User talk:Jonathan Wooldridge

Paper 1
Introduction

This chapter examines the literature in health and safety management, safety culture, competency development and behaviour, with especial regard to the development of a competency assurance program. The literature review evaluates underlying concepts of safety management looking at management systems, legal structures and how they influence organisational change and safety management behaviour. The literature review presents an overview of the issues involved in competency assurance from an applied research perspective. The review provides a critical review and synthesis of an existing body of safety literature. The literature review is divided into five topics. Together they contribute to a holistic approach for measuring group competency and offers a robust academic structure for answering the research question. Failures of an oil and gas industry

In 1988 the oil and gas industry’s health and safety management came under scrutiny after the Piper Alpha oil rig exploded in the North Sea resulting in the loss of 167 lives. The cause was poor safety training, inadequate application of managerial controls and a range of behavioral human factors (Shallcross, 2013: Cohen and Colligan, 1998). The official investigation surfaced as the Cullen Report which prompted a surge in health and safety legislation; followed by major reforms in safety management through development of company specific safety training programs (Cullen, 1990). Additional emphasis was given to regular writing and reviewing of procedures designed around legal enforcement. The employment growth in safety managers, site safety advisors and safety officers was apparent as was a significant growth in safety related training. These changes are believed to have been responsible for a 25% reduction in injury rates in the offshore oil industry (Cohen & Colligan, 1998).

Figure 1: Worldwide oil & gas industry, fatality and incidents statistics. OGP (2010)

Figure 1 shows the years following Piper Alpha [1988] as showing a significant decrease in fatalities and major incidents. This was believed to be directly attributed to Lord Cullen’s 106 recommendations which included management regulations. One monumental outcome of the investigation was known as the Safety Case. This was an act of law which was enforced in 1992 requiring that all major oi and gas operators identify their hazards and risks and show by evidence that they are capable of managing them by implementing the required controls (Binder, et al. 2010: Cullen, 1990). Unfortunately the underlying behavioural issues were never really addressed. Recognising that human factors were pointed out as a major contributor to the disaster in the Cullen report. (Cullen, 1990). Some years later Lord Cullen claims that ‘as a young judge the inquiry was very difficult because no-one really knew anything about the behaviours of oil and gas workers working in remote locations’. Indicating a major failing in the enquiry. Evidence that was supported by another civil action in 1997 which focused on two of the deceased workers, finding them to be negligent by not following procedures and taking short cuts (Keane, 2013). One particular study [OTI 95 633, HSE.gov.uk] shows that evidence during the enquiry was predominantly focused on quantitative engineering issues which clearly overlooks behavioural aspects. Despite mentioning in the Cullen Reports that the new attitude to ‘safety philosophies’ in the offshore oil industry requires an increased emphasis on behavior.

The piece of legislation titled the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations (2005) had the biggest impact post Piper Alpha. The legislation required that oil rig operators prove with evidence that they are in full control of their operations and in compliance all legal regulations. (Binder, et al. 2010). The Safety Case was basically the framework by which operators could identify hazards (things that cause harm) and show how they intend to reduce risks (the likelihood and severity associated with the hazard). This brought into play a term derived from UK health and safety law called ALARP or ‘as low as reasonably practicable’. This term was originally enshrined in the case of Edwards versus the National Coal Board in 1949, which looked at how risk based decisions should be reasonable by also considering cost, time and trouble. This was an attempt to offer a common sense approach and unless there was a gross disproportion between the cost and benefits, then decisions taken were agreed as acceptable (Binder et al, 2010). An attempt to consider the skills and competencies required to bring about control. With Piper Alpha in mind, the term ‘negligence’ also suggested a failure to take proper care but interestingly there was no mention of the knowledge, capabilities or behaviours to do that. These all being the main attributes of competency. Pointing to the failures of the enquiry with possible over reliance on legislation as the only mind-set to bring about change. Cohen & Colligan (1998) remind us that it improvements were attributed mainly to the 106 management regulations implemented by Cullen had a significant impact. The problems, area of behavior still remains (Allin & Craig, 2010).

The Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico 2010 discharged 4.9 million barrels of crude into the local environment (Allin & Craig, 2010). The spot light now on the effectiveness of previous safety training and employment of safety advisors which is again raises the issues over the effectiveness of safety training. This catastrophe pointing to an obvious failure in the application and implementation of safety regulations and company specific training which has had limited impact on safe working behaviors. With these catastrophes in mind, critiques of Safety Management argue that training is not the only problem as they turn towards understanding the principles of Safety Culture for answers (Stuart, A. 2013). The reasoning is that Safety Culture is measurable though the behaviors and actions of individuals and so the effect of training can be considered (Cohen, 2010). According to Kirkpatrick (1967) one problem with training is that it relies on rote learning, often assessed through recall of memorized information. This statement does not appear to correlate well with the development of longer term behaviors that influence safety culture. Like piper Alpha the root cause of Horizons problems were also behavioural with cost cutting, a lack of safety systems and an absent industry reform, in both industry practice and government policy. Safety Management and Safety Management Systems are obviously not enough on their own.

Underlying assumptions show that although training does develop relevant knowledge thorough understanding does not take place until there is a certain amount of experiential learning including immersion as practical application that develops specific soft skills i.e. competencies that should then be measured by observing changes in behaviour. Professional capabilities are then attributed to the Kolb learning cycle, or process of reinforcement through repetitive learning (Muscat, et al. 2012). In contrast Dukker, Nyce & Dekker (2013) argue that Safety Culture cannot be reduced to an individual or a social setting but is formed through collaborative interests and through complex human interactions. A culture is formed by the group and a safety culture is formed by the efforts of individuals coming together to create an environment that limits hazards.

Safety culture is influenced by a variety of factors including by the environmental, financial and equipment usability and technology limitations. They all affect how training translates from theory into practice and this helps to explain how knowledge is converted into competency and skills. Whether competency development is more effective than training at changing behavior is the thesis question and the deliverable is to see if this can measurably influence safety culture for those involved in working in hazardous environments or remote locations.

TOPIC 1: GOALS Health and Safety Management

Under Health & Safety Law everyone has the right to work, learn and live in a safe environment (Mendeloff, Ko, Gray, 2005). Health & Safety is also the responsibility of every person, irrespective of their status or occupation (Sholz and Gray, 1990). Safety management covers a broad spectrum of responsibilities and obligations and the idea is to create a culture of safety and a climate of responsibility and accountability in any organisation that adopts these principles. Meneldoff, Koy and Gray (2005) assert that the ‘goal orientation’ (Gardener, 2005, p. 345) of health and safety is that everyone in an organization develops the required knowledge, of workplace hazards. The literature agrees that the process of management is to encourage individual responsibilities and that so that accountability can be implemented (Sammer, 2011,Gardner, 2005, Cohen, 2010)). The approach is to also use in-house standards as these inform policy decisions and they are implemented using procedures and processes which not only establish rules but also beliefs that drive behaviours. Behaviours intended to reduce known risks to a level that is as low as reasonably practical [ALARP] (Cohen, 2010, Mendeloff, Ko, Gray, 2005). Safety Management is more than just policy, procedures and processes as it also relates to the physical and mental well-being of employees within a workplace. The missing element is how these safety systems influence wellbeing and behaviour and the same of vice-versa. The work of (Sammer, 2011, Sholz & Gray, 1990) recognise that safe conditions is a bi-product of management practice that influences the behaviours of those involved in implementing and overseeing mechanisms to reduce risk. Unfortunately managerial risks take a broader organizational perspective that includes client, employees, equipment, and reputation and also in most cases the natural environment. Whereas an individual might look at risk from a perspective solely of his own duties and responsibilities and seek the easy option and this means that that risks and perceptions can be very subjective (Martin and Liao, 1990). Sholz & Gray (1990) also recognise that acceptance of risk in industry is much lower in comparison to earlier periods. Believed to be through the impact of a new legislation but also what is less understood is how this could have been because of changes in perception potentially because of changes in technology (Martin and Liao, 2013). Crossley, Ashby & Todd (2013) recognise that health and safety strategies are also driven by legislation, but the stress the importance of finance. Financial instruments such as fines for non-compliance and profits from compliance is what drives organizational behaviour. Assessing risk within these constraints is much more about business continuity and profit (Crossley, Ashby & Todd, 2013). A risk assessment therefore needs to identify hazards by calculating risks to both individual and to the organisation. Health and Safety Management seeks to create a a safe organisation and a safe workforce, by collaboration (Lorinkova et al, 2013).. Crossley, Ashby, & Todd (2013) look at this in a qualitative and quantitative, by looking at how risk has a measurable factors of cause and effect but highly influenced by perception. Risk assessment mechanisms therefore become more complex because of the need to oscillate between the two concepts of objectivity and subjectivity which requires analytical skills. Analysis for the gaol of managing risk is also a dynamic process (Cohen, 2010). Safety Management as the years have moved on appears more behavioural or less about abiding by rules and more about having the skills and the abilities to assure levels of compliance (Lorinkova et al, 2013)... Safety management is about managing risk. Risk that is often dynamic in nature, and the same applies to the changing state of the environment or workplace as well as the changing state of the organisation. Developing a framework that considers the dynamics of change and the systems and sub-systems for managing compliance and individual responsibility are therefore matched. Benati and Gellar (2005) within their research they talk of leadership but as an individual quality, this is also the case with (Lorinkova et al, 2013). In this sense they depart from the usual bottom line that safety is only about compliance in relation to profits and unknowingly surface a transformative concept that leadership may be less about individuals and more about the sum total of the goals of a community impacted by a system. As a result they help to establish that leadership is not just about management interaction (Benatti & Gellar, 2005). Increasingly, leadership in health and safety is about ‘improving team performance’ and this involves changing both individuals and groups behaviours (Lorinkova et al, 2013, Cohen, 2010). Another type of leadership is one that foster the qualities of individuals to allow them to optimize their performance. Health and safety is increasingly viewed not as managing people and enforcing regulations but providing leadership in the health and safety area (Cohen & Collington, 1998).

Organisational Safety Management

Under Health & Safety Law, every workplace should be a space where every potential hazard and danger is identified and risks minimised. A safe environment then relates to the goals of safety managers and systems; designed around legislation to protect employees whilst making the environment a safe place to be (Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974). A workplace environment covers a wide range of hazardous activities requiring sufficient supervision over physical activities, using managerial frameworks to coordinate the ongoing development of a safe place to be i.e. a safety culture (Jonson, 2006). A culture developed around corporate goals that includes developing skills and experiences through training and education that improve performance, responds to legislation and helps profitability. Employee responsibilities need to respond to business dynamics and evolving roles and responsibilities that are designed around a corporate model that encapsulates the organisation goals (Johnson, 2006).

Accountability is essential in health and safety and is stressed by the legislation ((Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974). Employee accountability is a balance between legal and professional requirements. Generally underwritten by a contract as a form of agreement, suggesting that knowledge and experience is put to good use whilst working on criteria that help define the demands of a job and is aligned with the organisations’ corporate responsibility (Biglake and Roach, 2006). Knowledge and experience that is often learned through repetition and cyclic exposure of a variety of risk levels through which learning takes place (Kolb, 1984). The emphasis on having practical skills in the workforce sense is not only an individual partaking but also requires transfer of knowledge and skills within the workforce community. Real time challenges require a group mind to solve problems, and so the goal of many organisations is to develop collaborative problem solving skills. This creates opportunities to develop critical thinking within the safety of a group (Pellegrino, 2013) thorough which a thorough understanding of hazards and risks can develop. Over time this develops comprehension and confidence to make informed decisions, but this can be easily blurred when the goals of an individual are different from the group (Johnson, 2006).

Aligning Corporate Goals

The goal of health and safety management is to mitigate risks and therefore there must be the right knowledge in place, skills to act out that knowledge and the right attitude to make sure efforts are of an appropriate standard (Dworkin and Posthuma, 1997). These being the attribute of competency. A company’s assets being more than just physical equipment and finances as it also relates to human capital i.e. the competencies and abilities of the workforce (Dworkin and Posthuman, 1997). The problem being that as organisations change, technology changes, employees leave, and the skill base fluctuates, making delivery of goals a dynamic process. The goals of management should therefore be to develop systems capable of responding to change. One obvious goal would be an incident free workplace (Binder et al, 2010) although this requires an alignment of objectives and targets that conform to legislation via procedural rules but also through aligning behaviours with the level of skills through which an assurance can be guaranteed. The term good practice is often used and this is synonymous with accountability (Dworkin and Posthuma, 1997). At an organizational level evidence of accountability is often measured through continual improvement and best practice is the indication of expertise within a defined area (Dworkin and Posthuma, 1997. Subject Matter Expertise tend to arise out of practical problem solving, but this in itself may require rule breaking, as creative problem solving does not always conform to a regime (Prior et al, 2011). Expertise as a value of leadership is also not standardized as individual qualities differ from person to person making them unique (Binder et al., 2010). The ability to respond to change is possibly the goal in which a management systems effectiveness could be measured.

Continual Improvement

Health & Safety management is a cyclic process of learning through continual improvement. Systems therefore rely on information in order to continually be updated to meet the needs of the organisation and the workforce (Shallcross, 2013). Key drivers such as the need to encourage everyone to understand the importance of responsibility and accountability requires a mechanism of competency development and assurance to make sure it happens. Employees are then led to believe that safety is the ‘team’s responsibility’ (Lorinkova et al, 2013), and not just a managerial goal. A framework through which changing organisational demands can be measured, needs to therefore consider how change impacts on behaviour. Shallcross (2013) reminds us that a managerial agenda may be a barrier to change as continual improvement requires constant evaluation and a new ‘knowledge base’ (Lanellie & Martel, 2104, p 50). This is generally in favour of the company rather than the workforce. Cohen & Collington (1998) recognise that change in favour of the company can create conflict and so it is important to recognise how the goals of the company can be aligned with the behavioural goals of the workforce, and competency assurance could be a mechanism that allow successful change management in an organisation.

Developing a safety culture

A robust Health & Safety management system requires training and an integrated approach in which competencies are developed in line with organisational goals (Health and Safety, 1974). Competencies through skills and experience underpin safety culture (Jonson, 2006) and unlike training competency development is more dynamic and cyclic as continual improvement relies on the acceptance of an ever changing environment (Jonson, 2006). Safety management and competency need to be continually updated to respond to this constant change through the workplace and workforce behaviours can merge. Changing circumstances also suggests that procedures should regularly change, but this is far from practical, therefore competency assurance must be a combination of pro-Active flexibility and to a lesser extent reactive thinking based on static rules. Reactive thinking examples would include corrective decision-making such as dealing with control failures. The danger being that there may be over reliance on procedural systems which in turn develops the hierarchy of command and control (Jonson, 2006). Procedures themselves are also static although legal clauses could allow for more creative behaviours providing they apply the dynamics of change to the decision-making philosophies that reduce risks to ALARP (Dworkin & Posthuma, 1997).

Summary

This section of literature mainly considers how organisational goals differs from the accepted responsibilities of the workforce (Cohen & Collington, 1992, Johnson, 2006, Lorinkova et al, 2013). The increasing complexity of many organisations means the achieving health and safety goals is often difficult. Competency programs are one possible solution to achieving health and safety goals in the modern workplace. Using competency assurance as an integrative mechanism that with different aspects of safety issues including culture that should capture the working environment. The flexibility of competency assurance offers some room for further exploration although there should be an element of caution as too much flexibility will be in contrast to the more rigid rules defined by policy and procedures. Management goals are related to constantly changing levels of complexity, and this in itself poses a problem from which a competency assurance framework is difficult to define. The often vague expectations of managers, whose goals often differ from the values and beliefs held by employees (Epstein, 2002) could be brought into alignment through more adaptive systems. The more standard versions of safety compliance such as policy, procedures and training could be further developed by integrating them more effectively around the goals of a competency assurance program, offering channels for further investigation. A vehicle for Motivation – Near miss reporting

A near miss is an incident that does not result in injury or damage. Near miss reporting can take many forms, increasingly technology is enabling individuals to report and log near misses and this allow near miss reporting to be conducted in a more systematic way. Every near miss reporting system must not be punitive (National Safety Council, 2012). Near miss reporting offers management crucial data that can allow management to understand risks and to construct systems and frameworks that prevent accidents or other ‘loss producing events’ (National Safety Council, 2012, p. 1) The data provided by near miss reporting will give management data ‘for statistical analysis, correlational studies and trending’ (National Safety Council, 2012, p. 2), to create system and provide will improve health and safety. Near miss- analysis ‘can help companies achieve the ideal of zero- incidents’ (National Safety Council, 2012, p. 3). A workplace should have a system for providing feedback and near miss reporting is an excellent mechanisms for developing skills (Makin and Winder, 2008). That is because there are opportunities to raise awareness of issues, obstacles and conflicts, and then address them through analysis and investigation, towards a conclusion and evaluative steps that lead to corrective actions. A common ground on which to base shared values and beliefs is through competency development and knowledge and education (Johnson, 2006). This could include development of a training programme that together is paramount as it brings the workforce together, and acknowledges the cultural differences and possibly misplaced beliefs especially when faced with changing workplace hazards and the requirement for accurate recognition through reporting and the reporting of potential near miss incidents (Cate, 2007).

Paper 2
FEEDBACK AND COMMUNICATION Introduction

Health and safety management seeks to foster a culture that promotes behvaiours that limit risk and even remove hazards (Durgin, 2006). A robust safety culture needs to focus on vigilance, responsibility and non-compliant behaviours (Durgin, 2006). Employees need to understand the need not only to report accidents, but to also report ‘near misses’ (Blume et al, 2012). They must be proactive. They also need to know what happens to the information that they report, and how it can not only enhance their working experience but that it can make the workplace safer. When it comes to near misses, employees need to be aware that just because an accident did not occur at that given time, that under the same conditions it may happen the next time. Only by reporting the near misses do they then take on a proactive role that can ultimately influence good practice and a safer working environment (Makin & Winder, 2008).

Safety Culture and Competency

It could be said that there is a culture of exasperation surrounding Health & Safety (Booth and Lee, 1995). This can lead to issues in the working environment. Some believe that many people believe that many have ‘communication apprehension (Blum et al, 2012, p. 159), they are afraid to report issues on health and safety especially near misses. Then there is the view that health and safety is somehow unnecessary, despite the empirical evidence. this there is a view, generally held by employees 50+ years of age that the modern workforce is over protected with too many rules, policies and procedures (Filan, 2006). There is some justification for this view, it was raised by Lord Cullen in (Cullen, 1990 and that there is a need for simplification. These factors have resulted in real challenges for those seeking to promote a health and safety culture (Sorkos, 2001)         ).

Cultural Values

Competency development makes demands, which are often contrary to their culture and its values (Doostader et al 2002). People from different cultures have different views on many issues, as demonstrated in The Hofstede model. Hofstede has demonstrated that a person’s culture have a powerful impact upon a person’s values. Hofstede's six-dimension model allows international comparison between cultures. He established a questionnaire which was concerned with six dimension such as the distribution of power, the extent to which they are integrated into a collective and if they display more masculine or feminine traits (Hofstede, 1980). The answers to the questionnaires are scored and then analysed using factor analysis and they have revealed that there are differences on values based upon national and ethnic origin. This means that people from different cultures are likely to value health and safety measures in different ways (Hofstede, 1980). Therefore in a multicultural setting it can be difficult to ensure that all workers are able to work together in the interests of health and safety (Hofstede, 1980).

People’ from various cultures may have different views on what constitutes competency and what kind of behaviour is acceptable. Competency development offers a mechanism for a more proactive attitude by sharing knowledge of specified criteria in order to initiate a positive attitude towards safety (Brach, 2008). In this sense it seeks to overcome culture differences (Brach, 2008, Blum et al, 2012). This is often best achieved through mentoring to encourage the development of common values, beliefs and motivations and to enable greater efficiency, based on realistic safety standards and well thought out targeted competencies that relate to the work environment, among the workforce. Mentors therefore need a high level of cultural competency and the ability to work with people from many backgrounds, is essential for the development of competency in a multi-ethnic workforce (Brach, 2008).

Communicating Systems

In order for Health & Safety Standards to meet the requirements of specific situations there needs to be good communication networks within an organization (Blum et al, 2012). There needs to be a system for the exchange of information and data on health and safety issues (Makin and Winder, 2008). The process of communication needs to flow from management to the workforce and vice versa. This needs to be an ongoing process that is both monitored and flows freely (Makin & Winder, 2008; Stout & Linn, 2002). Systems need to evolve around information that needs to be shared in a particular work environment, and emphasis needs to be on the need for information and how the information will be used to improve safety standards. (Stout & Linn, 2002). In some situations it may be more appropriate for the exchange of information to be done through a system that needs to be formally logged, but in other situations it may be through a verbal process. The problem that may occur is that when there is no formal or written report the information may unintentionally not get passed on to the appropriate person, which can then compromise safety standards throughout the company. Any communication system requires some space for ‘reflexive contemplation ‘so that they information can be appropriately analysed (Shcon) (Dillard, 2011, p. 1277).

Might need re-framing

The search for improvements in behavioural type issues stems from a failure to communicate problems effectively (Geller, 2001). This is partially a leadership issues, and often a result of a work culture where people are reluctant to communicate on any issue (Blum et al, 2012). Communication is the flow of information to the right people at the right time and a closer look at the mechanisms of communicating can be used to challenge if the mechanisms are accurate, reliable and suitable (HSE, 2008). The challenge with all safety communication is in disseminating accurate information to prevent the recurrence of issues, obstacles and conflicts or to keep the business running in a trouble free manner. Gellar (2005) brings to light that dissemination of information should include an empathic stance, as poorly placed communication can influence poor behaviours (Greengard, 1998). Consider for example personality traits such as dominant, passive, passive-aggressive and empathetic which all effect how communication is received.

There are several methods to establish an appropriate system for communication and they can be broadly categorised as follows.

•	Non-conformance and corrective actions register •	Management issues register •	Action trackers •	Unannounced or announced Safety Observations •	Incident tracker •	Near miss, Safety Observations and Defects •	LTI’s and incident ratios •	Aspects and Impacts register (Environmental) •	Training registers (includes Tool box talks etc.)

The practical application of a theoretical science that improves risk perception and behavioural safety in the work place is not well documented (Cohen, 2006, Hoffman et a, 2004). The available literature covers more case studies that evaluate workplace tools and techniques associated to those tools but they do little to recommend the triggers and drivers that can be used to bring about perceptual change. There is some research that cover management commitment and employee engagement (Hoffman et al, 2004: Cohen, 2006), as well as the role of risk prioritisation in relation to meetings versus to out in the workplace. Research from Quintana, (2013) and Kemmlert & Lundholm, (2001) mention that gender is important, especially when it comes to accepting differing levels of risk. The best drivers of improving risk perception beyond training, is to work specific competencies and daily communication between managers, supervisors and of course the workforce (Johnson, 2006).

Cultural Drivers

In an environment where a workforce made up of different cultures, there is often some confusion and misunderstandings when it comes to Health & safety concepts. The implementation of health and safety rules in a multicultural workplace is often hindered by the complexity of cultural values and beliefs (Alcorso, 2002). This will have a negative impact on the way that the workforce responds to perceived risk and health and safety policies in a company (Klett, 2010). In general people from different cultures can work together but often different values and ideas can cause problems. This is also the case with competency and competency development. Different cultural beliefs may result in many employees, failing to understand the nature and importance of health and safety practices and training (Alcorso, 2002). Because of this in a diverse setting there needs to be a mechanism for evaluating these differences, and especially those that impact on safety culture and the attitudes, skills and competencies that effect personal and group competency in health and safety (Geller, 2002).

Navigating a changing landscape

Competency involves placing more responsibility on employees. (Geller, 2005). Health and safety managers need to create an environment where people are willing to report near misses and potential problems (Booth and Lee, 1995). There are issues associated with this as sometimes the act of reporting an incident may be difficult, or they do not want to appear to be getting their colleagues into trouble (Doostader, 2012, Bleum et al, 2012).There is also a danger that reporting near miss incidents may create a ‘blame culture’ and this will ultimately leads to problems in the workplace and mistrust among co-workers.

Responding to Change

Implementing the competency model involves a great deal of change management. Development of a Health & Safety, management system and culture, is an ongoing process (Doostader et al 2002). It needs to be continually updated to meet the needs of a constantly changing organisation and developed so it responds to changes within the workforce. One of the most important issues is to encourage all workers to understand the gravity of their responsibilities towards not just the company, but their colleagues and themselves (Cohn, 2004: Howell, 2011). As such Health and Safety is everyone’s responsibility and not just management. The working environment is also continually changing as new pieces of equipment are procured or when new employees come into the business as others leave, causing a constant flux that influences the organizations safety climate and constantly changing safety related issues (Howell, 2004, Geller, 2005).

MOVE THIS UP Like individual behaviour, organisational behaviour i.e. the safety culture, needs to be developed and nurtured (Howell, 2004). Importance needs to be placed on vigilance, responsibility and non-compliancy. Employees need to understand the need to not only report accidents and unsafe conditions but to also to report potential issues, herein known as near miss incidents (Geller, 2005). Therefore, there is a close correlation between safety culture development and reporting culture and as such near miss reporting looks to be a suitable driver (Dingsdag, 2008). Employees also need to know what happens to any information that they report, and how it can not only enhance their working experience but through feedback they need to know how they are making the workplace safer. When it comes to near miss reporting, employees need to be aware that just because an accident did not occur at a given time, that under the same conditions the same issue could have been much worse. Only by reporting near miss incidents do they then take on a more proactive role that can help update Health & Safety procedures and ultimately influence good practice for a safer working environment (Booth & Lee, 1995).

Topic 3
CONTROLS

Health & Safety Training

Introduction

Change is an ongoing process. It affects every part of our lives whether it is in the workplace or in leisure activities (Michie & Johnston, 2006). There is a very close correlation between organizational change and the need for updated Health & Safety training. The need for change can be activated through forces outside of the industry or organization, but it can also be prompted by changes that are directly related to the performances of individuals. Changes in the workplace need to take place in a controlled and organized environment within a well-ordered structure (Michie & Johnston, 2006). Change is usually achieved through a training program that does not just educate the workforce, it empowers them with skills to undertake responsibilities and challenges in a timely and appropriate manner (Geller, Michie & Johnston, 2005). Training programs are regarded as the best vehicle to allow the workforce to confidently take on new responsibilities that serves to improve accountability within the workplace. Changes in the workplace need to take place in a controlled and organized environment within a well-ordered structure (Booth & Lee, 1995). This is achieved through a training program that does not just educate the workforce, it empowers them with skills to undertake responsibilities and challenges in a timely and appropriate manner (Makin & Winder, 2008). Safety training should always focus directly on the actual work/job that the workforce is involved in with the accent on performing tasks under particular conditions. Training should also invite dialogue as to what happens if the conditions change and an incident occurs (Winder, 2008). It is important at this stage to not just focus on the elements that have caused the incident but to also focus on the abilities and skills that the workforce need to enable them to get an in-depth view of the cause and the effect of the situation (Durgin, 2010). There needs to be instilled in the trainees an ability to critically reflect upon a situation and how they can prevent the repeat or prevent a reportable incident (Durgin, 2010).

Once there is agreement for the need for training to manage new changes, there then needs to be a realistic consultation time where the requirements should be broken down into achievable training goals (HSE, 2008). Consideration needs to be given as to how the goals will be achieved, the time frame needed and the requirements of the current workforce (Tomo et al, 2010). When developing work based competencies, the training focus should relate to the procedures that need to be followed, such as the importance of reporting a near miss situations where although things did not go wrong, they could have gone wrong (Dingsdad et al, 2008). By gathering evidence from reports of near misses, discussions can be instigated as part of an ongoing training program to help improve safety and safety culture. Change and training needs to be managed in a responsible manner because if it occurs at a fast pace within a very short space of time, it can actually cause â€˜change fatigue (Brach, 2000). If this is the case then despite the best efforts of a bespoke training program to enable and empower the workforce, it will have unintended consequences that may result in a less than positive environment that is in turn, prone to dangerous practices. Pauline calls this the ‘double edge of competency training’ (2001, p. 301). Such a situation would result in what would be considered to be preventable accidents. This would be considered to be the negative side of change (HSE, 2008).

In order to encourage and achieve a safety culture within any workforce, it is extremely important to promote motivation and responsibility through training that is relevant and interactive. This can be achieved through training sessions that can build on any prior knowledge; shared experiences and education that highlights the importance of accurate and reliable reporting procedures (Durgin, 2010). Training is designed to ensure that staff are not only competent but that they are also able to be proactive. It should seek to enable people to make decisions and not just merely capable of enforcing regulations (Brach, 2000). Health and Safety is deemed to be the responsibility of everyone, not just the person who is engaged in a particular task (HSE, 2008). While encouraging individual initiative on health and safety, the human factor needs to be acknowledged in the development of any health and safety framework and measures taken to reduce its impact on the level of safety in the workplace (Sanchez, 2004).

Behavioural Psychology and Learning

Behavioural Psychology examines how our behaviour results from the stimuli both in the environment and within ourselves (Geller, 2005). Research studies measure aspects of exhibited behaviour in minute detail whilst endeavouring to control as many other variables as possible. This is often a difficult process but results have helped psychologists learn a great deal about the effect that we have on our environment and vice-versa and how we learn new behaviours, including what motivates us to change or continue with a specific set of behaviours (Moen et al, 2006). Behaviour is a learned process in much the same way that we learn how to do different tasks such as how to bolt equipment together or how to work effectively with others. The experience of learning new skills under these practical conditions is often by trial and error and some of the process may be hindered by outside influences such as personality conflicts and different learning styles.

What appears highly apparent, is that we learn specific ‘task based’ behaviours by watching other people and how they respond to particular situations. This strategy of learning behaviour is applied through all aspects of our lives, whether it is dealing with social occasions or work-related activities (Fanny, 2010; Geller, 2005). Group behaviour and peer pressure is very important in influencing our behaviour (Schon, 1987). A health and safety manager needs to determine to what extent the group has adopted suitable behaviours. The larger group will provide a model for the individual and it will lead an individual to imitate certain desired behaviours. According to Adaptation theory in psychology, people’s actions and behaviours tend to conform to the larger group (Geller, 2005). A health and safety manager who seeks to promote competency will seek to ensure that the large group is conforming to suitable behaviours. This will minimize the possibility that individuals will act in manners that are contrary to those desired. Based upon the literature the following questions arise.

Training and Competency

In order to encourage and achieve a safety culture within any workforce, it is extremely important to motivate employees through training that is relevant and interactive (Flin, 2006). This can be achieved through training sessions that can build on any prior knowledge; shared experiences and education that highlights the importance of accurate and reliable reporting procedures (CPID, 2014). Safety training should always focus directly on the actual work/job that the workforce is involved in with the accent on performing tasks under particular conditions (Flin, 2006). Training should also invite dialogue as to what happens if the conditions change and an incident occurs (Epstein, 2002). It is important at this stage to not just focus on the elements that have caused the incident but to also focus on the abilities and skills that the workforce need to enable them to get an in-depth view of the cause and the effect of the situation, this is essential in any competency training program (CPID, 2014).

Most safety lessons are only implemented after an incident and accident investigations. That is most health and safety changes are reactive and only occur after some incident or a near miss. Competency means that staff have the skills, to understand and can implement fully health and safety in order to prevent a threat from developing (Benatti, 2013). Competency is not just about abiding by the rules but the ability to have the skills and the ability to react proactively that is taking responsibility and taking actions that reduce risks in the workplace. The workforce should be trained to be self-reflective practitioners. That is to should be able to critical reflect upon what they learned and this will encourage them to engage in proactive behaviour (Schon, 1996). A workplace with a workforce that is more proactive when it comes to health and safety is generally safer (Benatti, 2013). This is why many regulatory agencies in the UK and elsewhere place an increasing emphasis on competency in health and safety and why now systems to promote competency are so important in present day health and safety.

Self-Regulating ‘Pro-Active’ Behaviours

The aim of training in competency there need to be an emphasis on encouraging people to become proactive and the regulation of their behaviour (Schon, 1996). Self-regulating behaviours are about effort and control, and if we compare to the cybernetic model of information flow and control we can see that there is a synergy. That is effort can be effective when it is armed with information. There are also the elements of being pro-active or avoidant and to a certain extent there are people who are avoidant learners and they would not necessarily by those who you would expect to naturally promote something that is pro-active. In contrast there is reactive avoidance, whereas the tendency is to avoid punishment in favour of reward (Bennatti, 1996). Self-regulation in these terms is highly dependent on external stimulus, or a control environment of some sort (Benatti, 1996). Identifying what the controlling stimuli are becomes the focus of research question 4, and highlights a system at play in which regulation is a product of the ability to control information as a process of attenuation and regulation. Figure XX: Example of a control system Source: XXXX

The additional factor is to consider whether the environment is controllable, and to a lesser extent is the management controlling them and is the staff in balance with the management. This applies to competency in three ways. 1. Before the response (Goals and Standards) 2. During the response which is about monitoring of self and others. 3. After the response (Assessment and evaluation), where response being the change in system and behaviour because of external influence i.e. stimuli. Drivers of purpose and mastery There are levels of mastery to be considered and they are unconscious incompetence, conscious incompetence, conscious competence and unconscious competence. In the cybernetic sense this is a double barrelled gun as we concerned with the development of the individual as well as development of the management system to support the individual. Both system and behaviour are therefore linked and both should be assessed to ensure that they are in balance with each other. There are many examples in business where individuals are highly competent but the business processes or management systems are not dynamic enough to all maximum use of those competencies. That is because many management systems are only designed to support the purpose of the system and not those who are managing that purpose (Howell, 2011). An interesting dynamic is set up when designing a cybernetic management system in that there should be communication between the effectiveness of the system and the effectiveness of the behaviours of those managing the system and the behaviours of those who are being developed by the process (Erisson, 1969). The combination of individual learning and organisational learning are linked, but the way that they engage is not always clearly evident (Ericson, 1969). The right competencies and expertise might be available but the question of support and time are always an issue. How this influences behaviour is of interest and that means behaviour of the individual and department as the causal factors that drive behaviour can be found embedded within its meaning. A causal factor being an act, a condition or an omission and this applies to all of the dimensions covered.

Paper 4
Coordinating Teams Introduction

Health & Safety standards need to reflect both compliance with Health & Safety Law, legal compliance and good practice that is assessed and takes place within a workplace environment (HSE, 2008). The standards should include regular updates and assessments, based on the tasks in which the workforce are involved. In order to encourage a particular standard of any type of behaviour, including safe working practice, there needs to be a firm understanding of the processes and this requires learning. It should be noted that the most effective way of learning is through experience and not through coercion and this has been central to any learning process since the work of the educationalist and philosopher John Dewey (Dewey, 1933). Learning in any area needs to be build up over time by the construction of a skill self (Dewy, 1933; Gibbs, 2008). Experience according to Kolb is crucial for all forms of learning (1980). As an example if you take the process of learning to read, this is build up by learning letter shape, letter sound and how to apply knowledge and experience to make a good guess that will over time build into expertise. In other situations the process of learning occurs when we start to realise that if we do A. then B. will happen, cause and effect, with C. being attributed to the consequences (Kolb, 1980). There should be especial emphasis placed on near miss reporting, because it is an observable and reported behaviours (Koltarsky, 2014). Any behaviours that do not meet the appropriate standards need to be logged and the data analysed (suggestions for analysis) and defined as errors. Errors, such as unintentional slips, lapses of concentration and cognitive mistakes can be further defined through being either skills based, rule based or knowledge based. Human errors can also be evaluated by their severity. The most severe error being classified as a violation (or transgression) closely followed by a slip (resulting in failure or the standard process (Koltarsky, 2014), a lapse (in attention or memory), and the least possible error being defined as a mistake. In the workplace errors can sometimes happen due to the behaviour of supervisors stepping in to a situation and not adhering to the agreed Health & Safety standards which is intentionally reckless behaviour. At the time this may not result in an immediate error. There is also concern that workers who deliberately flout procedures may do so for their own personal benefit. Likewise there may be issues with language barriers and misinterpretation of instructions, especially in a multicultural environment (Lauder et al, 2008). With these factors highlighted it is paramount that skills analysis and training in Health & Safety meet the needs of the organisation, the workforce and the environment (Koltarsky, 2014),.In particular any effort spent by a worker must have a commensurate reward. That is every organisation must make incentivize its workers to become competent in health and safety (Peters and Hopkins, 2014) Safety Standards

Safety Standards are the benchmark by which an organization demonstrates that behaviours are in alignment with company procedures (Cohen, 2004). Safety standards are expressed as categories with criteria that show that acknowledges the specifics of certain safety parameters, that relate to a job and a distinctive level of learning that relates directly to the product or service being applied. Standards can either be represented at a global level, such as a framework for a management system [ISO 14001 or OHSAS 18000] or they can be at an organizational level, identifying the key performance indicators of a job. The importance of standards when working is to apply a level of expectation, through which competency can be measured (Lauder et al, 2014). For example, if you consider the production of fireworks there are certain responsibilities and risks attached to every stage of their production. This is a cradle to grave holistic approach in which minimum standards need to be applied from the manufacture, to the retailer independent of who is involved. Safety standards will be outlined, from obtaining raw materials, to storage, to production, retail and then on to an event organizer. Safety standards are therefore not just in-house, they are standards that meet the requirements of country legislation, market legislation, organisational legislation and if exported international legislation (H.S.E., 1974: Cullen, 1990). This is in addition to additional licensing requirements, which add checks of certification, evidence of experience and may include a safety record of past incidents or near misses. Aspect of competency in relation to standards therefore needs to be both transparent and accountable, for them to be of value and to assure a level of competency (Lauder et al, 2008).

The problem that may occur is that when there is no formal or written report the information may unintentionally not get passed on to the appropriate person, which can then compromise safety standards throughout the company (CATE, 2007).

In order to encourage coordination in a work place environment, the following factors need to be addressed.

Human factors

The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) report To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, states that ‘’ “Safety initiatives target systems-related failures that contribute to errors within a complex environment’’. (2010, p. 5). Because many errors are never reported voluntarily or captured through other mechanisms, these improvement efforts may fail”. The statement is also backed up by experimental research that shows reward based schemes are only effective for simple mechanical tasks, but do little to improve performance when the task becomes more cognitive, contrary to other research on the issue (Howell, 2014: Peters and Hopkins, 2008). The human factor become more complex when we consider that business requires more cognitive processing skills than ever before. This is mainly due to the analytical systems that are being adopted within the work site, rather than in an office, as companies are now becoming more engaged in cognitive and process based problem solving. In other words they are becoming much more pro-active by analysing situations and responding dynamically whilst making sense of any latent conditions which might be the pre-conditions to a ‘what-it’ scenario (I.O.M., 2015). Behavioral Drivers Behavioural safety is the process of observing behaviours to give a better understanding of the drivers that positively reinforce safe behaviour. They can be observing that procedures or steps within procedures are being carried out or identifying the behaviours that impact on safety culture or that impact on Human Error and Non-conformance. Part of the issue here is in knowing the source of a behavioural problem and although safety management systems are driven by a variety of registers (Near miss, non-conformance, incident trackers, unannounced safety observations etc.) they do not link observation with behaviour. Gellar et al (1998) highlights the limitations of taking a behavioural approach. They say that standard health and safety is usually a top down approach whereas behavioural safety is more about offering tools so that employees can take personal control. Various other studies (Geller, 2011) (Williams, 2001) (Grindle, Dickinson and Boettcher, 2000) focus on behavioural interventions that are observation in practice. They suggest that the key to behavioural management is in targeting the behaviours that need to be changed (Grindle, Dickinson and Boettcher, 2000). The commonalties are in recognising the pillars of behavioural safety (listed below) and that these can be summarised as Define (behaviours to be monitored), Observe (and collect data), Intervene (to influence behaviour), Test (to measure that something has changed).

Motivation interventions

Interventions tend to require external encouragement, although (Skinner 2012 and Sidman, 2011) argue the dynamics of incentive and de-incentive motivational strategies. An example of the latter may relate to who behaviour is changed when someone does something that they know they are doing incorrectly, or when doing something that is wrong. Personal freedom also comes into the frame and the correlations between freedom and motivation are well covered in a variety of literature, from a whole range of business type articles bit equally the same them can be found in sports articles, political articles and even criminology. Perhaps closer to the theme of health and safety is (Brehn, 2002) who interestingly points out that motivation is not always long lasting and is very much dependent on the behavioural intervention that is in place. An example being a safety campaign and of course there are secondary issues associated with accountability and responsibility (Gellar & Clarke, 1999). Ginet (2004) adds that motivational interventions are how people motivate to influence behaviour but the limitations of risk perception and poor communication do little for the development of an informed workforce or a multi-cultural society. Because many errors are never reported voluntarily or captured through other mechanisms, these improvement efforts may fail”. The drive of this statement is also backed up by experimental research that shows reward based schemes are only effective for simple mechanical tasks, but do little to improve performance when the task becomes more cognitive. The human aspects of the problem become more complex when we consider that business requires more cognitive processing skills than ever before. This is mainly due to the analytical systems that are being adopted within the work site, rather than in an office, as companies are now becoming more engaged in cognitive and process based problem solving. In other words they are becoming much more pro-active by analysing situations and responding dynamically whilst making sense of any latent conditions which might be the pre-conditions to a ‘what-it’ scenario. Behavioral Drivers Behavioural safety is the process of observing behaviours to make better understanding of the drivers that positively reinforce safe behaviour. They can be observing that procedures or steps within procedures are being carried out or identifying the behaviours that impact on safety culture or that impact on Human Error and Non-conformance. Part of the issue here is in knowing the source of a behavioural problem and although safety management systems are driven by a variety of registers (Near miss, non-conformance, incident trackers, unannounced safety observations etc) they do not link observation with behaviour. Literature from Virginia state university (Gellar et al, 1998) highlights the limitations of taking a behavioural approach. They say that standard health and safety is usually a top down approach whereas behavioural safety is more about offering tools so that employees can take personal control. Various other studies (Geller, 2011) (Williams, 2001) (Grindle, Dickinson and Boettcher, 2000) focus on behavioural interventions that are observation in practice. They suggest that the key to behavioural management is in targeting the behaviours that need to be changed. The commonalties are in recognising the pillars of behavioural safety (listed below) and that these can be summarised as Define (behaviours to be monitored), Observe (and collect data), Intervene (to influence behaviour), Test (to measure that something has changed). •	Focus interventions on observable behaviours •	Look for external factors to understand and improve behaviour •	Direct with activators and motivate with consequences •	Focus on positive consequences to motivate behaviour •	Apply scientific methods to improve intervention (Gellar, 1996) challenges these behavioural interventions using his three attention areas that are commonly used in Behavioural Management. •	ABC – Activator, Behaviours, Consequence ABC is a framework: A is the pre-condition or environmental condition that influences behaviour. B is the observable behaviour and C the consequence of that behaviour. An example is an At-Risk observation. The limitation in this analytical approach is that it requires accurate information, and this is normally a problem for the person who may not know how to observe and record without adding bias. Instructional Interventions appear to be more personal and may be more accurate way to find out about an individual’s purpose. This technique works well with a supportive intervention that is very positive and that reduces conflict. The idea is that when a person learns to do it right, the practice ensures that the behaviours become part of a natural routine. Motivation interventions tend to require external encouragement, although (Skinner 2012 and Sidman, 2011) argue the dynamics of incentive and de-incentive motivational strategies. An example of the latter may relate to who behaviour is changed when someone does something that they know they are doing incorrectly, or when doing something that is wrong. Personal freedom also comes into the frame and the correlations between freedom and motivation are well covered in a variety of literature, from a whole range of business type articles bit equally the same them can be found in sports articles, political articles and even criminology. Perhaps closer to the theme of health and safety is (Brehn, 2002) who interestingly points out that motivation is not always long lasting and is very much dependent on the behavioural intervention that is in place. An example being a safety campaign and of course there are secondary issues associated with accountability and responsibility (Gellar & Clarke, 1999). Ginet (2004) adds that motivational interventions are how people motivate to influence behaviour but the limitations of risk perception and poor communication do little for the development of an informed workforce or a multi-cultural society.

Assessors and Mentors

Health & Safety Managers should therefore have core knowledge that includes an understanding of the cause and consequences of risks in relation to the work environment and they should have specific people skills relevant for dealing with difficult conflict situations (These attributes are considered to be the core competency requirements that are often overlooked when developing the safety management system that only relies on employees having a good understanding of health & safety principles and practice (Pellegrino, 2013). Health & Safety Managers actions must be purposeful and carried out in a timely manner, not just to control risk but also to deal effectively with any breach of safety protocols, were they should be able to enforce procedural rules and protocols to minimize any further damage (Gellar, 2005). It cannot be stressed the importance that should be attached to assessing risks within the workplace and the training and competency requirements for doing so. Risk assessments are produced by procedures and policies that in turn have been devised through observation; learning and building from other workplace environments; common sense; legislation and directives given by manufacturers of machinery etc. but unfortunately most industrial lessons are reactive as they come from incident and accident investigations. This raises the question as to how safety culture is developed and begs the question to what is missing in health & safety training if reactive behaviours are still common (Benatti, 2013). Assessing Capability

Safety Standards are the benchmark in by which an organisation or company demonstrates that they can meet the Health & Safety requirements and directives. The Safety Standards show that there is a system in place that acknowledges that upholds the safety of the workforce and the product they are manufacturing (Greengard, 2008). For example, if you consider the production of Fireworks and their availability throughout the year for different celebrations such as Bonfire night, Diwali, New Year’s Eve and Chinese New year. There are certain responsibilities attached to every stage and person involved from the manufacturer to importer to retailer whether they are part of an organisation or independent operative. There are safety standards that have to be met along the whole of the process, from production, supplier, and retailer to event organizer (Grote & Kunzler 2005). Safety standards are not all in-house, they also need to meet the requirements of the country they are exported from as well as the country to which they are being imported (Grote & Kinzler, 2005). This is in addition to any licensing requirements. The aspect that needs to be taken from this is that communication of the safety standards in any organisation need to be both transparent and emphasis that all employees are accountable for their behaviour (Guldenmuld, 2005).

Summary

The primary motivator in any competency program is training. Training helps to improve worksite conditions and should help bring issues to the table, so that improvement plans can be further developed through improved engagement and collaboration. The speed at which change takes place should be managed, as too much change including new ideas, improvements that change the normal routines etc. can all cause change fatigue, which can disrupt how everyone buys into the process. Secondary to this is development of interdisciplinary teams and the intent of bringing about positive change should consider how it benefits both expert and non-expert views with regards to group performance.

Paper 5
Understanding Behaviour Learning a particular behaviour does not mean that the learning is permanent and this is crucial in understanding the distinction between training and competency. The more we learn, the more our perception of our environment changes and the more we change the way that we deal with incoming stimuli, which ultimately affects behaviour and so this is a natural feedback loop that effects our values, beliefs and motivations. Historically work by J.B.Watson (1878-1958), paved the way to study the process by which learning affects behaviour (also known as behaviourism). Behaviourism focuses on the observable rather than the more abstract mood or thoughts (Mauthner, 2005). Although Watson was regarded as the father of Behaviourism the most well-known behaviourist was B.F. Skinner (1904-1990). Skinner felt that the abstract internal states should also be taken into consideration, as well as additionally external stimuli from the environment. In today’s society it is well established that both internal and external stimuli influence behaviour with the abstract skills being called soft skills and training skills being known as hard skills (Mauthner & Tanner, 2002). In the workplace new workers usually learn more about the job usually through the unwritten rules of behaviour, and often through being paired with a mentor, who will often unknowingly shape the behaviour of their prodigy (Geller, 2005). There is always a trigger that instigates a behaviour, but sometimes the trigger is not immediately apparent. Behaviours are selected by their consequences, for example, a mentor might push a candidate towards an unwanted behaviour that creates conflict and disruption between the two. In much the same way, in the workplace if a worker is given to believe that a procedure is unnecessary then they will cease working with it, not so much out of rebellion but more about human-factors that is also influenced by peer pressure or this is the way we do it here (Guldenmuld, 2005). (Guldenmulde, 2005; Geller, 2005). When we consider how we should deal with behaviours that cause concern At-Risk Behaviours, the focus should be on challenging the behaviour rather than the person but this is normally the source of conflict. But when considering behavioural safety, behaviour that is considered to be 'indifferent' is actually more of a concern as indifference can cause devastating errors of judgement (Guldenmulde, 2005; Geller, 2005).

Behavioural Safety

One of the most important issues when tackling behavioural safety is the focus on the Human-Factors that can positively or negatively influence the outcomes of a behaviour, with the view to modifying or adapting a behaviour that is considered to be at risk. In order to develop a programme that focusses on behavioural safety, it is important to consider which behaviours need to be observed and need further classification namely behaviours that are a response to natural human error and which behaviours can be attributed which to attitudes, non-conformity or indifference. Once these behaviours have been identified then consideration can be given as to how to make positive changes to attitude, training and the overall safety culture (Grote & Kunzler, 2005).

Gathering information on behavioural safety is usually achieved through analysis of observable behaviours (Flin et al., 2000). But not all behaviours are observable and analysis usually does not take into consideration attitudes and training, which have a vast influence on Behavioural Safety. Safety procedures may be followed but unless understanding and attitude are also taken into consideration then there may be an incorrect analysis of the situation (Flin et al, 2000). Analysis should also include, attitudes, beliefs and opinions. As with all aspects of human behaviour there are so many outside and internal influences to take into consideration that if we tried to take every aspect of human behaviour into consideration then it would be difficult to ever get a consensus on the exact way to reinforce safety behaviour.

Measurable Actions and Measuring Mastery

The measurable action is the level of competency of individuals and groups within the workforce. It could be said that there is a culture of exasperation surrounding Health & Safety initiatives and requirements (Benatti, 2013). For some the directives can be seen as products of overzealous officialdom rather than sensible and well-founded precautions based on observations and knowledge based systems (Cohen & Collington, 1998). The result of this is that people are given a false sense of security. Health & Safety management requires continual improvement (Benatti, 2013). One obvious way is through training and dynamic leadership and less obvious is through competency development. (Pauline, 2001). All new and reviewed information can then be employed to update the Health & Safety directives. In order to make this happen there needs to a robust safety culture within the organisation that responds positively to change, and changing the skills and attitudes  of the workforce (Gellar, 2005).

The role of Behavioural Safety is to provide high quality, timely feedback directly to those working at the worksite, in order to change behaviour, especially risky actions, by employees (Cohen & Collington, 1998: Epstein, 2002).

Pro-active Reporting Behaviours

Employees should feel that by reporting any incident or a gap in protocol or just a near miss, they are actually helping to develop the organizations safety culture (Geller, 2005). Therefore what becomes apparent is a correlation between Safety Culture and Learning Culture and the hypothesis is that one drives the other. A learning culture that is actively supported through the development of a reporting process and competency development program appears to be a channel that is open and accessible, and at the same time allows for access to information and data that is organisational and academically useful and relevant (Brach, 2000). The combined approach of competency development and near miss reporting offers a process for the workers to feel more support, rather than feel threatened by the process. Which can also be promoted during regular meetings and the development of focus groups and steering committees where teams are set up to support each other through a face to face discussion, mentoring, and behavioural/competency interviews designed for the and promotion of ideas and sharing of information that could be helpful in updating Health & safety policies that may then be more directed to particular emerging scenarios (Brach, 2000). Many companies are actively encouraging their employees to report-near misses. In the oil sector, one company has gone further and wants its employees not only to report them but to take corrective action to prevent recurrences. The company encourages its employees to ‘use their discretion to spot and fix problems’ (National Safety Council, 2012, p. 2)

Employees should feel that by reporting any incident whether it is an accident, a gap in protocol or a near miss that they are actually helping to develop a ‘learning culture’ (Epstein, 2002). This learning culture should be actively supported through the development of a reporting process that that is open and accessible, and at the same time allows them to report accurately with information that is useful and relevant.. This can sometimes be promoted by using regular safety meetings where teams are supporting each other through a face to face discussion and promotion of ideas and sharing information that could be helpful in updating Health & safety directives that may then be more directed to particular emerging scenarios (Brach, 2000, Epstein, 2002. Evaluating the impact of Behaviour

Given that most behaviours are selected by their consequences then we tend to choose to behave in a way that we have done in the past, especially if the consequences were associated with a successful outcome or favourable at least on a personal level. Observing and analysing past behaviours is therefore a useful strategy to predict the likely outcome of a particular situation and this forms the basics of risk management (Alcorso, 2002). When we consider how we should deal with behaviours that cause concern At-Risk Behaviours, the focus should be on challenging the behaviour rather than the person but this is normally the source of conflict. But when considering behavioural safety, behaviour that is considered to be 'indifferent' is actually more of a concern as indifference can cause devastating errors of judgement (Geller, 2005).

All behaviours follow the generalized ABC of Behaviours.

A = Antecedent (Trigger). What happened before the event? For every behaviour there is a trigger. B = Behaviour. The response to the event. C = Consequence. What will happen after the event? This is crucial for all those who advise on competency as the ultimate goals of competency programmes is to change behaviours. A competency advisor needs to understand the ABC of behaviours in order to establish triggers for competent behaviour and guide the response to the event in order to secure the required consequences, which is usually competent behaviour in health and safety management. Training can establish ‘triggers’ that will prompt people to act and how they should act (Gibbs, 1998). Conclusion The literature reviewed demonstrated that for safety management to work at the behavioural level it needs to integrate with mechanisms that drive safety culture. This was found to be through partially through the implementation of controls, either through Training, but also through coordination for groups which forms the basis of a competency assurance system. It was also found that in health and safety management there are various hurdles to overcome, and these appeared to relate to how behaviours are influenced not only by the environment but also the systems of control and monitoring. Workforce behaviour and safety culture where found to be linked, however the drivers between the two pointed to the skills and capabilities of those involved. The sum total of these capabilities, were the competencies defined by the skills, experiences and attitudes of those involved but in order for this to become a performance measurement, the safety management process needs to correlate a business metric with a personal metric such as through competency development. The implementation of training in this sense only introduces the basic principles, but fails to test how a business process i.e. near miss reporting correlates with any changes in safety culture, very difficult to measure and the gaps in the literature help propose how this can be done. If competency is a driver of behaviour then surely this will impact on safety culture. The lack of empirical evidence on the benefits of a competency programme could therefore be evaluated. The study seeks to contribute this existing scholarship by examining how competency development with a group of advisors impact on health and safety behaviours and the measure of this impact is to include others who manage the process. In this way, the holistic gauge of evaluation is through the assessment of investigation skills that allow room for high level advancement but only with regards to the parameters defined by the managers who have already pre-defined the empire through which learning can take place.

Paper 6 Cybernetic Methodology
Cybernetic Methodology for evaluating a HSES Competency Assurance Program Introduction A research methodology describes the rationale behind the data-collection and analytic methods used in order to understand the development of the competency assurance program as designed and implemented for an offshore oil company [McDermott Middle East]. It outlines individual methods for collecting data and justifies the selection of analytical techniques against alternative options. The methodology also outlines the series of steps taken prior to answering the research question so that this can be replicated and provides a blueprint for follow up research by use of an academic mode that can be applied to a whole range of competency development and assurance processes.

This section is grounded on the requirement to build an account of the entire research process – which ought to be true, reliable, complete, orderly, and easy to grasp and understand. It follows that the methods of collecting, analysing and reporting data should be able to facilitate the foregoing (Barzun & Graff, 2003, p. 15). The methodology will discuss the collection, analysis and reporting of data and how they are designed to achieve a thorough account of attaining competency assurance and prescribed skills for health and safety practitioners. Secondly, it serves the purpose of providing details with explanations of the research cohort or the selected sample population. Thirdly, it gives an outline of the procedure followed in designing the data collection instruments as well as the actual collection of data. Fourthly, it offers detailed explanation of the tools and techniques used in analyzing and representing the results.

Research Aim

The aim of the research is to understand the role of an advisor centred competency training and its impact on near miss reporting. It seek to establish correlations between competency development and changes in the behaviours of safety advisors and their influence on safety culture. The research quantifies change by looking at reporting behaviors using incident statistics and qualifies changes in safety culture using thematic research. Both approaches are then used to answer the overall research question. OBJECTIVES 1 Recognise how competency assurance programs change behaviour 2 Understand the views of management in relation to competency assurance 3. Design and implement a Group Competency Assurance program at McDermott PLC 4. Quantify the relationship between near miss reporting and competency development 5. Determine the relationship between near miss reporting and competency assurance

Additionally, questions are lifted from each topic in the literature review. These will be used as part of the thematic research and answers used to form a company specific case study.

Research Methodology A research is an investigation about a phenomenon to discover why it takes place and how it impacts society or environment. Two research methods, quantitative and qualitative are the most common. This research being an investigation into the phenomenon of competency, to discover the conditions in which it takes place and how it impacts on the workplace and working environment – i.e. the organizations safety culture. In order to achieve this two research methods are used, quantitative and qualitative. The research is a mixed method research approach, comprising both quantitative and qualitative elements. A philosophy of research determines how a study is being conducted. This begins with an understanding of the philosophical standpoints undertaken by the researcher and why that stance has been taken. Therefore, it is important to understand an individual’s interpretation of reality (ontology), and what they consider useable knowledge (epistemology) in their selection of an approach to the research. The ontological position taken in this thesis is that of there exist an objective reality, that can be measured and the quality of what is on offer can be determined as understandable to the human mind.

Qualitative Study

This particular research is mostly qualitative although supported by quantitative data. The qualitative element is based around the interpretation of language and opinions of those who are used to make sense of changing situations and actions. The method concentrates on words and observations that express the different perceptions and dimensions of reality and attempts to describe each participants’ version of the natural workplace environment. This type of research allowed the researcher to understand the motives, reasoning and intentions of the Managers responsible for the implementation of a competency program.

Quantitative Methods

This research involved the collection of quantified data in the form of near miss incident reports. It involved the counting and measuring of that data over a long period, and this data stream is considered as objective. It is therefore used to validate the findings of the qualitative data, and in doing so it is usually presented as numbers, trends and statistics. This approach usually involves transforming the data collected into quantifiable forms. The quantitative method then attempts to confirm hypothesis e.g. ‘that categorized competency indices offer a suitable mechanism to measure an organizations safety culture’.

Mixed Method Research

Mixed method research [MMR] is where quantitative and qualitative techniques are combined in a research project. The method is based upon the premise that quantitative and qualitative methods are compatible and that they are practical. They can help the researcher to overcome problems in the collection of data and provide reliable findings. The combining of the two research methods namely, quantitative and qualitative complement each other and the data collected can be integrated and also limits the weaknesses in each technique verified. The following four factors were examined to determine if the MMR methodology was warranted. The collection of qualitative and quantitative data can be collected simultaneously but this did not happen. The researcher collected the quantitative first and then qualitative data at the end of the study period, using the quantified results as a mechanism to promote refection. Locke (2001, p. 127) recommends using both quantitative and qualitative methods as a response to the practical nature of the research problem, and notes that the approach has to be decided on the basic needs of the community of practice which may differ from study to study. The mixed method approach chosen allows a comprehensive picture of the impact of the competency program, and is only concerned with McDermott’s operations within the Middle East.

Research Strategy

This research uses the qualitative elements of the study that is based on the feelings, perceptions and observations, to underpin the findings of the quantitative study. This technique is essentially the best fit for obtaining a wide range of flexible responses that do not have to resemble the same ideas from one respondent to another. And in fact the breadth of study and its practicality comes from this approach. The qualitative research method most suited to this study is direct questioning followed by reflective questioning through a process known as thematic research. This owes to the flexibility of choice given to respondents that is intentional in that it does not scare the respondent and sets the stage where the chosen population can focus more on the problem – of developing core competencies within a multi-cultural environment.

REASONING The use of qualitative research methods is further bolstered by descriptive analysis, non-experimental and diagnostic research strategies as the investigatory guiding and principles. The key objectives of descriptive research in this sense, is to describe, explain, as well as validate any findings before an evaluative judgement can be determined. Description surfaces from the detailed examination that enables organization of results that provides enlightenment of problems and phenomena being researched, and finally validates any explanations (Krathwohl, 1993, p. 273). The use of descriptive research method does not mean merely describing the events or the existing items. Although gathering the data and describing it represents a basic part of the descriptive research method, the research is not complete until data is analysed and conclusions are derived with relevance to the discussed problems which have been expressed in detail within the literature review (Jaber, Jaber, & Ahmed, p. 134). This study will draw on the same procedures.

Descriptive Research can be one of the three types (Hussain & Kamli, 1977, p. 294): Research Survey -That can take numerous forms with different ways of data collection including- questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, or telephone interviews. Continuity Description- Is carried out over an extended time period, using panel design, peer review and data review processes. Case Study - That involves an in-depth study over a pre-determined period of time that explores the roles and actions of groups within a boundary or organizational setting. Following organizational interactions that often leads to a testable hypotheses.

The above, three elements are the proposed framework of this research.

Case Study Method (Summarised in Chapter 3)

A case study is an in-depth analysis, examination and description of a specific event or state of affairs (XXXX). A Case study research explores bringing us to an understanding of a complex issue or an object and can extend our understanding and add strength to what is already known through previous research. It involves a detailed examination of all the factors and influences upon a research question. The case study in this study will research competency training, assurance and implementation of the same within a known company. The case study will describe the situation with regard to competency training programmes and how they have impact upon issues such issues as near miss reporting. There will be some figures and tables presented as part of the exploration of the study. The case study itself will be explored in relation to the viable system model and will be used to determine if the organisation can change and adapt to using competency training within the domain of health and safety management.

Research instruments

In order to collect data for the research, suitable tools need to be selected. The selection of the instruments was based upon the nature of the research that was qualitative. The main research tool being the semi-structured interviews, with high level respondents i.e. Senior Management and above. Their opinions, views and attitudes are collected during those interviews, with regard specifically to competency training and its effectiveness. The questions are based upon this requirement, but they are structured according to an academic model known as the viable systems model [VSM]. The supporting literature review is also structured around the same academic model, for improved synthesis and understanding. The choice of this underlying model is that it is mathematically sound (XXXX), and therefore the results of this research (which mirrors the VSM) can be used to diagnose the effectiveness of a complex competency program, referring to complexity within the sub-systems of the model.

Research design and models

Research design can be defined as a framework or a combination set of processes that a researcher follows when collecting, analysing and drawing conclusions from the collected data. It can be described as the pattern to which the researcher must stick to so as to achieve the desired results (Warren, 2006, p. 257). According to Warren (2006, p. 257) research design can be grouped into two classes which includes a time frame and the number of contacts made between the researcher and its participants. Example studies with reference to a timeframe includes a cross–section study, before and after the study, longitudinal study and retrospective/prospective studies. This particular research has utilized the longitudinal study as the case study took approx. 2 years to implement effectively and a retrospective study, where the outcomes provide a reflective base that considers the adoption process and lessons learned of what has gone before. The research is based around five topics [VSM] and these used to help develop the research question. TOPIC 1: GOAL OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT TOPIC 2: SAFETY CULTURE, FEEDBACK AND COMMUNICATION Topic 3:  RECOGNISING CONTROLS TOPIC 4: COORDINATION OF TEAMS TOPIC 5: REPORTED ACTIONS (NEAR MISS INCIDENTS)

Research Strategy The research strategy refers to general approaches used in achieving the aim and objectives, and the [Goal] of the study, that being to develop the core competencies of a group of individuals, and measure the impact it has [Safety Culture] using incident data. Warren, (2006, p. 258) classifies research strategies into: a) descriptive research (b) exploratory research (c) diagnostic research (d) non-experimental (e) correlation strategy, (f) experimental strategy and (g) quasi-experimental strategies. The research questions chosen and the aim and objectives of the study, are the parameters that were used to guide the researcher when making decisions on best practice; referring to the practical application of the research framework and competency assurance program.

Based on the research questions, aims and objectives this study utilized an exploratory research strategy. Although the Viable Systems Model, was used as the diagnostic tool, as it focuses on the systems and sub-systems that relate to human and system behaviors.

Research Sample and Population

In research, the term population is used to mean all subjects involved in the study (Castillo, 2009, p. 2). It is meant to cover all who are directly or indirectly affected by the research topic and the problem statement. Sampling is the activity of obtaining a representative sample of the population of study for the collection of data. It is also a subset of the main population that bears the primary characteristics which reflect on the entire population (Francis, 1998. p58). In this sense it is the Senior Managers involved in the design and implementation of the assurance program and not those who took part. It therefore involves obtaining a representative group that will provide relevant information and data to answer the research question (Saunders et al 2009). There are two types of sampling techniques commonly used by researchers, namely random and non-random sampling. Random sampling provides equal chance of participation to every person in the population, because choosing a sample is done through random means. On the other hand, non-random sampling entails the researcher to make a personal ‘but informed’ choice when identifying specific members of the population whose level of participation has brought the most value to the study. The Recruitment process for the sample involved the researcher directly contacting potential participants. These being five senior managers initially contacted by email. Specific senior managers directly involved in health and safety at a strategic level were used and all were willing to participate. An overview email was provided to ensure that all those participating agree to give their full consent; recognising that the research would be used for academic purposes only.

In this research project, non-random sampling was utilized, which is common when conducting cultural and social research, mainly because of its simplicity. The type of non-random sampling technique used is also convenient sampling. The researcher selected two distinct samples for the semi-structured interviews which was the primary qualitative data collection instrument. There answers to questions posed would be reflective of observing change in a cohort of 40 plus senior safety advisors who took part in the competency development process. Their development took place over a period of 12-24 months, as senior managers were asked their opinions on the effectiveness of the competency training and its impact behaviour and safety culture. It soon became apparent that because of personal gain, i.e. the program was found to influence promotion’  so it became necessary to reject any questioning of the advisors themselves. It is therefore worth remembering that the choice of technique, can indirectly add bias which can affect the quality of data received (XXXXX). Monthly questions and answers with participants did however add value as it helped maintain motivation and became the blueprint for mentoring and reflective skill development. The second sample [Senior Managers] became the main-stay and this was set up by interviewing 5 key payers at the end of the study. The inclusion criteria for the participants was that they oversaw and implemented the whole competency program and from a strategic perspective were involved in resource allocation, cost and new details of business market influences. All of which provide more fertile grounds, than the original plan which was originally focused on personal rather than organizational/group learning and development. It was also required that the sample population had experience of competency training and have been involved in the process over the 2 years. Primary data was collected through semi-structured interviews. Blaxter et al (2006) suggested that semi-structured interviews are a good form of primary data collection. These are interviews which allow a participant to expand upon their response and offer their opinions and views (Saunders et al 2009). This technique is often used for collecting the data in a case study (Blaxter et al 2006). Each interview was recorded over a one-hour period. Walsham (2006) warns against being too passive or giving too much direction when conducting interviews. In addition, any follow-up questions that required clarification were answered by email.

Data collection methods

Data collection and analysis section describes procedures that the researcher will use in gathering and analysing data from research participants (Salkind, 2010, p. 198). Research utilize two data collection methods; namely, primary and secondary data collection methods. This research study utilized both primary and secondary data collection methods. Primary data was obtained through observation and reflection of answers given from the questions. There was also a series of questionnaires administered to all of the candidates involved in the actual competency training (not just those who took part in the behavioral interviews), allowing for feedback from approx. [40] candidates. These questionnaires were built around closed questions and a simple Likert scale, but only served to validate elements of bias. In contrast the Managers were subject to a formal 1 hour semi-structured interview using [Number not yet determined] open ended questions, allowing opportunities to expand on ideas and responses, along with opportunities to reflect on results from the near miss data (quantified element of the study) which maximized the amount of data collected with regard to evaluating the effectiveness of competency training. The interview questions and answers were later transcribed, and then formatted to support the thematic analysis technique. The questions sets were categorized under five headings, and these headings formed the basis of an academic model known as the viable systems model. The questions were also lifted from the literature review that again fell under the same categories as the VSM which keeps the study academically robust. All of the questions related to an evaluation of the program and as such satisfies the research aim. Responses given also considered how competency training impacts on employee behavior and culture as well as communication and engagement in the place of work. A combination that later forms the basis of a more practical case study. The questions for the semi-structured interview were as follows QUESTIONS PRESENTLY UNDER REVIEW

The case study provide an overview of the practical application of the science as used and relates to the findings of the research questions. It offers a qualitative and quantitative approach, describing in detail the operation of an ‘applied’ competency assurance program, with a focus on cause and effect when investigation how it impacts on behaviour at McDermott Middle East. The case study will be structured in the following way. (THIS SECTION IS STILL UNDER REVIEW) 1. Introduction Basic overview Rationale for safety awareness and leadership program. Selection of specific topics in relation to work based learning / inquiry based learning and research already conducted i.e. the Viable Systems Model (See the JPG global skills matrix). 2. Context Safety management culture and significant aspects and impacts Provides an account of important aspects and impacts using Global Skills Matrix (I’ll explain this later) Significant aspects and impacts – relate to the skills matrix and global competency framework 3. Designing safety awareness training materials Basic assumptions regarding safety awareness for advisor centred learning at McDermott. Design a simple approach to support the competency program (learning campaign) for the operation. Principles to be implemented including minimum standards (Refer to the procedure). 4. Development of a competency awareness training (Referring to the skills matrix) Brief description and structure of the module and its content in McDermott’s. Objectives of the program and supporting procedures. The refinement of coaching and mentoring for Hazardous environments. 5. Implementation of a leadership module Basic description of a leadership module. Competency Assessment (PODS) – refer to the Procedure.

Data analysis

Data analysis describes the procedures the researcher will use to draw inferences from responses of the respondents (Hair, Celsi, Money, Samouel, & Page, 2011, p. 325). This research utilized the qualitative evaluative stance whilst collecting subjective, substantive but relevant data. An approach useful because of the ability to tap into ‘tacit knowledge’ and the varying experiences of the respondents. Upon collection of qualitative data derived from the interviews, a more reflective analysis, indicative of a practitioner way of thinking’ was conducted in order to obtain conclusive results. According to Woods (2006) qualitative analysis has the following advantages: It allows the researcher to pay attention to details with the ability to embrace verbal and non-behavioral inferences, permitting one to unveil deeper meaning, whilst revealing the inner complexities of the competency issue or case. It helps to portray perspective as well as convey reflective experiences about feelings, which requires in depth interpretation. It enables development of a theory from the empirical data, and hence, enhance closeness of fit between the theory and the data. A theory developed from the analysis can then become available for other tests or future research studies. With the actions easily contextualised within the prevailing situation, from that specific time – i.e. the case study. This research used qualitative data analysis approaches for interviews, which include: (a) descriptions, (b) explanations, and (c) arguments. Normally, one of the main goals of science which is providing descriptions of the phenomena under consideration. According to Jackson (2009, p. 38) descriptive research is usually pretty much the way it sounds; as they are normally intended for describing situations. However, they lack the power to make predictions and neither can they determine cause and effect relationships. There are three main types of descriptive research methods namely, observational methods, survey methods and case study methods. This research study utilized case study, over the survey method where research participants answered the questions in the questionnaires. Mainly because surveys did not allow sufficient depth and reflective understanding, post study. Surveys were used by those involved in the actual competency development, purely as a mode of feedback and this is what was presented for further post analytical reflection. The descriptions are accompanied by explanations and arguments depending on the varying answers from the respondents. The researcher focuses efforts on describing the attitudes and opinions of post-analytical respondents [Sr. Managers], in order to provide information and analysis with regard to the research question.

Thematic Analysis The primary form of analysis employed during this study was thematic analysis. Which was guided by the content from the literature review, which helped to identify best practice through the thoughts and ideas of leading experts. Thematic analysis being the method of identifying, analysing and reporting patterns and themes within the data through minimally organising and describing a data set in detail (Braun and Clarke 2006). Thematic analysis is defined as a search for themes that emerge as being important to the description of the phenomenon (Daly et al. 1997). Thematic analysis helps to describe and organise the content of interviews through coding and categorisation of data into themes and sub-themes (Creswell 1998). Mainly, the hybrid approach facilitates both inductive and deductive development of coding, which means a combination of the data-driven inductive approach (Boyatzis 1998) and the deductive a priori code template, as described in the next section (Crabtree and Miller 1999). Table XXXX outlines each phase of Braun and Clarkes (2006) framework in relation to this study.

Phase	Links with this study and evidence within the thesis. Familiarising with the data	Familiarisation was achieved through listening back to the recordings, transcribing of the data and reading it several times. Generating initial codes	This process involved constant reviewing. Searching for themes Reviewing themes Defining and naming themes . The thematic map begins to consider how these themes maybe linked. Producing the report The report (Chapter 4) outlines clearly the final overarching themes, main themes and subthemes arising from the data and links thee back directly to data extracts from the transcripts.

Source: Phases of thematic research Braun and Clarke (2006)

Phase One: Familiarization with the data

Each interview was transcribed and cross referenced against the recorded audio for accuracy. This process included taking reflective notes, ideas and points of interest; that allowed the researcher to consider each interview in its entirety before formally commencing the process of reflective analysis. The value in this process aids the researcher in gaining a feel for the data and its intended as well as the underlying meaning; the latter being taken with caution so as not to instil personal bias. The process also is reflective of the researcher understanding of their ability to implement an effective program with supporting business systems and resources. Hence the need for the VSM, to ensure that everything was in pace prior to conducting post analytical evaluations. Braun and Clarke (2006 p. 87) describe the initial stage of thematic analysis as “immersion”, where the researcher reads each transcript in an “active” way and attempts to recognise the overall meanings that the participants are trying to convey before shifting focus to a line-by-line analysis (Refer to appendix XX). Throughout this process the researcher was able to consciously process the information. The transcripts were read and subsequently re-read, searching for meanings and patterns within them and an outline for each was written. This outline contained all relevant points that were made by the participant. The researcher made notes as the participant’s views presented the phenomenon based on their experience. A copy of the checked transcript was given to each participant. The participants have the opportunity to add, revise, or remove any content they desired. On returning the transcripts, each participant had only edited the transcripts in a minor way, generally by adding a small clarifying statement to one or two sentences within the transcript.

Phase Two: Generate Initial Codes

This phase started after the researcher had read and familiarized herself with the data and generated an initial list of ideas about what the data contained. This involved the production of initial codes from the data and focused on capturing the scope of the participants’ perceptions. The process of coding is part of analysis, organizing data into meaningful groups (Tuckett 2005). Transcripts were coded manually and the researcher found it time consuming. In this study, there was no clear point at which this process began. Codes began to emerge while listening to the interview recordings and checking the transcripts, as early as during the actual interview. The researcher continued working systematically through the entire data set, giving full and equal attention to each data item, and identifying interesting aspects in the data that formed repeated patterns across the data set. The researcher coded the transcripts manually by writing notes on the texts using highlighters to indicate potential patterns. The codes were identified and matched up with data extracts that demonstrated the individual codes. Summaries and multiple readings of the interviews were conducted to increase familiarity with the data prior to coding. The coding scheme was continually updated throughout the analysis. Six major stages are identified by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006) in the use of a process thematic analysis: (1) development of coding manual, (2) testing for coding reliability, (3) identifying preliminary themes which emerged from data, (4) applying templates of codes and additional coding, (5) connecting the codes and identifying themes, and (6) corroborating identified themes by the process of confirming findings. This was followed in coding the interviews. The research employed the NVIVO software analysis (STILL NOT SURE IF ILL USE NVIVO). In applying a NVIVO computer-assisted method in qualitative data analysis, I coded the interview data based on initial key topics in the coding manual. NVIVO was used because it is easy to use and it is easy to import data from the MS-Word processing package (Morrison and Moir 1998; Richards 1999). Further use of NVIVO makes it possible to determine coding stripes from the margins of the document, an aspect that made it possible to determine which code had been used at which point. However, computer-based data analysis and coding was implemented with full knowledge of the limitations of computer-assisted coding methods (Bourdon 2002). For example, there are concerns that use of computer-assisted methods may result in “guiding” the researcher only in a particular direction. This disadvantage occurs due to the capacity of computer-assisted methods to create a sense of detachment from the actual data (Bazeley and Jackson 2013). Despite these limitations and critiques, computer-assisted methods promote accuracy and transparency in the data organisation processes. Within the NVIVO software, the creation of codes is achieved through use of free nodes present in the navigation view window or by using the “create and analyse” tab that is located in the ribbon of commands (Richards 2009). For example, interview data related to clinical effectiveness generated 32 free nodes. If a new code was identified, I re-read the annotated extracts from interviews to ensure the new codes were appropriate to textual data. Thus, I repeatedly reviewed and refined the coding manual before I generated the final coding framework.

Phase Three: Searching for Themes. This phase refocuses the analysis at the broader level of themes and involves sorting codes into potential themes, and collating all the relevant coded extracts within the identified themes (Braun and Clarke 2006). The researcher started analyzing the codes and considered how different codes may combine to form an overarching theme. To sort out different codes into themes, a thematic map on this early stage is provided (See appendix XXXX). The researcher discovered that there were overarching themes and subthemes. Some initial codes formed main themes and others were grouped as miscellaneous. Analysis of Quantitative Data and systems The aim of the research had two major objectives. The first element was the evaluation of the competency assurance program that was beneficial to the company as it provided certification of 40 candidates within the field of Health & Safety across the Middle East. The second element of the research was to analyse and determine how the competency program impacted business i.e. the case study {PART A} and how these findings translate into useful material for a community of practice {PART B}. Initially the research focussed on the impact of Near Miss reporting, as this practical and relevant but equally similar business metrics could be used. The five elements of the evaluation (Kirkpatrick's Model) help to define the evaluation process and this ties in with the academic viable systems model. It provides the basis for evaluating the assurance process and details out an outline for lessons learned.

Figure X. Kirkpatrick's Model The data collected by questioning 5 Senior Managers who were involved in discussions about the programs development and who have had an opportunity to reflect on its outcomes 12 months later. They will be asked sets of questions that fall under the VSM as shown (Diagram top left), and thematic analysis will be applied, with the main focus being about the impact of the program on near miss reporting, whilst looking for correlations with the near miss data. From the findings results will cascade into the company specific case study, which is communicated as part of the research dissemination and that forms a background study for a Global Competency Framework and a skills matrix; using criteria that was formed around the findings of the thematic analysis. All of this will be discussed at global conferences with inputs into OPITO, GCC and IOSH, to promote Competency Assurance as a mechanism to impact on large scale develop of Safety practitioners and those involved in safety; operating within the Middle East.

2. Development of the Implementation of the Competency Assurance Program Cybernetics and the Viable Systems Model

The Cybernetics Model is a means of evaluating the effectiveness of a system and performance that was used to encourage specific behaviours. The model's primary function outlines a system for developing self-regulating, self-replicating behaviours; a process known as autopsies (Beer, 1970) CONFIRM DATE: Its reliance is on simplifying complexity within systems and focuses on simple mechanisms to improve the transfer of information, in this case, within a socio-cultural setting. The use of safety relevant information (near miss incidents) provides the communication mechanism, as openness, transparency and accuracy are barriers to communication that could be explored further if necessary. It is all embedded with the Cybernetic framework shown below. •	[GOAL] A mechanism for policy making •	[COMMUNICATION] Develops open channels for feedback •	[CONTROLS] Builds an opportunity to correct rules •	[COORDINATION] Designs a provision for organising people •	[ACTIONS] Offers management oversight The Viable Systems Model above allows the researcher to also make decisions as to whether the competency framework has the capability of achieving an overall goal as set. The Cybernetic Model allows the behaviours that are deemed competent (performance) to be measured within a given framework, which is especially important in relation to health and safety management.

The ability to measure performances when assessing behaviour, allows improved evaluation of the research question. Beer (1972) felt that Actuality, capability and Potentiality were the most important aspects when trying to assess if a system was working at its maximum strength. Actuality - this is the performance right now, in response to the environment, availability of resources and specific working conditions. Capability - is what could be done if we are able to do things better under the same constraints Potentiality – is what is possible (i.e. through an improved environment, improved resources and improved conditions).

Figure XX: A Cybernetic Performance Model

The Cybernetic theory determines that productivity (of a team or system) is because of latency that is evaluated by combining Actuality, Capability and Potentiality. Productivity is therefore the ratio of Actuality and Capability. Beer (1972) also defined that Latency is the ratio of Capability and Potentiality. Both Latency and Productivity are then needed to evaluate a performance. The combination that allows performance to be measured forms an interesting example of how to measure Practitioner Competency in large groups. The formula is as follows: Performance is a ratio of Actuality and Potentiality, and the product of Latency and Productivity. The Cybernetic Model determines a competency evaluation framework that can be used to maximize necessary behaviours, such as 'Near Miss Reporting' and the lines connecting the sub-systems provide the emphasis for feedback which is paramount in a self-regulating autonomous system. Adaptation of the performance model above can be used within health and safety, to understand the principles of competency needed in a given case to determine ‘group’ competency levels suitable for a range of scenarios. The Goal -  is productivity to encourage responsible and proactive behaviours in health and safety management.. Navigation – Dealing with constant change (Internal and external to the organisation) Control – is the impact of training and education. It also involves mentoring and the procedures implements for promoting competent behaviours in health and safety. Coordination – is the ability of managers and workers to collaborate on issues of competency i.e. the level and degree of group decision making and consensus. Actions - is what is actually being done. The variety of observable behaviours of both workers and management with regard to health and safety. A performance model which has been especially adapted to health and safety management with the aim of promoting behaviours that minimise if not eradicate risks may look something like the VSM as shown below.

Figure XX: A Viable Systems Cybernetic Model

Ethics and Legal Considerations

For any research study to be effective, the researcher must pay attention to both ethical and legal considerations. Ethical research is one that is conducted in a manner that guarantees utmost objectivity, integrity, intellectual property, confidentiality, competencies and ensures upholding human protection. Research conducted in this manner ensures that the results obtained are valid and credible as well as applicable in reality (Mertens & Ginsberg, 2009, p. 420). In this study, the researcher sought approval from everyone involved and the authority from Senior Managers who were the research participants. All participants agreed of their informed consent.

Transparency was upheld in the research study and participants were guaranteed anonymity. Participants of the research study were free to participate and withdraw at their own volition without explanations. They were informed beforehand of the objectives and the scope of the research, in order to help them make informed decision on whether to be part or not. In addition, the research participants were assured that the information provided would only be used in compiling the research findings and they would not be used for any other business process. The identity of participants was protected in this study through complete data anonymity and confidentiality (Polit and Hungler 2001). Participants and their associated results were assigned study identification numbers, and participants’ answers, records, notes of interviews, and completed questionnaires were kept confidential in a locked cabinet during the study. Data was only shared with my PhD supervisors, and participants were not identifiable at any stage. To ensure adherence to legal requirements (Data Protection Act 1998) and ethical guidelines, I ensured data protection by keeping all data in a secured cabinet.

Limitations of the study

Every research study is bound to have limitations that could have an impact on the validity of the research. These limitations are as a result of the people involved, the timing of the research, as well as the location and the choice of instruments used for the collection and analysis of data. While some limitations are within the control of the researcher, others are beyond that control such as the impact of operational requirements that affect the urgency given to the study. There is also the risk of bias especially when conducting qualitative research. The researcher was fully aware of this risk and has tried to limit his own preferences and opinions that could distort the evidence and analysis. The interviews were all self-reporting in that the participants’ responses could not be verified. The sample size could also have been larger. This would have ensured that the findings were more representative. The case study meant that the experiences of McDermott’s was very influential on the research. The study would have been stronger If the description of the competency program in McDermott’s had been compared and contrasted with another organisations. This many raise issues over how ‘generalizable’ the research is and how relevant it is to other organisation.

Welcome
 Hello and Welcome to Wikiversity Jonathan Wooldridge! You can contact us with questions at the colloquium or me personally when you need help. Please remember to sign and date your finished comments when participating in discussions. The signature icon above the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy, Civility, and the Terms of Use policies while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.


 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You do not need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk Page and Sandbox
Your Talk page is typically used by others when they want to contact you. You might consider using your User:Jonathan Wooldridge/sandbox as a work area for your paper. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)