So to set my solid foundation, I have listed core principles to what it is to be a Donnellyist!.
"Ideas begin as 'raw thought' and then can take a lifetime to master" MD
Safety in my context is; doing what we know we ought to be doing (this logic has not been disproved).
Safety is then doing what we know ought to be doing,
Safe is the outcome of having in place what we ought to have in place to reduce failure
If there is knowledge about risk/s and we a have means to protect against said risk/s, then we must do what is required from that knowledge to control said risk/s.
Core logic 2
Safety is Safety - there is only one form/construct of safety. The goal of 'all' should to be remain true to safety as a value and moral good for all. A foundation to set upon building from. Adding a separate term and meaning to the safety or calling it another term, automatically creates a division of safety into parts. This then makes way for chaos and of a means to blame.
The only pathway to ensure safety remains founded is to keep safety on one track. This cannot be done when people chose to construct alternate views and different approaches. If people address a new view, then they should be expressing their views as; I think safety could benefit if we did......
This way, safety remains true and there is no ability to create a division between safety that causes disconnect from what we already have and should be building up from.
Core Logic 3
Safety seeks perfection of Zero Harm, Zero Harm drives all that we do in safety.
The ultimate goal of safety is to eliminate risk, all risk (in safety) is a negative, the overarching goal and driver of all safety is ZERO HARM. Acting in a safe way is a choice and is an absolute.
Zero Harm is embedded into our natural law of self preservation. Each safe action we place to control risk first must consider the goal of zero harm. From there, we choose between risk tolerance and acceptability.
Safety then is doing what we know we ought to be doing. I.e., if workers need training, then we provide training, if we need maintenance, then we provide that, if we are required to follow OHS Laws and other guiding material, then we do that. All these things are things we know we ought to be doing...as safety is and can only be known/practiced after we know what a risk is...safety is in place to manage risk, risk is and con only been a known.
14) Safety people do not own safety nor should order. The role of a safety person/consultant should be one to lead those who should know, to facts presented in OHS legislation. A safety person should advise how to use safety tools (like a RA) but not write it. A safety person should conduct audits and inspections, then feedback to those who own the risk that requirements set out in legislation (which would include copy and paste references). NO safety person should make an order to do any work in a way, it is not, nor should not be their responsibility. They (safety person) simply advises the person with control (owner of risk) what they ought to be doing based of objective legislative requirements, then let them (leaders) decide what to do and action to take.
- Managing the unexpected - even if you could, it could not be done in any sense of practicality...try managing all the things that could go wrong driving to work...you would never leave. You cannot plan for the unexpected, you can only plan for the expected.
- Planning/managing uncertainty - We only know of things that have occurred, they then become a known. It is impossible to plan for uncertainty as it is not possible to know of its existence until it has occurred...this is why we do such things as experiment...to learn how to control the known. You cannot manage uncertainty, one can only manage certainty.
- Observing what you cannot notice - Looking out for those hidden risks is assuming we can see what we cannot...you only can notice things noticeable.
- Zero Harm as an absolute - Yes, all goals are. Those promoting maturity, resilience, excellence, just, etc are promoting absolute goals.
- Thinking unconsciously - You cannot think unconsciously, for as soon as you think, you are aware and thinking consciously. You can only react unconsciously, for a reaction is an embedded action. HERE
- Practicable Safety - If we all controlled known risk, then we would be practising practicable controls to manage risk...this practising is a costly exercise, hence not a practicable thing to do.
- Common Sense - As we cannot all agree what it is, then is it does not exist. and that is common sense! so it does exist...
- Reaching a mature state (HRO) - You can never reach maturity until you have reached the end and all else stops at that point.
- Telling v Listening - Both as important as each other, but telling is the most important...you cannot gain expected knowledge from a void.
- The ways data is embedded into our minds (S1S-2EH) - Heuristics like all data must be embedded somehow, I give a novel view HERE.
- Risk assessing individual human choices - impossible, even if one is trained to act a certain way, there is no guarantee they will act that way.
- The perfect logo - All logos are fanciful, and should be treated as a gimmick.
- Allowing to be loose on rules - In the workplace, if a rule is set by law or corporate governance, then there is no exception to the rule...looseness causes negative events via personal deviations and violations.
- Living in Grey - All life is grey, but you can only move by making a black or white choice, just like a game of chess...
- Managing Biases - Not possible without complete manipulation of the mind and memory erasing
- Shifting Risk once that risk controlled - Not all risk is shifted, the wearing of a harness to prevent a fall has stopped that risk of falling. If it creates another risk, that is a different risk
- Calling safety people Spudheads/crusaders etc - A term invented by a so called academic who thinks everyone who takes their job serious must be a crusader. HERE
- Unlearning Orthodox safety practices (one cannot unlearn) - It is nice and easy to 'tell' things we must do, yet to tell what the specifics are is not so easy. There are people telling us to unlearn orthodox safety, yet cannot even give examples of what is orthodox in the first place.
- More Rules - There are people who support embracing risk but who despise an increase of rules...they go hand in hand. Progress is a growing state of complexity...more rules are only introduced to control the extra risk...if you want to stop making rules...stop taking risk HERE
- Slow and fast thinking - Views on this soon but does not exist.
- Antifragilty (Taleb) - Some first views HERE...more on this later
- Unsafe Behaviour - This is all things that make for unsafe practices. It is not just about a worker choosing to violate a rule. Not providing training, poor maintenance programs, purchasing cheap products ete all unsafe acts...all incidents are a result of unsafe acts
- – designing a thing or system for an apparent improvement, so to be more resilient, robust and efficient, yet without fully understanding any long term effects on said improvements due to ignorance. The short term will see the thing (new idea) seem more robust and efficient today, but in the long term, it will result in a total failure after a period of more control, more fear and less choice.