There has been a lot of talk about ‘quality’ in industry. The latest buzz words are ‘safety management’. New business opportunities have been seized upon to ‘sell’ this new concept, often complicating what is for the most part, a relatively straight forward extension and complimentary use of existing continuous improvement methodologies used by businesses.
Many organisations believe they have the notion of quality incorporated into their businesses, with assurance processes documented, often incorporating complex IT solutions to manage the ‘data’ that the QA system produces (and can it produce data!!). Frequently missed is the very necessary belief by business office holders (governance), in the objectives and outcomes that safety management, safety assurance, quality and strategic planning can provide. Of particular significance is the enhancement of the triple bottom line results, experienced by organisations that operate and more importantly, believe in the philosophies of safety and risk management. In short, they:
- plan to succeed by planning the heck out of what they do
- follow the plan and do what they say they will do
- monitor what they do to verify that the outcomes are what they expect and change when they don’t
- review performance and report to management on the good, the bad and the ugly
- learn lessons and incorporate improvements
- keep everyone informed
Running a business using the tools described above, means realistic and pragmatic targets can be met by prioritisation of resources to planned activities. Of equal importance, those in governance roles must have an expectation and requirement of senior management that the philosophies and processes manifested from a safety management system, are to be incorporated and used properly and appropriately. Not having an expectation of change in the way senior managers act, means you the accountable governor, will get what you always got.
Expectation of and requirement to change must be initially fostered by giving people the opportunity to learn. This learning includes understanding and comprehending the technical elements introduced by SMS’s, but also about behaviour (their own and the behaviours of others). Given the opportunity to learn and improve, most people will take advantage; however (and significantly) senior management who do not adopt and live the new concepts will only serve to be detractors. Their ability to negatively impact on the change process, is a serious impediment to a business making the most of the opportunities that arise from the introduction of safety management systems. They can and do effectively compromise the business, preventing it from realising its true potential. This is also true of peers and subordinates, who will find themselves constrained by the will and often dominance, of powerful detractors.
Where these individuals are revered or worst case feared, the ability for an organisation to improve its performance is seriously hampered. This results in frustration and often anger amongst those people trying to make a difference. This type of dysfunction manifests in combative communication, disenfranchised team members and ineffective planning. The resultant failure to achieve objectives, consequential meager financial performance and unsatisfied customers, are hallmarks of a lack of governance knowledge of how to achieve the balance between operational objectives, and safety accountability. In these cases, it is up to the business governors to realise their need for help and seek it, and make changes to the way they manage. Then bring to the attention of the individuals concerned the need for them to adopt the new ways and adapt to them, further encourage them and set some goals for change. Consistent failure to adapt and lead, or undermining of the continuous improvement programmes, should then be performance managed and not allowed to grind on, dragging the performance of others and ultimately the business, down.