View
223
Download
6
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Factors Defining the Relationships between Safety Management Strategies
and Safety Performance
Jon Kevin LoebbakaFebruary 8, 2008
Doctoral Dissertation DefenseMarshal Goldsmith School of Management
Alliant International University
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Dissertation Committee
Dr. Alfred Lewis
(Chair)
Dissertation Oversight and Strategic Management
Dr. James Sullivan Strategic Management
Dr. Greg Lorton
General Management of Regulated Business
Activities and Strategic Management
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Jon Kevin Loebbaka
Education• B.S. Electrical Engineering University of Tennessee• M.B.A. in Management Ashland University
Industrial Experience• 22 Years of Industrial Safety Experience in Production,
Maintenance and Engineering Roles in the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, and California.
• 12 Years General Management Experience
Current Occupation• General Manager Alu Menziken Aerospace UAC
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Research ProblemBackground - Safety Issue Turbulence
• Safety performance first became important as States implemented workers compensation laws in the 1900’s in response to the Industrial Revolution.
• Beginning in the 1970’s, OSHA’s safety regulations and reporting requirements have penalized poor safety performance resulting in fines and higher workers compensation insurance costs.
• Safety regulations have become increasingly more complex and compliance costly.
• Privatization of the workers compensation insurance market and increased litigation is deteriorating profits
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
• Global competition demands continuous improvements in productivity and financial performance, creating rapid changes in the workplace as firms deploy new processes and technologies.
• Resource constraints limit strategic pursuits.
• Safety costs affect profitability and increasing define or deteriorate competitive advantage
• How does the firm effectively translate safety strategies and align organizational capability from the executive suite through the work place?
Research ProblemBackground - Safety Issue Turbulence
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Research ProblemSafety Management System Definition
A safety management system (SMS) embodies the means of ensuring that an organization is capable of achieving and maintaining acceptable standards of safety performance.
SMSs assimilate internal and external factors including; the firm’s safety environment and performance, the organization's capacity and capability, the organization's culture of commitment OSHA, NIOSH, & WC regulatory standards, safety technologies, compliance cost factors, and stakeholders’ influence.
SMS strategies manifest themselves through safety decisions and action
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
SMS Input Output Model
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Global Model
Business Environment
StrategicResponsiveness
Business PerformanceFinancial Performance / Regulatory Performance and Compliance / Societal Standing
StrategicAggressiveness
Strategy CenterSupport Activities
Information SystemsHuman Resources
Perception of Environment
StrategicPosture
StrategicResponsiveness
StrategicAggressiveness
Strategy CenterCore Activities
Production / MarketingFinance / R&D
Perception of Environment
StrategicPosture
StrategicResponsiveness
StrategicAggressiveness
Strategy Center Regulated Activities
Safety & HealthEnvironmental Compliance
Perception of Environment
StrategicPosture
Strategy Integration
CompetitiveRivalry
NewEntrants
NewTechnology
Customers Suppliers Regulations Stakeholders
Strategy Integration
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Research Model
SMS Posture
SMSAggressiveness
Safety Performance
SMSResponsiveness
SMS Responsiveness
Gap
SMS Aggressiveness
Gap
Perception of Environmental Safety Issue Turbulence
H1H2
H3
High
HighDegree of Coordination Integrating Individual’s
Knowledge
Low
Degree ofCooperation
amongStakeholders
Low
Behavioral School
Poor SystemsReactive Efforts
Management School
Emergent SystemsBest Practices
EngineeringSchool
Planned SystemsAccepted Practice
HealthSchool
No SystemsAd Hoc Efforts
H5
H6b H6a
H6d H6c
H4
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Independent VariablesSafety Issue Turbulence
Conceptual Definition: Safety issue turbulence was characterized through the complexity, rapidity, and predictability of change in safety regulations, workers compensation insurance rates and workers compensation state laws.
Operational Definition: Safety issue turbulence was measured through calculating the arithmetic mean from each respondent for 3 questions using 5-point numerical scales.
•Complexity of safety issues
•Rapidity of change
•Predictability of change
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Independent VariablesSafety Issue Turbulence
Complexity of Safety Issues
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Independent VariablesSMS Aggressiveness
Conceptual Definition: SMS aggressiveness was characterized by the discontinuity and speed in which safety strategies are conceived and deployed in response to safety issues.
Operational definition: SMS aggressiveness was measured through calculating the arithmetic mean from each respondent for 6 questions using 5-point numerical scales.
• Planning for regulatory change • Strategies to address new safety issues • Implementation of new safety technologies • Interaction with regulatory agencies • Interaction workers compensation, insurers • The overarching focus of the SMS staff
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Independent VariablesSMS Aggressiveness
Discontinuity and Speed of Strategies
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Independent VariablesSMS Responsiveness
Conceptual definition: SMS responsiveness was characterized by the ability of management and the organizations systems and staff to respond to changes in the safety environment.
Operational definition: SMS responsiveness was measured through calculating the arithmetic mean from each respondent for 5 questions using 5-point numerical scales including:
Involvement of top management, Climate of the organization, Competence & capacity of the SMS staff
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Independent VariablesSMS Responsiveness
Management Mentality, Capability, Competence, Capacity
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Independent VariablesSMS Posture
Conceptual Definition: The SMS posture articulated the reactive or proactive nature of the SMS. Reactive SMSs are focused on minimal compliance. Proactive SMSs strive to gain competitive advantage moving beyond compliance efforts.
Operational definition: SMS posture was measured through calculating the arithmetic mean from each respondent for 13 questions using 5-point numerical scales. • Policy & Leadership – Goals, Communication • Organizational Infrastructure – Accountability, Rewards • Strategic Planning – Who develops the SMS plan, Scope, Audits • SHEQ Management – Procedures, Training • Contractors – Communication, Contract administration • Performance Monitoring – Measures • Continuous Improvement – Employee involvement
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Independent VariablesSMS Posture
Strategic Planning
Continuous Improvement
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Intervening VariablesSMS Aggressiveness GapSMS Responsiveness Gap
Conceptual Definition: The SMS aggressiveness gap and SMS responsiveness gap was a measure of the alignment between an organization’s SMS aggressiveness and SMS responsiveness and that of its safety issue turbulence.
Operational definition: The SMS aggressiveness gap and SMS responsiveness gap was calculated as the absolute difference between the scores of SMS aggression and SMS responsiveness respectively and safety issue turbulence from each respondent. These gaps ranged in value from 0 to 4.
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Dependent VariablesSafety PerformanceConceptual definition: Safety performance was a collective measure of both the positive and negative outcomes of the safety management system. The questions measured the organization’s safety performance in the following areas; overall safety performance; OSHA recordables, lost work days, serious incidents or fatalities, workers compensation insurance premiums; and the organizations relationship with regulatory government agencies, workers compensation insurance companies, safety consultants, and employees.
Operational definition: Safety performance was calculated as the arithmetic mean from each respondent of 10 questions. Each question will be evaluated using a 5-point numerical scale. Respondents in some questions will be allowed to answer, “not applicable or do not know the answer”. In this case the arithmetic mean for safety performance will be calculated from those questions answered.
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Dependent VariablesSafety Performance
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
SMS Posture Attribute Cooperation Coordination
Policy and Leadership Communication Goals
Organizational Infrastructure
Accountability Rewards
Strategic PlanningWho develops
planScope of plan
Plan audits
SHEQ Management Training Procedures
Contractors CommunicationContract
Administration
Performance Monitoring Measures
Continuous Improvement
Employee Involvement
High
HighDegree of Coordination Integrating Individual’s
Knowledge
Low
Degree ofCooperation
amongStakeholders
Low
Behavioral School
Poor SystemsReactive Efforts
Management School
Emergent SystemsBest Practices
EngineeringSchool
Planned SystemsAccepted Practice
HealthSchool
No SystemsAd Hoc Efforts
1
3
5
53
Independent VariablesSafety School Orientation
Conceptual Definition: The SMS safety school orientation characterized the reactive or proactive nature of the SMS. Reactive SMSs are focused on minimal compliance. Proactive SMSs gain competitive advantage moving beyond compliance efforts.
Operation definition: Management school orientation was determined through calculating the two arithmetic means of the cooperation and coordination labeled questions and mapping the results into the axes to determine the health, behavioral, engineering or management school orientation.
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Research Hypothesis Null HypothesisStatistical
Test
1There is an inverse relationship between the SMS aggressiveness gap and safety performance of the firm.
There is no relationship between the SMS aggressiveness gap and safety performance of the firm.
Correlation(Pearson’s r)
2There is an inverse relationship between the SMS responsiveness gap and safety performance of the firm.
There is no relationship between the SMS responsiveness gap and safety performance of the firm.
Correlation(Pearson’s r)
3There is a direct relationship between SMS aggressiveness and SMS posture.
There is no relationship between SMS aggressiveness and SMS posture.
Correlation(Pearson’s r)
4There is a direct relationship between SMS responsiveness and SMS posture.
There is no relationship between SMS responsiveness and SMS posture.
Correlation(Pearson’s r)
5
There is a direct relationship between SMS posture and safety performance.
There is no relationship between SMS posture and safety performance.
Correlation(Pearson’s r)
Research Hypotheses Summary
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Research Hypotheses Summary
Research Hypothesis Null HypothesisStatistical
Test
6a
The Safety Performance of the firm will be optimized when the SMS posture has a management school orientation.
There is no ranking among safety school orientations with respect to safety performance.
ANOVA
6bThe Safety Performance of the firm will be lesser when the SMS posture has a behavioral school orientation.
There is no ranking among safety school orientations with respect to safety performance.
6c
The Safety Performance of the firm will be further reduced when the SMS posture has a engineering school orientation.
There is no ranking among safety school orientations with respect to safety performance.
6dThe Safety Performance of the firm will be lowest when the SMS posture has a health school orientation.
There is no ranking among safety school orientations with respect to safety performance.
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Research Plan
• Descriptive Correlational Study
• Interval Data was measured on 5 point Likert scales
• Primary data was collected through questionnaires.
• Confidentiality to participants was maintained
• Risk to participants was minimal.
• SPSS Data analysisH1, H2, H3, H4, H5 Pearson’s r CorrelationH6 a, b, c, d ANOVA Comparison of Means
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Research Population and Sample Frame
Target population included all employers operating within the United States, governed by OSHA regulations, and required to carry workers compensation insurance.
Intended survey respondent was any individual possessing safety and health responsibility or knowledge within such an organization.
600 surveys were distributed among safety and health professionals attending the 95th annual National Safety Council Congress and Exposition in Chicago Illinois, October 15-17, 2007.
156 completed samples were collected (26% Return Rate).
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Validity and Reliability
The survey instrument was validated through an extensive literature review of highly respected authors on the topic of safety strategy (Hansen, Geller, Krause, etc.).
Review of the survey’s validity and clarity was sought from: dissertation chairperson, Dr. Alfred Lewis; and dissertation committee members, Dr. James Sullivan and Dr. Greg Lorton; Tom Quick, Bureau Veritas’ global safety systems vice president; and several safety and health professionals familiar with SMS strategies.
VariablesCoefficient
alpha
Safety Issue Turbulence 0.538
SMS Aggressiveness 0.644
SMS Responsiveness 0.684
SMS Posture 0.847
SMS Cooperation 0.708
SMS Coordination 0.756
Safety Performance 0.764
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Variable Descriptive Statistics (N=156)
Variable Scale Mean Range SD
Safety Issue Turbulence 1 - 5 3.11 1.33 – 4.67 0.664
SMS Aggressiveness 1 - 5 3.16 1.67 – 5.00 0.709
SMS Responsiveness 1 - 5 3.37 1.00 – 5.00 0.712
SMS Posture 1 - 5 3.21 1.85 – 4.85 0.677
SMS Cooperation 1 - 5 3.21 1.67 - 5.00 0.735
SMS Coordination 1 - 5 3.22 1.71 – 4.71 0.703
SMS Aggressiveness Gap 0 - 4 0.81 0.00 – 2.53 0.588
SMS Responsiveness Gap 0 - 4 0.80 0.00 – 2.60 0.573
Safety Performance 1 - 5 3.12 1.60 – 4.38 0.581
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Safety SchoolOrientation
Frequency
Safety Performance
Mean Range SD
Management School 76 3.3642 2.20 – 4.33 0.47389
Behavioral School 12 3.6908 2.86 – 4.38 0.45932
Engineering School 21 3.0076 2.00 – 3.90 0.51309
Health School 47 2.6419 1.60 – 3.38 0.42653
Variable Descriptive Statistics (N=156)
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Hypothesis 1
There is an inverse relationship between the SMS aggressiveness gap and safety performance of the firm.
This hypothesis confirmed an important relationship between; A firm’s future financial and societal safety outcomes, and management’s ability to foresee the complexity and rapidity of change in safety regulations, workers compensation laws and insurance requirements.
Hypothesis 1
Linear Regression with95.00% Mean Prediction Interval
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
SMS_Aggressiveness_Gap
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Sa
fety
_P
erf
orm
an
ce
Safety_Performance = 3.34 + -0.27 * SMS_Aggressiveness_GapR-Square = 0.07
Supported [r = -0.273, p = .001, N = 156]
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Hypothesis 2
There is an inverse relationship between the SMS responsiveness gap and safety performance of the firm.
Hypothesis 2
Linear Regression with95.00% Mean Prediction Interval
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
SMS_Responsiveness_Gap
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Sa
fety
_P
erf
orm
an
ce
Safety_Performance = 3.28 + -0.19 * SMS_Responsiveness_GapR-Square = 0.04
Supported [r = -0.188, p = .019, N = 156]
This hypothesis confirmed an important relationship between; A firm’s future financial and societal safety outcomes, and the organization’s SMS climate, competency, capacity, and its management mentality.
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Hypothesis 3
There is a direct relationship between SMS aggressiveness and SMS strategic posture.
Hypothesis 3
Linear Regression with95.00% Mean Prediction Interval
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
SMS_Aggressiveness
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
SM
S_
Po
stu
re
SMS_Posture = 1.60 + 0.51 * SMS_AggressivenessR-Square = 0.28
Supported [r = 0.532, p < .001, N = 156]
This hypothesis confirmed an important relationship between; management’s mindset in its willingness to create timely SMS strategies in response to future safety issues and the extent to which the organization’s safety posture will be proactive.
SMS Change ManagementUse of Technology
Response to RegulationsInteraction with RegulatorsSMS Strategy Integration
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Hypothesis 4
There is a direct relationship between SMS responsiveness and SMS strategic posture.
Hypothesis 4
Linear Regression with95.00% Mean Prediction Interval
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
SMS_Responsiveness
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
SM
S_
Po
stu
re
SMS_Posture = 1.47 + 0.52 * SMS_ResponsivenessR-Square = 0.30
Supported [r = 0.545, p < .001, N = 156]
This hypothesis confirmed an important relationship among; the competence and capability of SMS managers and staff, the organization’s safety climate, the robustness of the organization’s safety systems, and the extent to which the organization’s safety posture will be proactive.
Management InvolvementSMS Surveillance
SMS Policy and ProceduresStakeholder Knowledge
Risk Propensity
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Hypothesis 5
There is a direct relationship between SMS posture and safety performance.
Hypothesis 5
Linear Regression with95.00% Mean Prediction Interval
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
SMS_Posture
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Sa
fety
_P
erf
orm
an
ce
Safety_Performance = 1.73 + 0.43 * SMS_PostureR-Square = 0.26
Supported [r = 0.505, p < .001, N = 156]
This hypothesis confirmed that as an organization’s SMS becomes more proactive, the organization’s performance on safety issues will improve.
Policy and LeadershipOrganizational Infrastructure
Strategic PlanningSHEQ Management
ContractorsPerformance MonitoringContinuous Improvement
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Hypothesis 6
There is a ranking among safety school orientations with respect to safety performance.
6a
The Safety Performance of the firm will be maximized when the SMS posture has a Management School orientation.
6bThe Safety Performance of the firm will be lesser when the SMS posture has a Behavioral School orientation.
6c
The Safety Performance of the firm will be further reduced when the SMS posture has a Engineering School orientation.
6dThe Safety Performance of the firm will be lowest when the SMS posture has a Health School orientation.
Health School
Behavioral School
Management School
Engineering School
Degree of Cooperation
amongStakeholders
Degree of CoordinationIntegrating Individual’s
Knowledge
Low
Low
High
High
N = 12Mean = 3.6908
N = 47Mean = 2.6419
N = 76Mean = 3.3642
N = 21Mean = 3.0076
DecreasingSafety
Performance
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Health School
Behavioral School
Management School
Engineering School
Degree of Cooperation
amongStakeholders
Degree of CoordinationIntegrating Individual’s
Knowledge
Low
Low
High
High
N = 12Mean = 3.6908
N = 47Mean = 2.6419
N = 76Mean = 3.3642
N = 21Mean = 3.0076
Hypothesis 6
DecreasingSafety
Performance
Management School
Behavioral School
Engineering School
Health School
HealthSchool
Uncooperative and uncoordinated safety environment Inability to leverage safety resources Impeded by a lack of relationships and linkages needed to exchange knowledge. Stakeholders lack the social capital needed to embed and deploy effective safety systems. Agency cost of coordinating safety knowledge is comparatively high Organization is mired in overcoming bureaucracy, politics and individualism. Low levels of safety performance
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Health School
Behavioral School
Management School
Engineering School
Degree of Cooperation
amongStakeholders
Degree of CoordinationIntegrating Individual’s
Knowledge
Low
Low
High
High
N = 12Mean = 3.6908
N = 47Mean = 2.6419
N = 76Mean = 3.3642
N = 21Mean = 3.0076
Hypothesis 6
DecreasingSafety
Performance
Management School
Behavioral School
Engineering School
Health School
Engineering School
Mistrust and a lack of social capital prevent the adoption and sharing of safety resources. Safety systems and technologies integrated through the efforts of the organization's safety engineers and external safety resources. SMSs will be exalted and seem very important to the creating stakeholders and management. The potential richness of planned SMSs will be undermined by the lack of cooperation. Organizations identify safety hazards but realize unexpected lower levels of safety performance.
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Health School
Behavioral School
Management School
Engineering School
Degree of Cooperation
amongStakeholders
Degree of CoordinationIntegrating Individual’s
Knowledge
Low
Low
High
High
N = 12Mean = 3.6908
N = 47Mean = 2.6419
N = 76Mean = 3.3642
N = 21Mean = 3.0076
Hypothesis 6
DecreasingSafety
Performance
Management School
Behavioral School
Engineering School
Health School
Behavioral School
High levels of cooperation between the goals of individuals and stakeholders within the organization. Low levels of coordination with respect to the integration of safety resources. Creates the relationships and linkages required to share and embed safety knowledge assets across the organization. Lack the systemic richness required to properly identify hazards and integrate them into meaningful safety systems. Cooperation between individuals improves safety performance and housekeeping.
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Health School
Behavioral School
Management School
Engineering School
Degree of Cooperation
amongStakeholders
Degree of CoordinationIntegrating Individual’s
Knowledge
Low
Low
High
High
N = 12Mean = 3.6908
N = 47Mean = 2.6419
N = 76Mean = 3.3642
N = 21Mean = 3.0076
Hypothesis 6
DecreasingSafety
Performance
Management School
Behavioral School
Engineering School
Health School
Management School
Highly cooperative relationships and highly coordinated systems provide superior safety results. Coordination among the organization’s stakeholders rapidly institutionalizes safety knowledge and systems. Cooperation creates an environment where stakeholders integrate safety knowledge to create emergent systems and best practices.
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Hypothesis 6
There is a ranking among safety school orientations with respect to safety performance?
6a
The Safety Performance of the firm will be maximized when the SMS posture has a Management School orientation.
6bThe Safety Performance of the firm will be lesser when the SMS posture has a Behavioral School orientation.
6c
The Safety Performance of the firm will be further reduced when the SMS posture has a Engineering School orientation.
6dThe Safety Performance of the firm will be lowest when the SMS posture has a Health School orientation.
Safety School
OrientationMean (A)
Safety School
Orientation (B)
MeanDifference
(A-B)Sig.
Management
3.3642 (N=76)Not Support
ed
Health 0.7223* 0.000
Engineering 0.3566* 0.044
Behavioral -0.3266 0.206
Behavioral3.6908
(N=12)Not Support
ed
Health 1.0489* 0.000
Engineering 0.6832* 0.003
Management
0.3266 0.206
Engineering3.0076
(N=21)Supported
Health 0.3657* 0.044
Behavioral -0.6832* 0.003
Management
-0.3566* 0.044
Health2.6419
(N=47)Supported
Engineering -0.3657* 0.044
Behavioral -1.0489* 0.000
Management
-0.7223* 0.000
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Additional FindingsSMS Cooperation and SMS Coordination
1. There is a direct relationship between SMS cooperation and the safety performance of the firm. [r = 0.516, p < .001, N = 156]
2. There is a direct relationship between SMS coordination and the safety performance of the firm. [r = 0.441, p < .001, N = 156]
3. There is a direct relationship between SMS aggressiveness and SMS cooperation. [r = 0.512, p < .001, N = 156]
4. There is a direct relationship between SMS responsiveness and SMS cooperation. [r = 0.541, p < .001, N = 156]
5. There is a direct relationship between SMS aggressiveness and SMS coordination. [r = 0.493, p < .001, N = 156]
6. There is a direct relationship between SMS responsiveness and SMS coordination. [r = 0.489, p < .001, N = 156]
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Contributions to Academia
• Creation of a knowledge management typology from which to assess SMS effectiveness.
• Furthered Lorton’s extension of Ansoff’s strategic success hypothesis to functional areas of regulated strategies.
• Validation of Abrams safety school orientations and their description of SMS postures.
• Provided empirical validation for Hansen’s spectrum of SMS characteristics.
Health School
Behavioral School
Management School
Engineering School
Degree of Cooperation
amongStakeholders
Degree of CoordinationIntegrating Individual’s
Knowledge
Low
Low
High
High
Inadequate Systems Reactive Efforts
No Systems Adhoc Efforts
Emergent Systems Best Practices
Planned Systems Accepted Practice
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
1. Proactive SMSs lead to higher levels of safety performance.
2. Organization’s that are attuned to current and future safety issue turbulence and subsequently plan the proactive nature of their SMS aggressiveness, SMS responsiveness and SMS posture, will experience higher levels of safety performance.
3. Higher degrees of both cooperation among the organization’s stakeholders and coordination in the distribution of the organization’s safety knowledge will create higher levels of safety performance.
4. Manager’s who integrate their SMSs within the firm’s overall strategic framework will create safer organizations than those managers who do not.
5. Managers who involve themselves in their SMSs, creation, implementation, rewards, and recognition will create higher performing organizations.
Contributions to Management
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Safety Professional Leadership Profile
Safety Managerof Yesterday
Safety Managerof Today
Safety Managerof the Future
OrganizationalPerception
A “burden” Compliance OrientedValue Added Business
Leader
OrganizationalAlignment
No one cares or no thought goes into who supervises
safety
Reports to a director or shared services
function
Accountable to SeniorExecutive
Safety Orientation
Posters, days without lost time
accidents, boards and signs
Behavior based safetyAnd disciplinary
procedures
Six Sigma, financialprinciples, systems
thinking, and values driven safety
PersonalCharacteristics
SpecialistMinimal Planning
FirefighterConducts Inspections
GeneralistShort-Term PlanningIncident Rate FocusSafety CommitteeRegulatory Audits
M.B.A or Ph.D.Business KnowledgeRelies on VariationFacilitates Process
Employee FeedbackContinuous Improvement
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Recommendations for Further Research
• Investigate knowledge management practices in the development and deployment of SMS strategies.
• Conduct a wider study of the behavioral safety school orientation to understand the influence of SMS coordination in SMSs where high levels of stakeholder cooperation are present.
• Further analyze the data collected in this study to rank the effectiveness of Hansen’s SMS characteristics with respect to safety performance.
• Extend Ansoff’s strategic diagnosis framework to the evaluation of organization’s functional level strategies in similarly regulated pursuits. (i.e. Quality, Financial, and Human Resources)
Jon Kevin LoebbakaDissertation Defense
February 8, 2008
Questions?