EXCERPTS FROM CSR NEWSLETTER, JUNE 2002

Volume 3 Issue 6

Dick Knowles Review

In April and May this year I conducted interviews with 35 managers and employees on 7 roofing sites around Australia and New Zealand to gauge the effects that the process has had on our safety awareness and culture. For those who took part in the survey, I thank you for your honesty and openness during the discussions.

I have now had a chance to work through the information that you provided to me and following are the results of the discussions and analysis.

Has the program affected the way you work? Why?

75% stated that the program has had a positive effect on the way that they work, of those who said that it had not affected the way that they work the two main comments were that either they were doing what the process required any way or that "nothing has changed".

Of the people who reported that it did affect the way that they worked, the overwhelming majority said that their safety awareness was increased. Other points were that they were more likely to consult with other people about safety and their job and were less likely to take short cuts.

What was good about the program?

100% of those surveyed reported good points about the program.

Good points most often referred to were -

Everyone was involved (over 50%).  The process supported open discussion.  It encourages team work.  Shows commitment by the company.  Improves self esteem and shows that the workers thoughts, feelings and opinions matter.  Raises safety awareness.  Provides a controlled place to vent frustrations.

What was bad about the program?

65% of those surveyed reported bad points about the program.

Most common bad points mentioned were:

Program is not in place (on their site), there has been no follow up (20%).  The program is too long in one go, need more breaks or break program up over a number of days or weeks.  On a couple of the sites, the workshop timing could have been better.  There is a lack of capital/resources for the program outputs.  The program is not revisited enough.

Do you live by the principles and standards/ are you striving to achieve the intention?

Over 90% answered yes for principles and  standards, 77% answered yes  for achieving the intention.

Of those who answered "no" the most common comments were that they don't think about it or can't remember them.

Are the outputs of the program (e.g. Maps; teamwork; consultation etc) followed up?

The issue of follow up varied from site to site but evened out at 50% said yes 50% said no.

Are there any obstacles to the process?

The two most common themes, each of which showed up in almost one third of responses, were -

1. Lack of time to hold meetings

2. Lack of capital /resources /funding to implement changes/ decisions.

Also  considered to be obstacles were -

• Lack of regular re­visits (next most common response).

• Pressure from head office on numbers.

• Language & literacy.

• And on one site -cynicism; negativity and lack of leadership.

What can we do to remove the obstacles?

Considering the above, there should be no surprises in the two top responses -

1. Provide a budget/more resources for the process.

2. Schedule more meetings/regular follow up, including one suggestion to set up a national Roofing or CSR wide Dick Knowles day or time each month.

Other common responses were:

The manager must drive the process.

There are issues which must be resolved at next level up (nationally)

Other suggestions include -

Restructure existing teams.

Have meetings earlier in the day.

Have a site "champion" for the process to support manager.

Get together to identify site obstacles and the put together an enneagram around them.

How can we provide reinforcement to promote the process?

The three main responses were (each coming from almost 1/3 of all personnel surveyed) -

1. Have more meetings - at least once per month

2. Everyone must talk about the process more

3. There needs to be more externally facilitated revisits - six monthly (or even three monthly was suggested by one person).

The next two most common responses were -

1. Build Dick Knowles into the recognition system rather than LTI etc. provide  rewards  for accomplishments of teams and/or safe acts audit performance.

2. Increase amount of follow up from Head Office.

What happens when the work is finished?

The most common response (1/3 of all responses) was that the issues should be revisited, either internally or at an externally facilitated revisit, and new goals set.

The next most common response was that the work does not stop but there was no clear process in place; closely followed by "no process is in place" and "I don't know"

Do you believe your Manager supports the process?

100% of respondents who were asked answered "yes" with varying degrees of emphasis.  Vermont personnel were not asked this question due to the resignation of the Operations manager before the process commenced.

What are your general impressions of the process?

General impressions are overwhelmingly positive, with the concerns expressed above, restated.

Questions which were specifically addressed to the managers -

Do you "live" the process?

3 out 5 said yes, one said most of the time but not my primary focus, the other said no, he was not involved in the site process originally.

Did the program change the way your people do their work?

4 said yes, things have improved but also a lot of other work has gone on with safety, one said no it was not fully implemented.

Is the process still alive in your workplace?

Most said yes, although some said elements eg Safe Acts Audits, are operating only.

Do you  believe  your personnel  support  the process?

All respondents said yes.

This information will now be used as a basis for developing conclusions and recommendations for improving the process and how it is implemented.

Nevin

The Last Word

In the Dick Knowles program we talk about the concept of personal responsibility for safety. It is important to understand that while it is the company's responsibility to provide a workplace that is safe and without risks to health, it is also our responsibility to act in a safe manner. It is up to us to take notice of the information provided by the company, use the plant and equipment in a safe manner and to follow safe working procedures.

Each of us also has a personal responsibility for the environment. Each of us has the capacity in our jobs to support the company's initiatives on environmental protection. This may be by following procedures, by immediately notifying and cleaning up spills, by letting your supervisor know of the good ideas that you have to improve our environmental performance or by supporting a recycling program in your plant.

As the Dick Knowles process supports involvement and consultation around safety, we should also use the process to achieve the same ends for our environment. In the long term we should not expect our children should not have to put up with a lower quality of life than we can achieve today.

The EPAs in Australia and New Zealand back this idea up with the force of law. If an officer of the EPA sees you washing material (any material) down a storm water drain, the company may be prosecuted or fined for not having systems in place. However, you also will be fined personally, and the company cannot and will not cover the cost of the fine.

It is in all of our interests, in the long term, to protect the environment for ourselves and our children. Coincidentally, measures that we put in place to help the environment like waste reduction,   reducing   the amount of energy and water we use and cutting back on our emissions of greenhouse gases also save money. So the initiatives which are good for the environment are also good for business. It is a true win - win situation.

Think globally.

Act locally.

Nevin