Regarding the management of systems, how can we prevent the same system from being interpreted differently by the same or different people?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by 328104062 on 2015-6-18 at 18:26. As the title suggests: It’s clear that management can indeed bring about significant benefits; it’s not about working with techniques, but rather about following rules and standards (systems)............ How to prevent the following situations: 1. During inspections, multiple issues are found to be in violation of the rules and standards, but when asked to provide those rules and standards so that those being inspected can make corrections accordingly, they cannot provide them, claiming that there are no such rules or standards, even though the inspections show violations of them. 2. When inspecting the sixteen safety management systems, and before making any corrections, it is asked which rule has been violated; yet among those sixteen management systems, there isn’t such a rule! Answer: One needs to go and study the relevant systems. There are various aspects such as the criteria for calculating the utilization rate of interlocks, the criteria for measuring the level of automation, the management of interlock classification systems, the procedures required for hot work, the management of operational changes (including the determination of levels and classifications), the management and classification of process cards, the equipment management system, and the instrument interlock management system. Different people have different interpretations of these aspects; even the same person may have different understandings at different times. How do people prevent such situations from occurring? How can we ensure that everyone is on the same footing when determining the rules and gameplay methods? How can we ensure that the system is implemented effectively and in a standardized manner, so that it doesn’t become a scapegoat for departments to shift responsibility to each other?
The division of tasks was established from the start, but disputes persisted and were never resolved
Systematic management of people, with equality for all； Be humane in handling affairs; things are different in this world.
After the system is established, it is necessary to organize everyone to study it* and then implement it; any adjustments that are needed should be made as soon as possible and communicated to the relevant personnel.
This post was last edited by ylb913 on 2015-6-19 06:38. The overall impression is that there is too little regular inspection and management; relying on one or two inspections per year along with inquiries is simply not realistic! Normally, more publicity and oversight are needed.
It seems that the system is good, but instead of relying on the system itself to manage operations, people draw on the systems of other factories (both domestic and foreign), modify and manage those systems, and then use those systems to regulate people. As a result, it comes down to who has more influence – whose voice carries more weight – and that person’s opinions become the standard A good system is thus rendered ineffective, and good principles are distorted in this way; otherwise, the phenomena I mentioned above would not occur
As the saying goes, it’s hard to satisfy everyone; having different opinions is inevitable. It’s good enough if something meets the views of the majority. This reminds those who create rules to be thorough in their work – even the constitution has its flaws, let alone company policies.