We used the online tool and found it useful as a general barometer of where we were at. It helped us decide what areas to focus on, and it was interesting to see the differences in perception between management & workers. We will probably do the online assessment again to show if we have closed up the gaps

Hi John. I’ve done about 10 onsite assessments ( and no I’m not looking for more work!). I think if firms understand what SafePlus is and isn’t and approach it as a performance improvement tool rather than an audit it can be highly insightful. But you need to choose carefully what the assessor looks at , where they go and who they meet as this will influence the outcome. I’ve only had one client use the online assessment and they found the result a bit bland and self evident. They got a very different result from the on site assessment
Mike

As an accredited SafePlus Assessor I really believe in the tool. It focuses on people, rather than paper - which is what it's all about of course. An assessment can be conducted on any area of a business, or all of the business. If you decide to engage someone to do an assessment make sure that person is knowledgeable about the industry.

We were probably one of the first organisations, certainly the first government department, to undertake the full assessment. While both my organisation and company undertaking the assessment (being a first for both of us) learnt a lot and may do some things differently next time, at DOC we highly valued the assessment. Do not go into it as a compliance tool - it is not. Focusing on the key criteria of the assessment was great You need to go into it open minded and be prepared to learn from it. I highly recommend it if you are doing it for the right reason.

I've just done the on-line assessment. (Prompted by some guy doing a telephone survey)

I was expecting a perfect result - but it doesn't do a report for one response.

It didn't take long. Banged it out in a few minutes - though the setting up takes a bit longer.

Judging from the questions it looks like I'l get a report at quite a superficial level. Eg "My organisation is prepared for emergencies and has told me what to do when one happens." Well how-about asking if the plan has actually been tested and I feel safe when an emergency does arise?

I don't think I would bother with the on-line version. Too much room for disgruntled / troublesome / uninterested employees to fudge the Results. Eg "I can get involved and have my say about health and safety" - a person who is interested but doesn't want to get actively involved would likely return a negative result. (Some people, despite opportunities to speak, don't - no matter how much encouragement)

Would be much better for an outside assessor to do it - and then drill into the evidence behind the response.

If I was going to bring in an outside assessor I'd prefer a WSMP type assessment based on observable actions rather than just a paper trail. It would have more substance.

Agree it ought not be considered as a "compliance " type tool. Its far from that.

If you want a half decent overview then the tool is fine - but as a safety practitioner we ought to be involved sufficiently in our business to know the answers.

For the building and construction industry, the proposed Tōtika Scheme (cross recognition scheme for pre-qualification) has identified a Safe+ audit (not the self assessment) as an accepted alternative to a pre-qualification assessment for small, lower risk businesses.

You can see the detail, and provide feedback as part of our wider consultation process here: https://www.chasnz.org/totika