Module 10 - Managing Change and Priorities S1 2024
Module 10 - Managing Change and Priorities S1 2024
Hopkin (2005) - Disaggregation of NSW Rail (pp.45, 46, 49, 50 62 – 64) (Disaggregation = to
separate into component parts or smaller elements.)
◼ In many respects the OHS role is one of being a change agent. You are seeking ongoing
development and improvement in OHS and hence seeking to influence others, and the decisions
that are made, in a positive and preventative direction.
◼ A second aspect is that changes are made to work environments, equipment and processes that
often involve the potential for introducing new hazards and risks that need to be assessed in a
systematic way. This may be a response to both external and internal factors.
In this module we will commence with an overview of an organisational response to the need for
change and how that is tackled from the OHS management perspective.
The final section we will consider the OHS management role and tips for being involved and
influential in the decisions that lead to changes in the workplace.
Slow (“creep” “normalisation”) v more rapid v urgent v We are concerned with changes that
temporary
have the potential to
Changes include:
Introduce new hazards
Organisational structure
Personnel Change the level of risk
Cultural
Process
Equipment
Location
Procedures
Knowledge
Regulations
◼ Alteration of the chemical processes. ◼ Changes to the codes and standards applying to
the facility
◼ Increase in the quantity of dangerous goods or
hazardous materials held on-site. ◼ Changes to available knowledge of technical
and operational safety issues.
◼ Addition of new processes, buildings, plant and
equipment. ◼ Changes to the content of management,
operating, maintenance, engineering or
◼ Changes in the design and construction of emergency procedures.
existing processes, buildings, plant and
equipment. ◼ Changes to organisational structure, such as de-
manning, out-sourcing, or relocation of
◼ Changes to the personnel filling safety-critical personnel.
positions.
◼ Changes to contractors or suppliers
SWA (2012) Guide for Major Hazard Facilities Safety Management Systems identifies MoC as
one of the key elements of a SMS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WevjRH5fX98
https://www.aiche.org/sites/default/files/docs/em
bedded-pdf/Flixborough-Case-History_0.pdf - read
brief description
https://www.1100.com.au/
https://www.1100.com.au/wa/about/
Change in workload
No drawings
No risk assessment
However, OIMS Element 2 did not identify any procedures for risk assessment associated with
management of change. The only reference to this topic was in the following terms:
"Production Technology operate within a management of change procedure which is
consistent with the EAL management of change philosophy.“”
See also the analysis by Andrew Hopkins “Lessons from Longford”. (This book is in the Curtin library).
The mist and fluid is condensate (propane, butane, pentane) and other
light oils and the white cloud in the photo is natural gas and LPG (you can
see it as it’s cold and also has some water vapour included).
Had the wind been blowing towards the barge (only about 90 degrees
difference) it’s very likely we would have had a mass casualty situation.
The incident report is scary reading – this was so close it was simply sheer
luck.
“In most cases, NOPSEMA inspectors found that titleholders manage change through partial or
simplistic environmental assessments that are different to the assessments completed for the
submission of the environment plan. Critically, MoC procedures do not consider the change in
the context of the demonstration of impacts and risks to levels that are acceptable and as low
as reasonably practicable (ALARP) in the environment plan in force. Furthermore, they do not
consider changes that may alter the basis upon which the environment plan was accepted.”
Is the change necessary, or can an alternative be found that does not introduce new hazards or
does not increase the risk of existing hazards or results in a lesser risk increase?
Is the proposed change in compliance with the applicable regulations, codes and standards?
What specifically are the new hazards that are introduced? What is the increase in risk?
What are the construction issues for new buildings, plant and equipment?
What are the new maintenance requirements and are there operability issues?
Delayering Downsizing
Require evidence to justify the need for the proposed change and support the proposed
strategy.
Keep affected members of the workforce informed through all stages of the change process.
Subject proposed changes to a thorough risk assessment, which includes risks relating to
behaviour, not just physical risk.
Involve those members of the workforce who will be impacted by the change in the change
management process, including participation in activities such as drafting, trials, and risk
assessments.
Consider the wider system impacts of the change, including other people or activities that are
seemingly unrelated to the change.
Develop and implement communication plans appropriate to the type and significance of the
change, including training and competency assurance where necessary.
(https://www.nopsema.gov.au/assets/Information-papers/A311536.pdf )
◼ From one standpoint the OHS manager will be seeking to initiate and implement change in
order to advance the OHS system. For many organisations, the OHS system and culture will
be immature, and will need to be adapted with changes in organisational structures and
practices.
◼ The OHS manager also needs to be able to respond to changes in the internal and external
environment.
◼ The pressures for organisations to change, and the difficulties in managing this process, are a
well-known source of stress for employees at all organisational levels. This is potentially an
indirect source of incidents and ill-health.
◼ The OHS change management role must engage with those implementing changes and find a
pace that brings the workforce along with least disruption.
◼ However there is also an informal power structure through which the OHS leader has influence
over decisions.
◼ The informal structure can fill gaps in the formal structure and is particularly useful in times of
rapid change and with new and unexpected situations (eg incident response)
◼ The network of relationships can help in problem solving, provide support for workforce members,
and provide a sense of belonging
◼ Potential negatives may arise from bypassing formal procedures and communications, excessive
rumours or misinformation, and distraction from objectives, unless it is aligned with the formal
management system.
◼ In practice the OHS manager may have significant influence - through expertise in the discipline,
status in the organisation, and the backing of senior leadership
◼ Therefore, in OHS we seek to exert control, or at least influence, with every department, every
function, and all personnel.
◼ There is no fixed reporting path for the OHS management function, this varies for each
organisation, however the following tips may help assess the preferred positioning.
◼ Report to a manager with influence
◼ Report to a manager who wants and supports occupational health and safety
◼ Have a channel to the top (e.g., the CEO, COO, Board, MD, the ‘responsible person’ in WHS law)
◼ Position the OHS lead role with the executive or key manager in charge of the major activity
◼ For OHS there is a mandatory requirement to consult with those involved or affected by the
decision making (the workforce). This also leads to decisions that are more likely to be
supported and improve the work process. (NB: the central role of OHS Representatives,
complemented by the OHS Committee)
◼ A special consultation process in the legislation is the need for a resolution of issues process.
This gives all personnel a clear, step by step, process for finding solutions when differences of
opinion arise. This is in effect the heart of the self regulatory and co-determination
philosophy.
In many cases internal procedures identify that the “change” should have been reviewed – so
why wasn’t it?
Considering the disaggregation of NSW Rail discussed by Hopkins and what we have discussed
so far on accident models and safety culture - What things might impact the effectiveness of
management of change?
Can OHS be improved without commitment from the top? What would it take?
https://www.nopsema.gov.au/assets/Information-papers/A311536.pdf
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/chis7.pdf