Occupational Health Services in the UK - Essay Example

Standards and Organizations In the modern society, standards have become an increasingly important force through which the environment, public’s health and safety are safeguarded. These standards have been used universally in the society to the point of them being taken for granted. In this sense, standards are important to both customers and operability of business organizations. With the present competitive corporate world, absence of standards within industries may prove to be costly for businesses and governments. This is because efficiency of companies may be impacted negatively besides transactions being costly. By extension, adoption of standards in business operations leads to market fragmentation due to the rise of divergent requirements of resources for new products. However, implementation of various standards within an organization may come with challenges and disadvantages in the short run which nonetheless can be overcome in the long run. Research has shown that standards are vital in efficiency promotion especially during operations in manufacturing processes. Standards avail modalities through which processes can be carried out in large quantities without changes. In this regards, there is a reduction in technical errors which routinely occur during production of goods. When standards are put in place, a permanent design and materials necessary for production are specified which rarely change except when the standards are revised. By using the internationally acclaimed standards, organizations are at a vantage point where they can negotiate for favourable deals to boost their profitability. In the end, contract ambiguities are avoided which often undermine smooth and efficiency running of organizations (Goldenhar and Schulte, 1994, 770). According to Aitken, Chaudhry, Boxall and Hull (1999, 190), conformation to accepted standards provides a means through conveyance of complex information with regards to a product is done. There are enormous challenges to organisations on how to inform the public about the suitability of their products. This is because some methods of manufacturing are widely used to produce products that are complex and hard to explain to the public. However, with standardised mode of operation and conformance, a shorthand mode of communication can be developed based on standards specifications. The standards even come with simplified ways and information on how different operations are carried out without including the highly technical details. In this regard, there is a common language which is easily understood by both designers and consumers of different products. Reliability of the way operations are carried out within area of manufacturing is increased due to rationalisation and consistency of processes. When standards are put in place, mass production becomes easy because goods are produced within an accepted set standard which eliminates the need for constant check of quality. Therefore, many costly processes are eliminated such as inventory control and quality assurance processes which dig in the profitability of an organisation. In addition, training of workers to participate in the use of standardised procedures is efficient since the amount of time spent is little. In the end, there is streamlining of operations which results in production of goods and services that are internationally accepted (Nicholson, 2004, 147). Standards are very important to the management team of an organization since they help it in entrenching the culture of operational excellence. Operational excellence is vital for an organisation to realize its set targets and objectives efficiently without using many resources. Every organisation has its set business operations which must be conformed to acceptable standards within its sphere of operation. As such, business operation processes are important tools through which an organisation can achieve sustainable competitive advantage over other competing firms. In order to attain a sustainable competitive advantage, the standardisation of processes should be carried out. The standardised processes are then implemented in the entire organisation for replication of best practices geared towards improved performance (Mayhew and Quinlan, 2003, 199). Clarke (1999, 190) divulges that more meaning is added to value process management when standards are implemented within an organisation. This helps the management as well as employees to better understand how processes are carried out. There is a lot of inherency in business processes where there are no standards to follow which complicates supervision and completion of processes. In such environments where there are no standards, it is hard to operate due to unpredictability and variability. In order to minimize unpredictability, standards need to be implemented through creation of frameworks that define operation processes. When standards are put in place, the concept of proactive management of process comes into play and easing the difficulty of operations. In the end, operational efficiency of an organisation is improved which leads to smooth running of competitive operating procedures (Hutter, 2001, 45). Integration of standards into a firm leads to conglomeration of risk and efforts of compliance into a simple process leading to convergence. In this regards, efficient service oriented architectures and processes are initiated which enables a company to be more streamlined in terms of lowering operational costs. Convergence of similar or duplicate processes is very important since it eliminates duplication of roles and wastage of resources. Such a perspective is very important to the management of a firm since few employees are employed to oversee production processes. In addition, convergence of activities leads to better articulation, management and supervision of employees because each of them has a specific task and is answerable in case things go wrong (Chaudhry, George, Floyd, et al. 2006, 75). The standardization process is quite challenging when it comes to its implementation especially at the initiation stage. For instance, the standardisation of processes is only understood by manufacturing industries where their mode of operation is through repetitive processes. On the other hand, the addition of value through standardisation is well understood within the service industry. During the implementation of standards, both value addition and process improvement should be the core areas of target. The creation of value within products and services should highly be based on interaction of people from different departments within the same organizations. This creates a platform within which concerted efforts can be discussed and made towards creating an enabling environment for sustenance of standardisation. The performance of human within controlled environments is usually increased by technical artefacts (Flin, Mearns, O'Connor and Bryden, 2001, 190). However, Flin, Mearns, O'Connor and Bryden (2001, 186) contend that there are other challenges such as increasing work efficiency in those undertakings where automation cannot be implemented. In addition, the increasing importance of inter-organisational networking means that value addition to services becomes more important and complicated. All these factors make the development and successful entrenchment of the standardisation process within an organisation even harder. It therefore makes the issue of standardisation relative with regards to organizational needs and processes. Peto, Matthews, Hodgson and Jones (1995, 537) point out that research has shown that issues arising due to complexities within operation of different organizations make it almost impossible to establish procedures and modalities of responding to problems. These complexities in turn increase the challenges of successful implementation of standardisation. As such, a lot of time and efforts are usually expended in developing the framework of the standardisation process. These complexities usually occur in level and certain levels it becomes utterly impossible to implement tenable workflow of activities. It therefore becomes necessary to separate complex processes from standard procedures to avoid the inherence of over-standardisation. This can be easily done by delineating process complexity from standardization process through a process-inherent construct. According to Spurgeon, Malcolm and Cooper (2000, 368), there are also financial challenges associated with the development and implementation of standards within organisations. These challenges are mostly within developing firms that implement these standards and also lack of funding from the organizations that have developed standards in different sectors of industry. For most of developing business organization, the financial challenge becomes almost insurmountable to engage in standardisation processes. Moreover, other costs are incurred in the process of developing these standards in the international stage. All these financial demands depress the development of standardisation processes within individual sectors which have limited financial resources. Some major companies and organisations have been forced to limit their resources in participation of standardisation processes in the international stage due to economical challenges. Some standards are highly technical, their development may require additional funding which may not be forthcoming and hence limit full development of the standards (Cralley and Cralley, 1979, 43). Waterhouse, Folkard, Minors and Britain (1992, 65) observe that other challenges usually occur during the revision of currently existing standards which were developed by others. This challenge arises because the original formulators of the standards may not be present during the revision exercise. As such, the current panel reviewing the standards may not fully understand the reasoning behind what was agreed. In addition, they may also fail to understand what was not considered or eliminated for consideration which and the rationale for the arrived conclusions. In this regards, it even becomes more challenging to revise the standards. The development of rationale statements behind standards can also be challenging because they usually define specific scope and purpose of the standard. By extension, the explanation of criteria used the development of standards requirements may impede the revision of standards. Waddell and Burton (2001, 125) contend that it is necessary for standards to be based on sound scientific doctrine or facts failure to which a problem may occur with regards to implementation and enforcement. When standards are not based on scientific facts, they often become trade barriers which lead to negative impacts on business. Some standards may be developed with the intention of protecting domestic markets and such standards usually lead to reduced business competitiveness especially in global trade. Unsound standards are usually operated under the principle of presumption of harm so that they may be justifiable. In their operation, these dubious standards usually do not put into consideration possibilities of high risks or hazards from scientific evidence. Creation of a free and fair global market is depended on standards and regulations that are based scientific evidence that is objective in principles. The process of standardisation is not undertaken instantaneous and therefore takes time for full actualisation. This is because a lot of documentation is required which accompanied by changes in the mode of operations. One of the most difficult things to effect within organisations is organisational culture change which actually takes time. Basically, standardisation process involves changes in the way things are done so that new processes that are geared to increased efficiency can be adopted. In the course of effecting these changes, the cost of operations usually shoot up which are borne by the firm. Much of the cost arises due to training of staff and acquiring of new equipments that are in tandem with the requirements of the process. Time and cost have been the two factors that slow or deter the implementation of standardisation process within organisations (Quinlan, 1999, 460). Standardisation and health, safety and the management of risks Standardisation has also gone a long way in promoting health and safety. This is because, adherence to standards demands that producers, industries and other stakeholders obey health standards that support public health. This ensures that goods and services that are availed are supportive of public health. At the same time, standardisation ensures that occupational safety and health measures are maintained. Because of this, employees work in an environment that is safe, and friendlier to their health. Conversely, those employees who would get harmed at the workplace have mechanisms and policies in place, which would ensure that their compensation. The role and activities of the government through relevant departments ensures that these requirements, ideals and standards are binding. Cox, Houdmont and Griffiths (2006, 250) point out that it is also important that standardisation has also helped promote health and safety and the abatement of risks. This is especially happened through the universalisation of standardisation. With the need and practices of standardisation being universalised, the integration of health and safety measures in production has gained increased impotence and a global approach. Particularly, the advent and rise of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) has become the world’s biggest developer, promoter and publisher of International Standards. At the moment, ISO forms and operates a network of 163 countries that in turn make up the national standards institutes. The network applies the one-member-per-country approach. This approach and the entire system are coordinated from Switzerland, with the Central Secretariat being based in Geneva. One of the ways in which ISO fortifies health, safety and the abatement of risks is through the bridging of efforts and developments in private and public sectors. This bridging is helped by many of the members of ISO being part of the government, or being mandated by the government and some of the members representing the private sector, having been appointed by the national partnerships of industrial associations (Mearns, Whitaker and Rhona, 2003, 650). The gravity of the foregoing is that ISO enables a consensus to be arriving at, concerning solutions that are to serve both the broader needs of the society and the requirements of the business organisations. This attempt to reinforce health and safety standards and to ensure abatement of risks is made wholesome by the fact that, the requirements of business organisations factor the safety of organisational employees and thereby helping accord employees with work safety. The requirements of the business organisations also encompass public safety. The solutions that are needed to serve the broader needs of the society also help cement public health and safety and the abatement of risks that bedevil the public. Conclusion In the modern society, standards have become an increasingly important force through which the environment, public’s health and safety are safeguarded. The global environment of doing business has moved with ease to adopt standards within which different industries operate in. These standards usually differ from industry to industry because of the nature or goods being handled. Use of standards within different industries has benefits for both consumers and business organizations that have implemented them. It may not be easy to implement these standards but when implemented, there is an increased efficiency that is imparted to an organization which leads to increased profitability. The existence of different bodies that deal standards for different industries means that all stakeholders can fairly participate in the development of standards which affect them. There is however limited participation of consumers in the development of these standards though development and implementation of these standards is mainly for their benefit. Bibliography Aitken, R., Chaudhry, M. Q., Boxall, A. & Hull, M. 1999. “Manufacture and use of nanomaterials: current status in the UK and global trends.” Journal of Organisational Behavior, 20 (2): 185–198. Clarke, S. 1999. “Perceptions of organizational safety: implications for the development of safety culture.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (2): 185–198. Chaudhry, Q, George, C, Floyd, P, et al. 2006. “A scoping study to identify regulatory gaps for the products and applications of nanotechnologies.” York: Central Science Laboratory. Cox, T. Houdmont, J. & Griffiths, A. 2006. “Rail Passenger Crowding, Stress, Health and Safety in Britain.” Transportation Research: Part A, 40: 244-58. Cralley, L. V. & Cralley, L. J. 1979. “Patty's industrial hygiene and toxicology.” Theory and rationale of industrial hygiene practice, 3 (25): 43. Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P. & Bryden, R. 2001. “Measuring safety climate: identifying the common features.” Safety Science, 34 (2000) 177-192. Goldenhar, L.M. & Schulte P.A. 1994. “Intervention research in occupational health and safety.” Journal of occupational medicine, 36 (7) 763-775. Mayhew, Claire & Quinlan, Michael. 2003. “Subcontracting and occupational health and safety in the residential building industry.” Industrial Relations Journal, 28 (3): 193-205. Mearns, Kathryn, Whitaker, M. & Rhona, Flin. 2003. “Safety climate, safety management practice and safety performance in offshore environments.” Safety Science 41: 641–680. Nicholson, P. 2004. “Occupational Health Services in the UK: Challenges and Opportunities.” Occupational Medicine, 54: 147-52. Peto, J., Matthews, F. E., Hodgson, J. T. & Jones, J. R. 1995. “Continuing increase in mesothelioma mortality in Britain.” The LANCET, 345 (8949): 535-39. Hutter, M. Bridget. 2001. “Regulation and Risk.” Occupational Health and Safety on the Railways. Oxford: OUP. Spurgeon, Anne, Harrington, Malcolm & Cooper, Cary. 2000. “Health and Safety Problems Associated with Long Working Hours: A Review of the Current Position.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 54: 367-75. Waddell, G. and Burton, A. K. 2001. “Occupational Health Guidelines for the Management of Low Back Pain at Work: Evidence Review.” Occupational Medicine. University of Huddersfield HD1: 51 (2): 124-35. Waterhouse, J.M., Folkard, S., Minors, D.S. & Britain, G. 1992. Shiftwork, Health and Safety: An Overview of the Scientific Literature, 1978-1990. London: Health and Safety Executive. Quinlan, Michael. 1999. “The Implications of Labour Market Restructuring in Industrialized Societies for Occupational Health and Safety.” Economic and Industrial Democracy. University of New South Wales: Sage Journals, 20 (3): 460-527. Read More