Just Culture
description
Transcript of Just Culture
-
Baines Simmons Limited 2008
Keven Baines Managing Director Baines Simmons Limited
Just Culture from aspiration to reality
-
Background to this work The fragility of a Just Culture - inconsistency of Just Policy application is a
common killer of a safety culture
Our experience of the real-world application of extant culpability models taught us that there is a pressing need for a:
workable, straightforward toolset
toolset which can be repeatedly and credibly applied by non-HF specialists
toolset that does not require extensive training
tool that minimises variability, ensures consistency and stands the test of perishable training
Outcome The FAIR system (Flowchart Analysis of Investigation Results)
FAIR is free of charge
Baines Simmons Limited 2009
PresenterPresentation Notestool that can help apply a standard to support the promotion of a just culture within an organisation.
-
The basis of FAIR
The best practice elements of the two main academic (Reason/Hudson) in-use models
(C) Baines Simmons Limited 2009
-
No
Were the actions as intended?
Yes
SabotageMalevolent
damageetc.
Were the consequences as
intended
Yes
Pass substitution test
Pass
Deficiencies in training &
selection or inexperience
Possible error of
judgement
SystemInduced
Error
History of unsafe
acts
Blameless error but corrective training or counselling indicated
Blameless error
Yes No
Diminishingculpability
Substitution Test Question to peers: Given the circumstances,
is it possible that you could have made the same or a similar error
If answer yes then blame inappropriate. The best people can make the worst mistakes.
*Knowingly means knew operating procedures exist but ignored/chose not to comply with them.
Safe Operating procedures are: Standard practices Company policy and procedures Maintenance manual procedures
Unauthorizedsubstance? No
Yes
Medicalcondition?
Substance abuse with mitigation
Substance abuse without
mitigation
No Yes
Yes
Fail
*Knowinglyviolating
safe operating procedures
Were procedures available, workable,
intelligible and correct?
Yes
SystemInduced violation
Possiblerecklessviolation
No
Evidence of reckless, optimising or negligent behaviour
SituationalViolation -Under pressure to get job done
Routine or Normative Common practice to ignoreProcedure
Yes No
Yes
No
No
Prof. James Reason - Culpability Model Further developed by QANTAS Airlines and Baines Simmons Limited
Yes
-
Did they followall procedures
andbest practices?
Did they thinkthey were followingcorrect procedures
and practices?
Everyone doesIt this way around
here.Dont you?
We cant followthe procedure andget the job done
I thought it wasbetter for the
Company to dothe job that way
I thought it wasbetter for mepersonally tocut a corner
Screw you.I meant to do it
my way
Oh %$#@we did that!?
Normal Compliance Routine violation Situational violation Optimizing violation
Personal optimizing violation
Reckless personal optimization
Exceptional violation
Unintentional violation
Awareness/ Understanding
Man
agem
ent
Sup
ervi
sion
Des
crip
tion
Wor
kfor
ceD
isci
plin
eC
oach
ing
Vio
latio
n ty
pe
Feel comfortable,But be aware, thisMay be unusual
Did we not expectsuch situations
to arise?EHS-MS problem?
Examine processesThis may be a real
improvement
How did we hireSuch a person?
Set standardsExamine hiring &
retentionpolicies
Why didnt peoplerealize this was a
Problem?
Take active stepsto reduce frequency of violation or norm
Get engaged-how much is this
happening? Can I let it continue?
Praise the worker
Did we trainpeople in how toreact in unusual circumstances?
Why is this notbeing recognized?Use processes to
legitimize variances
How did we let him stay here?Didnt we know
In advance?
Set standardsrecognize that
such people areIn workforce
Investigate and apply standards
Investigate and raise awareness
ofstandards
Investigate-Must listen to
workforcecomplaints
Feel satisfiedDid I/we use ALL
resources?
Report possibility,raise before work
acquire competenceLeave Company
Decide whetheryou wish towork here
Report if theydiscover they have
violated aprocedure
Get involved inaligning procedure
to reality
Must report allsuch impossible
situations
None
Did they followall procedures
andbest practices?
First level formal discipline
counseling
Third-level discipline
e.g. dismissal
Second-levelDiscipline e.g.
warning letter or time off
Console theworker
Active coaching ofall, at all levels forcondoning routine
violation
First level formal discipline
counseling
Praise the workerUse as an example
For others
We all need to look in the mirror
Counsel people totell (workers)
andlisten (managers &
supervisors)
N/AN/A
Management needto examine the
quality of Procedures/ system
Validate standardsto see if rulenecessary, or
ensure compliance
Counsel people totell (workers)
andlisten (managers &
supervisors)
Prof. Patrick Hudson Just Culture Model
-
Were *safe operating procedures knowingly ignored /
rules broken?
In the circumstances of the event, could the task have been done in accordance with safe*
operating procedures?
Sabotage or reckless behaviour
Were the consequences as intended?
Was the situation outside normal operating procedures?
Situational rule-breaking
Exceptional rule-breaking
Did the actions benefit the organization?
Did the actions benefit the individual?
Personal optimising rule-
breaking
Organisational optimising rule-
breaking
Apply routine and substitution test at each outcome to determine most appropriate intervention actions
Flowchart Analysis of Investigation Results (FAIR)
Yes Yes
Y
Yes
No
No
No
Was the correct plan of action selected?
No
Mistake / unintentional rule-breaking
No
Y
Y
No
Baines Simmons Limited 2009
ErrorYes
-
Unintended Action
Unintended Consequence
Error (slips and lapses)
Skill-based
Memory or attentional failure
Unintentional rule-breaking
Mistake
Rule-based
Knowledge-based
Sabotage
Reckless behaviour
Gross negligence
Personal optimising
Knowing rule-breaking
Situational
Organisational optimising
Exceptional
1 - Substitution test: Would someone else in the same situation have done the same thing? (if not, what is it about individual?)
2 - Routine test: Does this happen often to a) the individual or b) the organisation?
4 - Intervention: What needs to happen to reduce likelihood of recurrence at a) an individual level and b) an organisational level?
Increasing culpability
3 - Proportional punishment test: What safety value will punishment have?
The
line
in th
e sa
nd
Manage through appropriatedisciplinary action
Manage through improving performance influencing factors (PIFs) person, task, situation, environment
Flowchart Analysis of Investigation Results (FAIR)
Intended Action
Unintended Consequence
Intended Action
Intended Consequence
-
Managing The Three Behaviours
At-Risk Behaviour
Manage through:
Understanding our at-risk behaviours
Removing incentives for at-risk behaviours
Creating incentives for healthy behaviour
Increasing situational awareness
Intentional Risk-Taking
Manage through:
Disciplinary action
Normal Error
Manage through changes in the immediate system:
Processes
Procedures
Training
Design
Environment
Move or manage the person
Baines Simmons Limited 2009
-
Carry out Root Cause Investigation (using tools such as MEDA, HFIT, PEAT, REDA) using trained investigators
Further unsafe act information required
*FAIR system
See next page Instigate
disciplinary process
Investigation Output - Event Review Team
(ERT) convened
No Further action regarding person
Non-Judgemental Decision Judgemental
Precautionary action?
Unwanted
event/error or
near miss
Baines Simmons Limited 2009
Where does FAIR reside in your Error Management System?
-
(developed) Substitution Testing
This must be carried out by the Event Review Team (ERT) on at least three of the persons peers.
The substitution test is designed to ascertain whether, in the circumstances, it is possible that another similarly skilled, trained and experienced individual would have done anything different.
These peers must not be members of the ERT, investigation or any other committee that could bring in a pre-existing knowledge or bias that would be directly associated with the event/near-miss circumstances.
If answer no then it is most likely a system problem, not necessarily an individuals problem, and blame is not appropriate. It proves that the best people can make the worst mistakes.
Ask other peers this question Could you have made the same or similar error under similar circumstances?
Peers must consider the event/near-miss contributing factors i.e. (maintenance) system failures, and circumstances beyond the individuals control as determined through the related investigation.
If the peer group indicates a positive response (yes) the person is probably blameless.
A review of their previous decision history is in order. If they have a previous history of poor decision-making, counseling may be in order depending on event/near-miss factors.
Baines Simmons Limited 2009
-
What is a Just Culture?A Set of Beliefs A recognition that professionals will make mistakes A recognition that even professionals will develop unhealthy norms A fierce intolerance for reckless conduct An expectation that hazards and errors will be reported Accountability for choosing to take risk Expectation that system safety will improve
A Set of Duties To raise your hand and say Ive made a mistake To raise your hand when you see risk To resist the growth of at-risk behaviour To participate in generating learning from our every-day bad experiences To absolutely avoid reckless conduct
Baines Simmons Limited 2009Inspiration: David Marx
-
Does a Just Culture deliver?
Some interesting lessons regarding the application of the Just Culture
-
No of MEMS Raised Cumulatively - 4 RR sites
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Dec-04
Feb-
05
Apr-0
5
Jun-05
Aug-
05
Oct-0
5
Dec-05
Feb-
06
Apr-0
6
Jun-06
Aug-
06
Oct-0
6
Dec-06
Feb-
07
Apr-0
7
Jun-07
Aug-
07
Oct-0
7
Dec-07
Feb-
08
Apr-0
8
Jun-08
Aug-
08
Date
No
of
ME
MS
-
Attack Helicopter Depth Support Unit
Internal Reporting
FURBYs Raised from Nov 07
020406080
100120140160180200
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43
Weeks
FURB
Ys
FURBYs Raised
-
15
The MAS Programme
Senior Mgt HF Training
HF Programme
MEDA Training
Continuation Training
Safety Review Board
Safety Action Groups
SMS Training
2005 20072006 2008
Reactive Systems
Proactive Culture
MEMS Report 700 +
MEDA Investigations 200 +
Initial HF Trained 2800 +
The Error Iceberg
The Error Iceberg
PresenterPresentation Notes The journey so far. Senior Management buy in and training commenced in 2005 followed by our initial Human Factors programme. Specialist investigators were then being utilised in 2006 with Human Factors continuation training initiating in 2007. Over the last two years MAS has instigated safety management training, safety review boards and safety action groups converting a reactive Error Management System into a proactive safety culture throughout the organisation. To date over 700 open reports have been managed, over 200 Human Factor investigations carried out and over 2800 employees have completed initial Human Factor training. The journey to the bottom of the Error Iceberg continues.
Thankyou
-
Regeneration outcomes
0
50
100
150
200
250
2006 2007 2008
Annual Occurrence Reports Raised
PresenterPresentation NotesThe outcome of the regeneration so far reporting increasing each year
A good indicator of the health of the system
and the increased trust from employees
A more detailed breakdown for the last year can be seen on
NEXT SLIDE MONTHLY REPORTS
-
QANTAS Maintenance ErrorManagement System
air safe
A Journey to the Bottom of the Error Iceberg MEMS Implementation 2005 2008
17
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
AQD Raised TechnicalOccurrences Sep 06 - Aug 07
Form 500 Raised QualityOccurrences Sep 07 - Aug 08
Medium and Above Low Risk
Low risk items including non event items/near miss
-
QANTAS Maintenance ErrorManagement System
air safe
A Journey to the Bottom of the Error Iceberg MEMS Implementation 2005 2008
18
Reasons for Increased Reporting
- Increased belief that Just Culture Principles will be followed
- Changing belief in reporting making a difference
- Better understanding of reporting via HF training
- No Punitive actions outside of Just Policy
- Much easier to report via online reporting system
- Good MEDA Investigations and results
-
Measures to protect Just Culture only one committee member to be technically
knowledgeable
only one investigator to be technically knowledgeable
only one investigator to be local
confidentiality maintained
Investigators have limited participation in decision making process
no secrets published procedure promoted from the top downwards
-
Measures to protect Just Culture
Train the Management Team (an example curriculum)
An Introduction to Human Error
Managing Error
Managing At-Risk Behavior
Managing Reckless Behavior
Developing a reporting culture
The Investigation Process
Just Culture and its link to safety
How to do just culture
Making Smart System Changes
-
The reality of being Just
As we move into the brave world of SMS, the actions that an organization takes for or against its people after an event occurs will continue to be the single biggest determiner of its success (in terms of managing safety proactively)
Its the doing that's the undoing...
Baines Simmons Limited 2009
-
Its the doing that can be the undoing
2
-
Summary
Being fair is a management accountability (be tough)
Managing consistency is the real challenge, or being just most of the time irrespective of output failure consequence
Formally record how you responded - for performance review by seniors and independents
The regulator should care too
Baines Simmons Limited 2009
-
Conclusion
The FAIR tool a workable, and straightforward toolset which can be repeatedly and credibly applied by non-HF specialists, without the need for extensive training
So that our people tell us about safety
Interested in trialling/using FAIR?
please leave your business card, or contact us through our website
In return we would value your feedback as to its usability
PresenterPresentation NotesAn enlightened regulator will be seeking to answer:
Identify - Did they identify the real hazards?Assess - How big were those hazards?Control - What measures did they have in place to control those hazards?Recover - What plans did they have when it still went wrong?
Slide Number 1Background to this workThe basis of FAIRSlide Number 4Slide Number 5Slide Number 6Slide Number 7Managing The Three BehavioursWhere does FAIR reside in your Error Management System?(developed) Substitution TestingWhat is a Just Culture?Does a Just Culture deliver?Slide Number 13Internal Reporting The MAS ProgrammeRegeneration outcomesSlide Number 17Slide Number 18Measures to protect Just CultureMeasures to protect Just CultureThe reality of being JustIts the doing that can be the undoingSummaryConclusion