Safety Assumptions

We must test our assumptions.

 

I enjoy a joke as much as the next person. Sometimes, I overthink a joke, though. Case in point.

fue-10-563x1000
Awkward

“Awkward” has a page entitled “15 People Are Wayyyyyy Too Overprotective”.  Photo 12 shows a gate locked with six locks. From my perspective, this is not being overprotective. Since at least three of the locks have numbers, I see this set of locks as part of a lock-out procedure. Each person has locked the area with his/her lock to ensure that no-one can enter/leave without them. Locking out is a good safety practice, not being overprotective. My problem is that anyone can remove all the locks by removing any one of the locks; a clear case of not thinking about thinking safety.

Don’t get me wrong, the premise is funny, and there is nothing wrong with having a good laugh. I am using Akward’s different interpretation of the photo to show that we make assumptions.

Assumptions are necessary. Without assumptions, we would need to start from scratch in everything we do. Our level of decision making would reduce to first principles. We would deplete our decision-making energy, halting all progress.

We must remember that the most significant assumption we make is that others know what we know. People are from different backgrounds and have different levels of exposure. Our experiences form our frame of reference for risk assessment. Not discussing a risk from the same frame of reference can lead to someone getting hurt. Assuming everyone has the same frame of reference is not a wise assumption.

We must test our assumptions.

Managers must always make sure that everyone is on the same safety page — especially those who are career starters.

By the way, photo 11 is not funny from a safety perspective, either.

work explained

SAFETY FIRST

Think about thinking about safety!

 

 

sign slippery wet caution
Photo by Skitterphoto on Pexels.com

Let’s start at the beginning. Safety First.

Yes, I will make a call to action then build up to a sale.

We must all think about safety.

We must think about thinking about safety.

When we instruct to instil safety, we must make sure that people can adhere to the instruction.

For example, “Use three points of contact when using stairs”. First, we must place the instruction on all stair handrails – easy. Second, the stair handrails must be close enough to each other so that a person can hold onto two handrails at a time. Not so easy, as one can see on most wide stairways. Third, the person using the stairs must have both hands free. WOW! How often does this happen? A logical conclusion is that we must provide escalators or lifts. A cheaper alternative is to have everyone use a shoulder bag to carry any objects.

Think about thinking about safety.

Another example will bring us closer to the sale.

Some workplaces have safety representatives. Safety representatives must complete regular safety inspections of the workplace. Two aspects of safety inspection forms/booklets spring to mind. First, the manager and the safety representative must be able to use the questionnaire. When all is well, the form must show that all is well. The form must identify an unsafe behaviour or activity for action.

Second, the inspection form must focus only on behaviours and conditions that are under the manager’s control. The questionnaire should not check compliance with construction regulations. For example, the safety representative does not need to know how many lights there should be but should report lights that don’t work.

Audits by qualified personnel/contractors must focus on infrastructure issues. The company should have addressed infrastructure issues during the building design phase.

Now the sale. I have developed forms that are easy to use and focus on controllable items only. You can order your copy of “I keep Record of Workplace Safety” from Amazon.com.Safety

What on Earth is Happening?

“What should have been done”, or “What should not have been done”, and

“What was done” and “What was not done”.

#Mistakes #LearnfromMistakes

pexels-photo-987585.jpeg
Photo by freestocks.org on Pexels.com

“Everything happens.” Even “IT happens.”

 

Eli Goldratt repeatedly said, and also put in print:

As a matter of fact I had to give up on the greatest pleasure of human beings, on the pleasure gained from bitching and moaning.”

 

Mistakes happen. You can bitch and moan, or learn from the experience. Mistakes cause problems if you are unlucky. My view, as a manager, is that I can tolerate a mistake the first time it happens, but not the second time.

 

We must take the time and learn from the mistake, no matter who might be responsible. The main aim of looking at the mistake is to prevent the mistake from happening again. I propose a method that helps you understand the mistakes.

 

Every action can be placed into one and only one of the following four categories (extended from a presentation by Dr Eli Goldratt, who focused on when things go Bad!):

 

Apologies to Shakespeare’s Hamlet

Should Do

Should Not Do

Did

Did what should have been done

GOOD! Did what should not have been done

Bad!

Did not do

Did not do what should have been done

Bad! Did not do what should not have been done

GOOD!

My suggestion to you is to analyse the mistake based on the two axes:

“What should have been done”, or “What should not have been done”, and

“What was done” and “What was not done”.

These four elements will distil the mistake into its components and will allow you to take action. If you take the right action, the mistake will not happen again. Happy days.

The confusion over Blockchain Analysis by Eli Schragenheim

Please, let us #ThinkaboutTechnology.

via The confusion over Blockchain

#ThinkaboutTechnology

 

Eli Schragenheim currently writes an informative blog and his latest contribution focuses on an analysis of technology, in this case Blockchain.

Let’s start with Goldratt’s Six Questions on assessing the value of a new technology. This is a great tool for guiding us to raise the right questions and look for possible answers:

  1. What is the power of the new technology?

  2. What current limitation or barrier does the new technology eliminate or vastly reduce?

  3. What are the current usage rules, patterns and behaviors that bypass the limitation?

  4. What rules, patterns and behaviors need to be changed to get the benefits of the new technology?

  5. What is the application of the new technology that will enable the above change without causing resistance?

  6. How to build, capitalize and sustain the business?

 

Eli Schragenheim sums up the work of Dr Goldratt as described in his easy to read business novel Necessary but not Sufficient and his audio work Beyond the Goal: Theory of constraints. Dr Goldratt starts with a seemingly simple statement:

 

Technology can bring benefit if and only if it diminishes a limitation.

From this statement, like Eli Schragenheim in his blog, Dr Goldratt evaluates the technology that is available in nearly all medium and big enterprises: ERP.

 

I only have exposure to SAP as an ERP, and I am not impressed. Dr Goldratt predicted in his analysis that SAP-Hanna would be needed to clear up all the complexity of maintaining SAP. Since Dr Goldratt’s analysis was not based on any specific ERP system, the conclusions are valid for other system providers as well.

 

Managers are asked to test and buy new technologies nearly every day. Many of the past purchases caused more harm than good. The six evaluation questions above will enable managers to test the technology and prevent damage from coming to them and their organisation. Please, let us #ThinkaboutTechnology.