Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

52 Summary of Findings The primary objective of this synthesis was to document the state of the practice of DOTs use of SMSs, including an understanding of the various system capabilities and related policies and procedures. Secondary objectives were to identify types of systems used, data that they collect, means and methods of entering and accessing the safety data, types of reports that are generated, costs associated with the systems, and written policies and procedures. Each objective was previously addressed in the survey results presented in Chapter 3 and DOT case examples described in Chapter 4. The following sections revisit the primary findings of this NCHRP synthesis study. The information used to generate the conclusions is inclusive of the 41 DOTs that responded to the survey. When specific numbers are referenced, the non- responsive state DOTs are not included in the findings. 5.1 Key Findings 5.1.1 Types of System, Tools, or Mechanism Used A variety of approaches were seen in the implementation of state SMSs. While the survey indicated 49% (Figure 3.6) of the respondents noted using an in-house developed system, the case examples illustrated that both the in-house-developed SMS and vendor-provided SMS have benefits and challenges. While in-house systems tend to rely on currently available database platforms, they necessitate strong information technology support. Both Connecticut and Texas (Sections 4.1 and 4.4, respectively), who use commercially available systems, noted good functionality out of the box and a host of features available and not previously considered, though these systems may require customization for integration and may come with a significant cost. 5.1.2 Data Collected by SMS All survey respondents having SMSs indicated they were used for collecting incident occur- rences, with 65% (Figure 3.9) of those using the system for incident investigations. Other signi- ficant uses were seen in collecting near misses (42%) and training records (39%) (Figure 3.9). As noted from the Texas case, many state DOTs are beginning to see the value in reviewing leading indicators, and the Texas DOT is actively working with its SMS provider to develop and implement those aspects of its system (Section 4.4). The Connecticut DOT similarly noted that it is gleaning improved intellectual insight from its SMS for understanding incident root causes, which allows it to be proactive in implementing mitigation approaches (Section 4.1). The survey also noted that data was collected and accessed more frequently by state DOTs having SMSs versus those who do not. For state DOTs without SMSs, 43% were only collecting data once an incident occurred (Figure 3.29), whereas 59% of those with SMSs collected data multiple times per day (Figure 3.14). C H A P T E R 5

Summary of Findings 53   Means and Methods of Data Management A total of 70% of SMSs are web-based (Figure 3.10). There are efficiency gains to be realized where the SMS is integrated with personnel and training management systems. However, this also presents challenges in data security and protection of personal identifying information. These web-based systems also provide opportunities for optimal data retention and recovery. As an example of an SMS improving data use, the Tennessee DOT noted that its Microsoft SharePoint–based system allowed it to distribute lessons learned quickly and efficiently statewide with concepts such as “Safety Monday” videos, which shared safety data and training (Section 4.3). Another improvement in using vendor-provided SMSs can be in data security. Connecticut noted that its provider’s service entailed a federally approved firewall used by other agencies such as NASA (Section 4.1). Internal and External Reporting The survey respondents noted several internal and external reporting functions of the SMSs, including incident investigation reports (65%), workers’ compensation reports (62%), OSHA 300 logs (54%), training records (39%), and behavior observation reports (15%) (Figure 3.13). Other reporting mentioned included monthly property damage and injury data, incident counts by location, safety huddle reports, fleet safety records, JSAs, and accident code trending. These reporting approaches present the power and flexibility of SMSs in using the collected data to inves- tigate leading and lagging indicators and trending toward a complete safety management solution. SMS Costs Cost data was largely not specifically noted. However, for those state DOTs using SMSs, neither cost to acquire the system nor cost to manage the system were noted as significant challenges (Figure 3.18). It is noteworthy that cost was only noted as a significant challenge to those not currently using SMSs (Figure 3.33). Cost also does not seem to be a deterrent to those using SMSs, as all noted they would continue using the system and 70% noted they would expand the use of their system (Figure 3.19). The Tennessee DOT, which uses an in-house- developed and -maintained SMS, does not consider cost a challenge. It considers its system to be self-sustaining because of a savings of more than $1 million through reductions in the frequency and severity of workers’ compensation claims since adopting the system (Section 4.3). Those with vendor-provided systems, like Connecticut and Texas (Sections 4.1 and 4.4, respectively), noted a significant cost for initializing the system and the need for funding modifications, customizations, and maintenance, but found the extended functionality and interoperability with other systems created significant value-added benefits. Written Policies and Procedures Written policies and procedures around the use of SMSs trended toward being a need for development. Survey respondents noted that many (44%) had no policy documented for the use of the SMS (Figure 3.20). Where there was documentation, it was largely procedural for roles and responsibilities of data entry and reporting and not policy. Few state DOTs noted the use of SMSs to highlight trends, corrective procedures, and the like. This presents a need for guidance in this area. Organizational Structure Organizational structure was noted during several of the case interviews as a strength within the safety programs (Chapter 4). A total of 48% of the survey respondents noted division responsibility for safety was an employee safety and health division or equivalent division (Figure 3.22). Depending on the DOT’s organizational structure, this division could have various reporting hierarchies. Some of the most experienced DOTs noted the importance of occupational safety being a separate and unique division, as opposed to being contained within

54 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety human resources or another business unit. Also noted was a need for a close organizational relationship with executive leadership. Having a standalone business unit and a short chain of command sets a tone and strength for safety within these state DOTs. These approaches give safety representatives a seat at the table, potential standalone funding, and the backing of executive leadership. They are not a supporting entity; they are a core entity. Comparison Between SMS Users and Non-SMS Users In comparing SMS user and non-SMS-user DOTs, the safety information collected and data access frequency provided notable differences. Figure 5.1 shows that SMS users all collect incident occurrence information through their SMS, and most collect incident investigation information as well. However, non-SMS users seem to capture more information in their traditional formats, as most DOTs stated that they collected information related to incident occurrences, incident investigations, near misses, training records, and toolbox talks. Looking at frequency for collecting safety information, SMS users capture safety informa- tion multiple times per day, as seen in Figure 5.2. For DOTs without an SMS, most often data is collected after an incident occurs. When safety information is proactively captured (i.e., not just after an incident occurs), it provides an opportunity to proactively manage safety. Between SMS users and non-SMS users, there is a difference in the frequency with which safety managers accessed safety information as seen in Figure 5.3. For DOTs with an SMS, most stated that their safety managers access the data multiple times per day, or at least multiple times per week. For DOTs without an SMS, their safety managers most often access safety information after an incident occurs. SMS users accessing real-time safety information more frequently provides greater opportunity to actively manage safety. 5.2 Research Needs This study identified a few gaps warranting further investigation. First, there is a need for improved understanding of the benefits and challenges when choosing between an in-house- developed SMS or a vendor-provided solution. These two methods of delivering an SMS function 100% 65% 42% 39% 23% 23% 23% 23% 19% 93% 79% 50% 64% 64% 0% 0% 7% 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% In ci de nt O cc ur re nc e In ci de nt In ve st ig at io ns N ea r M is se s Tr ai ni ng R ec or ds To ol bo x Ta lk s/ Pr e- Jo b B rie fin gs Tr ai ni ng G ui de s Po lic y M an ua ls O th er - W rit e In B eh av io r O bs er va tio ns Pe rc en ta ge SMS Users non-SMS Users Figure 5.1. Comparison between SMS users and non-SMS users on the safety information collected.

Summary of Findings 55   Multiple times per day 59% After an incident occurs 19% A few times per week 11% Other - Write In 11% For SMS Users After an incident occurs 43% Multiple times per day 22% Other - Write In 21% Once per day 7% Once per month 7% For non-SMS Users Multiple times per day 56% A few times per week 22% Once per day 11% After an incident occurs 7% Other - Write In 4% For SMS Users After an incident occurs 29% Multiple times per day 22% A few times per week 21% Once per week 14% Once per month 7% Other - Write In 7% For non-SMS Users Figure 5.2. Comparison between SMS users and non-SMS users on safety data collection frequency. Figure 5.3. Comparison between SMS users and non-SMS users on safety data access frequency. differently in regard to system access, scalability, functionality, and agility. There are also many differences in reporting functionality, the ability to review leading and lagging indicators, and in approaches for data entry and management. A second gap was noticed in regard to formalized policies, procedures, and guidance for adopting and using SMSs. The development of guidance, such as an AASHTO implementation guide for SMSs, would present approaches for data entry and management and also identify leading and lagging metrics of value for DOT safety programs. This information is currently not succinctly available. A final gap noted is in regard to SMS cost and benefit analysis. Along with the previous gap noted for the analysis between in-house and vendor-provided SMS solutions, there is no guidance available to determine the organizational value provided by SMSs. Their value has been restricted to reductions in workers’ compensation claims or incident rates, but studies have shown the value of safety extends beyond these metrics and DOTs would benefit from a thorough understanding of the value added by emphasizing safety.