Australasian Mine Safety

SPECIAL FEATURE SAFETY REPORT REFERENCES • Carroll, J.S., 1998. Safety culture as an ongoing process: culture surveys as opportunities for enquiry and change. Work Stress 12, 272e284. • Cooper, M.D., 2008, April. Risk e weighted safety culture profi ling. In: Paper Presented at the Meeting of International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, France. Retrieved from. http://www.efcog.org/wg/ism_ pmi/docs/Safety_Culture/Sep08/petroriskmodel. pdf. • Coyle, G., 2004. Practical Strategy: Structured Tools and Techniques. Prentice Hall, Glasgow. Cullen, W.D., 1990. The Public Inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster. H.M.S.O, London. • Shaping safety culture in the organization. In: Ejdys, J. (Ed.), 2010. Kształtowanie Kultury Bezpieczenstwa I Higieny Pracy W Organizacji. Ofi cyna Wydawnicza • Politechniki Białostockiej, Białystok. He, A., Xu, S., Fu, G., 2012. Study on the basic problems of safety culture. Procedia Eng. 43, 245e249. • Hidden, A., 1989. Investigation of the Clapham Junction Railway Accident. H.M.S.O, London. • International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 1991. Safety Culture: a Report by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (Safety Series No. 75 INSAG-4). IAEA, Vienna. • Janicak, C.A., 2003. Safety Metrics: Tools and Techniques for Measuring Safety Performance, second ed. Government Institutes, Lanham, MD. • Milczarek, M., 2000. Kultura bezpieczenstwa w przedsie˛biorstwie e nowe spojrzenie na zagadnienia bezpieczenstwa pracy (Safety culture in the company e a new look at safety issues). Bezpieczenstwo Pracy 10, 17e20 [in Polish]. • Pidgeon, N.F., 1991. Safety culture and risk management in organizations. J. Cross- Cultural Psychol. 22, 129e140. • Reason, J., 2011. Score your safety culture in terence. In: T, N. (Ed.), Occupational Safety and Health Culture Assessment: a Review of Main Approaches and Selected Tools. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, Luxembourg. • Saaty, R.W., 1987. The analytic hierarchy process e what it is and how it is used. Mathl. Model. 9, 161e176. • Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Op. Res. 48, 9e26. • Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1, 83e98. • Turner, B.A., Pidgeon, N., Blockley, D., Toft, B., 1989. Safety culture: its importance in future risk management. In: Paper for the Second World Bank Workshop on Safety Control and Risk Management. Karlstad, Sweden. • Yule, S., 2003. Senior Management Infl uence on Safety Performance in the UK and US Energy Sectors (Doctoral thesis). University of Aberdeen, Scotland. question on flow of information; monitoring & control & supervision; management commitment and continuous improvement. It is worth to note that the results obtained in both groups for two aspects (flow of information and monitoring & control & supervision) were analysed separately but in Fig. 5 they are presented jointly. There were five alternatives of answer for every key aspect of safety assessed: • 0 when respondent does not give any answer in accordance with the key answer; • 0.25 when the respondent gives only one answer which is compatible with the key answer; • 0.5 when respondent gives two answers which are compatible with the key answer; • 0.75 when respondent gives three answers which are compatible with the key answer; • 1 when respondent gives four answers which are compatible with the key answer. The results obtained on the basis of students and staff members interviews are given in Fig. 5. The weights of importance of key aspects of safety culture were determined on the basis of interviews of 17 respondents and use of AHP method. The obtained weights of importance are presented in Table 8. The value of Consistency Ratio (CR) was equal to 0.085. It is worth to note, that the need for continuous improvement (0.45) was the most valued part of safety culture while the value of flow of information (0.03) was practically negligible. The assessments of key aspects of safety culture were obtained as the average value of the results obtained in the groups of students and staff . The results are given in Table 9. Finally, the level of safety culture was calculated taking into account the results obtained for all key aspects and their weights of importance, Eq. (3). The assessed value of level of safety culture Asc was 0.82. It means that, according to Table 1, an "expected level of safety culture" was achieved. This level should not be downgraded as the values of only two key aspects were lower than 0.6. However, the actions aimed at strengthening these aspects should be undertaken. On the basis of the obtained results the following changes/actions were proposed. Management commitment should be improved. The students should be informed about the involvement of management. Due to the large number of foreign students, each safety training should be completed by the test, to verify the understanding of safety related issues. The exercise on the use of safety equipment should be a common practice. The students, especially those working over one year in the laboratories, should be asked for their opinions on safety issue. SUMMARY Assessment Tree Method (ATM) off ers a new approach to safety culture assessment enabling its quantitative evaluation. The characteristic element of this method is hierarchical, tree- based organisation of interviewing process. The most important advantage of ATM is its simplicity and simultaneously a broad scope of the assessed aspects of safety culture. The method allows for quantitative assessment of the specific aspects of safety as well as to evaluate the level of safety culture in the organisation. As a result, it off ers a deeper insight and in consequence, eff ective identification and elimination of weak points in safety culture. The presented algorithm could be successfully applied in the diff erent types of the organisation thanks to its flexibility allowing to capture the specificity of the investigated enterprises. RESULT OF SAFETY CULTURE INTERPRETATION 1 - 0.8 a Expected level of safety culture (acceptable safety culture; monitor and continuous improvement are recommended) 0.8 - 0.6 On a good way to excellence (acceptable safety culture however some actions would be recommended to achieve higher level of safety culture) 0.6 - 0.4 Satisfactory level- half way (recommended actions aimed at increase of safety culture) 0.4 - 0.2 Good start (required actions aimed at increase of safety culture) 0.2 - 0 b Unsatisfactory level of safety culture (needed preparation of long-term improvement strategy and plan for its implementation) TABLE 7. The assessment scale. a If less than 66% of aspects have a value higher than 0.6 e the level of safety culture is reduced by one category. / b If more than 66% of aspects have a value higher than 0.6 e the level of safety culture is increased by one category. ASPECT NO. HIERARCHY WEIGHTS ASPECT 1 5 0.09 Knowledge and skills 2 2 0.20 Awareness 3 6 0.03 Flow of information 4 4 0.09 Management commitment 5 3 0.14 Monitoring, control and supervision 6 1 0.45 Continuous improvement TABLE 8. The weights of importance of key aspects of safety culture. ASPECT OBTAINED RESULT STUDENT SAFETY TEAM FINAL RESULTS Knowledge and skills 0.78 - 0.78 Awareness 0.88 - 0.88 Flow of information 0.64 0.75 0.69 Monitoring, control, supervision 0.60 0.25 0.42 Management commitment - 0.50 0.50 Continuous improvement - 1.00 1.00 TABLE 9. The assessment of key aspects of safety culture. AUST R A L AS I A N M I N E SA F E T Y J O U R N A L / Spring 2020 / www.amsj.com.au 76

• Cover