Nuclear Safety Culture: Focus on Decision Making

McKinsey Five Fifty cover

We have long held that decision making (DM) is a key artifact reflecting the state of a nuclear organization’s safety culture.

The McKinsey Quarterly (MQ) has packaged a trio of articles* on DM.  Their first purpose is identifying and countering the different biases that lead to sub-optimal, even disastrous decisions.  (When specific biases are widely spread in an organization, they are part of its culture.)  A second purpose is to describe the attributes of more fair, robust and effective DM processes.  The articles’ specific topics are (1) the behavioral science that underlies DM, (2) a method for categorizing and processing decisions and (3) a case study of a major utility that changed its decision culture. 

“The case for behavioral strategy” (MQ, March 2010)

This article covers the insights from psychology that can be used to fashion a robust DM process.  The authors evidence the need for process improvement by reporting their survey research results showing over 50 percent of the variability in decisional results (i.e., performance) was determined by the quality of the DM process while less than 10 percent was caused by the quality of the underlying analysis. 

There are plenty of cognitive biases that can affect human DM.  The authors discuss several of them and strategies for counteracting them, as summarized in the table below.

Type of bias	How to counteract
False pattern recognition (e.g., saliency (overweight recent or memorable events), confirmation, inaccurate analogies)	Require alternative explanations for the data in the analysis, articulate participants’ relevant experiences (which can reveal the basis for their biases), identify similar situations for comparative analysis.
Bias for action	Explicitly consider uncertainty in the input data and the possible outcomes.
Stability (anchoring to an initial value, loss aversion)	Establish stretch targets that can’t be achieved by business as usual.
Silo thinking	Involve a diverse group in the DM process and define specific decision criteria before discussions begin.
Social (conformance to group views)	Create genuine debate through a diverse set of decision makers, a climate of trust and depersonalized discussions.

The greatest problem arises from biases that create repeatable patterns that become undesirable cultural traits.  DM process designers must identify the types of biases that arise in their organization’s DM, and specify debiasing techniques that will work in their organization and embed them in formal DM procedures.

An attachment to the article identifies and defines 17 specific biases.  Much of the seminal research on DM biases was performed by Daniel Kahneman who received a Nobel prize for his efforts.  We have reviewed Prof. Kahneman’s work on Safetymatters; see our Nov. 4, 2011 and Dec. 18, 2013 posts or click on the Kahneman label. 

“Untangling your organization’s decision making” (MQ, June 2017)

While this article is aimed at complex, global organizations, there are lessons here for nuclear organizations (typically large bureaucracies) because all organizations have become victims of over-abundant communications, with too many meetings and low value e-mail threads distracting members from paying attention to making good decisions.

The authors posit four types of decisions an organization faces, plotted on a 2x2 matrix (the consultant’s best friend) with scope and impact (broad or narrow) on one axis and level of familiarity (infrequent or frequent) on the other.  A different DM approach is proposed for each quadrant. 

Big-bet decisions are infrequent and have broad impact.  Recommendations include (1) ensure there’s an executive sponsor, (2) break down the mega-decision into manageable parts for analysis (and reassemble them later), (3) use a standard DM approach for all the parts and (4) establish a mechanism to track effectiveness during decision implementation.

The authors observe that some decisions turn out to be “bet the company” ones without being recognized as such.  There are examples of this in the nuclear industry.  For details, see our June 18,2013 post on Kewaunee (had only an 8 year PPA), Crystal River (tried to cut through the containment using in-house expertise) and SONGs (installed replacement steam generators with an unproven design). 

Cross-cutting decisions are more frequent and have broad impact.  Some decisions at a nuclear power plant fall into this category.  They need to have the concurrence and support of the Big 3 stakeholders (Operations, Engineering and Maintenance).  Silo attitudes are an omnipresent threat to success in making these kinds of decisions.  The key is to get the stakeholders to agree on the main process steps and define them in a plain-English procedure that defines the calendar, handoffs and decisions.  Governing policy should establish the DM bodies and their authority, and define shared performance metrics to measure success. 

Delegated decisions are frequent and low-risk.  They can be effectively handled by an individual or working team, with limited input from others.  The authors note “The role-modeling of senior leaders is invaluable, but they may be reluctant” to delegate.  We agree.  In our experience, many nuclear managers were hesitant to delegate as many decisions as they could have to subordinates.  Their fear of being held accountable for a screw-up was just too great.  However, their goal should have been to delegate all decisions except those for which they alone had the capabilities and accountability.  Subordinates need appropriate training and explicit authority to make their decisions and they need to be held accountable by higher-level managers.  The organization needs to establish a clear policy defining when and how a decision should be elevated to a more senior decision maker. 

Ad hoc decisions are infrequent and low-risk; they were deliberately omitted from the article. 

“A case study in combating bias” (MQ, May 2017)

This is an interview with a senior executive of a German utility that invested €10 billion in conventional power projects, investments that failed when the political-economic environment evolved in a direction opposite to their assumptions.  In their postmortem, they realized they had succumbed to several cognitive biases, including status quo, confirmation, champion and sunflower.  The sunflower bias (groups aligning with their leaders) stretched far down the organizational hierarchy so lower-level analysts didn’t dare to suggest contrary assumptions or outcomes.

The article describes how the utility made changes to their DM practices to promote awareness of biases and implement debiasing techniques, e.g, one key element is officially designated “devil’s advocates” in DM groups.  Importantly, training emphasizes that biases are not some personal defect but “just there,” i.e., part of the culture.  The interviewee noted that the revised process is very time-intensive so it is utilized only for the most important decisions facing each user group. 

Our Perspective 

The McKinsey content describes executive level, strategic DM but many of the takeaways are equally applicable to decisions made at the individual, department and inter-department level, where a consistent approach is perhaps even more important in maintaining or improving organizational performance.

The McKinsey articles come in one of their Five Fifty packages, with a summary you can review in five minutes and the complete articles that may take fifty minutes total.  You should invest at least the smaller amount.


*  “Better Decisions,” McKinsey Quarterly Five Fifty.  Retrieved Nov. 28, 2017.

Any Lessons for Nuclear Safety Culture from VW’s Initiative to Improve Its Compliance Culture?

VW Logo (Source: Wikipedia)

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) recently published an interview* with the head of the new compliance department in Volkswagen’s U.S. subsidiary.  The new executive outlined the department’s goals and immediate actions related to improving VW’s compliance culture.  They will all look familiar to you, including a new organization (headed by a former consultant) reporting directly to the CEO and with independent access to the board; mandatory compliance training; a new code of conduct; and developing a questioning attitude among employees.  One additional attribute deserves a brief expansion.  VW aims to improve employees’ decision making skills.  We’re not exactly sure what that means but if it includes providing more information about corporate policies and legal, social and regulatory expectations (in other words, the context of decisions) then we approve.

Our Perspective 

These interventions could be from a first generation nuclear safety culture (NSC) handbook on efforts to demonstrate management interest and action when a weak culture is recognized.  Such activities are necessary but definitely not sufficient to strengthen culture.  Some specific shortcomings follow.

First, the lack of reflection.  When asked about the causes of VW’s compliance failures, the executive said “I can’t speculate on the failures . . .”  Well, she should have had something to say on the matter, even party line bromides.  We’re left with the impression she doesn’t know, or care, about the specific and systemic causes of VW’s “Dieselgate” problems that are costing the company tens of billions of dollars.  After all, this interview was in the WSJ, available to millions of critical readers, not some trade rag.

Second, the trust issue.  VW wants employees who can be trusted by the organization, presumably to do “the right thing” as they go about their business.  That’s OK but it’s even more important to have senior managers who can be trusted to do the right thing.  This is especially relevant for VW because it’s pretty clear the cheating problems were tolerated, if not explicitly promoted, by senior management; in other words, there was a top-down issue in addition to lower-level employee malfeasance.

Next, the local nature of the announced interventions.  The new compliance department is for VW-USA only.  The Volkswagen Group of America includes one assembly plant, sales and maintenance support functions, test centers and VW’s consumer finance entity.  It’s probably safe to say that VW’s most important decisions regarding corporate practices and product engineering are made in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony and not Herndon, Virginia.

Finally, the elephant in the room.  There is no mention of VW’s employee reward and recognition system or the senior management compensation program.  We have long argued that employees focus on actions that will secure their jobs (and perhaps lead to promotions) while senior managers focus on what they’re being paid to accomplish.  For the latter group in the nuclear industry, that’s usually production with safety as a should-do but with little, if any, money attached.  We don’t believe VW is significantly different.

Bottom line: If this WSJ interview is representative of the auto industry’s understanding of culture, then once again nuclear industry thought leaders have a more sophisticated and complete grasp of cultural dynamics and nuances.

We have commented before on the VW imbroglio.  See our Dec. 20, 2015 and May 31, 2016 posts or click on the VW label.


*B. DiPietro, “Working to Change Compliance Culture at Volkswagen,” Wall Street Journal (Nov. 16, 2017).

Canadian Draft Regulation on Nuclear Safety Culture

Draft REGDOC cover

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has published a draft regulatory document REGDOC-2.1.2, “Safety Culture” for comment*  The REGDOC will be a requirement for nuclear power plants and provide guidance for other nuclear entities and activities.  

The REGDOC establishes “requirements and guidance for fostering and assessing safety culture.” (p. 1)  The CNSC’s purpose is to promote a healthy safety culture (SC) which they say “is a key factor in reducing the likelihood of safety-related events and mitigating their potential impact, and in continually improving safety performance.” (ibid.)

Section 2 specifies five characteristics of a healthy SC: Safety is a clearly recognized value, accountability for safety is clear, a learning organization is built around safety, safety is integrated into all activities in the organization, and a safety leadership process exists in the organization.  For each characteristic, the document lists observable indicators. 

Sections 3 and 4 describe how licensees should perform SC assessments.  Specifically, assessments should be empirical, valid, practical and functional.  Each of these three characteristics is fleshed out with relevant criteria.  The document goes on to discuss the mechanics of performing assessments: developing a communications strategy, defining the assessment framework, selecting team members, planning and conducting assessments, developing findings and recommendations, writing reports, etc.

Our Perspective

The REGDOC is clear and relatively brief.  None of the content is controversial or even new; the document is based on multiple International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) publications.  (14 of 15 references in the document are from IAEA.  The “Additional Information” page includes items from INPO, NEI and WANO.)

Here’s how the REGDOC addresses SC topics that are important to us:

Decision making - Satisfactory

The introduction to the SC characteristics says “The highest level of governing documentation should make safety the utmost priority – overriding the demands of production and project schedules . . .” (p. 4)  The specific SC indicators include “Timely decisions are made that reflect the value and relative priority placed on safety.” (ibid.)  “Workers are involved in risk assessment and decision-making processes.” (p. 5)  “A proactive and long-term approach to safety is demonstrated in decision making.” (p. 6)  We would have liked a more explicit treatment of safety-production-cost goal conflict but what the CNSC has included is OK.

Taking a systems view of SC - Unacceptable

This topic is only mentioned in a table of SC maturity model indicators that is in an appendix to the REGDOC.  The links between SC and other important organizational attributes must be inferred from the observable indicators.  There is no discussion of the interrelationship between SC and other important organizational attributes, e.g., the safety conscious work environment, management’s commitment to safety, or workers’ trust in management to do the right thing.

Rewards and compensation - Unacceptable 

The discussion is limited to workers.  What about senior management compensation and incentives?  How much are senior managers paid, if anything, for establishing and maintaining a healthy SC?

The discussion on performing assessments refers several times to a SC maturity model that is appended to the REGDOC.  The model has three stages of organizational maturity—requirement driven, goal driven and continually improving, along with specific observable behaviors associated with each stage.  The model can be used to “describe and interpret the organization’s safety culture, . . .” (p. 10)  Nowhere does the REGDOC explicitly state that stage 3 (a continually improving organization) is the desired configuration.  This is a glaring omission in the REGDOC.

Bottom line: If you keep up with IAEA’s SC-related publications, you don’t need to look at this draft REGDOC which adds zero value to our appreciation or understanding of SC.


*  Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, draft regulatory document REGDOC-2.1.2, “Safety Culture” (Sept. 2016).  The CNSC is accepting public comments on the document until Jan. 31, 2017.

The Criminalization of Safety (Part 3)

Our Perspective

The facts and circumstances of the events described in Table 1 in Part 1 point to a common driver - the collision of business and safety priorities, with safety being compromised.  Culture is inferred as the “cause” in several of the events but with little amplification or specifics.^[1]  The compromises in some cases were intentional, others a product of a more complex rationalization.  The events have been accompanied by increased criminal prosecutions with varied success. 

We think it is fair to say that so far, criminalization of safety performance does not appear to be an effective remedy.  Statutory limitations and proof issues are significant limitations with no easy solution. The reality is that criminalization is at its core a “disincentive”.  To be effective it would have to deter actions or decisions that are not consistent with safety but not create a minefield of culpability.  It is also a blunt instrument requiring rather egregious behavior to rise to the level of criminality.  Its best use is probably as an ultimate boundary, to deter intentional misconduct but not be an unintended trap for bad judgment or inadequate performance.  In another vein, criminalization would also seem incompatible with the concept of a “just culture” other than for situations involving intentional misconduct or gross negligence.

Whether effective or not, criminalization reflects the urgency felt by government authorities to constrain excessive risk taking, intentional or not, and enhance oversight.  It is increasingly clear that current regulatory approaches are missing the mark.  All of the events catalogued in Table 1 occurred in industries that are subject to detailed safety and environmental regulation.  After the fact assessments highlight missed opportunities for more assertive regulatory intervention, and in the Flint cases there are actual criminal charges being applied to regulators.  The Fukushima event precipitated a complete overhaul of the nuclear regulatory structure in Japan, still a work in progress.  Post hoc punishments, no matter how severe, are not a substitute.

Nuclear Regulation Initiatives

Looking specifically at nuclear regulation in the U.S. we believe several specific reforms should be considered. It is always difficult to reform without the impetus of a major safety event, but we could see these actions as ones that could appear obvious in a post-event assessment if there was ever an “O-ring” moment in the nuclear industry.^[2]

1. The NRC should include the safety management system in its regulatory activities.

The NRC has effectively constructed a cordon sanitaire around safety management by decreeing that “management” is beyond the scope of regulation.  The NRC relies on the fact that licensees bear the primary responsibility for safety and the NRC should not intrude into that role.  If one contemplates the trend of recent events scrutinizing the performance of regulators following safety events, this legalistic “defense” may not fare well in a situation where more intrusive regulation could have made the difference.

The NRC does monitor “safety culture” and often requires licensees to address weaknesses in culture following performance issues.  In essence safety culture has become an anodyne for avoiding direct confrontation of safety management issues.  Cynically one could say it is the ultimate conspiracy - where regulators and “stakeholders” come together to accept something that is non-contentious and conveniently abstract to prevent a necessary but unwanted (apparently by both sides) intrusion into safety management.

As readers of this blog know, our unyielding focus has been on the role of the complex socio-technical system that functions within a nuclear organization to operate nuclear plants effectively and safely.  This management system includes many drivers, variables, feedbacks, culture, and time delays in its processes, not all of which are explicit or linear.  The outputs of the system are the actions and decisions that ultimately produce tangible outcomes for production and safety.  Thus it is a safety system and a legitimate and necessary area for regulation.

NRC review of safety management need not focus on traditional management issues which would remain the province of the licensee.  So organizational structure, personnel decisions, etc. need not be considered.^[3]  But here we should heed the view of Daniel Kahneman where he suggests we think of organizations as “factories for producing decisions” and therefore, think of decisions as a product.  (See our Nov. 4,2011 post, A Factory for Producing Decisions.)  Decisions are in fact the key product of the safety management system.  Regulatory focus on how the management system functions and the decisions it produces could be an effective and proactive approach.

We suggest two areas of the management system that could be addressed as a first priority: (1) Increased transparency of how the management system produces specific safety decisions including the capture of objective data on each such decision, and (2) review of management compensation plans to minimize the potential for incentives to promote excessive risk taking in operations.

2. The NRC should require greater transparency in licensee management decisions with potential safety impacts.

Managing nuclear operations involves a continuum of decisions balancing a variety of factors including production and safety.  These decisions may occur with individuals or with larger groups in meetings or other forums.  Some may involve multiple reviews and concurrences.  But in general the details of decision making, i.e., how the sausage is made, are rarely captured in detail during the process or preserved for later assessment.^[4]  Typically only decisions that happen to yield a bad outcome (e.g., prompt the issuance of an LER or similar) become subject to more intensive review and post mortem.  Or actions that require specific, advance regulatory approval and require an SER or equivalent.^[5]  

Transparency is key.  Some say the true test of ethics is what people do when no one is looking.  Well the converse of that may also be true - do people behave better when they know oversight is or could be occurring?  We think a lot of the NRC’s regulatory scheme is already built on this premise, relying as it does on auditing licensee activities and work products.

Thinking back to the Davis Besse example, the criminal prosecutions of both the corporate entity and individuals were limited to providing false or incomplete information to the NRC.  There was no attempt to charge on the basis of the actual decisions to propose, advocate for, and attempt to justify, that the plant could continue to operate beyond the NRC’s specified date for corrective actions.  The case made by First Energy was questionable as presented to the NRC and simply unjustified when accounting for the real facts behind their vessel head inspections.

Transparency would be served by documenting and preserving the decision process on safety significant issues.  These data might include the safety significance and applicable criteria, the potential impact on business performance (plant output, cost, schedule, etc), alternatives considered, and the participants and their inputs to the decision making process, and how a final decision was reached.   These are the specifics that are so hard or impossible to reproduce after the fact.^[6]  The not unexpected result: blaming someone or something but not gaining insight into how the management system failed.

This approach would provide an opportunity for the NRC to audit decisions on a routine basis.  Licensee self assessment would also be served through safety committee review and other oversight including INPO.  Knowing that decisions will be subject to such scrutiny also can promote careful balancing of factors in safety decisions and serve to articulate how those balances are achieved and safety is served.  Having such tangible information shared throughout the organization could be the strongest way to reinforce the desired safety culture.

3. As part of its regulation of the safety management system, the NRC should restrict incentive compensation for nuclear management that is based on meeting business goals.

We started this series of posts focusing on criminalization of safety.  One of the arguments for more aggressive criminalization is essentially to offset the powerful pull of business-based incentives with the fear of criminal sanctions.  This has proved to elusive.  Similarly attempting to balance business incentives with safety incentives also is problematic.  The Transocean experience illustrates that quite vividly.^[7]

Our survey several years ago of nuclear executive compensation indicated (1) the amounts of compensation are very significant for the top nuclear executives, (2) the compensation is heavily dependent on each year’s performance, and (3) business performance measured by EPS is the key to compensation, safety performance is a minor contributor.  A corollary to the third point might be that in no cases that we could identify was safety performance a condition precedent or qualification for earning the business-based incentives. (See our July 9, 2010 post, Nuclear Management Compensation (Part 2)).  With 60-70% of total compensation at risk, executives can see their compensation, and that of the entire management team, impacted by as much as several million dollars in a year.  Can this type of compensation structure impact safety?  Intuition says it creates both risk and a perception problems.  Virtually every significant safety event in Table 1 has reference to the undue influence of production priorities on safety.  The issue was directly raised in at least one nuclear organization^[8] which revised its compensation system to avoid undermining safety culture. 

We believe a more effective approach is to minimize the business pressures in the first place.  We believe there is a need for a regulatory policy that discourages or prohibits licensee organizations from utilizing significant incentives based on financial performance.  Such incentives invariably target production and budget goals as they are fundamental to business success.  To the extent safety goals are included they are a small factor or based on metrics that do not reflect fundamental safety.  Assuring safety is the highest priority is not subject to easily quantifiable and measurable metrics - it is judgmental and implicit in many actions and decisions taken on a day-to-day basis at all levels of the organization.  Organizations should pay nuclear management competitively and generously and make informed judgments about their overall performance.

Others have recognized the problem and taken similar steps to address it.  For example, in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 the Federal Reserve Board has been doing some arm twisting with U.S. financial services companies to adjust their executive compensation plans - and those plans are in fact being modified to cap bonuses associated with achieving performance goals. (See our April 25, 2013 post, Inhibiting Excessive Risk Taking by Executives.)

Nick Taleb (of Black Swan fame) believes that bonuses provide an incentive to take risks.  He states, “The asymmetric nature of the bonus (an incentive for success without a corresponding disincentive for failure) causes hidden risks to accumulate in the financial system and become a catalyst for disaster.”  Now just substitute “nuclear operations” for “the financial system”.

Central to Taleb’s thesis is his belief that management has a large informational advantage over outside regulators and will always know more about risks being taken within their operation. (See our Nov. 9, 2011 post, Ultimate Bonuses.)  Eliminating the force of incentives and providing greater transparency to safety management decisions could reduce risk and improve everybody’s insight into those risks deemed acceptable.

Conclusion

In industries outside the commercial nuclear space, criminal charges have been brought for bad outcomes that resulted, at least in part, from decisions that did not appropriately consider overall system safety (or, in the worst cases, simply ignored it.)  Our suggestions are intended to reduce the probability of such events occurring in the nuclear industry.

---

^[1] It raises the question whether anytime business priorities trump safety it is a case of deficient culture.  We have argued in other blog posts that sufficiently high business or political pressure can compromise even a very strong safety culture.  So reflexive resort to safety culture may be easy but not be very helpful.

^[2] Credit to Adam Steltzner author of The Right Kind of Crazy recounting his and other engineers’ roles in the design of the Mars rovers.  His reference is to the failure of O-ring seals on the space shuttle Challenger.

^[3] We do recognize that there are regulatory criteria for general organizational matters such as for the training and qualification of personnel. 

^[4] In essence this creates a “safe harbor” for most safety judgments and to which the NRC is effectively blind.

^[5] In Davis Besse much of the “proof” that was relied on in the prosecutions of individuals was based on concurrence chains for key documents and NRC staff recollections of what was said in meetings.  There was no contemporaneous documentation of how First Energy made its threshold decision that postponing the outage was acceptable, who participated, and who made the ultimate decision.  Much was made of the fact that management was putting great pressure on maintaining schedule but there was no way to establish how that might have directly affected decision making.

^[6] Kahneman believes there is “hindsight bias”.  Hindsight is 20/20 and it supposedly shows what decision makers could (and should) have known and done instead of their actual decisions that led to an unfavorable outcome, incident, accident or worse.  We now know that when the past was the present, things may not have been so clear-cut.  See our Dec.18, 2013 post, Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

^[7] Transocean, owner of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, awarded millions of dollars in bonuses to its executives after “the best year in safety performance in our company’s history,” according to an annual report…’Notwithstanding the tragic loss of life in the Gulf of Mexico, we achieved an exemplary statistical safety record as measured by our total recordable incident rate and total potential severity rate.’”  See our April 7, 2011 post for the original citation in Transocean's annual report and further discussion.

^[8] “The reward and recognition system is perceived to be heavily weighted toward production over safety”.  The reward system was revised "to ensure consistent health of NSC”.  See our July 29, 2010 post, NRC Decision on FPL (Part 2).