Monitoring the LongTerm Effectiveness of Integrated Safety Management System ISMS Implementation Thr

1
Monitoring the Long-Term Effectiveness of
Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS)
Implementation Through Use of a Performance Dash
Board Process
Mike D. Kinney, CPF, CSP National Security
Technologies, LLC ISM Best Practices Workshop
September 12, 2006
2

• Getting Started
• Good news!
• Opportunity to win free stuff OK, OK, beads
• After receiving initial approval of their ISMS
  programs, some contractors have lacked an
  effective method to monitor long-term
  effectiveness of their ISMS program
• DEAR Clause 48 CFR 970.5223-1, Integration of
  Environment, Safety and Health into Work Planning
  and Execution, requires the overall integrity of
  the contractor ISMS program to be maintained

3

• Background
• DOE has issued guidance to support annual
  contractor reviews
• DOE G 450.4-1B, Integrated Safety Management
  System Guide for use with Safety Management
  System Policies (DOE P 450.4, DOE P 450.5, and
  DOE 450.6) The Functions, Responsibilities and
  Authorities Manual and the Department of Energy
  Acquisition Regulation
• Contains Continuing Core Expectations (CCEs) to
  guide ISMS long-term effectiveness reviews

4

• Background
• The Nevada Site Office (NSO) issued a local
  Directive addressing long-term ISMS maintenance
• NV O 450.4, Safety Management System
  Maintenance
• In January of 2006, The Defense Nuclear
  Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) has issued a
  technical report that examines current
  implementation of ISMS at DP sites
• DNFSB/TECH-36, Integrated Safety Management
  The Foundation For a Successful Safety Culture

5

• Challenges
• In some instances, DOE/NNSA contractors do not
  have a consistent method to effectively review
  long-term implementation of their ISMS program
• Some contractors attempt to rely on traditional
  inspections or assessments in lieu of a more
  programmatic approach
• Results dont always accurately reflect actual
  level of implementation

6

• Challenges (continued)
• Comparison of performance with previous
  evaluations (e.g., trending) can also prove
  difficult
• This series of collective challenges do not
  support being able to demonstrate to
  DOE/NNSA/DNFSB that ISMS is being effectively
  maintained
• Lack of a clear method to monitor long-term
  implementation of ISMS can also lead to reduced
  buy-in at the task level as well as lack of
  commitment from senior management

7

• Method
• To assist with meeting Headquarters and Local
  Site Office commitments regarding ISMS long-term
  maintenance, NSO established an Integrated Safety
  Management Council (ISMC)
• Includes Contractors, User Organizations, and
  Federal staff
• Co-chaired by NSO and User Organization
  representatives
• Monthly meetings are utilized to address new
  initiatives or programmatic challenges
• Coordinates performance of annual ISMS reviews

8

• Method
• To assist with the ISMS annual review, the NSO
  ISMC established a performance dash board
  process
• Utilizes Continuing Core Expectations (CCE)
  contained in DOE G 450.4-1B
• Performance dash board also contains individual
  evaluation criteria for each CCE
• Completed performance dash board identifies
  current implementation status for each
  participating organization

9
DOE Continuing Core Expectations (CCEs)
10
ISMS/CCE Performance Dash Board
CCE -3 Work activities reflect effective
implementation of the functions of ISMS.
DOE
Contractor C
Contractor B
Contractor A
Work is defined, hazards are identified, and
actions to prevent or eliminate the hazards are
taken.
Controls are developed and implemented.
Work is properly authorized.
Work is accomplished within controls.
Appropriate worker involvement is a priority.
11

• Method
• NSO ISMC Performance Dash Board
• Contains color gradients, passed on the
  following rankings
• Blue Significantly exceeds expectations
• Green Meets expectations
• Yellow Expectations not fully implemented
• Red Limited implementation of expectations,
  management attention required

12
ISMS/CCE Performance Dash Board
13
ISMS/CCE Performance Dash Board Analysis

• Contractors A C may chose to examine other
  contractors processes for authorization of work
  and worker involvement
• Contractor B may be able to assist other
  contractors regarding methods to enhance
  identification and control of hazards

14

• Method
• In addition to identifying implementation for
  CCE criteria, implementation to the CCE title
  level is also identified
• To assist with tracking trending and support
  evaluation results, performance is compared with
  pervious years
• Five year base line
• Performance arrows utilized to identity annual
  performance for given color gradient/CCE title
• Annual results, including potential site wide
  challenges, are identified in collaborative
  manner with ISMC members

15
ISMS/CCE Performance Dash Board Analysis
16
ISMS/CCE Performance Dash Board Analysis

• Implementation of the CCE title level also
  supports identification of programmatic
  challenges
• Conveys management level information in a timely
  manner while readily focusing attention of
  potential challenges

17

• Conclusions
• Use of a DOE ISMS CCE Performance Dash Board
  has proven to provide the following benefits
• Enhanced visibility of ISMS implementing
  processes
• Open communication of potential challenges as
  well as successes
• Ability to track and trend performance
• Enhanced participation throughout Contractor,
  User Organizations, and Federal personnel

18

• Conclusions (continued)
• Other benefits from application of this process
  include
• Continued support from ISMC participating
  organizations
• Value added method to address contractual
  requirements
• Ongoing support from management
• Perhaps most importantly, use of a DOE ISMS CCE
  Performance Dash Board is ensuring that the
  importance of ISMS implementation remains on the
  forefront versus being viewed as just another
  regulatory requirement