SafetyIMPACT Forums / SafetyIMPACT Forums / Safety Strategy Team

A few thoughts on HIT and SST Meetings

Phil La Duke — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:39:41 GMT

In some pockets of the SafetyIMPACT! world, confusion persists around the purpose of, and difference between, the Hazard Investigation Team and the Safety Strategy Team. So here is my attempt to clarify and coach those who would hear me:

Q: What’s the difference between the HIT and the SST?

A: The quick answer is that the HIT is tactical and the SST is strategic, but that answer isn’t all that satisfying, chiefly because so few people understand the difference between “tactics and strategy”. To a high degree, both meetings are about identifying coaching opportunities—the HIT at a department level and the SST at a enterprise-wide level.

In simple terms, the HIT is focused on ensuring that tasks associated with SafetyIMPACT! are being completed, are completed on-time, and that the tasks have been completed to a sufficient quality standard. Take Safety Inspections for example. The HIT members review not only the quantitative data (are the inspections being done?) but the qualitative data (how well are the inspections being done—are the inspectors finding enough hazards? Are the hazards being corrected within the deadline?)

The SST, conversely, is focused on allocating resources and coaching in the smartest possible way. The SST is tasked with identifying the areas of the organization that are creating the biggest problems. So effectively, the HIT is about making sure things get done, and the SST is about choosing the right things.

Q: Can’t we just have one big meeting, instead of a weekly meeting AND a monthly meeting?

A: Maybe, but that’s probably a mistake. You see, if you are conducting these meetings correctly, you shouldn’t have a lot of people who are members of both teams. So that means in the effort to save time and make the meetings more convenient for a small group of members you actually end up wasting a fair amount of other people’s time. Also, if you are doing your full HIT agenda, you probably won’t have time available to make room for the SST agenda.

Q: I’m having trouble getting people coming to the meetings, or if they come to the meetings, they aren’t prepared, how do I handle that?

A: You get what you put up with, but remember, if you’re a safety professional, these aren’t your meetings. If an Operations leader calls a meeting and people miss it, there should be consequences, and if there’s not any consequence it’s a de facto reward (when was the last time you were disappointed that you didn’t make it to a meeting?) The only way to solve this problem is to coach the meeting owner(s) that some meeting discipline needs to be applied; always do your coaching outside the meetings—nobody likes getting corrected in front of a crowd.

Q: Swell idea, the meeting owners are the problem, any other suggestions?

A: I’ve spent a lot of time talking to Operations leaders who have abysmal attendance meetings, and you know what? They blame you. The most frequent reason that Operations leaders give for missing these meetings is that they are a waste of time. If you continue with the repetitive root cause analysis (Why are the meetings a waste of time? Nothing seems to get accomplished. Why doesn’t anything get accomplished? because nobody is prepared. Why aren’t people prepared? Well lots of reasons, but they all lead back to poorly communicated expectations. Whether the agenda reads like a crossword puzzle or there IS no agenda, or if people are allowed to move off topic, or people take more than the time allotted to them, meeting preparation is the key to a good meeting, and good meetings will be well attended.

Q: Because we have most of Operations leadership assembled in the SST meetings, a lot of topics unrelated to worker safety tend to creep in, what should I do?

A: First of all, congratulations! As the SST meetings go better and better, there’s a temptation on the part of Operations leadership to bring more and more business to the meeting that is not related to safety. As far as I’m concerned, that shows a lot of confidence in the meeting.

That having been said, I think some gentle process checks will get you back on track. A process check works something like this, “excuse me, but this conversations sounds very important, should we have another meeting immediately following this one so we can devote more time to this discussion or should we reschedule our SST?” In general, these process checks will work, although sometimes you need more than one or two until meeting discipline develops

What the….?

Phil La Duke — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:02:05 GMT

I got an earful about how confusing the SST reports are from someone new to the SafetyIMPACT! process. Well let me just end that confusion RIGHT NOW! Here’s a simplified look at the reports and what they are telling us:

Report	What is it?	What it tells you	Why it’s useful	Comments
Average Time To Close Hazards	Line graph	The average time it takes a given department to correct its hazards	It identifies areas of the organization that are bottlenecks; typically	A lot of people use the “all departments” sort on this report, which isn’t all that useful. So what if the organization overall is fixing issues within deadline if a given department is ineffective?
Area Hazard Count	Bar chart	How many hazards departments have found over given period of time	It compares the number of hazards found by various departments	In itself this report is just data, to make it information one needs to overlay the injury data for those same departments; it’s often enlightening to see how injuries correlate to the hazards found in an area.
Hazard Status	Pie Chart	The percentage of hazards that are open, in-progress, closed, and corrected.	It identifies problems like IRPs not responding to issues or inspectors not closing issues that have been corrected.	A lot of people only run a report on “all areas” which is very useful, but the report feature allows you to fine tune the report so that you can get information on a specific area and timeframe which identifies coaching opportunities
Hazard Type Summary	Bar chart	Compares the kinds of hazards found in a specified area	It allows you to gauge the effectiveness of the organization’s ability to find the hazards that are most likely hurting people, and by running this report for the areas with the highest injury levels you can identify coaching opportunities	This chart, when used in conjunction with injury data, is one of the most useful sources of data available. This chart should be used on two levels: a) as an leading indicator of whether the organization is effective at attacking the hazards that cause the top three injury causes identified by the SST and b) to identify how effective the top three areas responsible for the top-three injury causes are at correcting the corresponding
Past Due Hazard Summary	Bar Chart	How many hazards, by risk level, remain open by area	It identifies the location of bottle necks in hazard correction	By identifying those areas that are struggling with hazard correction you can reallocate resources to clear bottle necks
Percentage of Hazards Closed on Time	Line Graph	Identifies what percentage of hazards (by risk level) are closed within the assigned deadline within a specified area	It allows you to track the performance of a defined area at closing hazards on time, which in turns allows you to identify individuals who need coaching.	This is a chart that many people misunderstand; the purpose is to analyze the performance of a specific area that has been identified as a high-injury area. By using this report to examine how many hazards of the type most likely to cause the leading injuries of an area you can identify coaching opportunities.
Trends in Hazard Type	Line Graph	Identifies patterns in the kind of hazards found in a given area over time	It allows you to assess the effectiveness of an area at finding the kinds of hazards that are causing the injuries that have been targeted as top-three initiatives	Here again, but defining a high-injury area and assessing the kinds of hazards they are finding, you can determine if there is a disconnect between the hazards being found and the hazards that are most likely to cause injuries