Have you been thinking about incorporating management software to your computer to control your health and safety program?  Questions abound: Is it too expensive?  Is it too difficult for employees to run?  Will it be too cumbersome to implement?  These are some of the queries I am regularly asked.

Electronic health and safety management systems (SafetySync, EHSInsight, KellerOnline, etc.) are certainly not new but have been slow to gain a foothold in the business world.  Even when used, their power is seldom fully utilized.  This article has been written by a computer-challenged health and safety professional, not a computer geek or programmer, who has become a strong proponent of these platforms.

What will an electronic program do that my current, paper based, system will not?

An electronic system will:

1. Most importantly, save the organization money.  Expenditures are reduced because administrative duties (completing, reviewing, filing forms) are shared by all employees.  These duties are also done more quickly, accurately and seamlessly with computer based programs.
2. Increase “boots on the ground” time.  Studies show that approximately 50% of a safety person’s job is spent on administrative duties.  Keyboarding for 20 hours per week means less time on the shop floor, in the field, etc.  A health and safety practitioner’s productivity is greatly hindered by being “chained to a desk” at the office.
3. Modernize and streamline the process of developing and maintaining directive documents, tracking employee qualifications, accumulating and filing reports, disseminating reports, and understandably, presenting them to non-safety professionals, e.g., managers and supervisors.
4. Increase the time spent on identifying improvement opportunities and assigning corrective actions since information is captured, analyzed and transferred to statistical graphs and charts in real time.
5. Raise health and safety awareness and accountability for senior and middle managers, supervisors and workers through timely reports and statistics.  Consequently, employees will become engaged in health and safety activities, which will build morale and compliance.
6. Identify key performance indicators (KPIs), which enables the organization to become proactive rather than reactive in their decision making.  Moreover, this helps to reduce risk, improve and measure performance, and provide evidence on where to make considered, fact-based decisions.
7. Grow legislative and industry conformance by tracking and applying worker training as required.
8. Reduce the effort required of front line supervisors and workers because information is captured, transferred and filed electronically.  There is no need to write a report (inspection, hazard assessment, hazard ID, observation tour, etc.), send it to a manager/supervisor to review, and then forward it to the administrator for filing.

Negative aspects of implementing health and safety management software

1. Some management platforms cost tens of thousands of dollars to develop and implement, which is out of touch with what most companies are willing to spend.  Increased competitiveness in the delivery of these programs has greatly reduced fees to as little as $5.00 per month per employee.
2. Employees are older and/or not technologically savvy; this is just an excuse.  All employees, young or old, can be taught the basic skills needed to run these types of programs.  Besides, computer skills are an essential component of most job positions; hence, additional training should be considered an asset rather than a liability.
3. While it is true that setting up an electronic health and safety program can take a considerable amount of time, which translates into added cost, most platforms, however, have on-line or in-person training regimens so that you can set up your own program, or you can hire a professional to do it for you.  The benefits of having an electronic program, as listed above, far outweigh the time spent to set them up.

Conclusion:

I encourage companies, large and small, new or established, to embrace changing technology as they do in other aspects of their business.  You would not think to have your accountant work with a calculator and hand written spreadsheets, and you should not handcuff your health and safety professional(s) in the same manner.

My last post (Health and Safety Auditor Ethics) outlined some of the current unethical standards being practiced by a surprisingly large number of health and safety auditors in Western Canada. Moreover, these individuals are tarnishing the Certificate of Recognition (COR) program and the reputations of the majority of good-intentioned and law-abiding evaluators.

COR Compliance Statistics 2016

At the recent Alberta Occupational Safety Auditors Association workshop, a presentation by Jessica Meyer from the Alberta Partnerships in Injury Reduction (PIR) program indicated that non-compliance regarding auditing standards has increased dramatically year over year. She pointed out the data was not finalized, but current statistics showed that 62% of the completed On-Site Audit Review (OSAR) evaluations for 2016 required some form of follow-up action. This is an increase of 7% over 2015 numbers.

These figures are troubling for several reasons: 1) They show an upward trend in violations since the OSAR program began; 2) They show a lack of compliance and understanding by health and safety professionals; 3) It shows that the COR program is being undermined by unscrupulous auditors in almost two-thirds of the audits reviewed; and 4) It shows a serious lack of professionalism and respect for employers and workers alike.

Certifying Partner Response

Currently, Certifying Partners have two ways to hold auditors accountable for completing their duties in a compliant manner. Firstly, they conduct meticulous Quality Assurance Reviews on all audits submitted by internal and external auditors. This process includes: ensuring audit time frames are adhered to, interview and work site samplings meet Partnerships standards, no boiler plating compared to other submitted audits, etc.

The second course of action includes government involvement and intervention. When a Certifying Partner suspects a violation, they can ask the government, through the Partnerships program, to conduct an OSAR audit.

If found to be in contravention, auditors face disciplinary actions, such as verbal and written reprimands, suspensions, and/or outright dismissal.

Government Involvement

Due to the fact that many COR approved companies were and are paying hefty Workers Compensation Board (WCB) surcharges, the Alberta government devised a program to evaluate a finite number of annual external and renewal audits.

The system entails a government assessment to determine if there is an appropriate synergy level between formal standards and the audit being evaluated. If serious irregularities are found, the government instructs the Certifying Partner to rectify them with the auditor involved.

Although an OSAR is a comprehensive assessment, it is seriously underfunded by the current Alberta government. OSARs are capped at 100/year, which means that approximately 4% of external and renewal audits are gauged. Besides that, Alberta and to a small degree, British Columbia, are the only provinces applying this standard.

Additionally, there is no mechanism other than quality assurance reviews to determine if internal/maintenance auditors are adhering to applicable rules and codes of conduct. Internal/maintenance audits account for the majority of COR audits conducted annually in Alberta (approximately 7,500). There is no reason to believe that reviews of those audits would differ from those of external auditors.

Path Forward

It is clear, given the statistical information, that the auditor accountability process being used by governing bodies is not working as needed or intended.

I would suggest that 10% of all audits (external, renewal or maintenance) be subjected to an OSAR. If adopted, this would be a ten-fold increase to 1000/year. Furthermore, I would also like to see increased penalties faced by abhorrent auditors.

Substantially increased government funding, coupled with escalated administrative penalties, would put deviant auditors on notice that their behavior will no longer be tolerated. Moreover, it would increase the profile of the COR program, reduce WCB costs (both employer and government), and most importantly, aid employers in maintaining a safe, healthy and productive workplace.

Ultimately, it is the health and safety of front-line workers that is put at risk by these abhorrent practices and increasing their exposure levels is just not acceptable.