Safety Culture Assessment Why do it, How did we do it, What we found out, What is Next March 2012 INGAA Presentation
Safety Culture Assessment Why Did Kinder Morgan Gas Pipelines Consider a Safety Culture Assessment? We experienced a couple of incidents which resulted in serious injuries and which could have been catastrophic. Were we experiencing a new trend? If so, Why? One of our other business units had an increased effort towards behavior based safety programs. Should we do the same thing? What would we expect to gain? Is investing additional time and resources really going to keep our employees safe and working efficiently? Are our existing efforts effective? We needed to know where our Safety Culture and Programs were in order to make these critical decisions. (Late 2010) 2
Safety Culture Assessment First thing we did was a review of safety metrics OSHA TRIR 3 Year Average = 1.27 as compared against the industry BLS rate of 2.30. Not zero, but does not indicate a serious safety program flaw. DART 3 Year Average = 0.74 as compared against the industry BLS rate of 0.90. Not zero, but does not indicate a serious safety program flaw? Is this correct? What about our recent serious incidents? We needed to look deeper. We decided to implement two Severity related metrics The AGA DART Severity and a Kinder Morgan Severity metric loosely based upon a PSM industry metric. What did this tell us? Answer: We may have a problem! 3
Safety Culture Assessment We were seeing a trend of more serious injuries. We decided to perform some sort of survey of our employees. We considered: Our Products Pipeline completed an internal survey with questions they developed (35-40 questions). They were satisfied with the result and found areas of their safety program that could focus on for improvement. As we started to plan a deliverable back to the employees we quickly realized that there was no benchmarking component to this internal survey. We really wanted to compare our Safety Culture against other companies. We discussed our data/desires with three consulting companies and solicited proposals to perform the study. 4
Safety Culture Assessment Study 2011 Goal: Benchmark KM Natural Gas Operations Safety Culture Behavioral Sciences Technology (BST) was selected for benchmarking purposes Propriety Organizational Culture Diagnostic Instrument (OCDI) survey BST works with 200 Companies in 18 industries Surveys conducted followed by focus group meetings in each operations region and corporate offices Transmission & Treating Operations, Project Management and office personnel participated Outstanding participation: 1,039 employees responded (apprx. 80 %) 88 BST Questions and 12 Kinder Morgan specific Questions Survey structured by organization, operating region, management levels and years of service Survey Conducted in late July, Focus Groups conducted throughout August 5
What the Survey Measured Does the company care about me as a person? (Perceived Organizational Support) Is Management serious about protecting my safety? (Organizational Value for Safety) Is management perceived as honest and trustworthy? (Management Credibility) Do supervisors listens to and acts on safety concerns? (Upward Communication) Are supervisors fair and unbiased in decision making? (Procedural Justice) Do supervisors treat employees with dignity and respect? (Leader-Member Exchange) 6
What the Survey Measured Do my peers treat me with dignity and respect? (Work Group Relations) Are my peers reliable in getting their job done? (Teamwork) How likely am I to report an injury or near miss? (Injury Reporting) 7
Safety Survey Responses 8
What do the Percentile Scores Mean All scores greater than 50 th percentile, most were above 75 th percentile Scores are very positive Even lower scores reflect employee agreement (4 out of 5) with the category and are at or above average compared to other companies benchmarked by BST 9
Study Findings Proven safety performance and strong safety culture Kinder Morgan does safety well Positive perceptions across organizations, management levels and field locations All regions indicate a high-functioning, effective organization Improvement areas Communication breakdowns due to diverse geographic areas Improved knowledge transfer & skills training workforce demographics 10
What We Did With The Results A prepared presentation was delivered at all locations by Operations Management (1/2012) Short Term Initiatives Communicated Critical Safety Activities identified and communicated. Communicated the expectation that when conducting these activities there is no room for error. Proper planning and following all procedures must not be compromised. Discussed Incident Reporting Requirements (OSHA and Company policy) 11
What We Did With The Results Safety Recognition Programs Quarterly Safety Awareness Lunches (you don t earn them or lose them with an incident) Communicate successes, accomplishments and challenges Focus on operating region and overall company safety issues Long-Term Re-evaluate training programs Training requirements, programs, implementation methods and effectiveness Begin planning for follow-up Assessment to determine effects of Initiatives on Safety Culture. 12