SAYFR

It's great that Torvald Klaveness successfully rolled out the WE KLASS program to improve safety performance through collaboration and addressing mental blindspots for safety.  https://lnkd.in/df4nvdMy

We are hiring! https://lnkd.in/dAvYxPim

In Gard, we are committed to work for the safety and wellbeing of the many seafarers working onboard the ships we insure. We believe that a good safety culture and preventing losses go hand in hand. To dive deeper into this key topic, we invited SAYFR , a company with a data-driven approach to safety culture to our office. Thank you Dr. Torkel Soma and Didrik Svendsen for taking the time to share your work and insights with us. #preventinglosses #crewwellbeing #marineinsurance #gard #safety

Another successful User Forum, where our global clients meet and share work we are doing together to learn from each-other. Special thanks to mr. Ole Asheim Underthun and his team in Norsk Hydro for sharing how they utilize our concept of cognitive biases (Mental Blind Spots) on safety. See you all Next time! #Hydro #CognitiveBias #Safety #HOP

Registration is now open! 📣 “Navigating Excellence: The Norwegian – Greek Maritime Innovation Summit” 🌐 Secure your seat through the following link: https://lnkd.in/dfH828mw Attendance is free of charge, subject to registration! Main sessions covered in our event: -Vessel Performance -Fuel Optimization -Big Data -Crew Training -Crew Health & Safety Organized by ORIANI and supported by Innovation Norway through the EEA Grants Greece, the summit will bring together esteemed Norwegian and Icelandic experts from the maritime industry to share insights, discuss innovative practices, and explore emerging trends with Greek maritime professionals. Looking forward to see you there!! #NavigatingExcellence #TheNorwegianGreekMaritimeInnovationSummit #Norway #Greece #InnovationNorway #EEAGrants #maritimeinnovation #maritimesummit #greekshipping  

#5: Safety is founded on Trust! Safety is changing. We believe it is for the better. But the changes require us to also think a bit differently on some key safety topics. All HOP literature have one thing in common. They all refer to high Trust as one of the capacities needed to be safe (AMY C. Edmondson, Adam Grant, Clive Lloyd). To truly implement the five HOP principles (HOPspot #1), there needs to be a certain level of Trust towards colleagues, leaders and the safety systems. This Trust provides a psychologically safe environment and purpose to adhere to the safety systems. SAYFR has surveyed several hundred thousand employees, where Trust is one of several cultural factors. Through advanced Structural Equation Model (SEM) analysis, we find Trust to be the foundation for other cultural factors. Low Trust will impact Care and Openness. Hence, it does not matter how much we preach about speaking up if there is no Trust. We have seen that companies and teams with low scores on Trust have much higher risk of major incidents such as accidents, injuries and non-compliance. We have also seen that high Trust alone is no antidote to accidents. High Trust can be an excuse to avoid dialogue with colleagues. The crux is to combine Trust with other cultural factors such as Care, Feedback and Speaking-up. Do you Trust that Trust is the foundation for the capacity to be safe? This HOPspot is prepared by Dr. Torkel Soma as part of a series of topics we need to be aware of and re-think when adapting to HOP, Safety Differently, and the future of safety. #HOP #HOPspot #SafetyCulture | stei SAYFR ! | https://lnkd.in/dpz4JDRN

Three reasons why a goal of ZERO harm may be counterproductive...

#4: End to “Zero Harm”? Safety is changing. We believe it is for the better. But the changes require us to also think a bit differently on some key safety topics. The core reason to engage in safety is to avoid harm. However, according to many HOP professionals (such as Clive Lloyd, Sam Goodman and Todd Conklin), ZERO Harm can be a counterproductive goal. There are many reasons for this. The first reason is related to logic. We all make mistakes that may involve minor harm, like a cut in the finger or a bruise on the leg. If we want to enable sharing and learning from these mistakes, we must create an environment where this is acceptable. A goal of ZERO is not ideal in creating that space for sharing and learning. The second reason is related to false causality. Some claim that the accident ratio studies imply that disasters are preventable through eliminating trivial injuries. There is no such causal relationship. Preventing a ship collision is not through averting a cut in a finger in the galley. The third reason relies on empirical evidence from construction, aviation, and healthcare that demonstrates that companies with goals of ZERO harm actually have a higher frequency of serious injuries relative to their peers. Are you ready to scrap ZERO harm? This HOPspot is prepared by Dr. Torkel Soma as part of a series of topics we need to be aware of and re-think when adapting to HOP, Safety Differently, and the future of safety. #HOP #HOPspot #SafetyCulture | stei SAYFR ! | https://lnkd.in/dpz4JDRN

#3: Is the term “root cause” dying? Safety is changing. We believe it is for the better. But the changes require us to also think differently on some safety topics. Todd Conklin dedicates a full chapter in the book «do safety differently» to how we need to stop thinking in terms of “root cause”. The critique is that there exists no single common root cause behind all direct causes. Because major accidents involve an interplay of multiple causes which may be independent with different underlying causes, there is no point in trying to find their common “root cause”.  It is healthy to critically discuss how key concepts and methods are used. It does not make sense to search for one common root cause behind a major incident. When we in SAYFR use the term “root cause” it is in plural “root causes” under the pseudonym "underlying cause". Instead of addressing the observable symptom (e.g. a shortcut), the underlying cause of this might be time pressure (among other causes). Instead of addressing the symptom, we address the underlying core problem. But there are of course multiple underlying (or root) causes. If there are different interpretations - should we stop calling it root causes and switch to something else? "Underlying causes"? "Basic causes"? What do you think? This HOPspot is prepared by Dr. Torkel Soma as part of a series of topics we need to be aware of and re-think when adapting to HOP, Safety Differently, and the future of safety. #HOP #HOPspot #SafetyCulture | stei SAYFR ! | https://lnkd.in/dpz4JDRN

If you want to learn how to achieve a healthy marriage, you cannot only learn from divorces. The same goes for safety - and how we define safety is key!