS, Goals for the SMS, Roles and
management
Maine To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Executive management support for safety and the SMS, Goals
for the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data entry, Roles and
responsibilities for data management, Roles and responsibilities
for corrective actions
Mississippi To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
Missouri
Montana To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
Nebraska Roles and responsibilities for data entry

Nevada The contents of the SMS, Executive management support for

management, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
New York To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
North Dakota To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
Ohio
South Carolina Other—Write in: Instructions for entering data
South Dakota The contents of the SMS, Executive management support for
Tennessee To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
Texas To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs
Utah The contents of the SMS, Executive management support for

Virginia The contents of the SMS, Executive management support for

Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Other—Write in: We developed a 5-year plan that gets updated

yearly. We started in 2020.

Survey Results 99
9. Which of the following components, elements, or characteristics of an SMS are in your

system? Select all that apply.
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Value Percent Count
Management Leadership 18.5% 5
Worksite Analysis 40.7% 11
Hazard Identification 48.1% 13
Hazard Prevention and 44.4% 12

Control
Safety and Health Training 40.7% 11

and Competence

Employee Engagement 25.9% 7
Evaluation and Continuous 33.3% 9

Improvement
Reporting, Documentation, 88.9% 24

and Archiving
State DOT Which of the following components, elements, or characteristics of

an SMS are in your system? Select all that apply.
Alabama Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
Alaska Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and

Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Evaluation and
Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
Arizona Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and

Health Training and Competence; Evaluation and Continuous
Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
Arkansas
California Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
Colorado
Connecticut Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification;

Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and
Competence; Employee Engagement; Evaluation and Continuous
Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving; Other—
Write in: medical monitoring, clinical visits, inspections
Delaware Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
Georgia Other—Write in: Records of Injuries and Crashes

Survey Results 101
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Hazard Prevention and Control; Evaluation and Continuous

Iowa Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
Kansas Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
Kentucky
Louisiana Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Employee Engagement;

Maine Safety and Health Training and Competence; Reporting,

Documentation, and Archiving
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Evaluation and

Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
Mississippi Worksite Analysis; Safety and Health Training and Competence;

Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving; Other—Write in: Daily
safety huddles; injury data; incident, near-miss investigation; work
analysis but with no safety aspect included
Missouri
Montana Worksite Analysis, Hazard Identification, Hazard Prevention and

Control
Nebraska Other—Write in: Safety incidents
Nevada Management Leadership, Worksite Analysis, Hazard Identification,

Hazard Prevention and Control, Safety and Health Training and
Competence, Employee Engagement, Evaluation and Continuous
Improvement, Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving

New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Hazard Identification; Employee Engagement; Reporting,

New York Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and

Control; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
North Dakota Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and

Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Reporting,
Ohio
South Carolina Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
South Dakota Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
Tennessee Safety and Health Training and Competence; Reporting,

Texas Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
Utah Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification;

Virginia Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification;

Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification;


Survey Results 103
10. What operational characteristics are in your SMS? Select all that apply.
60
50
40
Percentage
30
20
10
0
Uses Excel Integrates data An enterprise- Single point of Other - Write In
spreadsheets management wide system access (i.e. one
systems log-in portal)
Value Percent Count
Uses Excel spreadsheets 55.6% 15
Integrates data management 48.1% 13

systems
An enterprise-wide system 37.0% 10
Single point of access (i.e. 40.7% 11

one log-in portal)

State DOT What operational characteristics are in your SMS? Select all
that apply.
Alabama Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal)
Alaska Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems, An

enterprise-wide system
Arizona Integrates data management systems
Arkansas
California Integrates data management systems
Colorado
Connecticut Integrates data management systems, An enterprise-wide system,

Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal)
Delaware Uses Excel spreadsheets, Single point of access (i.e., one log-in
portal)
Georgia Other—Write In: See #7 above, BI to Excel then Pivots & Charts
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Integrates data management systems, An enterprise-wide system
Iowa Uses Excel spreadsheets, Single point of access (i.e., one log-in
portal)
Kansas Uses Excel spreadsheets, An enterprise-wide system
Kentucky
Louisiana Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems, An

enterprise-wide system, Single point of access (i.e., one log-in
portal)

Survey Results 105
Maine Uses Excel spreadsheets, Other—Write in: Learning Management

System
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems, An

portal)
Mississippi Other—Write in: not sure; programs developed by Information

Systems
Missouri
Montana Uses Excel spreadsheets, Other—Write in: iAuditor systems
Nebraska Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems
Nevada Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Uses Excel spreadsheets, An enterprise-wide system
New York Integrates data management systems, An enterprise-wide system,

Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal)
North Dakota Uses Excel spreadsheets, An enterprise-wide system
Ohio
South Carolina Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal), Other—Write in:
allows some documents to be uploaded
South Dakota Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal)
Tennessee Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems

Texas Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems, An

portal)
Utah Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal)
Virginia Integrates data management systems
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Uses Excel spreadsheets, Other—Write in: In the process of

onboarding a commercial electronic system

Survey Results 107
11. What information can be recorded, tracked, or available within your SMS? Select all
that apply.
120
100
80
Percentage
60
40
20
Value Percent Count
Incident Occurrence 100.0% 26
Incident Investigations 65.4% 17
Behavior Observations 19.2% 5
Near Misses 42.3% 11
Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job 23.1% 6

Briefings

Training Records 38.5% 10
Training Guides 23.1% 6
Policy Manuals 23.1% 6
State DOT What information can be recorded, tracked, or available within

your SMS? Select all that apply.
Alabama Incident Occurrence, Training Records, Training Guides
Alaska Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations,

Training Records, Policy Manuals
Arizona Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Training Records
Arkansas
California Incident Occurrence
Colorado
Connecticut Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations,

Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records,
Training Guides, Other—Write in: exposure groups/medical
monitoring
Delaware Incident Occurrence, Near Misses
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses

Survey Results 109
Iowa Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations
Kansas Incident Occurrence, Other—Write in: PPE, body part, description

of what happened
Kentucky
Louisiana Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations
Maine Incident Occurrence, Training Records, Policy Manuals, Other –

Write in: Separate systems used
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job

Briefings, Training Records, Training Guides, Policy Manuals
Mississippi Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses, Toolbox

Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records
Missouri
Montana Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Other—Write in: JSAs,

facility inspections
Nebraska Incident Occurrence
Nevada Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations,

Training Guides, Policy Manuals
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Incident Occurrence, Near Misses, Other—Write in: Specific codes
assigned to occurrences
New York Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations,

Near Misses

North Dakota Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses, Toolbox

Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records, Training Guides, Policy
Manuals
Ohio
South Carolina Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations
South Dakota Incident Occurrence, Other—Write in: Reports
Tennessee Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses
Texas Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations
Utah Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses
Virginia Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations,

Training Guides, Policy Manuals
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Incident Occurrence

Survey Results 111
12. How is data entered into the SMS? Select all that apply.
80
70
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0
Through a Through a Through a Data Data Data Other -
mobile app web-based Microsoft collected on collected on collected on Write In
portal Excel paper and paper and paper and
spreadsheet then then archived
or similar manually scanned to a
software entered into PDF
electronic
system
Value Percent Count
Through a mobile app 18.5% 5
Through a web-based portal 70.4% 19
Through a Microsoft Excel 29.6% 8

spreadsheet or similar
software
Data collected on paper and 40.7% 11

then manually entered into
electronic system


then scanned to a PDF

archived
State DOT How is data entered into the SMS? Select all that apply.
Alabama Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic
system
Alaska Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data

collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF, Data collected on
paper and archived
Arizona Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet

or similar software
Arkansas
California Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet

or similar software, Data collected on paper and then manually
entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and then
scanned to a PDF
Colorado
Connecticut Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal, Data collected

on paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data
collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF
Delaware Through a web-based portal, Data collected on paper and then

manually entered into electronic system
Georgia Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic
system

Survey Results 113
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Through a web-based portal
Iowa Through a web-based portal
Kansas Through a web-based portal, Data collected on paper and then

manually entered into electronic system
Kentucky
Louisiana Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal
Maine Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data

collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Through a web-based portal
Mississippi Through a web-based portal, Data collected on paper and then

scanned to a PDF
Missouri
Montana Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet

or similar software
Nebraska Other—Write in: An electronic system, then reported out
Nevada Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet

or similar software, Data collected on paper and then manually
entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and then
scanned to a PDF, Data collected on paper and archived
New Hampshire
New Jersey

New Mexico Through a web-based portal
New York Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal, Data collected
on paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data
collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF, Data collected on
paper and archived
North Dakota Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet

or similar software
Ohio
South Carolina Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic
system, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF
South Dakota Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic
system
Tennessee Through a web-based portal, Other—Write in: SharePoint forms
Texas Through a web-based portal
Utah Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal
Virginia Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal, Data collected

on paper and then scanned to a PDF
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software

Survey Results 115
13. Who is responsible for the data entered into the SMS? Select all that apply.
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Value Percent Count
Maintenance Worker 22.2% 6
Maintenance 66.7% 18
equivalent
Safety Coordinator/Safety 88.9% 24

Manager or equivalent
Safety Executive or 25.9% 7

equivalent

Maintenance 33.3% 9
Engineer/Manager or
equivalent
State DOT Who is responsible for the data entered into the SMS? Select all
that apply.
Alabama Other—Write in: Office managers
Alaska Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or

equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety
Executive or equivalent
Arizona Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Other—Write in: Work
comp admin
Arkansas
California Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent
Colorado
Connecticut Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or
equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent, Other—
Write in: direct employee access coming
Delaware Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or

equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent
Georgia Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent
Hawaii

Survey Results 117
Idaho
Indiana Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent
Iowa Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent
Kansas Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Other—Write in: HRP
Kentucky
Louisiana Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

Maine Other—Write in: Human Resource Specialist and Office Admins
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or

Mississippi Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Other—Write in:
Admins working with safety officers; human resources personnel
Missouri
Montana Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent
Nebraska Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Other—Write

in: Supervisors
Nevada Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Maintenance
Engineer/Manager or equivalent

New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent
New York Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

North Dakota Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or

Ohio
South Carolina Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Maintenance

South Dakota Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Other—Write in: Area
Secretaries
Tennessee Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

Texas Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or

Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or
equivalent
Utah Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent
Virginia Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or

Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or
equivalent
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent

Survey Results 119
14. How does your DOT retain the safety data? Select all that apply.
100
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Kept within the SMS Exported to CSV, PDF, Printed for hard-copy Other - Write In
infrastructure or other electronic records
records
Value Percent Count
Kept within the SMS 88.9% 24

infrastructure
Exported to CSV, PDF, or 37.0% 10

other electronic records
Printed for hard-copy records 22.2% 6

State DOT How does your DOT retain the safety data? Select all that
apply.
Alabama Kept within the SMS infrastructure, Printed for hard-copy records
Alaska Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other
electronic records
Arizona Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Arkansas
California Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Colorado
Connecticut Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Delaware Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Georgia Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records; Printed for hard-
copy records; Other—Write in: Oracle BI
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Iowa Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Kansas Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other
electronic records
Kentucky
Louisiana Kept within the SMS infrastructure, Printed for hard-copy records
Maine Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records; Printed for hard-
copy records

Survey Results 121
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
Mississippi Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Missouri
Montana Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other
electronic records
Nebraska Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other
electronic records
Nevada Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other
electronic records; Printed for hard-copy records
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other
electronic records
New York Kept within the SMS infrastructure, Printed for hard-copy records
North Dakota Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Ohio
South Carolina Kept within the SMS infrastructure
South Dakota Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Tennessee Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other
electronic records
Texas Kept within the SMS infrastructure

Utah Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Virginia Kept within the SMS infrastructure
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Kept within the SMS infrastructure

Survey Results 123
15. What types of safety-related reports are generated? Select all that apply.
70
60
50
40
Percentage
30
20
10
0
OSHA 300 logs Training Behavior Incident Workers’ Other - Write
records observation investigation compensation In
Value Percentage Count
OSHA 300 logs 53.8% 14
Training records 38.5% 10
Behavior observation reports 15.4% 4
Incident investigation reports 65.4% 17
Workers’ compensation 61.5% 16

reports

State DOT What types of safety-related reports are generated? Select all
that apply.
Alabama Training records, Workers’ compensation reports
Alaska OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports,

Arizona OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports,

Arkansas
California OSHA 300 logs, Incident investigation reports
Colorado
Connecticut Behavior observation reports, Incident investigation reports, Other—

Write in: Reports are customized based on need
Delaware Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports
Georgia Other—Write in: Metrics, studies
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana OSHA 300 logs, Incident investigation reports, Workers’

compensation reports
Iowa OSHA 300 logs
Kansas Other—Write in: Incident counts by location
Kentucky
Louisiana Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports
Maine OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Workers’ compensation reports

Survey Results 125
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’

Mississippi Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’

compensation reports, Other—Write in: Safety huddle reports;
maintenance function data
Missouri
Montana OSHA 300 logs, Incident investigation reports, Workers’

compensation reports, Other—Write in: JSAs and facility inspection
reports
Nebraska
Nevada OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Behavior observation reports,

Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Other—Write in: Accident code trending
New York OSHA 300 logs, Behavior observation reports, Incident investigation
reports
North Dakota Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’

Ohio
South Carolina OSHA 300 logs, Workers’ compensation reports, Other—Write in:
Fleet safety reports
South Dakota Other—Write in: Incident information; currently not able to add
investigation information

Tennessee OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports,

Other—Write in: Monthly property damage and injury data
Texas Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports
Utah OSHA 300 logs, Incident investigation reports, Workers’

Virginia OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Behavior observation reports,

Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming OSHA 300 logs

Survey Results 127
16. How often is the SMS accessed by those responsible for data entry?
Other - Write In
11%
After an incident
occurs
19%
Multiple times per

day
A few times per 59%
week
11%
Value Percent Count
Multiple times per day 59.3% 16
A few times per week 11.1% 3
After an incident occurs 18.5% 5
Total 27

State DOT How often is the SMS accessed Other—Write in:

by those responsible for data
entry?
Alabama Multiple times per day
Alaska Multiple times per day
Arizona After an incident occurs
Arkansas
California A few times per week
Colorado
Connecticut Multiple times per day
Delaware After an incident occurs
Georgia Multiple times per day
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana After an incident occurs
Iowa Multiple times per day
Kansas Other—Write in Every 2 weeks
Kentucky
Louisiana Multiple times per day
Maine Multiple times per day
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Multiple times per day

Survey Results 129
Mississippi Other—Write in Depends on the activity since the

systems in place are all separate;
huddles are accessed daily by
supervisors; incident investigation
when an incident occurs, etc.
Missouri
Montana Multiple times per day
Nebraska A few times per week
Nevada Multiple times per day
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico After an incident occurs
New York Multiple times per day
North Dakota A few times per week
Ohio
South Carolina Multiple times per day
South Dakota Other—Write in Region engineers may access

more often, how often depends on
how many incidents occur
Tennessee After an incident occurs
Texas Multiple times per day
Utah Multiple times per day
Virginia Multiple times per day
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Multiple times per day

17. How often is the SMS accessed by those responsible to manage safety with its
information?
Other - Write In
4%
After an
incident
occurs
7%
A few times per

week
22%
Multiple times per
day
56%
Once per day

11%
Value Percent Count
Once per day 11.1% 3
Total 27

Survey Results 131
State DOT How often is the SMS accessed Other—Write in:

by those responsible to manage
safety with its information?
Alabama After an incident occurs
Alaska Multiple times per day
Arizona Once per day
Arkansas
California Once per day
Colorado
Connecticut Multiple times per day
Delaware After an incident occurs
Georgia Once per day
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Multiple times per day
Iowa Multiple times per day
Kansas A few times per week
Kentucky
Louisiana A few times per week
Maine A few times per week
Maryland
Michigan

Minnesota Multiple times per day
Mississippi A few times per week
Missouri
Montana Multiple times per day
Nebraska A few times per week
Nevada Multiple times per day
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Multiple times per day
New York Multiple times per day
North Dakota Multiple times per day
Ohio
South Carolina Multiple times per day
South Dakota Multiple times per day
Tennessee Other—Write in Post-incident, approval of reports

and monthly data reporting
Texas Multiple times per day
Utah Multiple times per day
Virginia Multiple times per day
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming A few times per week

Survey Results 133
18. How is the maintenance worker safety information used for improvement? Select all
that apply.
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Value Percent Count
Information posted for 18.5% 5

employees to see and self-
address
Information provided to 77.8% 21

Safety Coordinator/Safety
Manager

Manager with responsibility


Maintenance
Engineer/Manager

Maintenance
Engineer/Manager with
responsibility for corrective
actions
Information is collected as a 7.4% 2

requirement; the information
State DOT How is the maintenance worker safety information used for
improvement? Select all that apply.
Alabama Other—Write in: This is being developed
Alaska Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with
responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to
Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective
actions
Arizona Information posted for employees to see and self-address,

Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,
Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with
responsibility for corrective actions
Arkansas
California Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with


Survey Results 135
Colorado
Connecticut Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to
actions
Delaware Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Georgia Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

actions, Other—Write in: Strategic direction, procurement decision
making
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Information posted for employees to see and self-address,

actions
Iowa Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Kansas Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

actions

Kentucky
Louisiana Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Information is collected as a requirement; the information is not used
for any action
Maine Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with

Mississippi Information posted for employees to see and self-address,

actions, Other—Write in: Data analysis used to write policies,
review procedures, develop training, etc., for the overall agency
Missouri
Montana Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with

actions
Nebraska Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Other—Write in: Reports/safety awards
Nevada Information posted for employees to see and self-address,

actions

Survey Results 137
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

for any action
New York Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

actions
North Dakota Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

actions
Ohio
South Carolina Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

South Dakota Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with

Tennessee Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

actions

Texas Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Utah Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with

Virginia Information posted for employees to see and self-address,

actions
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Other—Write in: Some, not all incidents, are shared via a safety
flash and distributed WYDOT-wide.

Survey Results 139
19. What benefit(s) has your agency realized through your use of an SMS? Select all that
apply.
70
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
Improved health and safety 55.6% 15

performance according to
lagging indicators (e.g.,
TRIR, DART, etc.)

leading indicators (e.g.,
participation in safety
committees, etc.)

Reduced costs associated with 37.0% 10

accidents and incidents
Improved worker relations 33.3% 9

and morale
Improved business 59.3% 16

efficiencies relating to health
and safety
Lower insurance premiums 14.8% 4
Improved regulatory 63.0% 17

compliance documentation
Improved organizational and 40.7% 11

social responsibility
State DOT What benefit(s) has your agency realized through your use of an
SMS? Select all that apply.
Alabama Other—Write in: This is still in progress
Alaska Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety
performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in
safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and
incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved regulatory
compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social
responsibility

Survey Results 141
Arizona Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business
efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory
Arkansas
California Improved regulatory compliance documentation
Colorado
Connecticut Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

safety committees, etc.), Improved worker relations and morale,
Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved
regulatory compliance documentation, Other—Write in: SMS still
being fully implemented
Delaware Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Reduced costs associated with
accidents and incidents, Improved business efficiencies relating to
health and safety
Georgia Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

accidents and incidents, Improved business efficiencies relating to
health and safety, Other—Write in: Focus on established priorities
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale,


organizational and social responsibility
Iowa Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved

regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and
Kansas Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

Kentucky
Louisiana Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved

Maine Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved regulatory compliance
documentation
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Other—Write in: This is new so these are developing
Mississippi Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

safety committees, etc.), Improved worker relations and morale,
Improved organizational and social responsibility, Other—Write in:
The unchecked items we have no proof of but hope to see results in the
next few years
Missouri

Survey Results 143
Montana Improved health and safety performance according to leading

indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs
associated with accidents and incidents, Improved business efficiencies
relating to health and safety, Lower insurance premiums, Improved
regulatory compliance documentation
Nebraska Other—Write in: We can see which areas have repeated

accidents/injuries
Nevada Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

efficiencies relating to health and safety, Lower insurance premiums,
Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved business efficiencies
relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance
documentation
New York Improved business efficiencies relating health and safety, Improved
North Dakota Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Lower
insurance premiums, Improved organizational and social responsibility
Ohio
South Carolina Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Lower
insurance premiums, Improved regulatory compliance documentation

South Dakota Improved health and safety performance according to leading

indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.)
Tennessee Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

Texas Improved business efficiencies relating health and safety, Improved

regulatory compliance documentation
Utah Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved business efficiencies
relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance
documentation
Virginia Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

responsibility
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved


Survey Results 145
20. What barriers has your agency encountered in your use of an SMS? Select all that
apply.
80
70
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0
Value Percent Count
Cost for system development 23.1% 6
Cost for system maintenance 23.1% 6
Time for data entry 38.5% 10
Time to access, interpret, and 34.6% 9

Accuracy of results 30.8% 8

Building internal support 42.3% 11
Integrating into operational 73.1% 19

procedures
State DOT What barriers has your agency encountered in your use of an
SMS? Select all that apply.
Alabama Other—Write in: This is still being discovered
Alaska Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures
Arizona Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures
Arkansas
California Time for data entry, Integrating into operational procedures
Colorado
Connecticut Cost for system development; Cost for system maintenance; Time for
data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results;
Accuracy of results; Building internal support; Integrating into
operational procedures; Other—Write in: Technology infrastructure

Survey Results 147
Delaware Cost for system maintenance, Building internal support, Integrating

into operational procedures
Georgia Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from
results; Accuracy of results; Integrating into operational procedures;
Other—Write in: Getting a new SMS enterprise-wide software solution
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Integrating
Iowa Cost for system development; Cost for system maintenance; Time for
Kansas Accuracy of results
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine Integrating into operational procedures
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures
Mississippi Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from
results; Accuracy of results; Building internal support; Integrating into
operational procedures; Other—Write in: Management support

Missouri
Montana Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from
results; Building internal support; Integrating into operational
procedures
Nebraska Time for data entry
Nevada Cost for system development, Cost for system maintenance, Building
internal support, Integrating into operational procedures
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Accuracy of results, Integrating into operational procedures
New York Cost for system development, Cost for system maintenance
North Dakota Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from
results; Building internal support; Integrating into operational
procedures
Ohio
South Carolina Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from
results; Accuracy of results; Integrating into operational procedures;
Other—Write in: Upgrading SMS
South Dakota Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Integrating
into operational procedures; Other—Write in: System is old

Survey Results 149
Tennessee Cost for system development, Cost for system maintenance, Integrating
Texas Cost for system development
Utah Accuracy of results
Virginia Building internal support, Other—Write in: Training on system use,

lessons learned
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Time for data entry, Accuracy of results, Building internal support,

21. Considering the costs and benefits of the SMS, what level of future use is planned in
your agency?
Will continue
current use of the
SMS
30%
Will expand use of

the SMS
70%
Value Percent Count
Will expand use of the SMS 70.4% 19
Will continue current use of 29.6% 8

the SMS
Total 27

Survey Results 151
State DOT Considering the costs and benefits of the SMS,

what level of future use is planned in your agency?
Alabama Will expand use of the SMS
Alaska Will continue current use of the SMS
Arizona Will expand use of the SMS
Arkansas
California Will continue current use of the SMS
Colorado
Connecticut Will expand use of the SMS
Delaware Will continue current use of the SMS
Georgia Will expand use of the SMS
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Will expand use of the SMS
Iowa Will expand use of the SMS
Kansas Will expand use of the SMS
Kentucky
Louisiana Will continue current use of the SMS
Maine Will expand use of the SMS
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Will expand use of the SMS
Mississippi Will expand use of the SMS

Missouri
Montana Will continue current use of the SMS
Nebraska Will continue current use of the SMS
Nevada Will expand use of the SMS
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Will expand use of the SMS
New York Will continue current use of the SMS
North Dakota Will expand use of the SMS
Ohio
South Carolina Will continue current use of the SMS
South Dakota Will expand use of the SMS
Tennessee Will expand use of the SMS
Texas Will expand use of the SMS
Utah Will expand use of the SMS
Virginia Will expand use of the SMS
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Will expand use of the SMS

Survey Results 153
22. Who is responsible for following up on safety actions from the SMS information?
Other - Write In Maintenance

There is no formal
11% Superintendent/
assigned
responsibility Supervisor or
based on job equivalent
description 15%
15%
Maintenance Safety
Engineer/Manager Coordinator/Safety
or equivalent Manager or
7% Safety
equivalent
Executive or
41%
equivalent
11%
Value Percent Count
Maintenance 14.8% 4
equivalent


equivalent

Maintenance 7.4% 2
Engineer/Manager or
equivalent
There is no formal assigned 14.8% 4

responsibility based on job
description
Total 27
State DOT Who is responsible for following up Other—Write in:

on safety actions from the SMS
information?
Alabama There is no formal assigned

responsibility based on job description
Alaska Maintenance
equivalent
Arizona Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
Arkansas
California Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
Colorado
Connecticut Other—Write in All share in the responsibility
Delaware Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent

Survey Results 155
Georgia Other—Write in No CAPA results directly out

of the SMS; safety
professional must complete
RCA in order to analyze,
reach, or facilitate CAPA
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Maintenance
equivalent
Iowa Maintenance
equivalent
Kansas Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
Kentucky
Louisiana Safety Executive or equivalent
Maine Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Maintenance Engineer/Manager or

equivalent
Mississippi Other—Write in Different systems assigned to

different people like safety
officer or maintenance
supervisor or state coordinator
Missouri

Montana Safety Executive or equivalent
Nebraska Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
Nevada Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
New York Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
North Dakota There is no formal assigned

Ohio
South Carolina Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
South Dakota Maintenance Engineer/Manager or

equivalent
Tennessee Safety Executive or equivalent
Texas There is no formal assigned

Utah Maintenance
equivalent
Virginia Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent

Survey Results 157
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming There is no formal assigned


23. What division, branch, or equivalent is responsible for monitoring and managing the
Other - Write In Human Resources

19% or equivalent
15%
Maintenance/
Operations or
equivalent Employee Safety
18% and Health or
equivalent
48%
Value Percent Count
Human Resources or 14.8% 4

equivalent
Employee Safety and Health 48.1% 13

or equivalent
Maintenance/Operations or 18.5% 5
equivalent
Total 27

Survey Results 159
State DOT What division, branch, or Other—Write in:

equivalent is responsible for
monitoring and managing the
safety of maintenance workers in
your DOT?
Alabama Maintenance/Operations or equivalent
Alaska Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Arizona Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Arkansas
California Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Colorado
Connecticut Other—Write in The Division of OHS reports to

the Commissioner's Office.
Delaware Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Georgia Other—Write in The maintenance manages its

own employees within each
district; safety consults, advises,
and audits for safety and
compliance.
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent

Iowa Human Resources or equivalent
Kansas Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Kentucky
Louisiana Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Maine Human Resources or equivalent
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota Maintenance/Operations or equivalent
Mississippi Other—Write in Safety Officer in partnership

with District Engineer and
District Maintenance Engineer
Missouri
Montana Other—Write in Human Resources and

Occupational Safety Division
Nebraska Human Resources or equivalent
Nevada Human Resources or equivalent
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
New York Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent

Survey Results 161
North Dakota Maintenance/Operations or equivalent
Ohio
South Carolina Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
South Dakota Maintenance/Operations or equivalent
Tennessee Other—Write in OHS Department and

Operations Leadership
Texas Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Utah Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Virginia Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Maintenance/Operations or equivalent

24. What is included in the written language of your DOT’s policy manual(s) regarding
collecting maintenance worker safety information? Please check all that apply.
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Value Percent Count
The information to be 50.0% 7

collected
Executive management 78.6% 11

support for safety
Goals for the safety program 71.4% 10

data collection

Survey Results 163

data management

corrective actions
To my knowledge, no policy 14.3% 2

manual documents procedures
around collecting
maintenance worker safety
information
State DOT What is included in the written language of your DOT's policy
manual(s) regarding collecting maintenance worker safety
information? Please check all that apply.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas The information to be collected, Executive management support for

safety, Goals for the safety program
California

Colorado The information to be collected, Executive management support for

Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Goals for the safety program, Roles and responsibilities for data
collection
Idaho The information to be collected, Executive management support for

Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety
program, Roles and responsibilities for data collection, Roles and
Louisiana
Maine

Survey Results 165
Maryland The information to be collected, Executive management support for

safety
Michigan The information to be collected, Executive management support for

safety, Goals for the safety program, Roles and responsibilities for data
collection
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety program
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire The information to be collected, Executive management support for

collection
New Jersey The information to be collected, Executive management support for

collection, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and
New Mexico
New York

North Dakota
Ohio To my knowledge, no policy manual documents procedures around

collecting maintenance worker safety information
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington Executive management support for safety; To my knowledge, no policy

manual documents procedures around collecting maintenance worker
safety information
West Virginia Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety
program, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and
Wisconsin Other—Write in: Wisconsin relies on County Highway Departments to

perform maintenance on our state system. As such, we have no safety
handbook for maintenance workers. Counties are responsible for
worker safety.
Wyoming

Survey Results 167
25. Which of the following safety elements does your DOT evaluate in regards to its
maintenance crews? Select all that apply.
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Value Percent Count
Management Leadership 50.0% 7
Worksite Analysis 92.9% 13
Hazard Identification 85.7% 12
Hazard Prevention and 71.4% 10

Control
Safety and Health Training 71.4% 10

and Competence

Employee Engagement 50.0% 7
Evaluation and Continuous 35.7% 5

Improvement
Reporting, Documentation, 64.3% 9

and Archiving
State DOT Which of the following safety elements does your DOT evaluate in
regards to its maintenance crews? Select all that apply.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification;

Competence; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving
California
Colorado Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification;

Employee Engagement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving

Survey Results 169
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification;

Idaho Worksite Analysis, Hazard Identification, Hazard Prevention and

Control, Safety and Health Training and Competence, Employee
Engagement
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification;

Louisiana

Maine
Maryland Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and

Michigan Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and

Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification;

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification;

Competence; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving

Survey Results 171
New Jersey Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification;

New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio Worksite Analysis, Hazard Identification
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia

Washington Worksite Analysis, Hazard Identification, Hazard Prevention and

Control, Safety and Health Training and Competence, Employee
Engagement
West Virginia Worksite Analysis, Evaluation and Continuous Improvement
Wisconsin Other—Write in: Counties do maintain their own safety protocols.
Wyoming

Survey Results 173
26. What maintenance worker safety information do you collect data on? Select all that
apply.
100
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Value Percent Count
Incident Occurrence 92.9% 13
Incident Investigations 78.6% 11
Behavior Observations 35.7% 5
Near Misses 50.0% 7
Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job 64.3% 9

Briefings

Training Records 64.3% 9
State DOT What maintenance worker safety information do you collect data
on? Select all that apply.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations,

Training Records
California
Colorado Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations,

Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job

Briefings, Training Records
Idaho Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses, Toolbox

Indiana
Iowa
Kansas

Survey Results 175
Kentucky Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses, Toolbox

Louisiana
Maine
Maryland Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations
Michigan Incident Occurrence, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings,

Training Records
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations,

Near Misses, Training Records
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job

Briefings, Training Records
New Jersey Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations,

Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio Incident Occurrence
South Carolina
South Dakota

Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses, Toolbox

Talks/Pre-Job Briefings
West Virginia Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations,

Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records
Wisconsin Other—Write in: None
Wyoming

Survey Results 177
27. How do you capture maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply.
60
50
40
Percentage
30
20
10
0
Through a Through a Through a Data Data Data Other -
mobile app web-based Microsoft collected on collected on collected on Write In
portal Excel paper and paper and paper and
spreadsheet then then archived
or similar manually scanned to a
software entered into PDF
electronic
system
Value Percent Count
Through a mobile app 30.8% 4
Through a web-based portal 30.8% 4
Through a Microsoft Excel 46.2% 6

spreadsheet or similar
software

then manually entered into
electronic system



archived
State DOT How do you capture maintenance worker safety information?

Select all that apply.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data

collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF
California
Colorado Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal, Through a

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF, Data collected on
paper and archived
Idaho Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic
system
Indiana

Survey Results 179
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or

similar software, Data collected on paper and then manually entered
into electronic system, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a
PDF, Data collected on paper and archived
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland Through a mobile app, Data collected on paper and then manually
entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and archived
Michigan Other—Write in: PDF fillable form to Access Database
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Through a web-based portal, Data collected on paper and then

manually entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data

collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system
New Jersey Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal, Through a

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data collected on
paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data collected
on paper and then scanned to a PDF, Data collected on paper and
archived
New Mexico

New York
North Dakota
Ohio Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington Through a mobile app, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a
PDF
West Virginia Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Survey Results 181
28. Who is responsible for collecting maintenance worker safety information? Select all
that apply.
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Value Percent Count
Maintenance worker 35.7% 5
Maintenance 64.3% 9
equivalent


equivalent

Maintenance 35.7% 5
Engineer/Manager or
equivalent
State DOT Who is responsible for collecting maintenance worker safety

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

equivalent
California
Colorado Maintenance worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or

Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Maintenance

Idaho Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent
Indiana
Iowa

Survey Results 183
Kansas
Kentucky Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

Michigan Maintenance worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or

Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Maintenance worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety

New Jersey Maintenance worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or

Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota

Ohio Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington Maintenance worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or

West Virginia Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or

equivalent
Wisconsin Other—Write in
Wyoming

Survey Results 185
29. How does your DOT retain the data? Select all that apply.
100
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other Printed for hard-copy Other - Write In
electronic records records
Value Percent Count
Saved as a CSV, PDF, or 92.9% 13

other electronic records
Printed for hard-copy records 28.6% 4

Other—Write in Count
Counties are responsible for maintaining 1

records according to their own policies and
procedures.
Total 1
State DOT How does your DOT retain the data? Select all that apply.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
California
Colorado Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
Idaho Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records, Printed for hard-
copy records

Survey Results 187
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
Michigan Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records; Printed for hard-
copy records
New Jersey Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records; Printed for hard-
copy records
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah

Virginia
Washington Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records
West Virginia Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records; Printed for hard-
copy records
Wisconsin Other—Write in: Counties are responsible for maintaining records

according to their own policies and procedures.
Wyoming

Survey Results 189
30. What types of safety-related reports are generated? Select all that apply.
80
70
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0
OSHA 300 logs Training Behavior Incident Workers’ Other - Write
records observation investigation compensation In
Value Percent Count
OSHA 300 logs 57.1% 8
Training records 64.3% 9
Behavior observation reports 21.4% 3
Incident investigation reports 57.1% 8
Workers’ compensation 71.4% 10

reports

State DOT What types of safety-related reports are generated? Select all that
apply.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports,

California
Colorado Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Training records
Idaho Incident investigation reports
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports,

Louisiana
Maine
Maryland OSHA 300 logs, Workers’ compensation reports

Survey Results 191
Michigan OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Workers’ compensation reports,

Other—Write in: Reports and analysis of data
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Training records, Behavior observation reports, Workers’

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’

New Jersey OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Behavior observation reports,
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio OSHA 300 logs, Workers’ compensation reports
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia

Washington OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports,

West Virginia OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Behavior observation reports,
Wisconsin Other—Write in: County records
Wyoming

Survey Results 193
31. How often is maintenance worker safety information data collected?
Other - Write In Multiple times per

21% day
22%
Once per day

7%
Once per month

7%
After an incident
occurs
43%
Value Percent Count
Once per day 7.1% 1
Once per month 7.1% 1
Total 14

State DOT How often is maintenance Other—Write in:

worker safety information data
collected?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas After an incident occurs
California
Colorado Other—Write in As incidents occur
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Once per month
Idaho After an incident occurs
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky After an incident occurs
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland Once per day
Michigan After an incident occurs
Minnesota
Mississippi

Survey Results 195
Missouri Other—Write in Employees provide behavior-

based safety observations, near
miss, and good catches when
needed. Some perform these
more than others. Injuries and
property damage are collected
after an event.
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire After an incident occurs
New Jersey Multiple times per day
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio After an incident occurs
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington Multiple times per day
West Virginia Multiple times per day
Wisconsin Other—Write in
Wyoming

32. How often is maintenance worker safety information accessed by those responsible to
manage safety?
Other -
Write In
7%
Multiple times per
day
22%
After an incident
occurs
29%
A few times per
week
21%
Once per
month
7%
Once per week
14%
Value Percent Count
Once per week 14.3% 2
Once per month 7.1% 1
Total 14

Survey Results 197
State DOT How often is maintenance worker Other—Write in:

safety information accessed by
those responsible to manage
safety?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas After an incident occurs
California
Colorado Multiple times per day
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Once per week
Idaho A few times per week
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky After an incident occurs
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland A few times per week
Michigan After an incident occurs

Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Once per week
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Once per month
New Jersey Multiple times per day
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio After an incident occurs
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington A few times per week
West Virginia Multiple times per day
Wisconsin Other—Write in: Counties’ policies

would dictate the regularity of
information access
Wyoming

Survey Results 199
33. How is the maintenance worker safety information used for improvement? Select all
that apply.
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Value Percent Count
Information posted for 14.3% 2

employees to see and self-
address

Manager

Manager with responsibility


Maintenance
Engineer/Manager

Maintenance
Engineer/Manager with
responsibility for corrective
actions
Information is collected as a 14.3% 2

requirement. The information
State DOT How is the maintenance worker safety information used for
improvement? Select all that apply.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance
Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions,
Information is collected as a requirement. The information is not used
for any action
California

Survey Results 201
Colorado Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Idaho Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions,
for any action
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with


Michigan Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager,

Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions
New Jersey Information posted for employees to see and self-address, Information
provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided
to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective
actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager,
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager

Survey Results 203
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington Information posted for employees to see and self-address, Information

provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided
to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective
actions
West Virginia Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with

Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions
Wisconsin
Wyoming

34. What benefit(s) has your agency realized through collecting maintenance worker safety
80
70
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0

lagging indicators (e.g.,
TRIR, DART, etc.)

leading indicators (e.g.,
participation in safety
committees, etc.)

Survey Results 205
Reduced costs associated with 71.4% 10

accidents and incidents
Improved worker relations 57.1% 8

and morale
Improved business 57.1% 8

efficiencies relating to health
and safety
Lower insurance premiums 14.3% 2
Improved regulatory 35.7% 5

Improved organizational and 28.6% 4

State DOT What benefit(s) has your agency realized through collecting
maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas Improved health and safety performance according to leading

indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Improved
worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to
health and safety, Improved organizational and social responsibility
California

Colorado Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Lower
insurance premiums
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

Idaho Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

efficiencies relating to health and safety
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

incidents, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety,
Louisiana

Survey Results 207
Maine
Maryland Other—Write in: None
Michigan Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

incidents
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

incidents, Improved worker relations and morale
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Improved health and safety performance according to leading

associated with accidents and incidents, Improved regulatory
responsibility
New Jersey Improved health and safety performance according to leading

associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and
morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety,
Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved
New Mexico

New York
North Dakota
Ohio Other—Write in: N/A (not applicable)
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington Improved health and safety performance according to lagging

responsibility
West Virginia Improved health and safety performance according to leading

associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and
morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety,
Wisconsin Other—Write in. Wisconsin believes safety and safety improvement

is being managed adequately by our counties.
Wyoming

Survey Results 209
35. What barriers has your agency encountered in collecting maintenance worker safety
70
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
Value Percent Count
Cost for system development 35.7% 5
Cost for system maintenance 35.7% 5
Time for data entry 35.7% 5
Time to access, interpret, and 28.6% 4

Accuracy of results 21.4% 3
Building internal support 42.9% 6

Integrating into operational 64.3% 9

procedures
State DOT What barriers has your agency encountered in collecting

maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas Cost for system development, Cost for system maintenance, Building
internal support, Integrating into operational procedures
California
Colorado Cost for system maintenance; Time for data entry; Time to access,
interpret, and make decisions from results; Accuracy of results;
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Integrating into operational procedures
Idaho Cost for system development, Cost for system maintenance
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas

Survey Results 211
Kentucky Cost for system development; Cost for system maintenance; Time to
access, interpret, and make decisions from results
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland Cost for system development; Cost for system maintenance; Time for
Accuracy of results; Building internal support; Integrating into
operational procedures
Michigan Time for data entry
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Cost for system development, Integrating into operational procedures
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Integrating
New Jersey Time for data entry, Building internal support, Integrating into
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio Building internal support
South Carolina
South Dakota

Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington Accuracy of results, Building internal support, Integrating into

West Virginia Time for data entry, Building internal support, Integrating into
Wisconsin Other—Write in: N/A (not applicable)
Wyoming

Survey Results 213
36. Considering costs and benefits, what level of future use is planned with your current
procedures in regards to collecting maintenance worker safety information in your agency?
Will reduce/limit
current procedures
due to lack of
funding
7%
Will continue
current procedures
29%
Will expand
procedures
64%
Value Percent Count
Will expand procedures 64.3% 9
Will continue current 28.6% 4

procedures
Will reduce/limit current 7.1% 1

procedures due to lack of
funding
Total 14

State DOT Considering costs and benefits, what level of future

use is planned with your current procedures in
regards to collecting maintenance worker safety
information in your agency?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas Will expand procedures
California
Colorado Will expand procedures
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Will expand procedures
Idaho Will reduce/limit current procedures due to lack of

funding
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky Will expand procedures
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland Will expand procedures
Michigan Will continue current procedures

Survey Results 215
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Will expand procedures
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Will continue current procedures
New Jersey Will expand procedures
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio Will expand procedures
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington Will continue current procedures
West Virginia Will expand procedures
Wisconsin Will continue current procedures
Wyoming

37. Who is responsible for following up on safety actions from the maintenance worker
safety information?
There is no formal
assigned Maintenance
responsibility Superintendent/
based on job Supervisor or
description Other - equivalent
7% Write In 7%
7%
Maintenance
Engineer/Manager
or equivalent
15%
Safety
Safety Executive Coordinator/Safety
or equivalent Manager or
7% equivalent
57%
Value Percent Count
Maintenance 7.1% 1
equivalent


equivalent

Survey Results 217
Maintenance 14.3% 2
Engineer/Manager or
equivalent
There is no formal assigned 7.1% 1

responsibility based on job
description
Total 14
State DOT Who is responsible for following up Other—Write in:

on safety actions from the
maintenance worker safety
information?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
California
Colorado Safety Executive or equivalent
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Maintenance Engineer/Manager or

equivalent

Idaho Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland There is no formal assigned

Michigan Maintenance
equivalent
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Maintenance Engineer/Manager or

equivalent
New Jersey Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent

Survey Results 219
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
West Virginia Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or

equivalent
Wisconsin Other—Write in. Counties are

responsible for any follow-up.
Wyoming

38. What division, branch, or equivalent is responsible for monitoring and managing the
Other -
Write In
7%
Human Resources
Maintenance/ or equivalent
Operations or 14%
equivalent
14%
Employee Safety
and Health or
equivalent
65%
Value Percent Count
Human Resources or 14.3% 2

equivalent
Employee Safety and Health 64.3% 9

or equivalent
Maintenance/Operations or 14.3% 2
equivalent
Total 14

Survey Results 221
State DOT What division, branch, or equivalent Other—Write in:

is responsible for monitoring and
managing the safety of maintenance
workers in your DOT?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas Human Resources or equivalent
California
Colorado Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii Maintenance/Operations or equivalent
Idaho Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Louisiana

Maine
Maryland Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Michigan Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
New Jersey Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio Human Resources or equivalent
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee

Survey Results 223
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington Employee Safety and Health or

equivalent
West Virginia Maintenance/Operations or equivalent
Wisconsin Other—Write in. Counties
Wyoming

39. Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up phone interview for the development
of a case study? The case study interviews would include preliminary correspondence to
determine stakeholders who should participate in the case study, a phone interview
approximately one hour in length, with minor follow-up to finalize case details, and a
review of the case study prior to submission.
No
32%
Yes
68%
Value Percent Count
Yes 68.3% 28
No 31.7% 13
Total 41

Survey Results 225
State DOT Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up

phone interview for the development of a case
study?
Alabama Yes
Alaska Yes
Arizona No
Arkansas No
California Yes
Colorado Yes
Connecticut Yes
Delaware Yes
Georgia Yes
Hawaii No
Idaho Yes
Indiana Yes
Iowa Yes
Kansas Yes
Kentucky Yes
Louisiana No
Maine Yes
Maryland Yes
Michigan Yes
Minnesota Yes

Mississippi Yes
Missouri Yes
Montana No
Nebraska No
Nevada Yes
New Hampshire Yes
New Jersey Yes
New Mexico No
New York No
North Dakota No
Ohio No
South Carolina No
South Dakota Yes
Tennessee Yes
Texas Yes
Utah Yes
Virginia Yes
Washington No
West Virginia No
Wisconsin Yes
Wyoming Yes

APPENDIX C
Case Example Questions
1. Describe the decision-making process (how? when? and why?) to acquire/develop a

safety management system (SMS).
2. Describe your agency’s organizational structure to manage maintenance worker safety

(i.e., what division is responsible, what staffing resources exist, what responsibilities
exist).
3. How is your SMS deployed, used, and managed?
4. Describe the SMS’s features, functionality, benefits, and mechanisms used.
5. What policies and procedures do you have pertaining to the SMS? Are they in official
policy manuals?
6. What would you estimate as the costs associated with acquiring, maintaining, and
managing your SMS (rough estimates are sufficient)?
7. What suggestions do you have as lessons learned or best practices related to the use and
implementation of safety management systems?
227




Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation


500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
ISBN 978-0-309-68710-2
90000
9 780309 687102

Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety (2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety (2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This PDF is available at http://nap.naptionalacademies.

Use of Safety Management Systems in

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 591

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 591

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 591

NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

TOPIC 52-09 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Use of Safety Management

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.2 Synthesis Objective

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.3 Study Approach

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2.1 Safety Management System

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review 7

2.2 Safety Management System for

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 2.1. 6P model components adopted from OSHAcademy (2020).

• Vision and mission statement

• Hazard identification and

“a sequence of interdependent and linked • Accident investigation process

“safe job procedures are a series of specific

“written methods outlining how to perform a

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review 9

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire

As noted in Chapter 1, an online survey questionnaire was built in Alchemer (formerly

3.1 General Safety Management System Use

3.1.1 SMS Usage

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 11

Figure 3.1. Map of DOTs responding to survey; n = 41.

Other - Write In Employee Safety

Figure 3.2. Distribution of the division

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.4. Map of DOTs that use an SMS; n = 41.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 13

Figure 3.5. Map of years of SMS use; n = 41.

3.1.2 SMS Usage Timeline

3.1.3 SMS Development

3.2 Specific Safety Management Practices

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2.1 Safety Management System

2.2 Safety Management System for

3.2 Specific Safety Management Practices

3.4 Written Policies and Procedures