Loading ...
7 Ways to Mess Up Your BBS Program
Behavior based safety is a theory, not a program. The principles of BBS—or any other theory for that matter—can’t achieve positive results unless and until they’re translated into workable plans and processes. Execution and implementation are as critical as the soundness of the underlying theory.
Putting a BBS program into effect is tricky and it’s easy to mess up. For example, Alan observes that BBS programs often fail because the training and condition are done to instead of with the target workers. What other common mistakes do organizations make in implementing BBS programs? I found an article from no less an authority than Dr. E. Scott Geller listing seven common pitfalls. The article was originally published in ISHN, Industrial Safety and Health News, in1996.
Pitfall 1: Not Teaching BBS Principles to Participants
Dr. Geller says it’s important to teach the people participating in the program not just BBS methods but the theory behind them. Otherwise, the program is apt to come across as the latest “flavor of the month.”
Pitfall 2: Lack of Perceived Ownership
According to Dr. Geller, organizations make the mistake of trying to adopt other company’s BBS programs to their workplaces even to the point of referring to those programs by the other company’s name, e.g., ABC Company will refer to its program as the “DuPont STOP” program. Consequently, ABC employees don’t feel any ownership in the program.
Pitfall 3: Lack of Bottom-Up Involvement
Some companies’ programs are top-heavy and fail to get their line workers and operators adequately involved, Dr. Geller notes.
Pitfall 4: Invisible Top-Down Support
Just paying for a BBS program isn’t enough, says Dr. Geller. Management must understand and buy into the BBS principles and effectively communicate its support for the program across all levels of the organization.
Pitfall 5: Lack of a Champion
Dr. Geller says it’s crucial that one or more managers emerge as champions who personally embrace the BBS program and demonstrate their personal commitment, e.g., by sitting through long BBS meetings and taking responsibility for making sure the BBS principles are implemented on the workshop floor.
Pitfall 6: Mixing Goals with Purpose or Mission
Purpose is the mission of the safety program; goals define specific outcomes to further the purpose. Mixing up purpose and goals can lead to distorted outcomes, Dr. Geller warns.
Pitfall 7: Insufficient Measure of Program Success
Finally, Dr. Geller notes that developing the right kinds of process measures is crucial to program success. He warns against using injury rate as the sole standard of success because injury numbers can be manipulated and are a reflection of happenstance as much as actual behavior.
Source: E. Scott Geller, Ph.D, “Seven Common Pitfalls to Avoid When Implementing Behavior-Based Safety,” ISHN, 1996, http://www.safetyperformance.com/pdf/Articles/1996/SevenCommonPitfallstoAvoidWhenImplementingBBS.pdf
Email This Post
Print This Post
Top
Story Comments (6)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Glenn
Sounds a lot better than the Wikipedia guide to BBS!
According to Tom Krause, a leading pioneer in behaviroal safety (in his interview with Fred Manuele in Manuele's book, "On the Practice of Safety")in his response to Fred's statement, "The principle focus of safety improvement shouldn't be on the psychology of correcting worker behavior; rather the focus should be on the design of thr workplace, work methods and management systems". BST replied, " Agree. The principle focus for corrective action is the systems, not the individual.
When Manuele asked Krause, "If a safety director has the systems in place to identify, evaluate and improve hazards and risks, then he does not need behavior-based safety". BST replied, " Agree, provided that by 'in place' we mean working effectively and that by 'improve' we mean able to address equipment, systems, culture and human error- based causes, and that behavior-based safety means observation and feedback to address behavior alone".
Again. . . consider the source of the definition of behavior-based safety. behaviorbased safety and behavioral safety are not mutually exclusive.
Bust a myth.
Wayne...what happened? Last month you said "Over the last 10 years, most of the studies and stories that purport to evaluate the effectiveness of BBS programs come from BBS advocates and consultants themselves."
Now these BBS consultants are quotable experts...interesting indeed.
Dan Petersen's Principles of Safety Management
"8. There are three major subsystems that must be dealt with in building an effective safety system: 1) the physical,2) the managerial, and 3) the behavioral."
Alan. . . again. Read my original article. I wrote about behavior-based safety. Not behavioral issues associated with safety. I didn't write about pseudo-intellectual theories of behavioral modification. I wrote about behavior-based safety. There is a difference - wouldn't you agree?
There are thousands of ways people are trying to address 'behavioral' issues in the workplace. But the system of 'at risk behavior classification, observations, documentation of those behaviors, feedback and charting of the data' is what is known as behavior-based safety. Is there something you don't understand about an at-risk, observation-based safety system which is commonly known as behavior-based safety? That's what I wrote about. Amazing how everything reverts back to a Petersen quote. Behavioral safety and behavior-based safety (noting Krause's definition - are 2 completely different things. Even Krause agreed).
And Krause supported an effective heirarchy of controls model in Manuele's book. I'm not against quoting a famous behaviorist who sees the light and doesn't mind admitting it publically at an ASSE conference and in Manuel's book. That's right. I said most (not necessarily the best).
We'll agree to disagree. I have't seen anyhting yet you've said, other than quoting Petersen, to substantially challenge the soundness of the heirarchy of controls model. It would be interesting to stack the HOC model up against BBS as a defense of due dilgience in Canada (that's an article with a lawyer colleague of my for another edition of safetyxchange).
Anyone else other than Petersen you can reference? Do you have a behaviorists you can reference noting the inadequacy of the heirarchy of controls? (as Krause has noted the value of an effective heirarchy of controls model over behavior-based safety?).
Wayne
We'll agree to disagree. You simply do not understand my point of view. I'm not defending BBS. I challenged your argument that one safety method is better, superior, of greater success...etc. etc. to another is highly suspect since we all know that without human behaviour the HOC won't work. It's not that the HOC isn't A method...it is just not THE superior method you suggested. I hope we can agree that BBS poorly done is as ineffective as the HOC poorly done. Finding a BBS consultant who would agree that the HOC is part of an effective safety system is not at all surprising. It would be akin to finding an engineer who thinks that there is a human element to ergonomics.
BBS consultants doing safety to people (as many have done under the direction and coaching of most of the infamous BBS gurus you quote) will fail. Just like the HOC will fail without the engagement of the very people implementing the HOC.
The failure of significant results since the implementation of a legal system that made physical safety a priority is all the proof I need that we must weave these many aspects of improving safety together in an integrated way. Alberta six years ago put into the OHS code the HOC...and we're now killing a record number of Albertans at work. Our injury rates have not significantly changed (except of course the AMAZING results we’ve accomplished by increased early return to work efforts by 80%).
By the way, you quoted Dan first…I just corrected your misunderstanding of his message. Read Jim Stewart's "Managing for World Class Safety", his work clearly identifies what very successful corporations tell us works for them in a achieving safe and healthy places of work. Line Ownership, Involvement in Safety Activities & Training, Comprehensive Safety Systems & Practices and Safety Organization and Specialists. Interesting how he didn't rate any of these components as "superior". All of these human activities are integrated.
"Evidence based safety is superior to quote-based safety." Alan D. Quilley CRSP
There was no misundrstanding of Petersen's quote. Again. . .one last time, for the record, whether anyone like the quote or not. . . Petersen was quoted in the article, in response to Heinrich's assertion that 88% of accidents are the result of unsafe acts: Heinrich’s “first axiom and something that he just made up. There was no research behind it whatsoever.” (Source: http://www.occupationalhazards.com/News/Article/32659/Dan_Petersen_Why_Safety_is_a.aspx).
No misunderstood. . . nothing to be corrected. It is what it is. Not agreeing with it doesn't change the fact he said it.
I'll take the hard evidence-based approach of the heirarchy of controls any day. The real world and the hard risks I deal with on a day-to-day basis demand it.
Jim's book describes perfectly the Canadian approach of internal responsibility for OH&S. Canada has it. The US doesn't. That's one of the many reasons by BBS is more popular in the US than it is in Canada. We have the infrastructure for many of the softer, behavioral approaches. The US doesn't. Canada does safety different than the US. It's a fact (it's the culture thing). But that's another article for another time.
Cheers
Wayne