Workplace Safety

Human Resorce

Software & It's Technologies

Personal development

Software for the 21st Century, WTS Paradigm In highly competitive environments, adapting efficient processes and systems can be the difference between
success and failure for some companies. The voracious pace of business change is inevitable and should be embraced. In the millwork industry providing a paper based
pricing/option catalog is quickly becoming inadequate against competition that provide a robust quoting/ordering tool for their customers. Like all software technologies, field based quoting tools have different generations of sophistication. First generation – Allows quoting to be done in the field but the user has to print out the quote and fax it in. It then needs to be checked and re-keyed into the manufacturer’s backend system. Another problem is the system in the field is not in control of the manufacturer and cannot be updated remotely. This can result in a companies electronic catalog
being used against them by dealers who are using it to sell a competitor’s product. It also means nothing stops people from using old prices or obsolete products. Second generation-Is the first generation application with rudimentary order submittal process (such as via email to be rekeyed in). Updating is also possible via some crude methods (such as downloading the application again in some
form). Third generation – The application is released to the field and can intelligently maintain itself. It also makes ordering
secure and completely integrated into the manufacturer’s production system and does not require the manufacturer to change their business processes to match their system.
Software systems should allow a company to be agile and adapt to changes that the business faces, not dictate the
business process. Using a first or second generation application will not allow a company to react and be agile.

Companies all have web sites, and they all have questions on how to avoid legal problems in operating their web sites. A few simple rules can keep companies out of trouble.
1. The Internet is Not the Wild West. The words and images on the Internet all belong to someone, either the authors, their employers, or the party that paid for them. Just because documents or images are posted on the Internet
does not mean that they are in the “public domain.” Permission is needed to copy anything from another’s web site and put it on your company’s web site.
2. Remind Users that What’s On Your Web Site Belongs to You. Not everyone will know that the copyright laws of the United States apply to the Internet. It is a good idea to
remind them by putting a copyright notice directly on the company’s home page and making it clear that all materials on the web site are covered.
3. Links to Other Web Sites May Require Permission. When an company uses a link on its web site, it typically uses the name or logo of the linked site, which in most cases will
involve use of a trademark. The names of other
organizations or companies belong to them, and cannot be used without permission. When in doubt, send an email to the sponsor of the other site and ask “May we have permission to link to your site?”, briefly describing
your mission. Most of the time, the answer will come back “yes”.
4. Other Use of Company or Organization
Trademarks. The same rule applies to other uses of names or logos of companies or other organizations. They constitute trademarks, and legally cannot be used without permission. It is best to get permission in writing, to
avoid later disputes.
5. Jump Pages Should be Used with Links. Let the users know that they are leaving your site and going to a site over which you have no control. A message such as “You are now leaving the XYZ Company web site. The
XYZ Company cannot control or monitor linked sites and takes no responsibility for their content” can prevent misunderstanding and liability. Following these simple rules will help keep your company healthy, happy, and out of legal trouble with respect to its web site.
First Second Third Generation Software ophistication NSDJA News May 2003
6 There we’ve been: In the 1900’s, industrial accidents were commonplace. Legislation, precedent and public opinion favored
Management with little concern for the worker. The Industrial Revolution produced significant changes in technology and specialization
of work, which has rapidly increased in the last century. Safety could not be buried. Legislative pressure and rising costs of accidents and injuries pushed Safety closer and closer to wider recognition. Some companies focused on Safety more than others.
Dupont, in the extreme, required its Management to live right by the explosive plants to try to ensure Safety. Yet, on the whole, the Safety Movement remained slow. Workers’ Compensation was founded in 1908
but the Occupational Safety & Health Act was not passed until 1970. Compliance and Engineering for Safety have strengthened
significantly over the years. Non- Profit organizations promoting Safety have grown, as well as the number of Professionals in the field. Where we are: In the past 10 years,
the Behavioral Approach has been considered innovative and in many companies has made significant headway in improving Safety.
However, while the process of pinpointing desired behaviors and observing/measuring them has been a strong movement…the “loveaffair”
is waning. Although most statistics show that between 85-95% of all injuries are caused by unsafe behaviors, the term Behavioral-based
Safety has encountered skeptics and critics. Most of the criticism centers around the perception of “blaming the workforce”; “ignoring physical/ conditional causes”; “letting Management off the hook.” We see a
re-emergence of the “Human Error” theories and development of programs centered on this concept. Efforts are being made to avoid the word “behavior”. It appears, in part, to be
a matter of semantics. But foremost there is a misunderstanding of what a true behavior-based process is. Surveys reveal that a significant
number of the workforce sum up behavioral approaches as an “observation/feedback” system. It is also believed by some to be a substitute for environmental and engineering
fixes. Talking about behaviors sometimes puts people on the defensive…the parental throwback
“Behave yourself!” Uppermost is the belief that only the “worker-bees” are being measured and Management/ Supervision is out of the
picture…without Management support any process will fail. Another dangerous perception is that Behavioral Safety is a magic cure and
will happen quickly. Behavioral based processes should deal with Culture and culture does not change overnight. Some of the missing links in both the Traditional and Behavioral
approaches are:
With so much progress made in the Safety movement and with behaviorbased processes, we must be vigilant not to abandon something that makes a difference because of misunderstanding and improper implementation. Shifting from a
reactive, outcome process to a proactive measurement process is not easy. Implementing a behavioral process is a significant undertaking, but one well worth it when done right. Caution is recommended in trying to
take this effort on totally in-house, considering the scope, issues of time, expertise and credibility.
Where have we been?
Where are we now?
Where can we go?
1) Lack of full utilization of the most valuable resources: all the people in the workforce.
2) A balance and consistency of compliance (reprimanding) and safe performance reinforcement.
3) Focus on “Lead by Example behaviors”…Management and Supervision equally responsible for safe behaviors and conditions.
4) Systematic, organized methods of defining, measuring and communicating safe practices/
behaviors and conditions designed for individual facilities
and job activities.
5) Dispelling the perception that the “B” in behavior stands for “Blaming” the workers and that Compliance always stands for Punishment.
6) Taking the time required to implement and sustain the process. Where can we go: What is the future? The future is a concentrated effort to marry the technical/compliance with the human/behavioral factors in the work environment. Move from trying to divorce the two. We need to rebuild trust and re-educate to form a solid Safety Marriage that procreates better/safer work environments and profits everyone. We need commitment of time and support by All to make the marriage work. Utilizing Safety Behavioral C o n s u l t a n t s , “ M a r r i a g e Counselors”, is not a bad thing…when trust has diminished. Outside intervention is often necessary. Most importantly, let’s not discard a process that measures safety on a daily basis like productivity and quality. Let’s fully understand it and continually make improvements.