Summary of the Workshop: e-tools and their implementation in the field of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)

Safety and health at work is everyone’s concern. It’s good for you. It’s good for business.
Summary: Expert Workshop on e-tools
held 20 October 2014, Paris
Prepared by Tim Tregenza & Lorenzo Munar
EU-OSHA Project Managers

http://osha.europa.eu
2
Expert Workshop: Purpose and structure
 Purpose
• Initial input into EU-OSHA project plan
 Structure
• The concept and scope of e-tools
• Challenges and opportunities in tool development and
dissemination
• Examples of e-tools
• Role of EU-OSHA in network support, tool development
and dissemination
• Costs and benefits of creating an e-tools community
• Potential structure and membership of an e-tools
community
• EU-OSHA next steps

3
Organisations represented at the workshop
Organisation Country
INAIL Italy
National Institute of Occupational Health - STAMI Norway
Austrian Social Insurance for Occupational Risks - AUVA Austria
Italian Workers Compensation Authority - INAIL Italy
Hellenic Ministry of Labour, Social Security and Welfare Greece
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health - FIOH Finland
Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health - BAuA Germany
State Labour Inspectorate Latvia
Health and Safety Authority Ireland
CIOP-PIB Poland
European Commission EU
TNO The Netherlands
Employers Representative EU
Workers Representative EU
INRS France
Eurogip France
EU-OSHA EU-OSHA

4
E-tools: the context
 Online interactive tools (“e-tools”) are the result of
the evolution of computer technology and Web use
practices
 The OSH sector is no stranger to this trend/evolution
 Many OSH actors have already developed such tools
 EU Strategic Framework on OSH 2014-2020 (6.6.2014)
mentions IT based tools
 E-tools’ main (but non only) target audience: micro
and small companies
• to facilitate compliance with legislation
• to foster the development of a health and safety culture

5
What are OSH e-tools?
 An electronic tool – not paper-based
 Interactive – user has to drive process
• User can record data (e.g. noise level)
• User can enter information (e.g. type in data)
• User makes decisions (e.g. select options in software)
 Output is tailored to user needs or data entered
 Focuses on health and safety issues
• Can overlap to other themes (e.g. environment protection)
 Tool is free to end user – but see later discussion
 Initial definition: Requires refinement

6
Discussion 1: What is free?
 There is high cost in developing e-tools
 Great variation in funding models, e.g.
• Free access but paid advertisements
• In-app purchases
• One-off purchase
• Free software but paid subscription
• Free for MSEs, priced for larger enterprises
• Totally free, but paid through taxation
 “Not for profit” or “non-commercial” may be better
terms than “free”
 This concept is a core issue to be clarified at the start
of the project

7
Discussion 2: Credibility
 MSEs want a quality, reliable e-tool
 Assessing this is often done on the credibility of the
tool source
 Credible tool sources include:
• Labour inspectorates / Ministries
• Major institutions
• Large enterprises / NGOs
 Smaller enterprises can develop innovative tools but
can lack credibility
 How can synergy be developed between “innovators”
and “credible names”?
 Ensuring credibility of e-tools will need to be
considered at the start of the project

8
Discussion 3: Quality assurance
 How can EU-OSHA ensure that those e-tools
supported/promoted are credible?
 Different quality standards:
• Assessment based on tool source (e.g. national
institute)
• Use of established norms (e.g. ISO standards)
• Specific quality criteria (developed by network)
 Tools can be misused by the end-user, no form of
quality assurance can prevent this, e.g.:
• User misuses indicative noise data
• User enters incorrect data into system, getting
inaccurate output
 Tools must be clear in their purpose and limitations

9
Discussion 4: “non-expert tools”
 Tools can be divided into “expert” and “non-expert”
• E.g. indicative noise app compared to complex noise
evaluation software
 Non-expert tools generally intended:
• For use by duty-holder (e.g. manager of MSE)
• To raise awareness of OSH issues
• To indicate potential issue that needs further
investigation
 Non-expert tools cannot be seen as replacing expert
tools
 Both types of tools have role to play, but should not
be confused with each other
• Careful promotion may be required

10
Discussion 5: Classification of e-tools
 By outcome
• MSD Prevention
 By sector
• Construction, Printing
 By job or task
• Patient lifting, car-body repair
 By hazard/risk
• Noise, hazardous substances
 By function
• Recording of data, identification of solutions
 By platform
• Mobile phone, tablet, internet-based
 By software
• Open source, commercial, generic, specific

11
Preliminary typology of e-tools

12
Perceptions about e-tools
There is a common/shared perception that:
 Public institutions and social partners should be
involved in:
• developing and disseminating tools of good quality and
• putting them at the disposal of end users for free
 There is a need / room for:
• Adopting / adapting existing tools (instead of
developing them from scratch)
• Using the experience of other when creating new e-
tools
• Developing the tools in synergy/cooperation.

13
Benefits of E-tools (1)
 Empower MSEs, allowing in-house prevention
 Can be perceived / marketed as a medium to
facilitate business
• Reducing red tape, removing administrative burden
 Provide solutions or support to actions for
prevention in the workplace
 Help identify the hazards
 Easy to use, interactive, easy to access
 Associated with innovation
• Use on mobile technologies / Internet based
 Potential for monitoring use of tools
• E.g. as with the RI&E tool (Netherlands)

14
Benefits of e-tools (2)
 Perform an awareness-raising function
• Can be used in context of a campaign
• Can mobilise actors (social partners, inspectorates)
 E-tools statistics can be used as a project indicator
 E-tools can provide “big and important data”
• Anonymous data to monitor OSH policy performance
• Feedback on e-tools´ effectiveness / functionality
 Offer a didactic/methodological dimension
 Attractive for young people (workers, students)
 Online diffusion and dissemination
• Web and social media
 Allows relationships to be built with end-users

15
Challenges of e-tools
 Need to be in the language of the end user
• Including “jargon” of the industry
 Misuse of tools
• Used for wrong purpose (e.g. indicative tools used for in-
depth assessment)
• Risk assessments that are neither suitable nor sufficient but
to comply with need for documentation
 Poor data quality
• “Rubbish in – Rubbish out” systems
 Need critical mass of users
 Data protection issues when collecting information
 Use of metadata has to be contextualised
• Data limitations clearly explained
 Require ongoing support

16
E-tool example 1: OiRA (1)
 EU-OSHA internationalised existing Dutch RI&E tool
 Created an online community
• Sharing knowledge and materials (e.g. images)
 A common platform / software (18 languages)
 Plone software – open-source philosophy
 More than 50 tools created in 15 countries (end 2014)
 Tools under development: 30
 More than 10 000 OiRA user accounts
 More than 15 000 risk assessments created
 Social partner engagement to reach end-users
 Ongoing tool development to cover more sectors

17
E-tool example 1 – OiRA (2)
How tools are shared

18
E-tool example 2 – STOFFENMANAGER (1)
 Tool which allows companies to safely work with
hazardous substances and comply with
regulations
 The tool has been in place for more than ten
years
 Exists in four different languages
• Dutch, English, Finnish and German
 More information available at:
• www.stoffenmanager.nl

19
E-tool example 2 – STOFFENMANAGER (2)
 Goal is “to establish Stoffenmanager as an
internationally recognised, accepted and used
tool”, based on the following principles:
• Compliance
• Up to date with new scientific developments
• Consistency in all national versions
• Quality assurance
• A participatory approach
 As part of their international strategy,
Stoffenmanager makes use of an international
group of so called ambassadors which provide
feedback on usability and content

20
E-tool example 3: SUBSPORT (1)
 An internet portal that is a state-of-the-art resource
on safer alternatives to the use of hazardous
chemicals.
 It is not only a source of information on:
• Alternative substances and technologies
• Tools and guidance for substance evaluation and
• Substitution management.

21
E-tool example 3: SUBSPORT (2)
 Publically funded tool under the LIFE-Programme
• I.e. Not a development based on a contract
 Consortium of European partners in 4 countries
 Project involved:
• Creation of portal
• Training activities (c.60 presentations) within and
outside Europe.
 More information available at
• www.subsport.eu

22
Example 4: L´entreprise virtuelle /
l´impresa virtuale (1)
http://www.travailler-mieux.gouv.fr/entreprise_virtuelle/wrapper_standalone/
http://sicurezzasullavoro.inail.it/CanalePrevenzione/impresa_virtuale/main/index.html

23
Example 4: L:’enterprise virtuelle (2)
 Interactive tool featuring a virtual workplace and a
variety of situations relevant
• Relevant to different types of worker (e.g. office
workers, cleaners)
 Provides a variety of workplace settings and
highlights the most important OSH issues
• E.g. handling chemicals, stress
 Tool originally developed by the French Ministry of
Work in cooperation with a range of organisations
• Italian version of the tool was set up by INAIL

24
Example 4: L:’enterprise virtuelle (3)
 INAIL evaluated tool as well-designed and user-
friendly tool filling a need in Italy
 Purchased rights and adapted tool to Italian
context
• Rights cost EUR 20,000
• Italian version development EUR 9,120
• Translation carried out in-house
 Cost effective approach
 No “reinvention of the wheel”
 Good example of cost-effective collaboration
between States

25
EU-OSHA role as facilitator for E-Tools
 Increasing general awareness of e-tools
 Sharing knowledge about the development of tools
 Sharing knowledge about dissemination methods
 Contributing to the dissemination of specific e-tools
 Encouraging the development of e-tools in
partnership
 Encouraging the sharing, adoption, and adaption of
existing tools
 Promoting the design of tools that allow sharing
• E.g. structure of software to permit multilingualism
 Identification of potential sources of EU funding for
developing / promoting e-tools

26
How EU-OSHA can facilitate e-tools (1)
 Using the EU-OSHA website and OSHWiki
• http://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Occupational_risk_assessment_in_
micro-enterprises:_the_assets_of_digital_tools
 Facilitating a specific network
• E.g. IRAT network (sharing information about Online risk
assessment tools)
• http://www.oiraproject.eu/partners/irat-network
 Using networks
• To find out about existing tools
• Promotion by EU-OSHA networks (e.g. focal points)
• Promotion by other networks (e.g. Baltic Sea Network)
 Connecting interested parties
• Organizing meetings or exchanging contact details

27
Network linkage with EU-OSHA

28
How EU-OSHA can facilitate e-tools (2)
 Organisation of specific events on the topic
• E.g. Organisation of an e-tools seminar in the
framework of the conference USE2015 (in
collaboration with INRS)
 Using existing events as a platform for promotion
• E.g. using the World Congress to launch and promote
OiRA
 Promoting e-tools as part of the European Strategic
framework in presentations to policy-makers
 Allowing EU-OSHA campaigning events to provide a
platform for awareness raising of relevant tools
 Creating a funding guide
• Using model developed for OiRA

29
An E-tools community
 Would create “social capital” to the benefit of the
community
 Gives support for its members
 Gives the community a common “voice” for
advocacy and promotion
 Allows content and experiences to be shared
 Promotes collaboration between members

30
The goals of a community
 To achieve better prevention in workplaces by:
• Better accessibility to available tools
• Better quality tools (more quickly)
 To support tool developers:
• By providing technical support between members
• By sharing content information
• By sharing dissemination strategies and other
relevant information
• By promotion of each others tools

31
Community costs and benefits
Benefits
 You are not alone
 Information
resources (technical,
content, activities)
 Improved
dissemination of
tools
 Keep up to date with
new developments
Costs
 You get out what you
put in
 Time to contribute
 Travel and other
participation costs
 Risk of information
overload

32
Community: Issues for resolution
 Membership criteria
• E.g. are developing / have developed and OSH tool
 Demonstration of commitment
• E.g. exchange of letters
 Personal based Membership
• Not “one-per-State” as in some EU networks
 Main communication channel
• E.g. common email list
 Frequency of meetings
• E.g. annual meeting as side event at larger conference
 Costs of participation
• E.g. All partners responsible for their own costs

33
Community: The role of EU-OSHA
 Stimulating political support for tools
 Providing a voice when reaching beyond the EU
 Giving a European perspective to tool development
 Providing an initial contact point for new tool
developers
 Providing platforms for promotion
• HWC Campaigns
• FOP and other networks
 EU-OSHA cannot fund the running of a community

34
EU-OSHA activities on e-tools 2014
 e-tools meeting with EU-OSHA´s main stakeholders
• Held Paris, 20 October 2014
• Developed e-tools concept (e.g. definition, added-value,
limits)
• Considered potential “facilitating role” for Agency
• Provided steering on the way forward in this topic
 Start development of online visibility for e-tools:
• Explaining added value of e-tools on EU-OSHA site
• OSH wiki content on specific tools
• Goal to facilitate development and dissemination of tools

35
EU-OSHA activities on e-tools 2015
 Continue development of online content
 Organisation of an EU e-tools event
 Identification of potential funding sources for
development and dissemination (2nd quarter)
 Hold an e-tools seminar in the framework of USE2015
• http://www.useconference.com/
 Define EU-OSHA policy on e-tools (4th quarter) from
• Feedback from e-tools event
• USE2015 seminar outcomes
• Input from EU-OSHA stakeholders (e.g. Advisory groups)

Summary of the Workshop: e-tools and their implementation in the field of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Summary of the Workshop: e-tools and their implementation in the field of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) (20)

More from European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - EU-OSHA (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Summary of the Workshop: e-tools and their implementation in the field of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)