Safety management systems: Performance differences between adopters and non-adopters
-
Upload
morwenna-awena -
Category
Documents
-
view
43 -
download
6
description
Transcript of Safety management systems: Performance differences between adopters and non-adopters
Safety management systems: Performance differences between
adopters and non-adopters
Safety Science 47 (2009) 155–162Eleonora Bottani, Luigi Monica, Giuseppe Vignali
Speaker: Jenny2008/12/10
Outline
PurposeIntroductionHypotheses developmentSurvey phaseResults and DiscussionConclusions
Purpose
whether the performance of safety management systems (SMSs) adopting and non-adopting companies statistically differ
Introduction
Human factor plays a important role in an organization’s safety performance.
(Attwood et al., 2006; Hughes and Kornowa-Weichel, 2004)
Unsafe behavior resulted from latent failures in the organization and management systems.
(Hughes and Kornowa-Weichel; Kawka and Kirchsteiger, 1999)
SMS: a set a policies and practices aimed at positively impacting on the employees’ attitudes and behaviors with regards to risk.
(Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2007)
Introduction
Benefits of SMS:Achieve and maintain high level safety
(Mitchison and Papadakis, 1999)
improve safety standards
Enhance communication, morale, and productivity (Cox and Vassie, 1998)
Decrease financial impact of safety (Cox and Vassie, 1998)
Hypotheses
attitude differs between SMSs adopters & non-adopters
H1: define safety and security goals and
communicate them to employees
H2: update risk data
H3: assess risks and define corrective actions
H4: implement employees training programs
Survey Phase
Sample and data collection
Questionnaire contents
Methodology
Survey Phase
Sample and data collectionChoose the companies randomly on www.kompass.com
Pre-test: e-mail (100)
Rewritten the questionnaire, and add explanations
Data collection: March to May 2007
Send by email: 400 companies
Response: 23.2% (116/500)
a = 0.838 (recommended value 0.6)
Survey Phase
Questionnaire contents4 sections
4-points Likert scale
SPSS
Survey Phase
Methodology (Minand Galle, 2001)
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)Verify the questions and double check
Reduce the factors to a limited number
Factors reliability: Cronbach’s a or Pearson correlation cofeeicient
Hypotheses testingindependent-samples T test
Multiple comparisons
Results
Respondents
Safety
managers
Quality
managers
Finance
managers
36% 16% 16%
Manufacturing Agriculture Building commercial
55% 14.7% 11.3% 6%
Results
Adopt SMS (more less)Industries: Building (66.67%) Agriculture Manufacturing Commercial
Company size: Big (58.33%) Medium (56.82%) Micro Small
No difference in product quality and competitive positionCurrent market share: adopters are higher
Adopters 65.52% v.s Non-adopters 39.66%
More accidents happened toNon-adopters (15.05)
Manufacturing (13.97) & Building(14.75)
Results
Confirmatory factor analysisEngenvectors >1Variance maximizing procedure is used to extract factors
Results
Hypotheses Testing
Results
Results
update risk data evidence for causal relationships between SMS implementation and improvements
SMS is used to systematically codify incidents, so facilitating the use of updating risk data
(Rowlinson, 2004)
Results
access risks and define corrective reactions
adopting SMS improves risk monitoring
SMS codify incidents and related causes, which helps companies to get useful information for improving the design and planning of safety measures, and for monitoring the result performance
Results
implement employees trainingstrongly supported by the results
Human resource: employees training and awareness
Conclusions
The difference between two groups is the key points—implementing SMS can get benefits, i.e. 4 factors
Companies adopting SMSs exhibit higher performance.
This study doesn’t provide a direction of causality of the results obtained.
Future research: investigate only one industry, causal relationship between SMS implementation and improvement, difference between IMS(Integrated) and SMS