Hi Graham
I read your post on Thursday and was interested to see the responses you received. Surprised at this point on one has responed as it is in my opinion a good topic that seems to be gaining momentum.
When Dr Todd Tonkin was in New Zealand in July. I believe he had meetings with two government departments and one of the departments ministers. Is this an indicator of the attention Safety 11/ Safety Differently is getting?
Worksafe have engaged Daniel Hummerdal as their Chief Adviser of Innovation. See below link.
https://worksafe.govt.nz/about-us/news-and-media/daniel-hummerdal-appointment/
This role commenced last October and in that time he has been quiet, working away in the background. Watch this space.
I think it is a refreshing way of thinking and a positive way forward.

Hi Graham
Glad to hear that you as a rep have access to this forum.
Historically in an organisation I worked for, a lot of health and safety reminders to workers were along these lines - "You need to be more careful." I currently train managers and team leaders to step away from this default as this is not H&S management - we are loading up our people with the responsibility to take more care instead of managing the risk closer to the source.
Regards, Michelle

Several years ago, I attended training in Logical Incident Investigation as part of the integrated safety management approach being implemented by my employer. As a part of that training, we were given this flowchart to assist with identifying the most appropriate corrective action. As you will see from the flow chart, the process first assesses organizational factors and management systems, then if all those are appropriately in order, the process then starts to consider factors such as training and communication. Only when managers have truly addressed all those issues within their power to manage do they start to consider the individual.

A key element of this flow chart is the same point made in ICAM methodology - if you stop the investigation at blaming the person and only address the incident by disciplinary action or prescribing additional training (and what a way to put people off learning, when it is framed as 'punishment' for having an incident!!), you still have not addressed the absence or flaws in a system that led to the failure. If you put a 'disciplined' or 'trained' person back into the same system, the elements that led to failure are still there.

I like the simplicity of this model, and it has wider relevance for addressing any kind of 'failure', not just a safety issue.

Almost always, when delving deep for a root cause in comes down to training, communication or systems failure, all of which are responsibility of management.

Hi Graham

On the topic of Todd Conklin, I have emailed him a number of times and found him to be really approachable. There are some really relevant and interesting videos on YouTube , which are well worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDLmZXBaMs

Regards Nathan

Hey guy's... Pretty good speaker alright and is for the most part at the forefront of health and safety across the modern world. Safety 2 is the progression of safety 1... don't forget if we want anything to last a solid foundation is required, which is what safety 1 provides, which then should lead us to safety 2 for further grow and development. Check out https://preaccidentpodcast.podbean.com/ for more interesting conversations from Todd Conklin's podcast.

Have a look at Just Culture - well documented by James Reason. This is a great mechanism to determine if the person was truly at fault or if it was a system induced fault.

Hi Graham. I love Todd, and the concept of failing safely. His podcast is fantastic! I would suggest that a lot of H&S professionals are not on this bus yet (still stuck in the old compliance and people as the problem thinking) but going forward, this kind of thinking is what our profession needs. Check out safetydifferently.com for lots more interesting reading - you're heading in the right direction :)