OD Journal Article by John Anfield Human Factors and Safety

Organizational Development Journal

Volume 25 • Num

ber 4 • WINTer 2007

PUBLISHERDr. Donald Cole, RODCOrganizational Development Institute11234 Walnut Ridge RoadChesterland, OH 44026 [email protected]

EDITORThiet K. [email protected]

MANAGING EDITORElaine [email protected]

PEER REVIEW EDITOR Dianne Clarke-Kudless, PsyD, [email protected]

ASSOCIATE PEER REVIEW EDITOR (REGULAR EDITION)Virginia Bianco-Mathis, [email protected]

COPY EDITORHania [email protected]

TECHNICAL EDITORLucille Maddalena, [email protected]

STAFF EDITORSSandy [email protected]

Andrew Cohn, [email protected]

Elena [email protected]

Linda Myers, EdD, SPRH, [email protected]

GUEST EDITORSharon [email protected]

GRAPHIC DESIGNRita Witherly, MBB, [email protected]

Don [email protected]

ASSISTANT EDITORGail [email protected]

Copyright © 2007 by theOrganization Development InstituteISSN Number 0889-6402:The Library of Congress

The Organization Development Journal is an international peer reviewed journal published quarterly and is abstracted in Psychologizal Abstracts, PsychINFO, PsychAlert, Psylit, Institute for Scientific Information and Anbar Management Publication databases. The Organization Development Journal enhances the capacity for practitioner-scholar dialogue and promotes principles and practices of organizational development and change.

Submissions to the journal are encouraged on an ongoing basis. Manuscript submission information can be found in this issue. Authors who are not already receiving the OD Journal, will receive one compli-mentary copy of the journal in which their article appears. Articles should be submitted to Wei Huang, PhD, Managing Editor (Regular Edition), at [email protected].

Copies of the journal are provided as part of membership in the OD Institute. Information on becoming a member can be found in this issue. A subscription is US $100 per year for four copies. Single issues are available at US$25; however, pre-publication orders are suggested since quantities are often limited. Undeliverable copies due to address change normally will not be replaced. People who receive the OD Journal should notify the Post Office to guarantee forwarding to your new ad-dress. Reprints can be requested at ProQuest, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346, tel: 800-521-0600; homepage: www.il.proquest.com.

Advertising information and rates for the journal can be obtained by writing to Dr. Donald Cole, at [email protected].

Reprint Permission is granted to university or college faculty member for reprinting single articles for in-classroom use if proper citation accompanies each copy. All other reprint requests must be made in writing to the Publisher.

ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERSDr. Terry Armstrong, RODC, (Former Editor)Dr. Joseph Cangemi, RODP (Former Editor, Western Kentucky UniversityDr. Allan H. Church, RODC (Former Editor), Pepsico, Inc.Dr. Donald W. Cole, RODC (Publisher), Organization Development InstituteDr. Robert T. Golembiewski, RODC, University of GeorgiaDr. Marilyn Laiken, RODC, University of TorontoDr. Jeanne Maes, RODP, University of South AlabamaDr. Kenneth L. Murrell, University of West FloridaDr. Peter F. Sorenson, Jr., RODC, Benedictine UniversityThiet K. Nguyen (Editor), Johnson & Johnson

Table of Contents

From the Editor

Best Global Practices in Internal Organization Development ........................................................................... 3Thiet (Ted) Nguyen, Johnson & Johnson

Articles

CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL INTERVENTION

Collaborate for Growth: Deepening Involvement through Hope ...................................................................... 13Mike Markovits, IBM Kristin von Donop, Cambridge Leadership Associates

Developing the Performance Culture .......................................................................................................... 19Ellen Raynor, MMckesson Medical-Surgical

Employees CAN Make a Difference! Involving Employees in Change at Allstate Insurance ....................................... 27Elizabeth Vales, Allstate Insurance Company

Instilling a Spirit of Winning at American Express........................................................................................... 33Gabriella Giglio, American ExpressSilvia Michalcova, American ExpressChris Yates, American Express

People and Error: “Human Factor” Principles in Safety Critical Industries ......................................................... 39John Anfield, Rolls-Royce

Personal Transformation as a Leverage for Organizational Transformation:The TEA Program as a facilitator of cultural change management .................................................................... 49

Melina Gretel Münner, Petrobas, ArgentinaResults Matter: Unlocking Value through Avaya’s Business Transformation ....................................................... 55

Doug Reinstein, Avaya Inc.Safety at the Center: A Model that Accelerates Learning ................................................................................ 63

Elizabeth Hostetler, Ph.D., University of Maryland Medical CenterWhen Opportunity Knocks: OD’s Response to Takeover in the Acquired Company ................................................ 67

James Shillaber, PsyD., Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals

LEADERSHIP AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT

Ensuring Enterprise Success Through a Systemic Approach to Leadership Development ...................................... 77Jeri Darling, BAE Systems

Enterprise Leadership ............................................................................................................................ 83Brent deMoville, Allergan Inc.

Evaluating a Leadership Development Program ........................................................................................... 89Judith Hayes, Manitoba Lotteries Corporation

Getting Results from a Systemic Front Line Leader Development Program at Raytheon ........................................ 95Greg Till, Raytheon

KNOWLEDGE / TALENT MANAGEMENT

Action Learning Accelerates Innovation: Cisco’s Action Learning Forum ........................................................... 107Annmarie Neal, Psy.D., Cisco Systems, Inc.Lisa Cavallaro, Cisco Systems, Inc.

O R G A N I Z A T I O N D E V E L O P M E N T J O U R N A L

VOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007 P1

3

13

19

27

33

39

49

55

63

67

77

83

89

95

107

Analyzing Critical Positions for Talent Needs ............................................................................................. 115 Mike Barron, Whirlpool

ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITY / EFFECTIVENESS

Creating a Strategy to Help Others Better Understand the Value of Organization Development ..............................121Rose Katz, Aramark Healthcare

Developing the Capability to Be Agile ........................................................................................................ 127V P Kochikar, Infosys TechnologiesM P Ravindra, Infosys Technologies

Electric Utility Achieves Business Results through Organizational Development ................................................... 135Ross Schifo, Central Vermont Public Service

Elements of Partnership Between HR and Learning and Development: Create a Win/Win ...................................... 141Sue Kirkland, American Cancer Society, Eastern Division

Globalizing the OD Function – Meeting Global and Regional Needs ................................................................... 145Jackie Alcalde Marr, Oracle Corporation

Organizational Development - From Public Relations Nightmare to Competitive Edge ........................................... 151Sandra Torres, Aramark Healthcare

ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN / TRANSFORMATION

Speak-Up All You Whistle-blowers: An OD Perspective on the Impact of Employee Hotlines on Organizational Culture.. 161Allan Church, Pepsi Co Inc.Jessica A. Gallus, University of ConnecticutErica I. Desrosiers, PepsiCo, Inc.Janine Waclawski, Pepsi-Cola North America

Strategic Intent: A Key to Business Strategy Development and Culture Change .................................................. 169Jim W. Ice, Respironics, Inc.

FUTURE OF OD

The Future of Organizational Development in the Nonprofit Sector ................................................................... 179Jeana Wirtenburg,Ph.D., Jeana Wirtenberg & Associates, LLC Thomas E. Backer, Ph.D.,Human Interacion Research Institute

Wendy Chang, Dwight Stuart Youth FoundationTim Lannan, MSOD, Tim Lannon ConsultingBeth Applegate, MSOD, Applegate Consulting GroupMalcolm Conway, IBM Global Business ServicesLilian Abrams, Ph.D.,Abrams & AssociatesJoan Slepian, Ph.D., Silberman College of Business

ACADEMIC IMPLICATIONS

Curriculum Implications Based on Analysis of Internal Consulting Best Practices ................................................ 197Miriam Y. Lacey, Ph.D., Graziadio School of Business and Management, Pepperdine UniversityTeri C. Tompkins, Ph.D., Graziadio School of Business and Management, Pepperdine UniversityTerri D. Egan, Ph.D., Graziadio School of Business and Management, Pepperdine University

OD Special Team Bios .............................................................................................................................. 211

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

Calendar of Events .................................................................................................................................. 232In Appreciation ..................................................................................................................................... 233Call for Presentations ............................................................................................................................ 234Subscription Information ....................................................................................................................... 237Advertising Guidelines for OD Journal ....................................................................................................... 237

VOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007P2

115

121

127

135

141

145

151

159

169

179

199

213

234235236237238

VOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007

Le�er from the Editor:

Best Global Practices in Internal Organization Development

By Thiet (Ted) K. Nguyen, Johnson & Johnson

I write this le�er to conclude the third and final volume of the special global edition of the OD Journal from thecity of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, one of the fastest growing business centers in the Middle East.

Yesterday, as I was waiting to board my plane from JFK airport, I had a chance to relax in the Emirates lounge.There, I saw an entourage of Middle Eastern dignitaries (with an even larger number of American bodyguards) –presumably heading home on the same flight. With an hour to spare before departure to Dubai, I picked up theFinancial Times and read a headline that revealed Warner Bros, the largest Hollywood Studio, has made AbuDhabi, the capital city of this country, its entertainment hub. With an unprecedented investment in the breadthand scope of activities, Warner Brothers expects to create a 6,000-acre theme park, movie studio, hotel, multiplexcinemas, videogames, and infrastructure for Abu Dhabi’s digital transformation. Abu Dhabi will contribute $500million to co-finance Warner films, a 50-50 joint venture on broad-appeal films. Together, Warner Bros and AbuDhabi are exploring opportunities in additional areas such as production facilities, digital content distribution,and retail opportunities in the Gulf region. I boarded the plane smiling to myself as I considered the phenomenalgrowth opportunities in the Middle East.

When I finally arrived here in Dubai 14 hours later, I took a short tour of the city. Knowing that I had arrived dur-ing the observance of the Holy month of Ramadan, a Moslem religious tradition where people fast from sunriseto sunset, I was fascinated to see that the Mall of Emirates was full of people enjoying fun activities, like snow ski-ing inside – in an environment controlled at 2 degrees C while the outside temperature was 40 degrees C. Thehotel I am staying is directly across from the large American Hospital (actual name of the hospital), and a five-minute drive to Healthcare City, where I am scheduled to meet with senior Johnson & Johnson business leadersfrom the Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices and Diagnostics, and Consumer sectors. Our meetings are scheduledfor Sunday, which is the first workday of the week here.

This morning, as I enjoyed breakfast and read the Gulf News, a local newspaper, I saw a headline in the Businesssection that read “India Now Outsources Outsourcing.” The article described how India is now outsourcing out-sourcing in this global economy, now that its own wages are rising and demands for its services are increasing.India is facing competition from newly developing countries seeking to emulate its success in back office supportto wealthier nations. This is driving leading Indian companies to establish their operations in those competingcountries in order to outsource work to them. Infosys Technologies described its outsourcing strategy this way:“to take the work from any part of the world and do it in any part of the world.” (Gulf News, p. 30, September 29,2007)

P3


To me, the interesting part of this outsourcing article was not about how Infosys Technologies is becoming aglobal matchmaker by outsourcing its work to low wage countries, such as China, Czech Republic, Philippines,Poland, Mexico, and Thailand. It is about how it and other Indian companies are outsourcing its work to low-costregions of the United States. Americans from US universities accepted a novel assignment from Infosys to cometo India to learn computer programming so they can return to the US to work on back-office assignments. A ris-ing number of Indian companies are opening back offices in Boise, Phoenix and Atlanta, where wages are rela-tively lower than other parts of the US. Wipro is opening a so�ware development center in Atlanta and will hire500 programmers during the next three years. Wipro’s Chairman informed Wall Street analysts that “he was con-sidering hubs in Idaho and Virginia, in addition to Georgia, to take advantage of ‘states which are less devel-oped.’” (Gulf News, p. 30, September 29, 2007)

The world has changed and will continue to change at exponential rates. The marketplace is already global.Many US corporations are experiencing faster international growth rates than domestic, and they continue to in-vest heavily in emerging markets including Russia, India, China, and Brazil. Companies in emerging markets arefacing rising competition from lower wage markets and are beginning to invest in those markets and in clientcountries. Yesterday there was serious concern that the US had lost a lot of jobs due to outsourcing. Today, it ap-pears that the US is beginning to gain new jobs from a number of countries to which it has outsourced, like Indiaand China. What will the world look like tomorrow?

I passionately believe that we, as OD practitioners, can shape and influence tomorrow by leveraging our corecompetencies in change management, organizational design, and leadership development. We can shape the ex-ternal environment through our work in developing future leaders and guiding companies through change. I be-lieve we must continually upgrade our skills and reinvent our knowledge to be effective in guiding our clients.By publishing this global Special Edition, we expect to achieve our goal to help drive change and grow our pro-fession.

This Special Edition will benefit the HR/OD community in several ways:� Academic community – The academic community will find the content of these contributions of value to

raise the awareness of current best internal practices with specific applications. Program directors can be informed and encouraged to strengthen their curriculums and research directions. Graduate students may use this edition to leverage their classroom experience, as they prepare to enter the OD profession and compete for opportunities in the global marketplace.

� Current practitioners – Both internal and external practitioners can use this knowledge to guide and grow their practice areas, enhance their skills, and strengthen their core competencies, by learning from other OD professionals.

� Our clients and business partners – Potential and existing clients can be be�er informed of the capabilities OD professionals can bring to enhance employee engagement and organizational growth and vitality.

Content like this has never been captured or disseminated because internal practitioners do not have the luxuryof time to write. This is the first time many of these authors took the time to document their work, secure the sup-port of their companies to release the information, and share their internal efforts with all who are interested. Weapplaud all our authors for their trust in us, and their willingness to provide working papers without the benefitof professional editors. In this global Special Edition, readers will experience truly authentic voices of internalpractitioners worldwide who share their stories from a place of caring and eagerness to advance the field of or-ganization development.

While this series is titled a best internal OD practice edition, no one associated with its production has judged orevaluated “a best global practice.” Rather, authors were encouraged to share what they perceived to be a best

P4


practice within their organization, whether that organization is a start-up company in India, a non-profit organi-zation in the US, an energy company in Africa, or a hi-tech company in China. We also chose not to judgewhether an article fit the definition of organization development, since there are variations among the definitionsof OD. We recognized, too, that OD is practiced differently across geographies, countries, sectors, industries, or-ganizations, groups and contexts.

To share additional insights into their workplaces, many authors have generously provided a reflection sectionoutlining their working environment, the benefits of the intervention as described in their paper, and finally, toshare their perspective of the overall outcome.

This final special edition is the collaborative labor of love of more than 30 authors and co-authors, and an all-vol-unteer team of 105 practitioners, led by the highly dedicated leadership team from the New Jersey OD Commu-nity. We became actively engaged because of our passion and burning commitment to enhance the capabilitiesand reputation of our profession. Collectively, we share the common goal of advancing the field of organizationdevelopment. We have worked collaboratively with our colleagues from top corporations in China, UK, Brazil,the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, Finland, and Korea to bring this publication from concept toreality.

The team has invested over 5,000 hours over the last 14 months that it has taken to prepare these three special vol-umes. We have worked many long night and weekend hours to ensure the highest quality professional publica-tion. If I were to estimate the dollar value of the time the team has invested, it would total well over $1 million.However, it is impossible to put a price tag on our passion and dedication, not to mention the time each of uscould have spent with our families and loved ones instead of guiding authors and creating this 3 volume specialedition set of the OD Journal.

We are very proud to share this third and final special edition as we close out this project and our involvementwith the OD Institute, publisher of the OD Journal. As leader of this team of illustrious and generous profession-als, I express our appreciation for the opportunity to contribute to the internal OD body of literature and to ad-vance the field of organization development. We wish you the very best.

Ted NguyenDubai, United Arab EmiratesSeptember 2007

P5


The OD Journal Special Edition Team Members

EDITORS

• Ted Nguyen, Editor • Elaine Steiner - Managing Editor• Dianne Clarke-Kudless – Peer Review Editor • Hania Qubein - Copy Editor• Lucille Maddalena - Technical Editor • Sharon Snyder - Guest Editor• Patricia Polanco Licata – Proofreading Editor• Rita Witherly – Graphics Editor• Sandy Becker, Andrew Cohn, Elena Feliz,

Linda Myers, Lucille Maddalena - Staff Editors

PEER REVIEW COUNCIL Internal Practitioners

• Lucille Adriaens – Philips (The Netherlands) • Evelina Ascalon - Credit Suisse (Switzerland) • Joe Bonito – Pfizer• Leslie Berks - Hewle� Packard • Sharron Blunt – Wal-Mart• Do�ie Brienza - Johnson & Johnson • Michael Broom - Verizon• Susan Burne� - Gap, Inc. • K A Chang - Singapore Exchange (Singapore) • Laura Christenson - Horizon Blue Cross Blue

Shield • Allan Church – PepsiCo • Jose Conejos – Nokia (Finland) • Carolyn Davis – Abbo� Laboratories • Brent deMoville - Allergan • Gerald Dietz - SAP AG (Germany) • Sue Dodsworth - Kimberly Clark Corp. • Tamar Elkeles – Qualcomm • Marilyn Figlar – Lockheed Martin • Anika Gakovic - HSBC Group • Stefan Gartner – Amgen • Lisa Geller - Honeywell • Ann Giese – Motorola • Jaime Gonzales – Warner Bros.• Linda Go�schalk –American Standard

• Dee Grosso – Solstice Neurosciences • Hope Greenfield - Lehman Brothers • Barbara Gutmann - Volkswagen (Germany) • Ron Hadley - Wyeth Pharmaceuticals • Bill Hector - Citigroup • Art Heeney - DuPont • Bob Hoffman – Novartis • Bill Hunt – Raytheon• Angela Hyde - AstraZeneca (UK) • Julian Kaufmann - Tyco International • Barbara Keen - Bristol Myers Squibb• Louise Korver-Swanson - Bank of America• Steve John - Sanofi-Aventis• Leslie Joyce - Home Depot • Fernando Lanzer - ABN AMRO (The Netherlands) • Keith Lawrence - Procter & Gamble • Sang Seub Lee – LG Electronics (Korea) • Iris Lemmer - Microso� • David Lipsky - Sony • Lori Malcolm - Wal-Mart • Cindy Marlowe - Berlex Labs • Kristin Meade - Quest Diagnostics • Krystin Mitchell, 7-Eleven, Inc.• Bernd Moehle - Nestle (Switzerland) • Kenny Moore - Keyspan Energy • Jay Morris - Trinity Health • Vas Nair - Schering Plough• Nina Dankfort-Nevel - General Electric (China) • David Owens - Bausch & Lomb • Greg Parker – Shell (The Netherlands)• Patricia Pedigo – IBM• Michael Pepe - Yale New Haven Health System • Sheila Person-Sco� - Wachovia Bank • Carol Pledger – Goldman Sachs • Mary Plunke� - British Petroleum (UK)• Michele Prenoveau – Morgan Stanley • Paul Roithmayr – TV Guide• Renee Romulus – AholdUSA• Renee Russell – Avon • Robert Ryncarz – Merck & Co • Rick Sawyer - Fujifilm USA • Mike Stafford – Starbucks Coffee Company

P6


• Joan Szymoni�a - L'Oreal • Vera Vitels - Time Warner • Renee Wallace - Ahold • Kevin Wilde – General Mills • Kathy Zukof - New York University

External Practitioners

• Lilian Abrams - Abrams & Associates • Seymour Adler - Aon Consulting • Dianne Clarke-Kudless - Caliper Management• Andrew Cohn - Lighthouse Consulting • Edana Desatnick - Edana Desatnick Consulting, LLC• Vicki Foley - Lee Hetch Harrison • Mauricio Goldstein - Pulsus Consulting Group • David Jamieson - Jamieson Consulting Group • Jeanne Maes - University of South Alabama • Cynthia Ma�hew - Wesleyan University • Linda Myers - WorldWise, Inc.• Joy McGovern - Right Management • Rosa Colon - Global Talent Excellence, LLC • Valerie Norton • Lori Peterson - Integral Consulting Group • Marianne Tracy - Development Dimensions

International • Jason Wingard - ePals Foundation • Jeana Wirtenberg - Jeana Wirtenberg & Associates • Andrea Zintz - Hudson Talent Management

LIAISON TEAM Liaison with HRCI (SHRM) • Linda Myers - WorldWise, Inc. - SHRM Global HR

Certification Team

Liaison with various academic institutions • Seymour Adler - NYU School of Applied Psychology • Sandy Becker - Rutgers Business School • Dianne Clarke-Kudless - Rutgers Organizational

Psychology Program • Rosa Colon - Benedictine University • Edana Desatnick - Duke Corporate Education • Wei Huang - New York University • Miriam Lacey - Pepperdine Master OD Program • David Jamieson - Pepperdine Doctoral OD Program • Steve John - Columbia University • Jeanne Maes - University of South Alabama • Cynthia Ma�hew - Wesleyan University • Linda Myers - Harvard University • Lori Peterson - Augsburg College MBA Program • Renee Russell - Duke MBA Program • Jeana Wirtenberg - Fairleigh Dickinson University • Andrea Zintz - Fielding Graduate University

SPECIAL EDITION STAFF Project Managers

• Wei Huang - Crossing Over - Volume I • Nina Wortzel-Hoffman - Johnson & Johnson -

Volume II • Elaine Steiner - Chanel - Volume III

Design/Layout Team

• Hania Qubein• Rita Witherly - MoZen • Don Michalowski – Ruby Window Creative Group

Final Editing Team

• Andrew Cohn – Staff Editor• Linda Myers - Staff Editor • Sandy Becker – Staff Editor• Lucille Maddalena - Maddalena Transitions

Management• Sharon Snyder – Reflection Page Editor• Deborah Melnick – Chanel, Inc. • Mary Borquist – Chanel, Inc. • Julia West-Johnson - Raritan Valley Community

College

Proofreaders

• Patricia Polanco Licata - New Heights Consulting (team lead)

• Be�ina Neidhardt.• Joan Poling • Jean Hurd - Janus Consulting• Donna Lue Quee - Hess Corporation

Guest Reviewers

• Sandy Becker - Rutgers Business School • Sharon Blunt - Wal-Mart • Lable Braun - Dialogic • Roy Chen - Johnson & Johnson • Helen T. Cooke - Cooke Consulting Group • Jean Hurd - Janus Consulting • Surjeet Rai-Lewis - Johnson & Johnson Canada • Donna Lue Quee - Hess Corporation • Patricia Santen - Novartis

P7

O R G A N I Z A T I O N D E V E L O P M E N T J O U R N A L


Abstract

This paper explores the subject of Human Factors (HF)and argues that proven, error reduction methods usedin “safety critical” industries including Aerospace, Nu-clear and Medicine can migrate into mainstream busi-ness and offer considerable business performancegains. The methods used fit well with the values andethics of the O.D. profession, and suggests how busi-ness leaders, O.D. practitioners and academics, cangain more knowledge about this important subject.

About the Author:

John Anfield is Head of Organisation Developmentand Learning for a large Rolls-Royce business unitwho joined the company a�er an early career in theRoyal Air Force, an organization which gave high pri-ority to flight safety. At Rolls-Royce, John spear-headed a three-year Human Factors campaign thatcommensurately enhanced the safety culture in aero-engine maintenance facilities and met new regulationsset by the European Aviation Safety Agency. John hasan MBA, and is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute ofPersonnel and Development (UK), as well as a SeniorProfessional in Human Resources (USA).

Introduction to Human Factors:

In safety critical industries, where simple human mis-takes can cost hundreds of lives and billions of dollars,considerable organisational effort is put into multi-lay-ered, preventive measures aimed at reducing or elimi-nating all known risks. Despite all these safeguards,tragic errors still occur. For example, the July 1988Piper Alpha Oil Rig disaster in the UK’s North Sea cost

165 lives and had direct costs of over £2billion. Thecause was traced to a single, missing pressure safetyvalve.

O�en the hardest lessons learned are those that aregained from painful hindsight. In industries that carryan inherent risk, such as aerospace, rail, nuclear andmedicine; post accident investigation typically revealsa large human error component. When the human ele-ment, typically 75%-100% of the contributing cause isinvestigated in greater detail, o�en the final failure isdiscovered to be the result of a chain of smaller errorswhich have combined in an unexpected or untimelyway. In nearly every case, there are clear, early warn-ing signs in the system that leaders ignore.

Another tragic example of Human Factors at play wasthe Helios Airline accident in Greece. A design featureof a cabin air pressurisation valve allowed that part toremain incorrectly positioned during flight. When thepositioning error combined with a maintenance error(someone le� the valve in its ground position), the re-sult was cabin oxygen starvation. As the aircra�climbed past 10,000 feet on autopilot, the aircrew be-came confused and argued about the meaning of vari-ous cockpit-warning bells. The incapacitated crew lostcontrol of the still fully flyable aircra�, which ran outof fuel, crashed, and killed all 121 passengers andcrew.

Given these high stakes, it is imperative that preven-tive measures focus on understanding why well-inten-tioned and correctly trained professionals makeserious mistakes, which can sometimes circumvent theconsiderable defences of a safety system. This ques-tion transitions into a broad field labelled Human Fac-tors (or HF for short). Today, HF research includesaspects of design (latent errors); ergonomics (human-

People and Error: “Human Factors” Principles inSafety Critical Industries

John Anfield, Rolls-Royce

P39


machine interfaces); cognitive research (stimulus,memory, information retrieval and processing); bio-medical research (drugs, alcohol and the circadian ef-fects of shi� working) and systems engineering(processes and process compliance in socio-technicalsystems in particular).

Much of this HF territory will be familiar to an experi-enced Organization Development consultant. Thereare also many overlaps between HF and Total QualityManagement (TQM) systems; although, in the opinionof this author, TQM has become much more remotefrom people in the past decade (i.e. more IT based andhighly procedural). Furthermore, an HF approach of-fers a be�er and much more effective method thanconventional, compliance-based, audits, which I be-lieve have become an ineffective error prevention tool.

The HF Approach:

What is special and unique to the HF approach is theconsiderable investment and effort made to seek outinformation about errors and hazards from the peoplewho work inside the system, and to design a processfor them to share their learning with others before anyunwanted events happen.

The HF approach can be described as a method of ac-celerating the acquisition and application of opera-tional lessons learned across an organisation to avoidtheir reoccurrence. The following five key conceptualfeatures of any HF-based approach to error reductionare generated from this author’s own research and ex-perience:

1. HF accepts that error is normal and will occur in all human systems.

2. HF uses a high level of employee engagement to discover all unreported events and potential hazards, i.e. reading the weak, warning signals early.

3. HF methods demand a fast and effective feedback and communication loop.

4. HF acknowledges that an individual’s awareness of error potential is the single best defence against their occurrence.

5. HF requires that leaders behave ethically, build trust, and accept their personal and o�en legal duty to address all reported hazards.

Formal Definitions of Human Factors:

While each high-risk industry may have its own defi-nition of Human Factors, within the field of aviationthere has been a convergence on one specific defini-tion, which was originally issued by the InternationalCivil Aviation Organisation in 1986. It reads as fol-lows:

Human Factors is about people in their living andworking situations; about their relationship with ma-chines, with procedures and with the environmentabout them; and also their relationships with otherpeople.

Given this definition of HF, there is li�le doubt of theoverlap with the O.D. practitioner domain; yet, to thisauthor, it seems that these two related worlds rarelyconverge. Beyond the human error that is known toexist in safety critical industries, imagine the numberof human errors that must occur in banks, insurancecompanies, manufacturing, catering, retail, social, andin not-for-profit organisations. If a conservative esti-mate of 10-15% of an organisations’ output may be lostthrough unrecognised human errors, it stands that anyCEO, CFO, or OD professional could project the effectof ‘error reduction’ on the bo�om line of their own or-ganisation.

Supporting HF Cognitive Research:

Having defined HF, and before considering whetherHF principles can be transferred to the wider businesscommunity, two important questions are in order: First, ‘why does human error occur?’ and second,‘what can we do to prevent errors in organisations?’Former Manchester University Professor James Reasonspent many years researching the causes of error andmethods for their possible prevention. In his book,Human Error Reason provides a good first step in un-derstanding HF principles and se�ing them into a use-ful psychological framework.

Typical HF Error Reduction Methods:

From Professor Reason’s work, my own and others’ ex-periences implementing HF error reduction methodsacross safety-critical organisation, the following fac-tors are usually found in effective systems:

• Customer and product safety are declared as strategic goals.


• Probabilistic risk assessments are used to focus efforts on key hazards

• Risk management and risk mitigation risks techniques are applied

• Elimination of the opportunity for error, o�en by foolproof design.

• Application of decision support systems and/or clear safety policies.

• Use of checklists, models and other visible memory aids.

• Leaders model a culture of trust, reporting, and openness.

• Multi-format, communication channels are used for error reporting and feedback.

• Prompt action is taken by leaders to address all reported hazards and errors.

• O.D. and Learning interventions are used atdifferent organisational levels:- Education for all on the underpinning HF

theory, principles and concepts.- Training for competence in the actual tasks

being performed.- Training in hazard awareness and risks of

specific errors.- Simulation of scenarios that could be faced in

high-risk industries.- Behavioural training including surveys of group

cultural norms.- Leadership training to reinforce personal

responsibility for safety.- Executive education on safety ethics and

decision making models

Reason and Hobbs (2003) well-wri�en and readablebook for managers in safety critical industries expandson all the above techniques and methods.

Assessing HF-Based Interventions:

United States civil aviation statistics reveal that thenumber of hours flown on scheduled carriers between2004 and 2005 was close to 19 million hours duringwhich there were 32 total loss accidents resulting in 22deaths. While not a direct correlation for road fatali-ties in the United States, the 2002 road death statisticwas 42,815. These data reveal an enormous discrep-ancy between the error rates of two mass transporta-tion systems. Indeed, pilot training standards aremuch higher than driver training standards, and theaviation industry is highly regulated. That notwith-standing, these two numbers are so disparate that theybeg to suggest some very different and fundamentalsystem behaviours.

Rolls-Royce and HF:

Within Rolls-Royce, our A�ermarket business over-hauls civil and military aircra� gas turbine units. Our7,000 employees work in 17 facilities on four of the fivecontinents and operate under the jurisdiction of theEuropean Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) with anEASA Part 145 licence. Rolls-Royce has an excellentsafety record and a world-class reputation for deliver-ing excellent products and service. Why, one mightask, did we need a Human Factors campaign?

The Human Factors campaign was driven by severalfactors. First, in 2003, the newly formed EASA organi-sation gave notice that all Part 145 certified mainte-nance facilities must train all their employees inHuman Factors and as well as to implement a Mainte-nance Error Management System (MEMS) to allowemployees to report potential hazards or to highlighterrors or omissions. The primary business driver,then, was a change in industry legal and regulatory re-quirements.

Behind these new requirements was a secondarydriver, focused on the remaining cause of civil aviationaccidents: maintenance error. While statistics hadshown that over the past two decades the number ofcivil aviation accidents declined as a result of improve-ments in aircrew training, navigation systems, be�erAir Traffic Control and be�er weather forecasting, themost persistent cause of civil aviation accidents wasmaintenance error. This was the reasoning behind theEASA two-pronged approach.

However, as Rolls-Royce addressed EASA’s manda-tory HF and MEMS requirements we discoveredthrough focus groups and management workshopsthat there were many costly unreported errors in ourbusinesses affecting both quality and productivity.While we did not have any product safety concerns,we had accidentally discovered a large ‘Error Iceberg’in our own organisation.

The ‘Iceberg’ analogy for HF refers to the fact that 10%of an iceberg is visible above the waterline, while morethan 90% is underwater. The concept is that mistakesare latent, hidden, re-worked or sometimes passed onunreported through to the customer. A similarly highratio (10%-90%) between known errors and unre-ported errors and hazards were seen in both theNASA Challenger and Columbia Accident Reports. Inthe Columbia report in particular, the Accident Boardreferred to ‘unknown unknowns’.

P41


It is reasonable to assume, then, that most non-safetycritical industries will have their ‘Error Icebergs’ too,and that these ‘ugly lumps of inefficiency and businessrisk’ in organisations may be surprisingly large. Simi-larly, it is likely that someone inside will always knowabout them!

Finally, to underscore this point, it is worthwhile to ex-plore who in an organisation knows what about thereal the error rates. One assessment by the AustralianDefence Force’s Aviation Maintenance ImprovementProject reveals the existence of an Ignorance Iceberg -The farther one moves from the hangar floor, the lessknowledge of the organisation’s errors are known atapproximately these percentages:

o 4% of senior managers are aware of errors (above the waterline)

o 6% of managers are aware of errors (above the waterline)

o 75% of first line supervisors are aware of errors (below the waterline)

o 100% of employees are aware of errors (below the waterline)

This is a sobering finding, considering that it is seniormanagers who make all the key decisions about cus-tomer issues, quality, people, resources and processes.The percentages above suggest that significant deci-sions are made based on li�le knowledge of the reali-ties of the errors in the complex systems that leadersrun!

The Rolls-Royce Journey into the Error Iceberg:

Rolls-Royce was challenged to meet the two criticalEASA requirements within two-years. First we neededto implement comprehensive HF training for all 2,500people in the UK. Second, we needed to implement aMaintenance Error Management System, which Rolls-Royce calls MEMS that would rely on trust and open-ness. This is how we achieved these objectives:

The Burke-Litwin (1992)8 models gave us insight intohow an organisation works and can change culture.The model proved very useful in planning our ap-proach. Burke-Litwin makes a distinction betweenthree transformational areas of strategy, leadershipand culture, and of the other parts of an organisationthat are more transactional in nature.

To effect a large-scale organisational and culturalchange such as the introduction of HF and MEMS intoour own businesses, we knew that we had to first ad-

dress these transformational areas, in particular theareas of leadership and culture. Addressing Strategywas less critical because our a�ermarket strategy wasreasonably stable and successful.

Tackling leadership first, we executed several interven-tions at various levels of our structure. At an ExecutiveSeminar held in 2004, we gained full commitmentfrom our senior leaders to support the HF programmeand introduce the MEMS system. A�er this event wedistributed a personalised le�er of commitment fromour managing director to all employees to announcethe launch of the main HF programme. We also issuedseveral general communication articles.

Over the following six months we implemented an in-troductory programme for all 190 managers and gavethem an overview of HF, beginning with the EASAmandate, the potential operational impact of running alarge-scale training programme for their 2,500 employ-ees, and the potential value to Rolls-Royce. This pro-gramme was effective in meeting its goals by enablingus to review the past to be�er prepare for the future.Within the confidential format of this event, we wereable to see how past errors had resulted in consider-able cost, and in many cases, became aware that re-peated human errors could have easily been avoidedthrough feedback.

Errors identified in this leadership programme formedthe basis of a clear ROI (return on investment) busi-ness case for the external delivery of an employee HFprogramme which we showed would be repaid two-fold within three years, by teaching employees how toreduce error. This business case was fully accepted byFinance.

Another important group of people we involved wereour trade union leaders, first in face-to-face briefings,and later with their participation in Managers’ HF pro-grammes. Trade union support for our HF campaignhas been 100% from the start and several trade unionofficials are now full members of the HF Steering andPolicy Group that was formed early in 2004.

The HF Steering Group includes Heads of Operations,the Heads of Quality, our HF Training Vendor and sev-eral of our O.D. team who have been involved in thedesign and delivery of the interventions. The Chair ofthe HF Steering Group has revolved among our Direc-tor of Quality, our Director of Engineering, and me.Our Managing Director a�ends for part of the SteeringGroup meetings, and he has also included HF andMEMS status reports as two standing agenda items onhis regular Quality Board meetings.


Full credit must be give to our vendors, Baines-Sim-mons Ltd, a specialised aviation safety and trainingconsultancy based in Woking in the UK. DirectorsBob Simmons and Kevin Baines have extensive knowl-edge of HF, and have been critical to our campaignfrom the start by providing invaluable advice andguidance on our long and ongoing journey. TheBaines-Simmons team have now run over 150 eventsat four UK sites.

To this point we had formed a coalition of key stake-holders, all passionate about enhancing safety, andwho were certain that we could use the HF campaignto improve quality and reduce the costs of errors. Thecreation of such an internal-external coalition with acommon goal is o�en the key milestone for moving onto the next phase of a culture change, which in ourcase meant training all employees to help buildenough trust for them to start using the MEMS system,which by this time had “gone live” on our Company’sIntranet site.

The “acid test” for any adult learner’s training pro-gramme is its relevance to the work and/or life roles ofeach participant. Anticipating this need, we workedwith Baines-Simmons to create a series of customisedprogrammes designed to have very high-relevance tothe particular facilities and product lines that we man-age. In fact, our four programmes were identical intheir core content but used specific, relevant productexamples and images from the local site to engagethose learners.

Building Trust at Rolls-Royce to Make HF Work:

There can be many inhibiting factors in business or-ganisations to obstruct the development of trust, or re-duce the open sharing of errors and the lessons to belearned. They can include fear of punishment, strongpeer pressure, financial consequences, concern aboutadverse impact on the performance managementprocesses, career limitations, and group social norms,all of which regulate the boundaries of what informa-tion is normally shared between employees and man-agers. This was an area where we spent a great deal ofeffort to get things right.

In asking our employees to report incidents and haz-ards that would normally be secretly reworked or keptunder cover, we focused on the benefits of reportingand avoiding of errors. The programme had threemain goals, the first two related to HF knowledge andpersonal error avoidance, the third and most impor-tant goal was to build trust and encourage open re-porting.

For us it was a slow start. A�er six months of trainingwe had only a handful of employees who had gener-ated MEMS inputs. However, when a critical mass of40% of employees had been trained, and people sawthat raising MEMS reports did result in some positiveactions, the rate of submission rapidly increased, andtoday all businesses are now participating at similarrates. To date we have now had 580 employee gener-ated MEMS reports and about another 400 issues arisefrom the training programme summaries. See figure 1.

Figure 1. Number of Employee Raised MEMS (Maintenance Error Management System) Reports between 2004-2007

P43


From discussions with other organisations, this slowstart and rapid ramp-up of employee input is typicalof all HF programmes, and HF should not beenviewed as a quick fix. At minimum, expect two yearsof consistent HF communication, training, and MEMSactivity to embed this approach into the culture of anybusiness or organisation.

At the end of the employee HF training programmewe used a poster campaign to advertise the successfulcompletion and to keep the message out there in thework-areas, see examples:

The True Leadership Challenge:

We have addressed the HF leadership component onmany levels, and now that the original employee HFprogramme has ended, we have reached a criticalphase. The impact of leadership and training effortsare at their peak, and employee expectations are highthat leaders will address issues that have been identi-fied. From here, there are two potential scenarios: Anyfailure of the leadership to respond to hazard reportswill rapidly erode trust and risk a decline to a positionlower than where we began. Clearly we must avoidthis risk.

Our intended model is one where leaders will take theinitiative and positively address all reported hazardsand problems, and it is this management passion anddrive that will take our HF campaign to the next level.A�er three years of effort, we are in the middle of this

critical consolidation phase and have already closedout about 70% of our MEMS reports. Some are verycomplex and will be more difficult to resolve.

Our future plans include three important components:• a new, biannual HF Continuity Training

Programme employee refresher• a major communication campaign focused on

error-feedback• a new Leader HF workshop that will include an

HF update, a MEMS clinic and a structured decision making model based upon a recently developed safety ethics model by Patankar, Brown and Treadwell (2005).

Evaluation of Benefits:

Evaluating and measuring the Return on Investment(RoI) of HF programmes will always involve somejudgements made by business leaders even where awide range of quality and operating metrics are avail-able:

At Rolls-Royce, we measured the investment in ourHF programme. To date, 2,500 UK employees havespent 6,000 days in off-job training time and about£0.5m in external costs directly a�ributable to the HFprogramme. What have received for this investment?

Our recent evaluation shows heightened employeepositive a�itude towards safety up to 24 months a�ertraining (88%) and a reasonable degree of belief thatwe are serious about HF.


• Over 580 MEMS reports have been submi�ed by employees in the first two years, giving us rich data from the base of the ‘error iceberg’, this proves that our efforts to build up trust are now paying off (77% of employees state that they openly report errors).

• Over 70% of these MEMS have been closed out with remedial actions, about 20% of the MEMS reports are complex and we now use a formal process to investigate them.

• Increased positive feedback on HF ma�ers and a common ‘HF and error’ language are evident in the workplace at all levels, for example in planningmeetings.

• We cannot measure the costs of accidents and incidents that have not occurred, however, in the evaluations we have done we have identified manyincidents which if they had not been reported would have caused us major operational problems.

• The experience of other organisations, such as airlines, is that it usually takes about two-three years to get an effective HF campaign and MEMS fully working and that the reductions in the costs of non-quality will really begin to flow through in years three-five, we are at that stage now and we are seeing definite downwards trends.

Nevertheless, at this time we do not claim any majorReturn on Investment victories; however, we do main-tain our belief that we are safer now with HF embed-ded, than without it; and the next two years willdetermine how this translates to the bo�om line.

The Transferability Question:

Many large organisations cycle through huge invest-ments in ‘Customer Care, Total Quality, BusinessProcess Improvement and Six-Sigma Programmes,and inevitably, senior leaders are o�en disappointedwith the results of these campaigns when each is con-sidered in the context of promised benefits. Somehow,that last 10-15% of improvement is rarely realised; re-gardless of what is adjusted in the formal systems.

This author contends that some of these well-inten-tioned improvement programmes are missing the es-sential point: “Unless you build a culture in whichemployees will tell the leaders what is, or might begoing wrong and hold leaders accountable for ad-dressing these issues”, then your organisation is prob-

ably destined to relive many costly improvement in-terventions in the vain a�empt to remove humanerror.

Encouraging new work on the integration of opera-tional excellence and safety improvements and theseemingly natural convergence of these two ap-proaches has been revealed by Ward (2006) who, dur-ing her assignment with the UK’s Lean AerospaceInitiative, made a very good case for significantly in-creasing the dialogue between the HF, Quality andProcess Improvement communities. This is the trueroad ahead where OD can best help.

Motivational factors:

In a safety critical industry there are many intrinsicmotivators to avoid life-threatening accidents andmuch of initial training is focused on multi-layeredsafeguards and rules. Therefore, an interesting ques-tion to ask is ‘What might be equivalent motivatingfactors in a non-safety critical’ organisation? Possibleanswers might include:

• Providing be�er levels of customer service• Reducing the cost of non-quality and rework• Reducing stress and pressure caused by errors• Making the organisation more profitable• Increasing job satisfaction• Increasing employee employment security

Some of the answers are similar to, but not as power-ful as the factors present in aviation, nuclear or med-ical organisations. In my opinion there are two optionsto enhance such motivation. The first would be to in-centivise error reporting financially; the second wouldbe to reward error reporting by non-monetary means,such as employee recognition events and publicityabout individuals who demonstrate a high standard ofprofessionalism.

Two activities that have been used in organisationswhich may provide an avenue for the type of error di-alogue that we are seeking are; Quality Circles andSuggestion Schemes, which are o�en categorisedunder the banners of ‘Participative Management’ orJapanese style management. I will not describe these,as I am sure most readers will have a general apprecia-tion of their use. What is interesting though is the waymost western organisation have tried these methods,o�en as a fad, then dismissed them and moved on tosomething else like Processes Improvement or SixSigma. There must be a way to re-energise these twomethodologies to achieve a similar response to an HF

P45


campaign and release the unknown error data fromthe base of the iceberg to the leaders in an organisa-tion.

In Summary:

In safety critical industries the Human Factors basedapproach, which combines human error awarenesswith a reporting and learning culture has been shownas a most effective way to engage employees and elicitdetailed information on secret errors that the organisa-tion can then use in preventive campaigns based oneducation and feedback communication systems toimprove safety and quality. An ‘ethical and just cul-ture’ is a key prerequisite for trust.

There is considerable evidence that formal systems,e.g. TQM methods of controlling quality and processesin organisations are not fully effective and that theyare too reactive to events; senior leaders are o�en be-mused as to why this is, and exactly what to do aboutthe situation.

A Human Factors based approach may offer a be�eralternative, but is neither a panacea nor a (palliative)short-term measure. Considerable effort over a longperiod of time will have to be invested to bring aroundcultural changes, educate the leaders and allow thebuilding up of trust. The key is to demonstrate thatleaders do care about, and will take action to resolvethose items at the base of the Error Iceberg that areperennial and invisible.

Next Steps:

Actions that can be recommended to others as a resultof my experiences with an HF based, error-reductioncampaign within Rolls-Royce include:

• Educate academics in business schools and universities to HF principles and error reduction methods, and encourage their inclusion within existing curricula, especially in Business schools, e.g. in MBA or MSc programmes.

• Educate consultants and OD professionals in HF and during OD assignments they should aim to build mutual trust and dialogue around error management, supported by an appropriate internalreporting and feedback system.

• Educate employees in basic HF training during ttheir induction into any organisation and teach them how to report errors and participate in feedback activities.

• Educate Quality and business improvement

professionals about how to review their approach and consider if they can adapt HF principles to the benefit of their line-customers, remembering that audits only reveal what is above the waterline of the error ice-berg.

• Conduct further research to fully explore the potential of HF based, error-reduction methods in non-safety critical businesses and run a pilot programme within a very large commercial organisation.

Epilogue: As I write this final paragraph, I hear abroadcast news report of a train derailment whichseems to be due to a maintenance error on a set ofpoints, with missing bolts alongside the track and asafety inspection that was overlooked…...

References:

Australian Defence Force – Aviation Maintenance ImprovementProjectAMIP,h�p://www.defence.gov.au/dgta/AMIP.htm, 2005

Burke-Litwin, A Causal Model of Organisational Performance and Change, Journal of Management, Vol 18, No3, 523-545 (1992).

Insurance Information Institute quoting National Air Transportation Board statistics at h�p:// www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/aviation/

Patankar S., Brown J.P. and Treadwell M. Safety Ethics Cases from Aviation, Healthcare and Environmental Health, Ashgate, 2005.

Reason James, Human Error, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Reason James, Hobbs Alan, Managing maintenance Error a Practical Guide, Ashgate publishing, Burlington USA.

Report of Presidential Commission on the Space Shu�le Challenger Accident,Executive Order: #12546, February, 3rd 1986.

Source Aviation Safety Network quoting Hellenic Aviation Authority, h�p://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Year=2006

The Columbia Space Shu�le Accident Investigation Board, Vols I-VI, nasa.gov, August 2003.


Ward, Y. (2006), "Integrating Operational and Safety Improvement in Aviation Through a European Innovation Network", European Operations Management Association (EurOMA) Conference

Proceedings, Glasgow, 18-21 June 2006.

Author’s Reflection

Rolls-Royce plc is a provider of power systems for useon land, at sea and in the air. The company operates infour global markets – civil aerospace, defence aero-space, marine and energy. Gas turbine products are atthe core of the Company’s activities and the provisionof repair and a�ermarket services provides a long-term revenue stream, managed under ‘Total Care’ con-tracts. A�ermarket Services now generate over 54% ofthe company’s total profits.

John Anfield is Head of Organisation Developmentand Learning for the Aero Repair and Overhaul Busi-ness, which provides a�ermarket services through anetwork of seventeen facilities, based on four conti-nents. The business employs over 6,000 people, includ-ing many in Joint Ventures established with majorAirlines. From within the unit’s central HR function,John leads an OD team, which focuses on strategic is-sues related to organisations, people and teams.The large-scale, Human Factors intervention describedhere was a very challenging OD project that took placeover a four-year period from 2003-2007 and which isstill in progress today. The critical challenges included:convincing an executive team of the opportunity totake a regulatory driven requirement and turn it intoan opportunity for building employee trust and creat-ing an open reporting culture, so that preventativesteps could be taken to avoid costly maintenance er-rors.

The challenge was overcome through a number of di-rect interventions involving a strong HF communica-tion programme and training of the entire workforce,coupled with the building of an HF infrastructure tosupport the reporting of errors and their investigation.To undertake this project the author personally led thecampaign and has used his role as an internal consult-ant to gain significant momentum, which eventuallyresulted in the engagement of an external vendor todeliver the majority of the face-to-face training formanagers and employees.

Rolls-Royce’s HF campaign has been highly effectiveand a recent evaluation shows that 88% of the employ-ees report an enhanced safety awareness regarding po-tential human errors and over 77% stated that theywill open report hazards and errors to their leaders; as

evidenced by the 580 reports received in the past twoyears. Over 60 % of the reports have now been closedby management, and the nature of the reports has re-cently changed, with tougher issues being highlightedby employees. For the more complex problems, we useformal investigative methods.

The HF Campaign continues today with five new pro-grammes being delivered in 2007-2008, the most sig-nificant one is the HF Seminar for Leaders. Theseevents will use real data from the operational enginefleets and the local business error reports from theirown employees to drive a local dialogue around thebusiness pressures, ethical issues and decision makingmodels that managers must employ to operate safelywhile meeting some very tough commercial targets.

Finally, at the two-year point our executives are nowreporting a clear downward trend in errors and re-work costs; and, in addition, we now fully meet theEuropean Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) regulatoryrequirements for Human Factors Training and Mainte-nance Error Reporting.

Author’s Bio

John is the Head of Organisation Development andLearning for Rolls-Royce’s A�ermarket Services busi-ness, which has 4,700 employees, who overhaul civiland military jet engines. Overhaul facilities are locatedat 17 sites in the UK, USA, Canada, Brasil, Hong-Kongand Singapore, several are Joint Ventures with majorAirlines. From 1998-2003 John was the Director of Ca-reer Development for Rolls-Royce North America Inc;and before that he was based in Derby as the Aero-space Group’s Management Development and Re-sourcing Manager. John joined Rolls-Royce in 1992and was the Engineering Group’s Training Managerduring a period of major organisational change andgrowth of the product range.

Before joining Rolls-Royce John enjoyed a successfulcareer as an officer in the Royal Air Force EducationBranch, where he worked in operational squadrons,management colleges, maintenance bases and helicop-ter flying training units.

John is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel& Development, and a member of the American Soci-ety for Human Resource Management, and he is alsocertified in the USA as a Senior Professional in HumanResources (SPHR).

John Anfield, Roll-Royce plc,[email protected], (4726)

P47

Documents

OD Journal Article by John Anfield Human Factors and Safety