We invite six companies to each meeting, and each company puts up two people who each have experience of our audits and the companies’ own follow-up activities. One of the two is a safety representative. We have also held a separate meeting with representatives from other supervisory agencies in order to learn from them.
Read more: Investigating the effect of the PSA’s supervision
“These meetings have been both lively and exceedingly useful for our efforts to improve”, says Ingvill Hagesæther Foss, one of the PSA’s directors of supervision. All the meetings have been characterised by openness, and a curiosity among the participants, who have shown great interest in learning from each other. We have plans to continue such meetings, one every six months or so.
The PSA’s audits and other follow-up activities
Good examples have emerged from the meetings of the positive effect of the PSA’s supervision. Many point out the importance of good preparations from both sides. In practice, much of the work is done between the letter of notice and the performance of the audit. A professional approach and clear reports help beneficial measures to be established as a result of the audit.
Topics are also important: if the topic is perceived as relevant and necessary, it is easier to generate buy-in and commitment. Many people mention that the PSA’s focus on the safety service has led to greater awareness, both among the safety delegates and the management of this service’s key role.
Examples also emerged of internal follow-up activities with positive outcomes. Many companies have extensive follow-ups from head office, often involving substantial resources. These investigate thoroughly the detail of the company’s management. Self-evaluation using checklists was also highlighted as useful.
In addition, the operators’ follow-up of the contractors produced important input. Many operating companies have highly expert specialist domains that generate important learning opportunities through the follow-up activities. Some contractors, however, point out that this supervision must also be risk-based: the right topics at the right time are important for promoting improvements.
The follow-up in the companies is crucial
Examples raised in the meeting show that there are major differences in how the companies respond to reports, following both internal follow-up activities and the authority’s audits. Some companies work thoroughly on all findings and have implemented significant activities in response to improvement points mentioned in the reports. In other cases, it is only when the company has been notified of an order that resources are allocated to substantial improvement measures.
“For us, this confirms that we need to use formal instruments where required, but that the trust-based model works”, says Hagesæther Foss. “The companies assume the responsibility they have for correcting non-conformities and rectifying deficiencies. This is how it must be. It is the companies who know which measures work.”
“Many also assess themselves against reports of other companies. In this way, our supervision is also effective beyond the companies that the reports concern.”
In recent years, the PSA has followed up more extensively the corrective measures made in response to non-conformities and formal orders. This is something the companies had noted and see as a useful reminder. Many companies have also initiated their own projects to check that measures have been completed as planned, and that they have had the anticipated effect.
We view such initiatives very positively”, says the director of audits. “When both we and more particularly the companies devote substantial resources to audits and internal follow-up, it is important for us to investigate that we are achieving results in the shape of beneficial measures that are actually implemented and bring about the expected improvements.”