www.energy.gov/EM 1

October 2015

Daryl D. Green

Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management

OREM 2015 Safety Culture Evaluation Results

LESSONS LEARNED

www.energy.gov/EM 2

BACKGROUND

The Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management

www.energy.gov/EM 3

Introduction

In 2011, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) requested an evaluation of each Environmental Management site’s safety culture, DNFSB Recommendation 2011-1.

• In 2013, the Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM) conducted an evaluation of its safety culture (SC) and forwarded the results to EM Headquarters.

• The 2015 evaluation was a follow-up to examine the current OREM safety culture and identify any changes in the safety culture since 2013.

www.energy.gov/EM 44

Methodology

• Online Survey (Anonymous )• Personal Interviews (Random)

www.energy.gov/EM 5

Evaluation Team Members

• Chuck Ramsey Safety Culture Expert• Jim Craven Executive Officer• Mike Sterling Statistician• Daryl Green Team Lead• Kelli Presley-Thomas Team Coordinator• Terry Allen Team Member• John Phelps Team Member• Ana Rosado-Gonzalez Team Member• Michael Rigas Team Member• Noemi Mendez-Sanchez Team Member• Ben Williams Team Member

www.energy.gov/EM 6

Elements of Culture

Organizational Culture

• A set of commonly shared beliefs, expectations, and values that influence and guide the thinking and behavior of the organization’s members, and how they conduct work.

Safety Culture

• Safety culture is an organization’s values and behaviors modeled by its leaders and internalized by its members. Together, they make safe work performance the overriding priority to protect the workers, public, and the environment.

Safety Conscious Work Environment

• A Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) is a work environment in which employees feel free to raise safety concerns to management (and/or regulator) without fear of retaliation.

Organizational Culture

Safety Culture

SafetyConsciousWorkEnvironment

SCWE

www.energy.gov/EM 77

Staff Type Total Invited Total Participants % Participation Manager/Supervisor 14 10 71% FED Staff 64 36 56% Contractor Staff 29 17 59%

Total 107 63 59%

ORG Code Total Mgmt

Total Staff

Total Cont Participation (Mgmt)

Participation (Staff)

Participation (Cont)

% Participation (Mgmt)

% Participation (Staff)

% Participation (Cont)

EM 90 5 2 9 2 2 5 40% 100% 56% EM 90.1 1 7 1 1 6 1 100% 86% 100% EM 91 2 16 3 2 10 2 100% 63% 67% EM 92 2 7 7 1 1 3 50% 14% 43% EM-93 2 16 8 2 9 5 100% 56% 63% EM-94 2 16 1 2 8 1 100% 50% 100%

Total 14 64 29 10 36 17 71% 56% 59%

2015 SCWE Survey Participation by Organization and Staff Type

www.energy.gov/EM 8

Management /Staff Perceptions2013 vs 2015

Leadership Employee/Worker Engagement

Organizational Learning

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

75%80% 76%

63%57% 55%

Focus Area - Mgmt. vs. Staff (2015 Survey)Average Score

Manager

Staff

Leadership Employee/Worker Engagement

Organizational Learning

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% 94%100%

84%

69%

50% 53%

Focus Area - Mgmt. vs. Staff (2013 Survey)Average Score

ManagerStaff

www.energy.gov/EM 9

2015 Results Summaryby Mean Score

9

Fostering an environment free from retribution

Effective resolution of reported problems

Performance monitoring through multiple means

Open communication

Management engagement and time in the field

Demonstrated safety leadership

Teamwork and mutual respect

Questioning attitude

Credibility, trust, and reporting errors and problems

Clear expectations and accountability

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Attribute Mean Score - Mgmt. vs. StaffStaff Manager

Staff Avg. = 0.59 Manager Avg. = 0.75

www.energy.gov/EM 10Page 10

My Manager addresses my concerns, including safety concerns, in a timely manner.

www.energy.gov/EM 11Page 11

I feel safe from reprisal when reporting errors or incidents.

www.energy.gov/EM 12Page 12

My supervisor values me as an individual and member of the organization.

www.energy.gov/EM 13Page 13

I feel free to approach management with any concerns I have.

www.energy.gov/EM 14Page 14

I trust my immediate supervisor.

www.energy.gov/EM 15Page 15

A high level of trust is established in OREM.

www.energy.gov/EM 16

Recommendations

• Provide results to staff (All Focus Areas)

• Benchmark other organizations to enhance communications across the organization (All Focus Areas)

• Establish a focus group across divisional lines to develop a plan of action in one or two specific areas of need from the Safety Culture evaluation (Employee/Worker Engagement)

• Provide ongoing Safety Culture training to staff and new hires (Organizational Learning)

• Repeat this Safety Culture evaluation/survey biannually (Leadership)

www.energy.gov/EM 17

Lessons Learned From Experience

• Preplanning is critical (timing, team selection, evaluation methods, survey sampling plan, etc.).

• Employees should be encouraged to participate.

• Management should provide expectations to evaluation team early (i.e. who is considered a manager).

• Training and general awareness of safety culture terminology are essential.• A cross-organizational team can increase organizational communications

and enhance the credibility of the evaluation.• SC evaluation team members from outside of the organization can provide

an independent view of organization. • Subject matter experts on SC increase the credibility among the

organization’s senior managers.• Prior knowledge of the last safety culture evaluation is invaluable. • Employees’ perception of issues are often different than management.

Managers should seek to learn why employees feel a certain way.

www.energy.gov/EM 18

Conclusion

• In the safety culture area, an effective lessons learned program can stimulate continuous initiatives.

• Management expectations go a long way toward putting the assessment team on the right track.

• Preplanning of the evaluation is invaluable to track and document lessons learned during the entire process.