Home working has more than doubled in the US since 2005.  In fact, the Huffington Post recently published an article about why the working from home trend is going to continue to grow or even explode.  The social, economic and environmental arguments for this shift are very strong.  In many major cities, a two hour commute each way is now seen as normal.  Not surprisingly, people are exhausted much of the time and they require higher incomes in order to pay for the rising costs of commuting.  This has led as many as 50% of the companies in America to at least offer some kind or work from home option.  Two of the most common types of home workers are telecommuters and digital nomads.
Telecommuters – People in this category continue to have a work space in the office, but they are allowed to work part time from their home.  What kinds of jobs are able to do this: sales, computer technologies, financial, arts, design, media, military, legal, community services, architecture and engineering to name a few.  The key cost saving benefits include reduced office space requirements, lower staff turnover, higher morale and greater productivity.
Digital nomads – This group does not have many of the traditional things employees get given to them, like a desk, office or telephone. Instead, they work exclusively from a remote location. Typically this is their home, but it’s also common for people to travel and work at the same time.  Organizations who utilize this approach see many benefits, such as lower fixed over-head costs and access to a much larger talent pool than geographically based recruiting allows.
It follows that if your staff are working from home, they are working alone and they need a lone worker safety system to protect them.  Just because someone is a home worker doesn’t mean the rules don’t apply. They do.
Do you have employees who work from home or on the road?  A key question for you to consider is the risk associated with your home workers.  Ok Alone has written a hazard assessment guide designed to help you assess this risk.  For example, it provides a very practical way of determining how frequently your lone workers need to check-in.  You can download the guide here.

This blog was written by Ok Alone.  Bailey Technical Services is pleased to share with permission. 

The Canadian Petroleum and Aviation industries are two industries that must take additional precautions when it comes to safety; the consequences of an error during operations can be disastrous for the environment, extremely expensive, and sometimes tragically fatal. These industries use different approaches to safety management.  In recent years, both have seen continual improvement in their injury statistics, reflecting the success of their respective safety management systems. Despite this, we still see many incidents occurring that are preventable. This had me thinking, are there any methods, tools, or cultural norms that the management teams in each industry can learn from one another?
 
First, we should look at how each industry manages safety. The Petroleum Industry in Canada has long had a voluntary approach to safety management. Driven by industry organizations, Petroleum companies have implemented Safety Management Systems using a number of different models. Safety regulations across Canada are objective based. Petroleum Workers are taught to use a 'questioning attitude' and hone their critical-thinking skills to solve a problem.  Many Petroleum companies adopt safety programs as incentives to reduce their worker compensation rates, but these are voluntary, and have varying degree of robustness across each province.
 
Alternatively, certificate holders in the Canadian Aviation industry are given significantly less autonomy in how safety priorities are managed. In particular, the Canadian Aviation Regulations specify the Safety Management System that must be implemented, and Transport Canada provides significant oversight and direction to aviation certificate holders. Employees in the aviation industry rely on checklists when performing tasks, and look to superiors for direction. Aviation workers have an understanding that every task or decision is critical – lives are at stake – resulting in quality assurance checks and detailed procedures for most tasks.
 
Now, I would like to first explore what the Aviation industry could gain from adopting some of the Petroleum industry’s safety management techniques. I believe that while the Aviation industry needs checklists and objective structure when it comes to safety, the importance of critical-thinking and problem-solving skills in an emergency situation should not be eschewed. There cannot be a bullet on a checklist to manage every incident, and there may be an incident where there is little guidance or even contradictory goals. In these scenarios, it is imperative that employees are comfortable using their own judgment and independent thought to make the best decision. You may think that this already happens, but look at it this way: there is little incentive for airline companies to provide training surrounding critical-thinking skills and emergency training that is over-and-above what is required by law. Doing so would impose additional costs on the companies and make them less competitive, especially since the benefits of that training are extremely difficult to measure in a monetary sense.
 
An example of where critical thinking should have been applied in addition to pre-determined safety checklists is when an audit found that the weight and balance had been miscalculated for several flights. Through a series of amendments to the form, combined with no training on these amendments, the crew neglected to account for the residual fuel on board. This all appeared to abide by the checklist, however a simple common sense check would have triggered an ‘Oh, wait’ moment, and perhaps forced the ground crew to ensure that the additional fuel wouldn’t put the plane over its limit.
 
Now, what Aviation safety practices do I think the Petroleum industry could benefit from? As you may have guessed, it is to incorporate more structure and the use of checklists and quality assurance checks. This would bolster current efforts and leave less subjectivity. In the case of an incident, it could be easier to pinpoint the root cause, and put less pressure on individual employees. Human errors account for a staggering number of Oil & Gas accidents, and I believe that the introduction of simple checklists for non-routine tasks especially could help reduce these numbers. An example of where a checklist or second quality assurance check could have prevented an incident is when a new operator forgot to open a hatch during bottom-loading a railcar. When the operator realized that the top hatch was still closed and loading had stopped, by opening the hatch while under pressure resulted in significant injury to the operator.
 
Using checklists for routine tasks has a serious downside – they become routine and often are filled out without thinking. Similar to hitting ‘I agree’ to the terms and conditions on an internet site, we stop reading the fine print. When faced with a problem, many Aviation companies add yet another checklist. This often results in workers filling them out without due consideration, or the checklists become cumbersome and in some instances wrong!
 
How do we prevent this? The Aviation industry uses a comprehensive quality assurance program to check records, observe workers, and have a culture of accountability. Having checklists for critical tasks, enforcing compliance to accurately complete them, and implementing a quality assurance review are concepts that the Petroleum industry could consider.     
 
What do you think? Add your comments below.

Several days ago I was dictating notes to Siri to remember for later. I asked Siri: “Do we do enough to get to the root cause during accident and incident investigations?” as a reminder to work on this article. Instead of adding this question to the notes in my phone, Siri responded: “That’s an interesting question”. I thought, really, that is an interesting question.
 
Recently, executives from a major oil company in Alberta released the findings of their investigation into a fire and explosion that killed two workers. The conclusion: ‘Human Error’. Really? The company alleges that they could not have done anything differently… What about providing more training before the workers were assigned to work in an area they didn’t normally work in? Or holding supervisors and workers more accountable for the work permitting process? Or assessing how recent layoffs would affect maintenance worker actions?
 
We cannot be getting to the root cause if the conclusion of an incident investigation is that ‘human error’ is the cause.
 
So, are we not using the right root cause analysis methods for our investigations?
 
I believe that there’s no ‘one size fits all’ method when it comes to root cause analysis.  I looked at three popular root cause analysis methods, ‘Five Whys’, ‘Fishbone’ and ‘TapRooT™’, and offer some thoughts on what type of incident or problem they work best for.
 
There is one component that I believe all three methods share: a Timeline or Sequence of Events chart. Regardless of the degree of severity of an incident or problem, there’s something powerful about taking the time to systematically list the sequence of events onto paper. Once this timeline is created, it often becomes very apparent where the mistakes or failures lie.  TapRooT™ calls these ‘Causal Factors’, while the Fishbone method uses these as spines that can’t be disproved as a possible cause. The Five Whys method uses these as factual evidence to answer the recurrent question of ‘why?’.
 
TapRooT™ is a 7-Step Investigative process that is very structured and provides objective guidelines to the investigation team. I use this method when I suspect that there might be a lot of emotion involved in the investigation; the TapRooT™ tree allows the facilitator to keep the investigation team objective. It is a very thorough and comprehensive process. I like to use this method when I suspect clients have already decided what the cause is – sometimes they are correct, but often, other overlooked causes are identified. However, TapRooT™ takes a fair bit of time to apply and requires a licensed facilitator. I find that TapRooT™ is not ideal for equipment failure events, or events where there is a rather simple sequence of events.
 
If the incident involves sequential events, and the investigation team is experienced and can keep subjectivity at bay, the ‘Five Why’s’ method could work best.. When you’re presented with a problem, the ‘Five Whys’ method repeatedly asks the question, “Why?”. Five is an arbitrary number, but a suitable rule of thumb to adequately get closer to the root cause of your problem. Each time you ask “Why”, you will inevitably be led to another question that will get you closer to your root cause.
 
Confused? Think about a young child who persistently asks “Why”. You are stuck in traffic, and this child asks, “Mommy, why are we stopped?”
Well, because there’s traffic.
“Why is there traffic?”
Well, because there are a lot of people on the road right now.
“Why?”
Well, because a lot of people are heading downtown around the same time to be at work on time.
“Why?”
Well, most employers want people to start work at the same time every day and to be on time.
“Why?”
Because people need to work to buy houses and food and toys for their children (like you!)
 
Five “why’s” later, and we have a LOT more information than we did after the first why. You can see how this logic can translate to an incident investigation. We need to dig deep when we ask why something happened, instead of just scratching the surface.
 
If it’s a multifaceted problem with many intricacies and unknowns, the Fishbone method may be the best. This method allows you to brainstorm possible causes under several categories. Often, we use Methods, Machines (equipment), People (manpower), Materials, Measurement and Environment.
Once all the possible causes are listed, we then systematically prove or disprove each potential cause.
 
Going back to our traffic example but using the Fishbone method, we could identify many causes for traffic:
Machines:

• It is the daily rush-hour and the road is not designed for the volume
• A road is closed for repair

People:

• There is a concert / parade / event occurring causing congestion

• There was an accident on the road

etc….
 
After brainstorming these possible causes for traffic, we then review each one and prove or disprove it.  For example, I might tune into the radio to determine whether an accident occurred, or have my passenger check online to see if a road is closed. If we can disprove enough of the potential scenarios, we will be able to single out the more likely cause(s) for the traffic.
 
Now, back to which is the best tool to use. If the problem is a sequential event, and the investigation team is experienced and can keep subjectivity at bay, the ‘Five Why’s’ could work best. For an incident involving complex human failures, TapRooT™ is my method of choice. If it’s a multifaceted problem with many unknowns and the investigation team may fall into ruts, the Fishbone method may be the best. All three methods share two essential similarities: an experienced, objective facilitator, and a detailed sequence of events charts.
 
What methods do you prefer to use for root cause analysis? Why? Comment below!
 
Next, I will be writing about what the Aviation industry can learn from Oil & Gas when it comes to safety, and vice versa – stay tuned!

While Calgary is still reeling after the tragic death of Maryam Ashtiani, a victim of a 'gas and dash' at a local gas station, many are pushing for legislation to require mandatory pay before you pump.  

But will this new legislation address the root cause of this incident? I am not convinced. I believe changes need to made to prohibit retail and restaurant employers from docking workers pay when there is a theft under the employee's watch, or they make a mistake.

Since 2012, there have been 2128 Gas and Dash incidents in Calgary.  None of these resulted in injury.  In 2005 in BC, a young gas station attendant was killed in an eerily similar incident. Since then, his father has worked tirelessly on Grants Law in BC, and encouraging other provinces to adopt the same.

According to Maryam's husband and friends, the fact that she confronted the accused in a nearby Home Depot parking lot was not part of her nature. Her husband has surmised that she may have thought that she would have to pay for the stolen gas out of her paycheck. The Iranian trained engineer had only been working at the gas station for a few days, having recently been laid off from her job. 

The practice of deducting the cost of 'mistakes' from workers needs to be addressed. Employers may believe workers are more diligent if they know if is going to cost them some cash, but In my opinion it is a form of workplace bullying. Rarely does the worker have control over who pays and who doesn't. There is nothing this woman could have done differently to prevent the theft. There was no mistake here.  

This reminded me of a story my daughter told me.  While waitressing at a nearby pub, a group of men 'dined and dashed', leaving her with the $160 bill. The restaurant took the money out of her wages, and this was more than her nights wages and tips combined. She was devastated when she realized that she would have to work 2 nights for free because of these thieves. Flash forward to the next Saturday and another group leave without paying. She decides there is no way she is paying for these guys dinner and drinks, so she hauls her little 19 year old self down the street after these guys, confronts them and drags them back into the bar! Fortunately, they were just intoxicated, and were happy to pay up. When she told this story to us, I envisioned many different outcomes.  It is not ok for a young woman to put herself at risk for fear of being disciplined, fired or paying out of pocket. This practice of paying out of pocket for mistakes is  commonplace in the retail and service industry. 

I believe it comes down to creating a safe work culture in a workplace. A safe work culture is one with common beliefs, dedicated management commitment, and a functioning and effective management system. This would take the fear out of the equation about losing a job when someone steals $113 of gas, or $160 for a dinner, or a till is short $40. Workers would feel they could approach management to report the incident without fear of losing a job or being personally out of pocket. 

This is a common practice in the retail and restaurant industries... And it needs to change. Now. 

How can I turn a Prisoner into a Learner?
It hasn't happened to me for awhile, but I recall my last encounter with a classroom Prisoner! I was teaching an 8 hours Legislative Awareness course to a group of project managers and field coordinators.  The course focused on OH&S and environmental legal requirements that should be considered over the lifecycle of a project - from design to construction. 
I thought the topic was enthralling so imagine my surprise when one student was visibly unhappy to be in the room. He grunted when I asked for phones to be turned off, and I saw some eye rolling when I talked about the importance of Alberta Prime Contractor legislation. 
I decided to change tactics a bit, and started a group discussion on some prime contractor convictions. I asked him if he was surprised at the fine. "Yep, too low" was the response. 
Throughout the morning, I encouraged everyone to participate in class discussions - and gradually my prisoner became engaged, especially when he figured out that there was something in it for him! Due Diligence... Obviously one of my favorite topics.  Once this guy realized that his family may not be going on vacation to Disney, because he had to pay a fine for something he did at work, he became a Learner. 
As an instructor, it is my job to evaluate who in the classroom are the prisoners and work on changing them to learners. Usually this involves convincing them that you have something worthwhile to share, that they should know about. This will make the learning experience even better for the other students as well. 

Last week I taught a 4-day compressed course on the Fundamental of HSE auditing. I have taught this course for a number of years in different formats... 4 day compressed, 10 weeks of 3 hours, and more recently online. 
My online courses are much more difficult to teach. Emails come in at all hours of the day with questions about course material that I often think students haven't read. Students then send follow up emails if I haven't responded within a couple of hours. Online students expect the course workload to be easier and to receive higher marks - they openly express their disappointment if this doesn't happen.  
So why take an online course?
The flexibility is the main reason... On vacation? Submit and assignment from the lobby of the Mexican resort.  Working shift? 4am discussion postings are perfect. Have a new baby? Scroll through the course readings while rocking a newborn.  
But students need to be aware of the drawbacks of an online OH&S course... If you don't have field experience you may struggle with the case studies. You won't have the advantage of chatting in groups during in class workshops. Marks tend to be a bit lower in online courses as you don't have the benefit of asking clarifying questions for assignments. Online courses usually require a fair bit of reading so if English comprehension isn't your strong point, you may be better off in a classroom. 
However, if you have some field experience and are a conscientious and diligent student, online is likely for you. You can work ahead and will love the faster pace. 
I encourage my students to think a bit about how they like to learn before deciding if online or a classroom course is for them. 

What is it about the residential roofers?
Do they have special powers so they are as sure footed as a Grand Canyon mule and special body rotating sensors to ensure landing on soft fleshy parts?
I walk a lot in our neighborhood and am not afraid to ask a worker to cover up an open floor, or fix a tripping hazard. Usually workers are happy to oblige. My walking friends alway enjoy these interactions with "Safety Sheila" - it is alarming how often this happens. 
Roofers... They don't seem to appreciate my feedback. 
The other day, I witnessed 5 men working on the roof of a Tudor style home - lots of steep pitches and gables. None were wearing fall protection. As I made my way up the driveway, they stopped to look at me.  I told them that they were making me nervous working so high without fall protection. I mentioned that it was such a lovely day, they would hate to ruin it by falling and getting hurt. There was a bit of chatter amongst themselves, I could hear snippets of "what did she say" "wants us to tie off"... They then all turned around and went back to work. I then yelled up, "it's against the law you know!"  This did not impress them either. 
I took some pictures and then called in to OH&S, knowing that by the time they showed up the job would be over or they would be investigating an accident.
Something is wrong with the system. 
In 2014, two of the nine OH&S convictions involved falls of roofers. Since coming into effect in October 2013, there have been a total of 6 Administrative Penalties against workers and contractors. Of these, 4 involved contraventions of the OH&S Code for fall protection. 
Surely this is a mistake, there should be more... I received more parking tickets during this interval! Maybe Calgary Parking Authority should expand their job scope to include fall protection? 
Why hasn't OH&S issued more administrative fines? Insufficient staff to perform spot checks on residential construction sites, and industrial projects are a priority. As soon as OH&S shows up to a site, workers hasten to comply. Workers, prime contractors and roofing contractors just aren't worried about it. And they should be. Just ask the 14 year old Edmonton boy who fell off a roof and sustained life altering injuries.  
I am going out for a walk... And won't stop chatting with workers along the way.