I have started to see a theme develop that is interesting when working with online safety management systems; they make safety managers a little uncomfortable… at first.

Originally I thought companies were hesitant to put their safety programs online because of the overall anxiety of pure change, working with new technology, and data security issues (which are not really issues, since online service providers like SafetySync have similar data security systems as major banks).

I now realize that some companies fear having an online safety management system because it could potentially expose holes in their safety. Huge piles of paperwork and forms make it difficult to monitor a company’s compliance levels, providing managers with a “safety net” in case certain elements are incomplete or poorly implemented.

Systems like SafetySync make it difficult (if not impossible) for companies to take short cuts when implementing their safety programs. For example, management can no longer sign off on a fifteen minute orientation that covers 3 days of content, and an employee can no longer acknowledge a 130 page safety manual after 30 seconds of reading.

The obvious downside to a comprehensive system is that things take time to do right the first time. The upside is that it is done right the first time, which saves lives and law suits.

Our clients that have completed this experience have found that discovering and filling holes in their safety program is a big job. In the end, they are rewarded with the comfort of knowing that their safety management system works, and that they have the documentation to back it up.

Section 14(1) of the OH&S Regulations here in Alberta contains a brief reference to the concept of competency:

"A worker who is not competent to perform work that may endanger the worker or others must not perform the work except under the direct supervision of a worker who is competent to perform the work."

The OH&S Code defines a "competent" worker as "adequately qualified, suitably trained and with sufficient experience to safely perform work without supervision or with only a minimal degree of supervision."

[Editor's note:  This definition is very loose, and as a result, has led to differing interpretations.  Most safety professionals key on the word "trained", as it is the easiest of the concepts to prove.  Most competency checklists that I've seen look eerily identical to a training spreadsheet.  I'd hate to go to court with that defense.]

There are three take-aways that I pull from the OH&S teasers:
    1.   Employers should create a set of qualifications, or performance criteria, for each type of work.
    2.   A competent individual must supervise the worker while initially performing those duties.
    3.   Once the supervisor/mentor determines that the worker satisfies the requirements, the successful assessment should be documented.

At the request of a couple of customers, we are planning on launching a Competency component within SafetySync in the coming months.  If you have a functioning competency system in your organization and can provide insight into what works and what doesn't please let me know.

I do know of three other systems that were developed a generation ago:  AXIA, UTRAC/Quicktest, and TRACCESS.  I've looked into each and they seem unnecessarily complex and lacking usability.  Perhaps users of these past systems might shed some light on their successful implementations, shortcomings, or general suggestions?

Lastly, if you are a safety professional and you interpret the OH&S references to competency differently than I have, please share your thoughts!