Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.

HF&E is employed to fulfill the goals of health and safety and productivity. It is relevant in the design of such things as safe furniture and easy-to-use interfaces to machines and equipment. Proper ergonomic design is necessary to prevent repetitive strain injuries and other musculoskeletal disorders, which can develop over time and can lead to long-term disability.

Human factors and ergonomics is concerned with the “fit” between the user, equipment and their environments. It takes account of the user’s capabilities and limitations in seeking to ensure that tasks, functions, information and the environment suit each user.

To assess the fit between a person and the used technology, human factors specialists or ergonomists consider the job (activity) being done and the demands on the user; the equipment used (its size, shape, and how appropriate it is for the task), and the information used (how it is presented, accessed, and changed). Ergonomics draws on many disciplines in its study of humans and their environments, including anthropometry, biomechanics, mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, industrial design, information design, kinesiology, physiology and psychology.

Etymology

Ergonomics: the science of designing user interaction with equipment and workplaces to fit the user.

The term ergonomics, from Greek Έργον, meaning “work”, and Νόμος, meaning “natural laws”, first entered the modern lexicon when Wojciech Jastrzębowski used the word in his 1857 article Rys ergonomji czyli nauki o pracy, opartej na prawdach poczerpniętych z Nauki Przyrody (The Outline of Ergonomic; i.e. Science of Work, Based on the Truths Taken from the Natural Science). The introduction of the term to the English lexicon is widely attributed to British psychologist Hywel Murrell, at the 1949 meeting at the UK’s Admiralty, which led to the foundation of The Ergonomics Society. He used it to encompass the studies in which he had been engaged during and after World War II.

The expression human factors is a North American term which has been adopted to emphasize the application of the same methods to non-work-related situations. A “human factor” is a physical or cognitive property of an individual or social behaviour specific to humans that may influence the functioning of technological systems. The terms “human factors” and “ergonomics” are essentially synonymous.

Several international standards, such as ISO 6385, treat the terms ergonomics and human factors as synonyms.

History of the field

The foundations of the science of ergonomics appear to have been laid within the context of the culture of Ancient Greece. A good deal of evidence indicates that Greek civilization in the 5th century BC used ergonomic principles in the design of their tools, jobs, and workplaces. One outstanding example of this can be found in the description Hippocrates gave of how a surgeon’s workplace should be designed and how the tools he uses should be arranged. The archaeological record also shows that the early Egyptian dynasties made tools and household equipment that illustrated ergonomic principles. It is therefore questionable whether the claim by Marmaras, et al., regarding the origin of ergonomics, can be justified.

In the 19th century, Frederick Winslow Taylor pioneered the “scientific management” method, which proposed a way to find the optimum method of carrying out a given task. Taylor found that he could, for example, triple the amount of coal that workers were shoveling by incrementally reducing the size and weight of coal shovels until the fastest shoveling rate was reached. Frank and Lillian Gilbreth expanded Taylor’s methods in the early 1900s to develop the “time and motion study“. They aimed to improve efficiency by eliminating unnecessary steps and actions. By applying this approach, the Gilbreths reduced the number of motions in bricklaying from 18 to 4.5, allowing bricklayers to increase their productivity from 120 to 350 bricks per hour.

Prior to World War I the focus of aviation psychology was on the aviator himself, but the war shifted the focus onto the aircraft, in particular, the design of controls and displays, the effects of altitude and environmental factors on the pilot. The war saw the emergence of aeromedical research and the need for testing and measurement methods. Studies on driver behaviour started gaining momentum during this period, as Henry Ford started providing millions of Americans with automobiles. Another major development during this period was the performance of aeromedical research. By the end of World War I, two aeronautical labs were established, one at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas and the other at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base outside of Dayton, Ohio. Many tests were conducted to determine which characteristic differentiated the successful pilots from the unsuccessful ones. During the early 1930s, Edwin Link developed the first flight simulator. The trend continued and more sophisticated simulators and test equipment were developed. Another significant development was in the civilian sector, where the effects of illumination on worker productivity were examined. This led to the identification of the Hawthorne Effect, which suggested that motivational factors could significantly influence human performance.

World War II marked the development of new and complex machines and weaponry, and these made new demands on operators’ cognition. it was no longer possible to adopt the Tayloristic principle of matching individuals to preexisting jobs. Now the design of equipment had to take into account human limitations and take advantage of human capabilities. The decision-making, attention, situational awareness and hand-eye coordination of the machine’s operator became key in the success or failure of a task. There was a lot of research conducted to determine the human capabilities and limitations that had to be accomplished. A lot of this research took off where the aeromedical research between the wars had left off. An example of this is the study done by Fitts and Jones (1947), who studied the most effective configuration of control knobs to be used in aircraft cockpits. A lot of this research transcended into other equipment with the aim of making the controls and displays easier for the operators to use. The entry of the terms “human factors” and “ergonomics” into the modern lexicon date from this period. It was observed that fully functional aircraft, flown by the best-trained pilots, still crashed. In 1943 Alphonse Chapanis, a lieutenant in the U.S. Army, showed that this so-called “pilot error” could be greatly reduced when more logical and differentiable controls replaced confusing designs in airplane cockpits. After the war, the Army Air Force published 19 volumes summarizing what had been established from research during the war.

In the decades since World War II, HF&E has continued to flourish and diversify. Work by Elias Porter and others within the RAND Corporation after WWII extended the conception of HF&E. “As the thinking progressed, a new concept developed—that it was possible to view an organization such as an air-defense, man-machine system as a single organism and that it was possible to study the behavior of such an organism. It was the climate for a breakthrough.”^[9] In the initial 20 years after the World War II, most activities were done by the “founding fathers”: Alphonse Chapanis, Paul Fitts, and Small

The beginning of The Cold War led to a major expansion of Defense supported research laboratories. Also, many labs established during WWII started expanding. Most of the research following the war was military-sponsored. Large sums of money were granted to universities to conduct research. The scope of the research also broadened from small equipments to entire workstations and systems. Concurrently, a lot of opportunities started opening up in the civilian industry. The focus shifted from research to participation through advice to engineers in the design of equipment. After 1965, the period saw a maturation of the discipline. The field has expanded with the development of the computer and computer applications.

The Space Age created new human factors issues such as weightlessness and extreme g-forces. Tolerance of the harsh environment of space and its effects on the mind and body were widely studied.

The dawn of the Information Age has resulted in the related field of human–computer interaction (HCI). Likewise, the growing demand for and competition among consumer goods and electronics has resulted in more companies including human factors in product design.

HF&E organizations

Formed in 1946 in the UK, the oldest professional body for human factors specialists and ergonomists is The Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors, formally known as The Ergonomics Society.

The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) was founded in 1957. The Society’s mission is to promote the discovery and exchange of knowledge concerning the characteristics of human beings that are applicable to the design of systems and devices of all kinds.

The International Ergonomics Association (IEA) is a federation of ergonomics and human factors societies from around the world. The mission of the IEA is to elaborate and advance ergonomics science and practice, and to improve the quality of life by expanding its scope of application and contribution to society. As of September 2008, the International Ergonomics Association has 46 federated societies and 2 affiliated societies.

Related organizations

The Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) was founded by the coal industry in 1969, from the outset the IOM employed ergonomics staff to apply ergonomics principles to the design of mining machinery and environments. To this day, the IOM continues ergonomics activities, especially in the fields of musculoskeletal disorders; heat stress and the ergonomics of personal protective equipment (PPE). Like many in occupational ergonomics, the demands and requirements of an ageing UK workforce are a growing concern and interest to IOM ergonomists.

The International Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is a professional organization for mobility engineering professionals in the aerospace, automotive, and commercial vehicle industries. The Society is a standards development organization for the engineering of powered vehicles of all kinds, including cars, trucks, boats, aircraft, and others. The Society of Automotive Engineers has established a number of standards used in the automotive industry and elsewhere. It encourages the design of vehicles in accordance with established Human Factors principles. It is one of the most influential organizations with respect to Ergonomics work in Automotive design. This society regularly holds conferences which address topics spanning all aspects of Human Factors/Ergonomics.

Specializations

Specializations within this field include visual ergonomics, cognitive ergonomics, usability, human–computer interaction, and user experience engineering. New terms are being generated all the time. For instance, “user trial engineer” may refer to a human factors professional who specialises in user trials.^{[citation needed]} Although the names change, human factors professionals apply an understanding of human factors to the design of equipment, systems and working methods in order to improve comfort, health, safety, and productivity.

According to the International Ergonomics Association within the discipline of ergonomics there exist domains of specialization:

• Physical ergonomics is concerned with human anatomy, and some of the anthropometric, physiological and bio mechanical characteristics as they relate to physical activity.^[2]
• Cognitive ergonomics is concerned with mental processes, such as perception, memory, reasoning, and motor response, as they affect interactions among humans and other elements of a system. (Relevant topics include mental workload, decision-making, skilled performance, human-computer interaction, human reliability, work stress and training as these may relate to human-system and Human-Computer Interaction design.)^[2]
• Organizational ergonomics is concerned with the optimization of socio-technical systems, including their organizational structures, policies, and processes. (Relevant topics include communication, crew resource management, work design, work systems, design of working times, teamwork, participatory design, community ergonomics, cooperative work, new work programs, virtual organizations, telework, and quality management.)
• Environmental ergonomics is concerned with human interaction with the environment. The physical environment is characterized by climate, temperature, pressure, vibration, light.

There are more than twenty technical subgroups within the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES), which indicates the range of applications for ergonomics.^[

Applications

Human factors issues arise in simple systems and consumer products as well. Some examples include cellular telephones and other hand held devices that continue to shrink yet grow more complex (a phenomenon referred to as “creeping featurism”), millions of VCRs blinking “12:00″ across the world because very few people can figure out how to program them, or alarm clocks that allow sleepy users to inadvertently turn off the alarm when they mean to hit ‘snooze’. A user-centered design (UCD), also known as a systems approach or the usability engineering life cycle aims to improve the user-system. Ergonomic principles have been widely used in the design of both consumer and industrial products. Past examples include screwdriver handles made with serrations to improve finger grip, and use of soft thermoplastic elastomers to increase friction between the skin of the hand and the handle surface.

HF&E continues to be successfully applied in the fields of aerospace, aging, health care, IT, product design, transportation, training, nuclear and virtual environments, among others. Physical ergonomics is important in the medical field, particularly to those diagnosed with physiological ailments or disorders such as arthritis (both chronic and temporary) or carpal tunnel syndrome. Pressure that is insignificant or imperceptible to those unaffected by these disorders may be very painful, or render a device unusable, for those who are. Many ergonomically designed products are also used or recommended to treat or prevent such disorders, and to treat pressure-related chronic pain.

One of the most prevalent types of work-related injuries are musculoskeletal disorders. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMDs) result in persistent pain, loss of functional capacity and work disability, but their initial diagnosis is difficult because they are mainly based on complaints of pain and other symptoms. Every year 1.8 million U.S. workers experience WRMDs and nearly 600,000 of the injuries are serious enough to cause workers to miss work. Certain jobs or work conditions cause a higher rate worker complaints of undue strain, localized fatigue, discomfort, or pain that does not go away after overnight rest. These types of jobs are often those involving activities such as repetitive and forceful exertions; frequent, heavy, or overhead lifts; awkward work positions; or use of vibrating equipment. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has found substantial evidence that ergonomics programs can cut workers’ compensation costs, increase productivity and decrease employee turnover. Therefore, it is important to gather data to identify jobs or work conditions that are most problematic, using sources such as injury and illness logs, medical records, and job analyses.

The emerging field of human factors in highway safety uses human factor principles to understand the actions and capabilities of road users – car and truck drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. – and use this knowledge to design roads and streets to reduce traffic collisions. Driver error is listed as a contributing factor in 44% of fatal collisions in the United States, so a topic of particular interest is how road users gather and process information about the road and its environment, and how to assist them to make the appropriate decision.

Practitioners

Human factors practitioners come from a variety of backgrounds, though predominantly they are psychologists (from the various subfields of engineering psychology, cognitive psychology, perceptual psychology, applied psychology, and experimental psychology) and physiologists. Designers (industrial, interaction, and graphic), anthropologists, technical communication scholars and computer scientists also contribute. Typically, an ergonomist will have an undergraduate degree in psychology, engineering, design or health sciences, and usually a masters degree or doctoral degree in a related discipline. Though some practitioners enter the field of human factors from other disciplines, both M.S. and PhD degrees in Human Factors Engineering are available from several universities worldwide. The Human Factors Research Group (HFRG) at the University of Nottingham provides human factors courses at both at MSc and PhD level including a distance learning course in Applied Ergonomics. Other Universities to offer postgraduate courses in human factors in the UK include Loughborough University, Cranfield University and the University of Oxford.

Methods

Until recently, methods used to evaluate human factors and ergonomics ranged from simple questionnaires to more complex and expensive usability labs. Some of the more common HF&E methods are listed below:

• Ethnographic analysis: Using methods derived from ethnography, this process focuses on observing the uses of technology in a practical environment. It is a qualitative and observational method that focuses on “real-world” experience and pressures, and the usage of technology or environments in the workplace. The process is best used early in the design process.

• Focus Groups are another form of qualitative research in which one individual will facilitate discussion and elicit opinions about the technology or process under investigation. This can be on a one to one interview basis, or in a group session. Can be used to gain a large quantity of deep qualitative data, though due to the small sample size, can be subject to a higher degree of individual bias. Can be used at any point in the design process, as it is largely dependent on the exact questions to be pursued, and the structure of the group. Can be extremely costly.

• Iterative design: Also known as prototyping, the iterative design process seeks to involve users at several stages of design, in order to correct problems as they emerge. As prototypes emerge from the design process, these are subjected to other forms of analysis as outlined in this article, and the results are then taken and incorporated into the new design. Trends amongst users are analyzed, and products redesigned. This can become a costly process, and needs to be done as soon as possible in the design process before designs become too concrete.

• Meta-analysis: A supplementary technique used to examine a wide body of already existing data or literature in order to derive trends or form hypotheses in order to aid design decisions. As part of a literature survey, a meta-analysis can be performed in order to discern a collective trend from individual variables.

• Subjects-in-tandem: Two subjects are asked to work concurrently on a series of tasks while vocalizing their analytical observations. This is observed by the researcher, and can be used to discover usability difficulties. This process is usually recorded.

• Surveys and Questionnaires: A commonly used technique outside of Human Factors as well, surveys and questionnaires have an advantage in that they can be administered to a large group of people for relatively low cost, enabling the researcher to gain a large amount of data. The validity of the data obtained is, however, always in question, as the questions must be written and interpreted correctly, and are, by definition, subjective. Those who actually respond are in effect self-selecting as well, widening the gap between the sample and the population further.

• Task analysis: A process with roots in activity theory, task analysis is a way of systematically describing human interaction with a system or process to understand how to match the demands of the system or process to human capabilities. The complexity of this process is generally proportional to the complexity of the task being analyzed, and so can vary in cost and time involvement. It is a qualitative and observational process. Best used early in the design process.

• Think aloud protocol: Also known as “concurrent verbal protocol”, this is the process of asking a user to execute a series of tasks or use technology, while continuously verbalizing their thoughts so that a researcher can gain insights as to the users’ analytical process. Can be useful for finding design flaws that do not affect task performance, but may have a negative cognitive affect on the user. Also useful for utilizing experts in order to better understand procedural knowledge of the task in question. Less expensive than focus groups, but tends to be more specific and subjective.

• User analysis: This process is based around designing for the attributes of the intended user or operator, establishing the characteristics that define them, creating a persona for the user. Best done at the outset of the design process, a user analysis will attempt to predict the most common users, and the characteristics that they would be assumed to have in common. This can be problematic if the design concept does not match the actual user, or if the identified are too vague to make clear design decisions from. This process is, however, usually quite inexpensive, and commonly used.

• “Wizard of Oz”: This is a comparatively uncommon technique but has seen some use in mobile devices. Based upon the Wizard of Oz experiment, this technique involves an operator who remotely controls the operation of a device in order to imitate the response of an actual computer program. It has the advantage of producing a highly changeable set of reactions, but can be quite costly and difficult to undertake.

• Methods Analysis is the process of studying the tasks a worker completes using a step-by-step investigation. Each task in broken down into smaller steps until each motion the worker performs is described. Doing so enables you to see exactly where repetitive or straining tasks occur.

• Time studies determine the time required for a worker to complete each task. Time studies are often used to analyze cyclical jobs. They are considered “event based” studies because time measurements are triggered by the occurrence of predetermined events.

• Work sampling is a method in which the job is sampled at random intervals to determine the proportion of total time spent on a particular task. It provides insight into how often workers are performing tasks which might cause strain on their bodies.

• Predetermined time systems are methods for analyzing the time spent by workers on a particular task. One of the most widely used predetermined time system is called Methods-Time-Measurement (MTM). Other common work measurement systems include MODAPTS and MOST. Industry specific applications based on PTS are Seweasy and GSD.
• Cognitive Walkthrough: This method is a usability inspection method in which the evaluators can apply user perspective to task scenarios to identify design problems. As applied to macroergonomics, evaluators are able to analyze the usability of work system designs to identify how well a work system is organized and how well the workflow is integrated.

• Kansei Method: This is a method that transforms consumer’s responses to new products into design specifications. As applied to macroergonomics, this method can translate employee’s responses to changes to a work system into design specifications.

• High Integration of Technology, Organization, and People (HITOP): This is a manual procedure done step-by-step to apply technological change to the workplace. It allows managers to be more aware of the human and organizational aspects of their technology plans, allowing them to efficiently integrate technology in these contexts.

• Top Modeler: This model helps manufacturing companies identify the organizational changes needed when new technologies are being considered for their process.

• Computer-integrated Manufacturing, Organization, and People System Design (CIMOP): This model allows for evaluating computer-integrated manufacturing, organization, and people system design based on knowledge of the system.

• Anthropotechnology: This method considers analysis and design modification of systems for the efficient transfer of technology from one culture to another.

• Systems Analysis Tool (SAT): This is a method to conduct systematic trade-off evaluations of work-system intervention alternatives.

• Macroergonomic Analysis of Structure (MAS): This method analyzes the structure of work systems according to their compatibility with unique sociotechnical aspects.

• Macroergonomic Analysis and Design (MEAD): This method assesses work-system processes by using a ten-step process.

• Virtual Manufacturing and Response Surface Methodology (VMRSM): This method uses computerized tools and statistical analysis for workstation design.

Weaknesses of HF&E methods

Problems in how usability measures are employed include the fact that measures of learning and retention of how to use an interface are rarely employed during methods and some studies treat measures of how users interact with interfaces as synonymous with quality-in-use, despite an unclear relation.

Although field methods can be extremely useful because they are conducted in the users natural environment, they have some major limitations to consider. The limitations include:

1. Usually take more time and resources than other methods
2. Very high effort in planning, recruiting, and executing than other methods
3. Much longer study periods and therefore requires much goodwill among the participants
4. Studies are longitudinal in nature therefore, attrition can become a problem.

The post Human Factors and Ergonomics appeared first on Human Factors - GES Consulting.

Overview

In essence tries to reconcile the top down nature of system engineering with the iterative nature of a user centred design approach (e.g. ISO 6385 or ISO 9241-210^{[note 1]}). It often does this by creating a Human Factors Integration Plan (HFIP) that sits alongside the system development plan. The purpose of the HFIP is to define how the Human Factors Engineering activities necessary for the successful delivery of a particular system will be conducted.

It establishes the guiding principles to be followed by the project to implement the best-practice Human Factors methods. As well as the principles involved, the Plan normally describes the organisation, processes and controls necessary over the entire life cycle of the system from the concept phase through to decommissioning.

Domains

HFI undertakes this by conducting a formal process that identifies and reconciles human related issues. These issues are split for convenience into domains. The seven domains defined by the US Army under its MANPRINT^[1] programme are:
Manpower – The number of military and civilian personnel required and potentially available to operate, maintain, sustain and provide training for systems
Personnel – The cognitive and physical capabilities required to be able to train for, operate, maintain and sustain systems.

Training – The instruction or education, and on-the-job or unit training required to provide personnel their essential job skills, knowledge, values and attributes.

Human Factors Engineering – The integration of human characteristics into system definition, design, development, and evaluation to optimise human-machine performance under operational conditions.

Health Hazard Assessment – Short or long term hazards to health occurring as a result of normal operation of the system.

System safety – Safety risks occurring when the system is functioning in an abnormal manner.

Soldier Survivability – The characteristics of a system that can reduce fratricide, detectability and probability of being attacked and minimize system damage, soldier injury and cognitive and physical fatigue.

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) adopted a similar HFI approach to MANPRINT in the early 1990s, but excluded Soldier Survivability.^[2] Subsequently the MoD added a seventh ‘Social & Organisational’ domain.^[3] Some industries also include habitability as a separate domain.^[4]

HFI Plan

The HFI plan scope defines the relationship between all the activities and the Human Factors domains and provides a systematic approach to ensure that:

• The human role in the system is defined to optimise human performance in relation to the core system architecture and ancillary equipment.
• Adequate human-equipment analyses and trade-off studies are performed, revisiting the assumptions throughout the system life cycle. The process is iterative. As the programme progresses, the HF activities involve greater depth of analysis.
• Biomedical analysis and design support includes the environmental protection necessary to promote health and safety, and the capability for safe operation and maintenance of the core architecture and ancillary equipment.
• Training characteristics (materials, environment, evaluation criteria, etc.) for system personnel are identified.
• System testing and evaluation is conducted to verify that users can safely and effectively operate, maintain and support equipment in its intended environment.
• The design meets agreed operational performance standards and where this is not the case, to modify the design or associated training in such a way that the resultant manned system meets the required standards.

References

1. Seven MANPRINT Domains US Army MANPRINT Program
2. MoD (1992) Ministry of Defence. The MANPRINT Handbook. 2nd Edition. Controller HMSO, London. 3 December 1992.
3. Developing the HFI Social & Organisational Domain: Final Report HFI DTC 2009
4. HIS Domains US Air Force Human Systems Integration Office.

Notes

1. ISO 9241-210:2010 (Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems) superseded ISO 13407:1999 (Human-centred design processes for interactive systems), which has been withdrawn.

The post Human Factors Integration appeared first on Human Factors - GES Consulting.

Description of SMS

A SMS provides a systematic way to identify hazards and control risks while maintaining assurance that these risk controls are effective.^[1] SMS can be defined as:

…a businesslike approach to safety. It is a systematic, explicit and comprehensive process for managing safety risks. As with all management systems, a safety management system provides for goal setting, planning, and measuring performance. A safety management system is woven into the fabric of an organization. It becomes part of the culture, the way people do their jobs.^[2]

For the purposes of defining safety management, safety can be defined as:

… the reduction of risk to a level that is as low as is reasonably practicable.

There are three imperatives for adopting a safety management system for a business – these are ethical, legal and financial.

There is an implied moral obligation placed on an employer to ensure that work activities and the place of work to be safe, there are legislative requirements defined in just about every jurisdiction on how this is to be achieved and there is a substantial body of research which shows that effective safety management (which is the reduction of risk in the workplace) can reduce the financial exposure of an organisation by reducing direct and indirect costs associated with accident and incidents.

To address these three important elements, an effective SMS should:

• Define how the organisation is set up to manage risk.
• Identify workplace risk and implement suitable controls.
• Implement effective communications across all levels of the organisation.
• Implement a process to identify and correct non-conformities.
• Implement a continual improvement process.

A safety management system can be created to fit any business type and/or industry sector.

Basic safety-management components

International Labour Organisation SMS model

Since there are many models to choose from to outline the basic components of a safety management system, the one chosen here is the international standard promoted by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). In the ILO document ILO-OSH 2001 Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems, the safety management basic components are:

• Policy
• Organizing
• Planning and implementation
• Evaluation
• Action for improvement

Although other SMS models use different terminology, the process and workflow for safety management systems is always the same;

1. Policy – Establish within policy statements what the requirements are for the organisation in terms of resources, defining management commitment and defining OSH targets
2. Organizing – How is the organisation structured, where are the responsibilities and accountabilities defined, who reports to who and who is responsible for what.
3. Planning and Implementation – What legislation and standards apply to our organisation, what OSH objectives are defined and how are these reviews, hazard prevention and the assessment and management of risk.
4. Evaluation – How is OSH performance measured and assessed, what are the processes for the reporting of accidents and incidents and for the investigation of accidents and what internal and external audit processes are in place to review the system.
5. Action for Improvement – How are preventative and corrective actions managed and what processes are in place to ensure the continual improvement process. There is a significant amount of detail within each of these sections and these should be examined in detail from the ILO-OSH Guidelines document.

Regulatory Perspective

SMS Implications

A SMS is intended to act as a framework to allow an organisation, as a minimum, to meet its legal obligations under occupational health and safety law. The structure of a SMS is generally speaking, not of itself a legal requirement but it is an extremely effective tool to organise the myriad aspects of occupational safety and health (OSH) that can exist within an organisation, often to meet standards which exceed the minimum legal requirement.

A SMS is only as good as its implementation – effective safety management means that organisations need to ensure they are looking at all the risks within the organization as a single system, rather than having multiple, competing, ‘Safety Management Silos.’^[3] If safety is not seen holistically, it can interfere with the prioritization of improvements or even result in safety issues being missed. For example, after an explosion in March 2005 at BP’s Texas City Refinery (BP) the investigation concluded that the company had put too much emphasis on personal safety thus ignoring the safety of their processes.^[4] The antidote to such silo thinking is the proper evaluation of all risks, a key aspect of an effective SMS.^[5]

Implementation

Adoption of SMSs for Industry Sectors

There are a number of industry sectors worldwide which have recognised the benefits of effective safety management. The regulatory authorities for these industries have developed safety management systems specific to their own industries and requirements, often backed up by regulation. Below are examples from different industry sectors from a number of varied worldwide locations.

Civil Aviation

The International Civil Aviation Organization has recommended that all aviation authorities implement SMS regulatory structures.^[6] ICAO has provided resources to assist with implementation, including the ICAO Safety Management Manual. Unlike the traditional occupational safety focus of SMS, the ICAO focus is to use SMS for managing aviation safety. Id.

The United States has introduced SMS for airports through an advisory circular ^[7] and other guidance.^[8]

The United States announced at the 2008 EASA/FAA/TC International Safety Conference that they would be developing regulations to implement SMS for repair stations, air carriers, and manufacturers. The FAA formed a rulemaking committee to address the implementation (known as the SMS ARC).^[9] The SMS ARC reported its findings to the FAA on March 31, 2010. The Report recognizes that many of the elements of SMS already exist in the U.S. regulations, but that some elements do not yet exist.^[10] A draft of what the US SMS rule might look like was proposed by one trade association that participated in the ARC.^[11] Currently, the FAA is supporting voluntary pilot projects for SMS.^[12]

The Federal Aviation Administration has also required that all FAA services and offices adopt a common Aviation Safety (AVS)Safety Management System (AVSSMS).^[13] This is what ICAO calls a State Safety Program (SSP). An overview of the FAA approach to SMS may be found in the following PDF document.^[14]

The Federal Aviation Administration published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the establishment of SMS for air carriers.^[15] That NPRM explains that it is intended to serve as the foundation for rules that would later be applied to Part 135 operators, Part 145 repair stations and Part 21 manufacturers. Id. Several U.S. trade associations filed comments in response to the air carrier NPRM, including the Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA) comments in response to the SMS NPRM.^[16] and the Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA)^[17] Among these comments were arguments for developing separate SMS regulations for other certificate holders, in order to make sure that SM remains a usable tool for advancing safety (rather than a uniform but useless paperwork exercise). In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration has also filed a NPRM for SMS for airports,^[18] which would be separate from the rules for SMS for air carriers (consistent with the arguments of the trade associations).

The European Aviation Safety Administration (EASA) began the process of implementing Safety Management System (SMS) regulations by issuing Terms of Reference (TOR) on July 18, 2011.^[19] That was followed by a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) issued on January 21, 2013.^[20] The proposed EASA regulation would apply to repair stations,^[21] but would have significant ancillary effects on other aviation industry sub-sectors.^[22]

Maritime Industry

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is another organization that has adopted SMS. All international passenger ships and oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers and cargo ships of 500 gross tons or more are required to have a Safety Management System.^[23] In the preamble to the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, the IMO states, “The cornerstone of good safety management is commitment from the top. In matters of safety and pollution prevention it is the commitment, competence, attitudes and motivation of individuals at all levels that determines the end result.”^[24]

Railway Industry

Transport Canada’s Rail Safety Directorate incorporated SMS into the rail industry in 2001. The Rail Safety Management System requirements are set out in the Railway Safety Management System Regulations.^[25] The objectives of the Rail Safety Management System Regulations are to ensure that safety is given management time and corporate resources and that it is subject to performance measurement and monitoring on par with corporate financial and production goals.^[26]

The effect of SMS in the rail industry has not been positive, as a 2006 Toronto Star review of Transportation Safety Board data indicated that rail accidents were soaring.^[27] Critics have argued that this evidence should preclude the adoption of SMS in the aviation sector.^[28] However, Transportation Safety Board data show that the accident rate in the rail industry has actually varied around the average over that 10-year period. Since the Toronto Star article was published, the accident rate has decreased. The Transportation Safety Board reported that “a total of 1,143 rail accidents were reported to the TSB in 2008, a 14% decrease from the 2007 total of 1,323 and an 18% decrease from the 2003–2007 average of 1,387” and also noted that, in 2008, rail incidents reported under the TSB mandatory reporting requirements reached a 26 year low of 215.^[29]

References

1. http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/saso/library/media/SASO_Briefing_Managers_Toolkit.pdf SASO Outreach, Spring 2009
2. Transport Canada publication TP 13739
3. http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Beyond_Safety_Management_Systems Evans, Andy and John Parker. May 2008. Beyond Safety Management Systems. Pp. 12–17 in AeroSafety World.
4. http://sunnyday.mit.edu/Baker-panel-report.pdf Baker Report
5. ibid.
6. [1] Implementation of the State Safety Programme (SSP) in States (November 13, 2008)
7. Advisory Circular 150/5200-37 Introduction to Safety Management Systems (SMS) for Airport Operators (February 28, 2007)
8. A list of guidance and supporting information can be found on the FAA website.
9. http://pmaparts.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/can-you-implement-a-sms-program Blog Entry on the SMS ARC Progress: Can You Implement a SMS Program?
10. Safety Management Systems Aviation Rulemaking Committee, Final Report
11. http://pmaparts.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/a-possible-look-for-sms-regulations/ Draft Part 195 (Safety Management Systems).
12. http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/saso/library/media/SMS_Brochure.pdf
13. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/reOrders.nsf/0/6aae93ff516cd6fd862571fb00661605/$FILE/VS%208000.1.pdf
14. http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/part_142/tcpm_conf_2008/media/Safety_Managemet_Systems_presentation.pdf
15. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-11-05/pdf/2010-28050.pdf Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Safety Management Systems for Part 121 Certificate Holders, 75 Fed. Reg. 68224 (November 5, 2010).
16. http://www.aviationsuppliers.org/ASA/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000572/2011-03-07%20ASA%20SMS%20NPRM%20Comments.pdf
17. http://pmaparts.org/gvt/2011-03-07_MARPA_SMS_NPRM_Comments.pdf MARPA’s Comments in response to the SMS NPRM.
18. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-07/pdf/2010-25338.pdf Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Safety Management System for Certificated Airports, 75 Fed. Reg. 62008 (October 7, 2010).
19. http://pmaparts.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/easa-begins-the-process-of-implementing-sms-rules/ See Dickstein, EASA Begins the Process of Implementing SMS Rules (July 28, 2011).
20. http://aviationsuppliers.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/european-sms-proposal-will-likely-affect-distributors/ See Dickstein, European SMS Proposal Will Likely Affect Distributors (January 21, 2013).
21. http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_199 See Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2013-01 (Jan 21, 2013).
22. http://aviationsuppliers.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/european-sms-proposal-will-likely-affect-distributors/ See Dickstein, European SMS Proposal Will Likely Affect Distributors (January 21, 2013) (discussing the potential effect of the rule on aircraft parts distributors).
23. http://www.imo.org/humanelement/mainframe.asp?topic_id=287 International Safety Management (ISM) Code 2002.
24. http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/ismcode1993.html The International Safety Management Code IMO Assembly Resolution A.741(18) – 1993.
25. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/SOR-2001-37//20090805/en?page=1
26. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/publications-tp13548-267.htm
27. Freight train accidents soar
28. New rules for aviation safety a flight plan to disaster, critics warn
29. http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/rail/prelim-2008/index.asp

The post Safety Management Systems appeared first on Human Factors - GES Consulting.

The post Productivity & Performance appeared first on Human Factors - GES Consulting.

The post Research & Development appeared first on Human Factors - GES Consulting.

The post What I Offer appeared first on Human Factors - GES Consulting.

This has resulted in a reduction in the need to carry out re-work at a later stage and ensured safety and efficiency have been integrated. A document control system is followed to allow for easy tracking of progress and review of material at any point during and after completion of work and in the event of an audit. Human Factors NZ.

The post Project Management appeared first on Human Factors - GES Consulting.