Goal Conflicts in Safety and Health Management Systems: A Real-World Example

In the realm of safety and health management, one of the often-overlooked challenges is the presence of goal conflicts within established rules and procedures. Goal conflicts occur when different safety protocols, designed to protect workers, end up competing with one another, sometimes creating unintended risks. A recent encounter with such a conflict in a mining environment highlights just how complex this issue can be.

A Real-World Example from Mining Operations

Let me set the scene: In mining operations, large, heavy trucks are a routine part of the job. One particular procedure involves walking up to these trucks to carry out tasks. The safety rule for approaching a parked truck is straightforward: the driver must park the vehicle in a stable position, exit the truck, and wait on the ground, signaling to the approaching person when it is safe to approach.

At first glance, this seems like a solid, straightforward safety protocol. However, complications arise when we add another layer to the equation: the service trucks. These service vehicles, which are also massive in size, perform maintenance tasks like providing oil and lubrication to the heavy trucks.

Now, here’s where the conflict arises: in order to service a truck, the service vehicle needs to drive up right next to it. This creates a potential hazard for anyone standing near the vehicle because, as the service truck approaches, the person is at risk of being squashed.

Two Competing Rules, One Risky Situation

In this situation, there are two competing safety rules:

1. Park and Signal: For the heavy truck, the protocol is that the driver parks the vehicle and signals to the person on the ground that it’s safe to approach.
2. Service Vehicle Protocol: For the service truck, the protocol is that the service truck must drive right next to the vehicle it’s servicing, with no one in the vehicle as it approaches.

The tension between these two rules creates a situation where a person could be at risk if they’re in close proximity to the service truck as it approaches the other truck. While the rule for the service vehicle ensures no one is inside during the drive, it also puts pedestrians at risk by requiring them to be near a massive moving vehicle without clear visibility of their surroundings.

Seeking Solutions in a Systemic Issue

I discussed this with a service truck operator, and he confirmed what I suspected: this system isn’t working as intended. He explained that he’d raised the issue with his supervisors, but there had been no clear guidance or solution provided. In his view, a better solution might be for workers to stay on the truck during the service, where they would be visible and safe from being accidentally hit.

This conflict stems not from a lack of rules but from the interaction between the different rules and the context in which they’re applied. And it highlights a crucial point: we often create rules in isolation, without fully considering how they’ll interact in real-world scenarios.

The Importance of Risk Assessments and Open Communication

This situation was a valuable reminder of how important it is to conduct thorough risk assessments. Rules should be designed with the input of those who will be directly affected by them—frontline workers who deal with the complexities of these situations every day. Additionally, organizations must create psychologically safe spaces for workers to voice concerns and identify conflicts that may not be immediately apparent.

By encouraging open discussions and bringing in a range of perspectives, organizations can uncover potential goal conflicts before they lead to accidents. As my conversation with the service truck operator demonstrated, these conflicts can be subtle yet critical, and often go unnoticed unless people feel empowered to raise them.

Reflecting on Systemic Design and Safety Culture

This experience led me to reflect on the broader issue of safety system design. Are we truly designing our safety and health management systems with all potential conflicts in mind? Are we involving the people who will be directly impacted by these rules in the decision-making process?

It’s clear that creating a safety culture means more than just establishing rules; it means designing systems that take into account the complex interactions between those rules and the real-world conditions under which they are applied.

Your Thoughts?

I’d love to hear from others who have encountered similar goal conflicts in their safety management systems. How do you handle these situations? Have you discovered any innovative solutions or best practices for mitigating risk when safety protocols seem to compete with each other? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.