MSOT - Frequently Asked Questions

1. Should the MSOT be announced?

Announcing visits may cause the Operator to "be prepared"… so observations made in
the field risk not being representative of normal practice… This is not totally negative
inasmuch as the Operator will respect certain safety requirements, which is the desired
final goal!!! Furthermore, as the Operator is unaware of the set of risks to which he is
exposed, observation will nevertheless show deviations.
Announcing visits may be recommended when launching a process for purposes of
avoiding creating a "fear of control and strict discipline". The pair will be announced the
week of, or even the day of the MSOT without the topic being specified.
As the practice of the MSOT becomes more commonplace, interest in this question will
fade. The MSOT Program will be communicated, while reserving the possibility of
initiating unexpected MSOTs. Planning MSOTs throughout the year is a key point.

2. How can MSOTs be scheduled with operational hazards and overloaded agendas?
Scheduling the MSOTs on day D, at time T on a given topic is unrealistic.
Scheduling MSOTs goes back to explicitly defining the Pair of Visitors on the intended
week.
This can be done over six months or over the year to come. Therefore, performing
MSOTs on the last day of the month, or in the last quarter of the year, will be
avoided.
The MSOT may possibly be shifted by a week, but always keep in mind the
message " EHS comes first!"
This allows the two Visitors to choose the right time depending on their diaries or
the topic that they want to examine.
It is preferable to not plan the topic of the MSOT, it is set at the time of the MSOT.

3. How often should MSOTs be done?

The "minimum" frequency is: one MSOT per month and per member of the line of
command.
However, this frequency should be adjusted according to the possible seasonal
variation of activities.
Another criterion for setting the frequency is do it so that every member of the operating
staff participates in at least one MSOT/year. This really isn’t much, when one considers
that it is one hour per year to "change the "behaviour" of a person…

4. Should it be accompanied by the Foreman?

The two Visitors may meet with the operator of a team without the Foreman being
present. In fact, the immediate actions are suggested and taken directly by the Operator;
as for the deferred actions, they only fall within the responsibility of the two Visitors.

5. Can the "n+1" manager do an MSOT directly with the "n-1"?

To skip a level in the line of command is to short-circuit it. This may remove all sense of
responsibility and give rise to diverse directions in interpreting the safety requirements.
6. Can one of the two Visitors, or even the two, be uninvolved in the department that is
visited?
The presence of a "department outsider" is foreseeable when the entire line of command
is completely involved in the practice of MSOTs (it’s the line of command that ensures the
operational command of safety in its unit).
With a "richer" reappraisal of the unit, this type of MSOT may allow the unit’s safety
procedure to be reframed and regulated. This practice is not recommended when
launching the method, in fact the operators should have the power to decide on and carry
out actions in the relevant department.

7. Do the two Visitors have the same role during the MSOT?
The Visitors have an interest in distributing the roles during the MSOT: generally the head
leads the MSOT and the dialogue, due to his greater ability to reappraise, and the
manager plays the role of the guarantor of the method (duration of the visit, open
questioning, taking immediate action,…). The head (n+1) is in charge of writing the
report.

8. Doesn’t limiting the MSOT to one operation when meeting one or two persons reduce the
effectiveness of the procedure?
The effectiveness of the MSOT is connected to, in particular, the quality of the exchange
with the person met. One "dialogue" with everyone is physically impossible.
It’s this multiplicity of the MSOTs that gives the overall procedure its complete
effectiveness, by ensuring the participation of the entire workforce and the clearing of all
activities.

9. Is it possible and effective to conduct an MSOT on an operation when we don’t know the
job in detail?
One of the most often expressed fears is not knowing the operations well enough to carry
out an MSOT: "we won’t see the Good Practices, the Practices and Situations at risk".
The relative lack of knowledge of the operations is not a handicap:
- The preparation phase allows you to familiarise yourself on the requirements that are
applicable in the field
- The open questioning, focused on risk analysis, causes the Operator to sufficiently
demonstrate the positive and negative aspects on his own
In addition, the practice will rapidly develop the observational sense of the Visitors.
Therefore, preparing the MSOT is key.

10. Can we choose a "general" topic rather than focusing on an operation?

It is indispensable to devote each MSOT to the examination of one particular operation.
Dealing with a general topic causes the actors to discuss in "general terms," to
engage in arguments/counter arguments. The debate that often results suppresses
action, and the detailed and factual observation of an operation ("the examination
of the facts") facilitates consensus on the need for action and its implementation.

11. Is it appropriate to do another MSOT on a topic that has already been dealt with?
Repeating the same MSOT topic leads to fear of repeating the assessment without
having had the time to make improvements.
Despite appearances, doing another MSOT on the same subject is always productive.
- Performed with another Operator, it allows another person to be brought along to
reconsider its practices,
- Carried out in a different context, the different observations will allow the
understanding of the set of collective behaviours to be increased.

Promoting actions that are focused on human aspects during the MSOTs (which are
easier to rapidly implement than those involving investment) contributes to a reduction in
a sense of ineffectiveness.
12. Doesn’t focusing on an operation in detail risk sidelining an important problem?
MSOTs do not claim thoroughness, only their multiplication may allow the guarantee that
all risks will be taken into account.
With practice, the Operators don’t hesitate to mention the important points that the MSOT
has skimmed over or missed, reframing the pertinence of the approach.
Basing the choice of the topic on the evaluation of the risks of all activities contributes to
minimising this pitfall.

13. Isn’t focusing on the detail of one operation simplistic?

In all fields, success and excellence are in the details. The winner of a sporting event often
wins by 1/100th of a second!
Accidents are almost always the result of a conjunction of deviations in the details, the
behaviours are "micro actions," details… Improving safety by causing behaviours to change
requires focusing on details.

14. Should only the reports from previous MSOTs devoted to the same topic be examined?
During MSOT preparation, do not be limited to examining the previous MSOTs dealing with
the same subject.
More generally, the head and his manager make a point to monitor the MSOTs in the
department visited. In fact, this ensures that the previously identified actions have been dealt
with and carried out well.

15. Doesn’t making the Operatives participate lead to only investment type actions being
identified?
The dialogue with the Operator must be based on the risks of the operation in progress and
not on the collection of suggestions from the person met who would naturally more easily
appraise the facilities than his own practice. (Also see Pitfall No. 7).
Explaining the problem to be resolved (Practice or Situation at Risk) and taking the most
immediate actions possible helps in remaining focused on the human aspects of safety.

16. When a repetitive Practice at Risk is observed during an MSOT, should disciplinary
action be made?
Observations seen during an MSOT should never lead to disciplinary action against a
Operator. Disciplining a critical/repetitive deviation falls within another operational mode in
the organisation, distinct from the practice of MSOTs.
This would be harmful to the acceptance of the MSOTs by the personnel and to their
effectiveness.

17. Why use deferred actions, since immediate actions allow the behaviour to be acted on
directly?
To be contented with only immediate actions would necessitate a multitude of MSOTs to
cause all personnel to adopt Good Practices.
Deferred actions allow
- Deviations linked to collective and cultural practices to be dealt with,
- The causes of these deviations and common methods of failure to be eliminated
- The management practices at the origin of numerous deviations in the field to be
caused to change

18. Can/should several actions be taken on a deviation?

Faced with a critical or repetitive Practice at Risk, a single action may not be satisfactory,
whether it is immediate or deferred. Such deviations merit Curative, Corrective or sometimes
Preventive Actions.
19. Should the Operator be present when the report is written?
Since an assessment was done orally at the end of the MSOT in the field, his presence is
not necessary.
On the other hand, it is indispensable that the report be the exact reflection of what was said
during the assessment made by the Operator.

20. To whom should the report be given?

For reasons of transparency, one copy of the MSOT report is given to the Operator. The
report is kept in the Sector visited for purposes of subsequent follow-up and use.
Current practice is to give this report to the Site Safety Co-ordinator in order to guide the
development of the overall MSOT program on the site, and each of the Visitors keep a copy.