Supervision Factors

 Supervision Factors

By OffRoadPilots

When identifying contributing factors and root causes, an SMS enterprise considers human factors, supervision factors, organizational factors, and environmental factors. Every person is working under supervision, knowing it or not. A CEO of a corporation is supervised, and a AE of an SMS enterprise is supervised. Everyone is supervised in one way or another, and everybody got to serve somebody. Types of supervision also depends on what is being supervised. Different types of supervision are required for education than for operational control, fundamental task supervision is different than auxiliary task supervision, academic task supervision is different than practical application task supervision, and process compliance supervision is different than process output supervision. Every task comes with a supervision factor which depends on what task is supervised.

Micromanagement is considered a form of supervision, it is used by many and is in their opinion an excellent method and the preferred method of supervision. However, micromanagement is not supervision but management. Micromanagement is where managers feel the need to control aspects of their employee's work and decision-making to an extreme degree, more than is necessary or healthy for a usual working relationship. There is a difference between management and supervision. In general terms, management is how businesses organize and direct workflow, operations, and personnel to meet company goals. The primary goal of management is to create an environment that lets employees work efficiently and productively, and they use supervision as a process tool for oversight to remain on target for their goal. Micromanagement is not suitable for an SMS enterprise, since it does not promote trust, learning, accountability, or information sharing. Within a micromanagement system there is only one way, process, or method, which is decided by the manager. In a micromanagement system, a manager has previously demanded that a root cause analysis of an independent third-party operator to justify penalties and punitive actions.

The different levels of supervision are direct supervision, which supervisor gives specific instructions on all assignments. Work is reviewed for completeness and accuracy, or personnel performs tasks which provide inherent checks built into the nature of the work. Reviewing work is different from micromanaging work. General supervision is when the supervisor provides continuing or individual assignments by indicating generally what is to be done, limitations, quality and quantity expected, deadlines and priorities. Additional, specific instructions are given for new, difficult, or unusual assignments. Personnel uses initiative in carrying out recurring assignments. The supervisor assures that the work is technically accurate and in compliance with instructions or established procedures. Intermittent supervision is when a supervisor makes assignments by defining objectives, priorities, and deadlines, and assists personnel with unusual situations that do not have clear objectives. Intermittent supervision is when personnel plans and carries out successive steps and resolves problems and deviations in accordance with instructions, policies, and accepted practices. The supervisor reviews the work for technical adequacy and conformance with practice and policy. Administrative supervision is when a supervisor sets the overall objectives and resources available. Both supervisor and personnel, in consultation, develop deadlines, projects, and work to be done. Personnel plans and carries out the assignment, resolves most of the conflicts, coordinates work with others and interprets policy on own initiative. Personnel keeps the supervisor informed of progress, potentially controversial matters, or far-reaching implications. General direction is when assignments are made in terms of broad practice, precedents, policies, and goals. Work may be reviewed for fulfillment of program objectives and conformance with departmental policy and practice. Long-Range administrative direction is when personnel generally proceed independently in accordance with general plans, policies, and purposes of the department. Results of work are considered technically authoritative and are normally accepted without significant change. Any of these levels of supervision are compatible with an aviation safety management system.

Each level of supervision is linked to a type of supervision. Types of supervision is determined by the way in which work is assigned, when it is reviewed, how it is reviewed, and what guidelines, prototypes and protocols are available.

Close supervision is when personnel are assigned duties according to specific procedures. Work is checked frequently, and in addition there may be formal training. Regular supervision is when personnel perform a variety of routine duties within established policies and procedures or by referral to the supervisor’s guidelines. General supervision is when personnel develop procedures for performance of variety of duties or performs complex duties within established policy guidelines. Direction supervision is when personnel establish procedures for attaining specific goals and objectives in a broad area of work. Only the final results of work done are typically reviewed. Personnel typically develops procedures within the limits of established policy guidelines. General direction is when personnel receive guidance in terms of broad goals and overall objectives and is responsible for establishing the methods to attain them. Generally, personnel are in charge of an area of work, and typically formulates policy for this area but does not necessarily have final authority for approving policy. Any one of these types of supervision are compatible with an aviation safety management system. In a simple format, types of supervision are structural, participative, servant-leader, freedom-thinking, and transformational leadership.

When supervision factors are applied to a root cause analysis, it is critical for a successful outcome that it is applied appropriately to the analysis. Conventional wisdom is that any errors within root cause factors are human errors. However, human error is a subfactor of human factors.

The first step in analyzing supervision factors is to conduct a root cause analysis and assign one of the four factors to the root cause. Both the fishbone, and the 5-why root cause analyses are acceptable tools. The fishbone provides both visual and text links in the root cause process, while the 5-why is a text and matrix analysis. When applying the 5-why method, a matrix of 5 options and 5 considerations should be used. One reason for a 25-point matrix is to reduce the probability for subjective answers. After answering the first few questions subjectively, there is only one way to continue, which is to look at each answer objectively. Another reason for the 25-point matrix is that the first answer to the first question leads to a predetermined root cause. If the question is why an airplane crashed, a subjective answer could be that the pilot lost control. As the questions goes down the pilot lost control avenue, the outcome is focusing on the pilot only. An objective answer to the same question could be facts of events, such as a wing suddenly banked 60 degrees upon landing. An objective answer leads down the avenue of fact findings of events, as opposed to the avenue of pilot actions. When there is a matrix of 25 answers, there is a higher probability to capture the correct root cause, and it forces a person to think.

The root cause analysis is not the end, but the beginning of corrective action plans (CAP). Establish the root cause based on the most likely probability in the 25-point matrix. One or multiple column may be combined to assign the most probable root cause. A root cause cap must be linked to an objective, or establish a new objective, and linked to a safety policy goal.

General types are structural, participative, servant-leader, freedom-thinking, and transformational leadership.

Assign a weight score between 1 and 4 to each factor and to each one of the 5-Ws + How. The factor with the highest weight score is assigned as the root cause factor and the factor where the CAP needs to be applied. If two weight scores are equal, apply the highest “Why” score as the determining factor.

When supervision factors are determined to be the highest root cause probability, a corrective action plan must address the current supervision system, which can be extremely difficult to accept by an SMS enterprise. Acceptance and accountability are the only tools available to improve regulatory compliance and safety in operations little by little.

OffRoadPilots