A Survey of Safety Culture

DOE ISM Best Practices Workshop

Lettie Chilson, West Valley Nuclear Services Company

DOE ISM Best Practices Workshop

Lettie Chilson, West Valley Nuclear Services Company

September 13, 2006

18807 2

Presentation TopicsPresentation Topics

Decision to conduct the survey

Development and logistics

Analysis

Sharing Results

Actions/Improvements

Lessons Learned

18807 3

Why a Workforce Survey?Why a Workforce Survey?

Safety Survey has been conducted every year since 1995.

Safety performance at WVNSCO was at record levels (TRC and Dart near 0, 4 million safe work hours)

Site metrics can’t measure attitudes/feelings

Being Safe and Feeling Safe are not the same.

18807 4

Survey DevelopmentSurvey Development

Used ISM draft attributes that focused on behaviors, perceptions and feelings

24 statements or questions

One yes/no question

Range 5 = Strongly agree 1 = Strongly Disagree

Senior management and represented labor reviewed the survey prior

18807 5

18807 6

18807 7

LogisticsLogistics

All employees were given a copy by their supervisor

Each survey had a ticket to tear off for an incentive drawing

Individual survey responses were held in confidence

18807 8

AnalysisAnalysis

Total Respondents: 173 of 334

Percent: 51%

The following percentages of those responding are:— Hourly: 23%— Supervisors 7%— Exempt: 24%— Managers 5%— Non-Exempt 12%— Did not Identify 30%

The survey demographics aligned very closely (within 1% of each category) to actual company demographics

18807 9

AnalysisAnalysis

Average response

4.29

3.71

4.71

4.26

3.97

4.29

4.63

3.863.95

4.08

3.88

3.57

4.21

4.02

3.69 3.70

4.05

3.783.88

4.16

3.64

4.25

3.89

3.00

4.00

5.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Question Number

Res

po

nse

Val

ue

The average of all responses was slightly above 4 (4.01) which indicates that overall a positive safety culture exists at WVNSCO.

18807 10

AnalysisAnalysis

Questions were reviewed by groupings.— The questions with the higher average response (>4)

• individual accountability • understanding of safety program responsibilities.

— This indicates that in general employees understand their role in safety and feel they positively contribute to making work safer.

— The Questions with the lower overall averages (<4) • related to the actions of others in accepting or valuing employee

input• communicating appropriate feedback.

— Comments generally indicated employees understand their rights and want to contribute to effective safe work but feel their contributions are not always being considered by work planners or line management.

— This was not unexpected and was consistent with other indicators and management observations.

18807 11

AnalysisAnalysis

Generally curves follow each other Management/Supervisors closely match Hourly and non-exempt closely match Focus on understanding and reducing the distance between the lines.

Average Response By Job Category

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Question Number (#3 omitted)

Resp

on

se A

vera

ge

Hourly

Managers

Non-Exempt

Exempt

Supervisors

Did Not Respond

18807 12

Individual QuestionsIndividual Questions

Question #2 – Overall 3.71— Workers are actively involved in identification, planning, and

improvement of work and work practices for the project

Average Response by Job CategoryQuestion #2

2.83

4.13 4.05 4.05 4.11 3.87

H M NE E S NA

Job Category

Ave

rag

e R

esp

on

se

Question 2: Workers are actively involved in identifi cation,

planning and improvement of work and the work

practices for the project

12 1142 56 50

2

0

50

100

150

1 2 3 4 5 6

Respnse Value

(1 Strongly Disagree - 5 Strongly Agree- 6 no

response)

18807 13

CommentsComments

All Comments were sorted by question and stripped of identifying information.

Examples of Comments from Question #2

Work seems to be occurring at a very fast pace. Program planning and review not given the time and attention needed

Most jobs in my area are identified and a WIP written prior to operator involvement

Engineers listen but do not always incorporate ideas of operators

Not at the beginning and most certainly not prior to development of the WIP

No Not included up front as much as should be

Little if any involvement

Paper is written to work then we review sometimes if it isn't impacting getting work done

18807 14

Sharing ResultsSharing Results

Results presented to employee based safety committees:—Safety Success

• Mutli-disciplined group with line supervisor as lead

—Central Safety• Senior Management and Union Leaders meet monthly

with safety program managers

—ISMS Annual Review

18807 15

Actions / ImprovementsActions / Improvements

Communication —Represented labor presence at 7:30 morning

planning meeting—Increased communication of company issues and

status of work/contract—Senior management emphasis daily on worker

involvement and team accountability—Human Performance tools/techniques added to

senior management and supervisor briefings

18807 16

Action / ImprovementAction / Improvement

PPE— action was taken to ensure specific PPE comments were

addressed• Availability

• Site wide PPE policy

Tooling Availability Review

Results provided to Integrated Assessment Council for assessment planning

Weekly “Talking Points” issued to Supervisors to discuss with workers – address most critical issues including contract status, first aids, benefits, etc.

18807 17

Lessons LearnedLessons Learned

Workers provided input on survey questions—Wording—Number of questions

Baseline year should be established and improvement measured annually

Confidentiality is key Incentives – Make safety/company related Trust….135 incentive tickets returned

18807 18

ConclusionConclusion

Survey can provide a good relative measure of safety culture

It’s not all about statistics….one comment can open a door of big improvement opportunity

Don’t be afraid…the answers represent feelings that can help open communication