Why is it important to care about small HSE violations in manufacturing companies?
Shouldn't we only care about injuries & deaths?

Only if we want the company to fail and workers to die.

2/ Yesterday, I pointed out that a famous automotive company has a lot of OSHA violations. The most common response I got is that those relate to meaningless violations.

Perhaps. But only in a theoretical ideal world, meaningless violations are unrelated to incidents.
3/ In the real world, incidents *approximately* follow a pyramid as the below one (image from my book gum.co/opexbook).

The more "meaningless violations" a company has, the more a big incident is waiting to happen.
4/ Moreover, the more lax is management in safety, the more lax it is in general.

Based on my experience as an operational excellence consultant, given an industry, the company with the most incidents is also likely to have the poorest quality.

5/ (A clarification: here, I only talk about manufacturing. I do not know whether this also applies to, say, software.)
6/ Even more important than Health, Safety & Environmental violations, are violations in HSE reporting protocols.

For three reasons:
- They show bad faith
- They show terrible management
- They hide a problem, making it grow larger and larger
7/ Safety, and even more "meaningless violations of safety," are one of the most effective leading indicators to estimate the direction of manufacturing capabilities of a company.

If you care about a company, you should also care about "meaningless HSE violations."

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Luca Dellanna | Luca-Dellanna.com

Luca Dellanna | Luca-Dellanna.com Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DellAnnaLuca

17 Oct
In yesterday's tweet, I was critical of scientific institutions endorsing specific parties.

Here is an example of why.

There is no such thing as "the scientific party" or "the anti-scientific one" – not if by science we intend real science, rather than a politicized consensus.
IMHO there's too much focus on who governs the political structure and too little attention to whether:
- The structure is good
- It provides good incentives
- It filters bad members
- The downside of bad decisions is capped
- It provides longevity to the common good or to itself
(I don't live in the US and this was not intended to be a reflection on the US; I merely stumbled on the quoted thread and it made me think. Many other countries will find that, if they remove the words and look at the actions, "scientific parties" aren't that scientific at all.)
Read 4 tweets
3 Oct
I agree. Plenty of exceptions (that might be over-represented in my Twitter audience) but for most businesses, the below holds.

(Thread with motivations, 1/6)
2/ One reason is that hiring inside is Lindier than hiring remote – not from a historical perspective, but (see below) for the range of circumstances that must be true and must hold true over time for remote hiring to be effective vs in-house.

3/ (Yes, there are good examples of hiring remote, but I suspect there's a lot of survivorship bias in there. Also, it's possible that you hire a better-than-internal remote talent and still lose the long-term game due to externalities such as morale hits or cultural problems.)
Read 7 tweets
1 Oct

The reason is that we do not seek survival, but what feels like survival.

Any action that produces the same neurochemicals that we associate to pro-survival actions produces changes in our brain that make us desire it.

For example,

(thread, 1/N)
2/ For example, sugar gives us energy, and we need energy to survive.

When we eat sugar, our brain feels like we are increasing our chances of survival, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS THE CASE.

When we slowly kill ourselves through metabolic diseases, it still feels like survival.
3/ Our ancestors whose genes made them produce behavioral-reinforcing chemicals when they did something that increased their survival also tended to survive more.

Hence those genes spread. We ended up desiring repeating the actions that produced those neurochemicals.
Read 6 tweets
29 Sep
Natural selection is inevitable, but we can choose whether it acts on us (bad) or within us (good).

Up to a point, of course, but imagine a company:

If uncompetitive, the market's meritocracy bankrupts it

But the company can protect itself by letting meritocracy work inside it
2/ Natural Selection acts on any entity and within any population.

The monolithic only suffers from NS, whereas populations suffer but also benefit from it.

In fact, the monolithic is fragile whereas populations can be antifragile.

We can apply this insight by realizing that…
3/ if we consider ourselves a population (of habits & beliefs), we can let natural selection remove those that are bad for us, making us stronger. It acts within us

Instead if we consider ourselves a monolithic identity, we cannot grow. We become the victims of natural selection
Read 4 tweets
24 Sep

Often, the best approach is not A or B, but an alternation of A and B.

For example, action and reflection. Or study and application.

It’s not about balance, but about making hypotheses and verifying them.

Thread (1/N)
For example, the human cortex 🧠 is based on the principle of *alternating* two operations: expansion and compression of information.

Only one operation would not be able to achieve any meaningful result.

3/ Instead, the cortex alternates these two steps:
- It expands information across all possible hypotheses, relevant or irrelevant.
- It compresses information, by eliminating the hypotheses that are proved wrong by sensorial stimuli and/or experience.

This “brainstorm” is 💯
Read 11 tweets
23 Sep

The chart below shows the expected financial returns of a Russian Roulette gambler playing it multiple times.

There is no high-enough prize (nor low-enough cost) that make Russian Roulette worth it over time.

(thread, 1/N)
2/ Of course, there are reasons for which one would want to play Russian Roulette once.

But Russian Roulette cannot be a long-term strategy.
And it's not about cost-benefits.
3/ In a previous thread posted today, I compared GMOs to Russian Roulette.

Both come with a risk of ruin, and therefore none can become a strategy.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!