Safety audits almost never target the actual sources of operational danger

Reflecting on my first audit study – we found things many would expect (image 1), like audits largely focusing on administrative items, and superficial matters.

And for my construction friends, we found ‘toolboxes’ used a lot to address an issue, even if that issue didn’t have any reasonable connection to something that you’d need to communicate or would be resolved via a toolbox.

We also proposed an “illusion of depth”, where superficial fixes seemed to masquerade as substantial changes.

And, again expectedly, we said “Artefacts take on the guise of the issue. The second variation of surface compliance involves auditors frequently focusing on revising artefacts without adequately addressing the underlying physical issues.”

(We did find positives with audits, too. 😉 )

But something I found more novel, and interesting, was how this sample of audits virtually never directly focused or discussed the actual hazards (image 3).

That is, a focus on fall hazards always focused on working at heights permits, or vehicle/pedestrian interactions always focused on the vehicle management plants.

Audits, again in just this sample, didn’t unpack the actual work at heights or vehicle hazards, and other hazardous exposures. Work just wasn’t part of the scope (as far as we could ascertain).

Maybe this is obvious to others – that the role of an audit is always on the artefacts and systems, but I found it quite unusual and inconsistent with the stated objectives of audits (e.g. ‘testing effectiveness of critical systems’).