NAEPnet

1. www.NAEPnet.org

2. Secrets to Synergy Between Safety, Facilities, and Procurement Robert Emery, DrPH, CHP, CIH, CBSP, CSP, CHMM, CPP, ARM Vice President for Safety, Health, Environment & Risk Management The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Professor of Occupational Health The University of Texas School of Public Health

3. Plenty of Areas of Interface Plan reviews, codes Abatements Environmental releases Swing space, corridor clearance Energy use, fume hoods Sustainability initiatives FACILITIES SAFETY Purchase of chemicals Service contracts Central stores Inventory control Procurement cards and purchases PROCUREMENT

4. Background • Each of these programs play an important role within universities, but…. • Staff understanding and appreciation for how universities actually work is often lacking – thus negatively impacting synergies • 4,700 colleges and universities in the US and virtually every service provider entered into the work environment without any sort of formal orientation • Patently obvious from recurrent discussions in the UTS EH&S Academy courses and multiple EH&S program peer reviews

5. Covey’s 5th Habit • “seek to understand, then be understood” (The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People)

6. Today’s Objective • Having performed 25 university safety program peer reviews • And provided training to >500 safety program staff through our EH&S Academy • Would like to share with you (in no particular order) 15 commonly encountered problems, and ask: • Does your EH&S program do this? • Does your Facilities or Procurement program do this as well? • Could we possibly incorporate some of these solutions into our programs to improve synergies?

7. Useful References • If interested in learning more about this, I’d recommend two interesting books: • Barker, K. At the Helm: A Laboratory Navigator, Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor NY 2002 • Ginsberg, B. The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All Administrative University and Why it Matters, Oxford University Press, New York 2011.

8. Problem #1 • Problem - EH&S programs not conducting operations as a “service provider” • Solution – establish “service orientation” as a condition of employment, make part of work performance review, conduct periodic client satisfaction surveys

9. Problem #2 • Problem – EH&S program staff not truly understanding how universities work, what the overall mission is, the underlying cause of faculty frustration, etc. • Solution – provide training on how universities operate, establish service orientation as a condition of employment, conduct periodic client satisfaction surveys

10. Problem # 3 • Problem – EH&S programs reluctant to accept total net assignable square footage (TNASF) as the key denominator that drives resources and services • Solution – educate staff on the evidence and data behind this driver, establish programmatic measures based on TNASF

11. Problem #4 • Problem – membership of institutional safety committees largely non-faculty, thus losing shared governance leverage when problems arise • Solution – establish safety committee membership criteria to specifically include faculty representation, obtain members via requests from deans, provost, president

12. Problem #5 • Problem – absence of a systematic routine safety surveillance program, and absence of status data to key parties • Solution – establish expectation for baseline assessment of all workspaces within a defined time period, even if only superficial on the first round

13. Problem #6 • Problem –absence of a codified escalated enforcement policy, developed with faculty input • Solution – after getting faculty on safety committees, first job is to review a draft of such a policy and to endorse

14. Problem #7 • Problem – EH&S programs that immediately lament they are understaffed but cannot demonstrate optimal use of current staff, nor succinctly articulate what is not getting done • Solution – collect and concisely display work accomplished and meaningful benchmark data

15. Problem #8 • Problem - Absence of valid EH&S program benchmark data to justify staffing and resource allocations • Solution – Require collection of activity and performance data, routinely share with safety committees (faculty) and leadership

16. Problem #9 • Problem - EH&S programs that dwell on the exception to the rule rather than larger trends, resulting in paralysis by analysis and nothing getting done • Solution - Train on “50 questions”, set expectation for knowledge of answers, even if they have to carry the list with them

17. Problem #10 • Problem - EH&S lacking an interdisciplinary approach, rather, reside in silos resulting in multiple interruptions to research • Solution - Train on “50 questions”, set expectation for knowledge of answers, even if they have to carry the list with them. Have all staff involved in routine safety surveillance for an agreed upon set of cross cutting aspects

18. Problem #11 • Problem – Failure to arrive at baseline consensus of simple things any safety person can check in the workplace • Solution - Train on “50 questions”, set expectation for knowledge of answers, even if they have to carry the list with them. Include mechanism for passing on to specialist if necessary

19. Problem #12 • Problem – EH&S programs that cannot readily display data on activities and outcomes • Solution – set expectation to collect data, providing training on how to effectively display data

20. Problem #13 • Problem – EH&S programs that do not synthesize information, rather, they push out to community and expect compliance • Solution – don’t allow this to ever happen

21. Problem #14 • EH&S programs with little or no understanding about insurance issues • Solution – provide training on important linkages between EH&S and insurance. (Examples – retained losses, equipment movers)

22. Problem #15 • Problem – EH&S directors lacking experience in certain aspects of safety, particularly hazardous waste, biosafety, radiation safety • Solution – screen for this at point of hire

23. Commentary • A common thread seems to be a lack of real understanding about how universities work • Training in this area, even for long term employees, is critical • Perhaps a “boot camp” for Facilities and Procurement professionals is needed? • “What to measure” is also a problem, along with “how to display” • In cases where data is accumulated, its often DRIP – Data Rich, Information Poor

24. Summary • All three groups – Safety, Facilities, and Procurement are important to universities • An improvement understanding of how universities work would likely benefit all three groups • And can serve to improve synergies as well! • Your questions and comments are welcomed!