Quest for Safety & Operational Excellence

Redefining Excellence: Time To Unify Safety and Quality.

16/10/2025

Introduction
In countless organizations, Safety and Quality are treated as separate, often competing functions. Safety is seen as a compliance obligation, a journey of "doing things right," while Quality is a customer-driven pursuit of "getting the right things done." These siloed approaches are not only inefficient but also fail to address a fundamental truth: they are two sides of the same coin.

The Similarity
At the core of both safety and quality management lies the same set of critical elements: Man, Machine, Material, Method, and Environment (4M+1E). Both disciplines focus on optimizing these five elements to prevent undesirable outcomes—be it an injury or a defective product. It is very obvious in the field of Quality Management, where every single process or activity is governed by 4M+1E. The same cannot be said about safety.

Our Argument
In Malaysia, OSHA 1994, Section 15, or even in UK HSE regulation, places a broad and fundamental duty on every employer to ensure the safety, health, and welfare of their employees. When we analyze this section, we see its requirements are a direct call to action on the 4M+1E elements: it mandates safe Machines and Methods of work, safe handling of Materials, provides for the training of Man, and requires a safe work Environment.
By this interpretation, a safe workplace is one where the 4M+1E elements are working optimally. Coincidentally, a high-quality product is also the result of optimizing the exact same elements.

Time for Unifying Both?
We believe this is a potential idea, that can revolutionize your operations. It is to be noted, in many organizations both this has been brought together and usually called QSHE department or something similar. But, despite operating under 1 roof, we suspect at the operational level they may be operating as a silo.
We suggest, you unify your approach, and gain the following:

Eliminate Redundancy: A single, cohesive process can be designed to address a machine's maintenance requirements from both a safety and a quality perspective. This saves time and resources.
Remove Conflicting Priorities: Instead of a quality goal (e.g., speed) potentially conflicting with a safety goal (e.g., caution), a unified system ensures that safe work practices are the only path to producing a quality outcome.
Build a More Resilient System: By designing your 4M+1E elements to meet the highest standards of both safety and quality, you create a robust system that is less prone to error, more efficient, and more reliable.
Focus on Operational Excellence: Safety becomes less compliance driven but seen as a major contributor to operational excellence.

This integrated philosophy is the foundation of our IMPACT Framework. It breaks down the silos, turning safety and quality into a unified pursuit of Operational Excellence. It’s not just about compliance or customer satisfaction; it’s about building a fundamentally better, more resilient organization.

Comments

Drive Out Fear Begins with Constancy of Purpose

5/9/2025

Comments

Introduction:The Safety Conversation Needs a Reset.

In today’s safety circles, “psychological safety” has become the buzzword. It sounds great and professional. But I feel there is a flaw in the buzz word. Because safety is attached with psychology, in the organizational context, it is taken for granted, that Safety department is the champion of this buzzword. Hence, they don’t drive responsibility and accountability throughout an organization. Is there any alternative that can overcome this issue?

I want to address this issue from W.Edwards Deming's principles of transformation. His principles have stood the test of time in guiding organizations towards quality excellence.

For this article I want to highlight two interconnected principles:-I believe. Principle 1: Constancy of Purpose and Principle 8: Drive Out Fear offer a more grounded, actionable path to break the barriers to seek feedback or input from employees without fear of reprimanding.

If organizations wish to create workplaces where people feel safe to act, speak, and contribute, it has to start with a clear purpose and intent.

Constancy of Purpose: Setting the Foundation
Deming’s first principle calls for a long-term commitment to improve products, services and systems. In safety, this means leaders must declare safety as a non-negotiable strategic priority—not a reactive initiative triggered by incidents or audits.

When leaders demonstrate unwavering commitment to safety as part of organizational value, it thrives employees to work safely and achieve excellence. This action goes beyond compliance checkbox.

In our IMPACT Framework, our second pillar we focus on Culture, specifically focus on daily routines. When the purpose is clear and driven from top, daily routines and habit will form that supports the purpose.

Why Constancy Precedes Fearlessness
Fear in organizations often stems from uncertainty: Is safety really valued here, or is production first? Will I be blamed if I speak up? Are short-term results more important than long-term well-being?

And the effect of uncertainty will have an impact on an organization's objectives.

This uncertainty shall be addressed if organizations want to achieve their business objectives. When the uncertainty is addressed through clear purpose which is consistent, trust withing organizations will grow.

The end result we are seeking is for employees to speak up, knowing well it is encouraged within the organization.

Drive Out Fear: The Execution Gap

Many today frame this as "psychological safety,". As a concept it is valuable, but it tends to limit responsibility to the safety department.

Deming’s eighth principle isn’t about making people feel safe—it’s about removing barriers that prevent people from contributing fully. It pushes the responsibility to removing barrier to organizational leaders. And organizational leaders shall take the responsibility as failure to remove these barriers will lead to potential shortfall in achieving organizational culture.

Psychological safety asks, “Do I feel safe to speak up?” Deming asks, “Have we built a system were speaking up is expected, protected, and acted upon?”

Questions to ask: -

What fears exist in our workplace today?
What systems or practices reinforce that fear?
How can we remove those barriers to openness and learning?

The Link: Purpose Drives Out Fear

When leaders declare and model constancy of purpose, fear loses its grip, it will likely lead to safety excellence.

Clear and consistent expectations reduce ambiguity.
Reduction in ambiguity, leads to trust in the leadership and organization.
Trust fosters openness
Openness enables reporting, learning, and innovation.
And Safety Excellence forms

In other words, Drive Out Fear isn’t a standalone initiative—it’s the outcome of constancy lived daily.

Practical Takeaways for Safety Leaders

Declare your purpose: Make safety a strategic priority—not a reactive one.
Design for clarity: Use checklists, workflows, and daily habits to reinforce expectations.
Model consistency: Leadership behavior must reflect the declared purpose—especially under pressure.
Audit for fear: Look for signs of silence, hesitation, or disengagement. These are system failures, not personality traits.

Closing

If your safety culture depends on how people feel, it will fluctuate. If it’s built on constancy of purpose, it will endure. Deming didn’t ask us to manage emotions—he asked us to build systems that earn trust.

Comments

R.I.P Psychological Safety. Welcome: Drive Out Fear.

5/9/2025

Comments

For years, “psychological safety” has dominated safety conversations. But in practice, it's become a fog-vague, sentimental and often performative.
It’s time to reclaim clarity.
It’s time to return to Deming’s Principle #8: Drive Out Fear.
Because fear isn’t an emotion to soothe—it’s a system flaw to fix.

Why Deming’s approach works:

Fear is a management failure, not a personal weakness.
Safety culture is built through process ownership, not posters.
Improvement demands transparency, not just trust

Let’s stop chasing trends. Let’s start building systems.
Deming didn’t talk about psychological safety. He built the architecture to make it real.
#DriveOutFear #Deming #SafetyCulture #MalaysiaOps #QSE #LeadershipAccountability #HumanCenteredSystems #ContinuousImprovement

Comments

Rethinking Risk Assessment for Hazardous Energy: A Risk-Based Approach

1/9/2025

Comments

When it comes to workplace safety, hazardous energy remains one of the deadliest threats. Whether it’s mechanical, electrical, chemical, thermal, or stored energy, the truth is simple: hazardous energy can kill.
In Malaysia, JKKP data continues to show fatalities and serious incidents linked to hazardous energy exposures. Yet, despite years of carrying out risk assessments (RA), organizations still face the same recurring problem. Why? Because traditional RA often gets lost in procedure, instead of focusing on the real danger.
The Elephant in the RoomMost RA processes spend time assigning “likelihood” and “severity” ratings, debating numbers on risk matrices. Let’s be honest — when dealing with hazardous energy, the outcome is already clear. The worst-case is fatality.
So, instead of over-analyzing how “likely” it is, we need to shift our focus. The real question isn’t “what could happen”. We already know the answer. The question is:
👉 What controls are in place today?
👉 Are those controls enough?
👉 What improved controls must we implement to prevent a fatal outcome?
Moving Straight to What MattersAt QSE, we propose a direct, Risk-Based Thinking (RBT) approach to hazardous energy:

Identify the hazardous energy source.
Review existing controls.
Evaluate their effectiveness.
Strengthen controls where gaps exist.

That’s it. No wasted time on false precision or overcomplicated scoring. Straight to the point — because lives are at stake.
Why This MattersOrganizations often get trapped in compliance-driven safety. The result? Risk assessments that look complete on paper but fail in practice. By cutting through the noise and focusing on current vs. improved controls, we align safety with reality.
This is not just about compliance with OSHA (Amendment) 2022. It’s about embedding Risk-Based Thinking into daily operations — making safety a way of life, not a checklist.
Final WordHazardous energy incidents don’t just happen. They happen because risks are known but controls are insufficient.
It’s time to face the elephant in the room.
It’s time to move beyond compliance.
It’s time to ThriveSafely. AchieveMore.

Comments

Is the Accident Triangle Outdated? A New Approach to Preventing Serious Injuries

27/8/2025

Comments

For most of use, the safety professionals we were introduced the Heinrich accident pyramid and Frank Bird triangle. Both the accident triangle has been a foundational concept in workplace safety. It taught us that by reducing the number of minor incidents, we could proportionally reduce major injuries.

But what if the cause of a near miss is fundamentally different from the cause of a fatality? Both the triangles has been challenged for its accuracy in term of ratio and also managing near miss may not lead to reducing major incidents. Although has been challenged, an alternative and credible model has not been presented.
We believe it's time to evolve our thinking from a reactive, ratio-based model to a proactive, risk-based one.

Introducing the Hazard-Consequence Model
We are proposing a shift in focus from incidents to the source it self: the HAZARDS presence in every workplace. We recognize that any hazard can lead to a wide spectrum of outcomes with Increasing Severity from a Near Miss all the way to a Fatal Injury.

The critical distinction is understanding that not all hazards are created equal. The key to preventing the worst outcomes lies in prioritizing High-Consequence (SIF) Hazards- those with the potential to cause serious or fatal harm.

Our Focus Area is clear: Proactively identify and control the hazards that can lead to these outcomes. This means dedicating focused resources to managing risks such as:

Working at height
Interaction with heavy mobile equipment
High-voltage electricity
Hazardous energy sources (pressure, heat, chemical)
Confined space entry

By concentrating on the hazards with the most severe potential, we can make a greater impact on saving lives and preventing life-altering injuries.

We Want to Hear From You

This model represents a shift in safety strategy. We are sharing it to spark a conversation with our peers, clients, and fellow safety professionals. What are your thoughts on this hazard-focused approach? How could this model be improved or applied in your industry?

Please share your suggestions and feedback in the comments below.

Comments

<<Previous

Redefining Excellence: Time To Unify Safety and Quality.

Drive Out Fear Begins with Constancy of Purpose

R.I.P Psychological Safety. Welcome: Drive Out Fear.

Rethinking Risk Assessment for Hazardous Energy: A Risk-Based Approach

Is the Accident Triangle Outdated? A New Approach to Preventing Serious Injuries

Author

Archives

QSE is a short name of
QSE VENTURES PLT (LLP 0007378-LGN).

QSE is a Safety & Operational Excellence Consulting and Training Group.

Hours

Telephone

Email

Redefining Excellence: Time To Unify Safety and Quality.

Drive Out Fear Begins with Constancy of Purpose

R.I.P Psychological Safety. Welcome: Drive Out Fear.

Rethinking Risk Assessment for Hazardous Energy: A Risk-Based Approach

Is the Accident Triangle Outdated? A New Approach to Preventing Serious Injuries

Author

Archives

QSE​ is a short name of​QSE VENTURES PLT (LLP 0007378-LGN). ​QSE is a Safety & Operational Excellence Consulting and Training Group.

Hours

Telephone

Email

QSE is a short name of
QSE VENTURES PLT (LLP 0007378-LGN).

QSE is a Safety & Operational Excellence Consulting and Training Group.