Site Inductions: Giving Visitors What They Need

Fed up with being bombarded with irrelevant information, Harvey Dearden says site inductions should be approached from the perspective of the visitor rather than as a company disclaimer “get out of jail free” card

MANY of us have been there; the induction full of redundant information that sees you lose the will to live. The one that has clearly been constituted to try and absolve the company from any liability, rather than advise you about the things you need to know. The induction that company employees feel the need to apologise for subjecting you to. “I’m sorry, but in order for you to come on site…”

It could all be so much sharper and safer.

For those of us that travel to different sites, it is a joke to expect us to remember all the distinctive alarm sounds, the speed limits, the phone number to ring in an emergency, the location of the muster points, the refuge locations, the specific contacts for COSHH/fires/near-misses/first aid/waste, and the specific directions in the event of an emergency etc.

Inductions should be focused on the core information needed to grant general site access, with ancillary information related to hot work permits, confined spaces, isolation procedures, working from height etc, given in additional dedicated sessions, as required.

I propose core information should be on an aide memoire pocket-sized card, possibly including a site map if appropriate, that is freely issued and is to be carried by all short-term personnel. Key information such as phone numbers and alarm types might also be duplicated on the site pass that people are required to carry to gain access to site – so that it will be difficult to leave behind.

If there is more than one site alarm (as distinct from a building fire alarm) it is helpful, if possible, to reduce the instruction for those in doubt to a single direction, eg “go to refuge”. Even if not, a requirement for, say, a site fire alarm, as distinct from a toxic release alarm, it may be possible to identify a safe default response for anyone uncertain about the nature of the alarm. If the alarms themselves (or the required response) can be consolidated, so much the better.

Here is a model template for consideration. It is not exhaustive but is representative of the content and style that may be appropriate. Note that it includes some brief justifications that may help the rules appear less dictatorial and may help elicit support rather than grudging compliance. Rules should be sensibly pitched to be commensurate with the hazards and understood to be appropriate. A site speed limit of 2 mph might appear safer than one of 20 mph, but if it leads to routine violation, the enhancement may be illusory and lead to a wider loss of credibility for the safety culture of the site.

Additional considerations

It may be useful to distinguish between accompanied visitors and unaccompanied visitors.

Accompanied visitor: Person attending site who will be continually accompanied by site personnel (where a visitor is to be accompanied throughout their visit, the induction requirements may be a minimal subset of the wider unaccompanied visitor site induction).

Unaccompanied visitor: Person attending site who requires unaccompanied access to plant areas.

Rules should of course be unambiguous, but also, as far as practicable, unequivocal. Avoid, if possible, qualified instructions such as “during office hours the muster point is the admin car park; out of hours it is the security gatehouse”.

Advance online inductions should have a refresher session on key points, eg alarm sounds, and/or an aide memoire provided on first attendance at site.

Some form of assimilation test should be included for unaccompanied visitors. This should include plausible but incorrect answers to check proper assimilation. Pass criteria should be established. This may include a pass-mark threshold together with an immediate failure if critical points are answered incorrectly.  Gross or repeated failures should invite further scrutiny before granting access since there may be an underlying question of basic competence, for example literacy or language fluency.

It may be appropriate to grant access until a period of non-attendance exceeds a threshold – since such absence will mean it is more likely that the site stipulations may be forgotten or displaced by those from other sites.

A register should be held of all persons having a current unaccompanied visitor site induction pass.  Simpler arrangements such as a visitor book sign-in might be used for accompanied visitors.

---

A pdf of Harvey's site induction aide memoire is available here.