Very Important regarding the reference section! The references must come from
a peer reviewed article. You may use any database.
Please use at least two peer review articles if you need to use more that it is
perfectly fine.
You must put the link to the peer reviewing article in the referecnes
Here is a sample of the reference to be used regarding the link.
References
Cheung, Ng. “Being in the Moment Later? Testing the Inverse Relation between Mindfulness and
Procrastination.” Personality and Individual Differences 141 (2019): 123-26. Web. Retrieved from
https://searchproquestcom.
ezproxy3.lhl.uab.edu/docview/235120265?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
Cornelissen, J. Schildt, H. Sensemaking in strategy as practice: A Phenomenon or a perspective?
(2015) Web. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290653847_Sensemaking_in_strategy_as_practice_A_
phenomenon_or_a_perspective
Also, the page number needs to be in parenthesis in the text next to the citation.
Here is an example of the text regarding the citations.
“interpretation”. In fact, Weick explained that that sensemaking and interpretation are
contrasting ideas, though many people use the two terms synonymously (Weick, 1995, pg. 6-7).
ASSIGNMENT
Please coordinate a response to the following post.
The Chemical Safety Board (CSB) investigation that I chose involved the Hoeganaes
facility in Gallatin, Tennessee. This investigation was for multiple incidents at this same
facility that included two separate iron dust flash fires that killed two workers and injured
another, and a hydrogen explosion that also resulted in iron dust flash fires that claimed
three lives and injured two other workers (CSB, 2011).
1. The part of CSB’s investigation that I found was most value was their analytical comparison
of the incident facility and organization to the rest of the country. There is set of
circumstances that are completely unique that cannot compare to what is occurring elsewhere as a form of benchmarking. The CSB’s investigation not only looked at the facility and operation but also compared them to other facilities that manufacture metal powders and deal with combustible dusts. They looked at regulation, codes and standards. The final report takes the specific incident analysis and combines it to what was known in the industry to explain what happened and how it could have been prevented through already established best practices, such as engineering controls. The comparison also identifies areas that are lacking in a particular industry or setting that could be improved through changes to policy and procedure. To me, this is the most valuable part of the investigation and final report because it doesn’t just look at what happened in this specific incident; it puts it all in relation to a bigger picture that industries that have these same situations can learn from. The message is then explained well in a detailed report that covers the investigation, testing, comparative assessment, discussion and recommendations. The addition of the video is also helpful in spreading the message because it covers the basics in a short period of time for a reader to understand its relevancy, which supports the detailed final report. 2. I think this same process would work well after a disruption occurs at any organization. It may not require the same level of detail if the situation is not as complex. However, the investigation of the potential causes, the analysis/testing of contributing factors, comparative analysis to other companies, operations, processes, situations, etc., and the research of literature to search for a different way or improve the situation are all important to learning from a disruption and adapting to minimize the risk of future occurrences. 3. To improve the CSB approach when investigating a disruption, I would apply the same process but in a preemptive approach when possible. The process for a post-incident investigation and assessment that results in recommendations for change is a solid process, but it is primarily used after an incident. Just like a near-miss can give us really great information that can be used to prevent a future injury, the same mentality can be used when thinking ahead about potential disruptions. Conducting an investigation, outlining potential disruptions, hypothetically solving them, then presenting a report or a multimedia model to stakeholders would be much more effective in pre-planning than just a simple “should we consider this?” statement. References: CSB. 2011, December. Hoeganaes Corporation Fatal Flash Fires. Final Report: Hoeganaes Corporation: Gallatin, TN, Metal Dust Flash Fires and Hydrogen Explosion Final Investigation Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Retrieved July 22, 2019, from: https://www.csb.gov/hoeganaes-corporation-fatal-flash-fires/ (Links to an external site.) CSB. 2012. Hoeganaes Corporation Fatal Flash Fires. Video: Iron in the Fire. Washington, DC: U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Retrieved July 22, 2019, from: https://www.csb.gov/hoeganaes-corporation-fatal-flash-fires/
