Guest Post From Steve Minshall, CSP, CIH
Universal agreement is hard to come by, but many safety professionals, I think, support the notion that near miss reporting is a good idea.[By the way, if you don't like the term "near miss," substitute the descriptor of your choosing (e.g., near hit; close call).] The problem comes in trying to implement what is generally recognized as a reasonable and prudent practice. Cue the drums . . .and that's where Dr. Mike Williamsen with Caterpillar Safety Services comes in. Presentations on near miss reporting might be old hat to you, but during his session Williamsen provided a fresh perspective and suggested a Kaizen-like process to help overcome the common hurdles to successfully implementing a near miss reporting program.Williamsen described the five fatal flaws of near miss programs:
- Upper management believes in the program but isn't engaged.
- Safety professionals have the technology for the program but struggle with how to teach it to people.
- Supervisors don't see the value.
- Hourly employees perceive that nothing comes from the program; or, when something does happen, it's over-done.
- Data management is problematic.
- Maintaining the status quo exerts a powerful influence.
- The meaning of "near miss" is not clear and that leads to less reporting
- Forms for recording near misses present a whole set of issues (literacy; language; length; location; logistics).
- There is a fear of punishment/retaliation.
- It sends a mixed message about the competence or incompetence of supervisors and managers.
- It creates more work and little or no recognition.
- Programs fall into a cycle of no recognition and little feedback about results.
- There is a desire to avoid work interruption in our "productivity culture."
- It is seen as fault-finding.