La opinión pública de la problemática del transporte urbano

The material of the study consists of audit results obtained from 11 industrial companies. In Cases I-IX, the D&S audit tool was used. For the Cases X-XI, a new MISHA (Method for Industrial Safety and Health Assessment) audit tool was developed. MISHA was created based on literature surveys, expert group sessions, and the experiences gained from the first nine case studies.

5.1.1 Case studies using the D&S method

The D&S method used in the Case studies I-IX was originally presented by Diekemper & Spartz (1970). In this study, the method was slightly modified in order to make it better meet today’s legal and other requirements. The reason for choosing this method was that it addresses all the key areas of industrial health and safety management. Furthermore, Heinrich et al. (1980) have described the method as an excellent device for measuring occupational health and safety activities. Also, Petersen (1989) has included the method into “Techniques of safety management” as an example of an easy-to-use audit method. An additional reason for the selection was that the author was already familiar with the D&S method. The entire D&S audit method is presented in Appendix A. The case studies using D&S method are numbered I to IX. Studies I-VI were carried out in the United States of America (Kentucky). These studies were carried out in cooperation with the Center for Industrial Ergonomics at the University of Louisville. The Case studies VII-IX were carried out after that in Finland. The Institute of Safety Engineering at the Tampere University of Technology provided the necessary conditions for these case studies.

In Case studies I-IX, each audit included an interview with the company’s safety personnel, the human resources manager and/or with the executive manager. After the interview, a short walk-through of the production plant was done. The employees were occasionally, but not systematically interviewed during the walk-through. Also, the essential safety related documents, e.g. the safety policy,

the safety training manuals, and some of the written work instructions, were reviewed. The time used for each interview was approximately three hours. In Case studies I-VI, two individual audits were carried out in each company. First, the author assessed the safety activities. After that, the company personnel which participated in the interview assessed the activities. This two-fold approach was done in order to test the inter-observer reliability of the D&S method. In Cases VII-IX, the assessment was done by the author and simultaneously by a group of students who had specialized in studying safety engineering. For the students, this assessment was the work to be done after they had completed the “Safety Management” course at the Tampere University of Technology. It can be assumed that the students were quite familiar with the principles of safety management, and health and safety related legislation. The students’ assessments provided more information on the reliability of the D&S method.

In Cases I-VI, a list of the 30 activities that the D&S method addresses was sent to each company about two weeks prior to the interview. However, the scale and the criteria of the method were not shown to the company’s personnel until the interview had been completed.

In the USA (Cases I-VI), all the companies were selected from the manufacturing industry. The selection was done from among companies which had previously been in cooperation with the University of Louisville. A request was sent to 16 companies from which the six case study companies were selected. In five of the companies, the number of employees was between 70 and 200. In one company, the total number of employees was 2900 (Case IV). For the Finnish studies VII-IX, the companies were selected from the southern part of the country. Two of the companies were from the manufacturing industry, and one from the industrial services branch. The number of employees in these companies was 600, 500, and 28.

The safety activities of the case study companies I-IX are presented in detail in Chapter 6. This is done in order to give the reader a thorough picture of the actual safety activities and safety performance of the companies. This also makes it possible to draw conclusions on the differences in the audit results.

Since there are results both from companies in the USA and in Finland, it was possible to compare safety practices and safety cultures between these two countries. This comparison is done in Section 6.5.

5.1.2 Case studies using the new MISHA audit method

The new audit method – MISHA – was developed on the basis of the knowledge acquired from literature surveys and from the Case studies I-IX. During the development of MISHA, comments and criticism were obtained from several colleagues working at the Tampere University of Technology and the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. In addition to this, several individuals from the participating companies contributed to the contents and structure of MISHA. The development and the structure of the method are presented in Chapter 7. The results of the tests in two companies are described in Chapter 8.

The MISHA method was developed and tested in two phases. The first version was tested in a metal products manufacturing company. The test results indicated inadequate inter-observer reliability, and thus it was decided that a second, improved version was needed. The second version was then tested in a plastic products manufacturing company.

The results obtained in the audit process were discussed with the personnel of each company. In these discussions the results were examined, and the validity and reliability of the audit method was considered.