Credentials for me! I think there is a lot of potential here, it would be great if this could be expanded upon further. 

It would work as a great tool for monitoring contractor / subcontractors compliance, ensuring that you have all their documentation (policies, insurances, certifications, training, accreditations etc) all in one place.

The notification element would help to relieve the administration involved in keeping on top of this, and help it to become more of a self-managed process. 

For me its looking at the Sites, still waiting for an Archive Function on the sites. 

And then also finishing off the work that had stated on Analytics. Whilst it started, its still missing most of the functionality from the “Legacy” version, that we use a lot. That I can see but not all of our team can, based on permissions. Responses, Item Scores, Conducted, and the main Overview page, inc maps

I agree with the 2 posts and cannot just pick 1 from the list Bianca as there are so many.

I really think SC Training linking with credentials and giving a live competency profile per person has to be up there.

So does Risk Assessments - a template or system for this is a MUST.

Having all contractors personnel etc on the system with a simple way to register and have a gateway control even before they start with the org or on any project.

Legislative and accreditation systems that assist with global or country based requirements.

There are so many and all imo key.

@Bianca.Taylor 

PS can you add Credential to your list

Thank you for your feedback @emmashuff , @Chris Franklin and @jonnyg - I am loving your ideas and feedback! I’ve got the product team’s eyes on your comments to stay tuned incase we’ve got any specific features/capabilities in development or under consideration 

As for the poll@jonnyg, unfortunately I am not able to edit it once published (noted for next time), my apologies  More polls and community questions to come though, so keep watch!!! 

There are some great modules within Safety Culture and with some fine tuning some of them could be taken to another level. In addition to inspections we use the system as a service request and job management system, raising issues, inspections and follow on actions. A couple of thoughts for enhancements. 

1. When raising an action from an inspection where the inspection was generated from an issue, the action does not link back to the issue, so that golden thread is lost.
2. Within Assets it would be useful to have the ability to have a user defined drop down selection to ensure data entry is consistent. 
3. In analytics it would be useful to graph or table Issues Assigned.
4. Action filtering - if an action is assigned to an external email (someone without a seat who may be asked to complete a one-off job) you can’t filter on that assignee.

Thank you for the replies.

One thing that is required in the inspections and templates area quite quickly due to the demand is an autonomous RISK Assessment template that hits the requirements that many on here have been asking for.

If this is in the pipeline then please indicate this to the community in order that we can ask for other options, solutions and improvements.

Thanks John

Hey @jonnyg I’ve shared this with the Inspections team internally and will get back to you on a response as soon as possible. In regard to an archive function for sites @Chris Franklin I’ve spoken with the team and their focus at this time is on the grouping feature, so to be completely transparent, archiving isn’t an immediate priority however they have taken this into consideration as they build out requirements for the new grouping functionality. Thank you in advance for your understanding. 

@MichaelC hi! I am waiting on some more information specific to (1). To point (2) one of our product managers responded in this thread that this is something we are currently scoping… so stay tuned. In regard to (3 - graph or table issues assigned), if you check out @Manan response in this thread, at the moment whilst you can see who the Issue is assigned to in the drilldown, and filter by the Issue status, we recognise there isn’t a way for a user to group/trend Issues by Assignee - we’ve taken this with our team  As for (4) this is interesting and whilst it’s a use-case we don't currently cater for would it be possible to use a Label to filter external users? For example at time of creation they add a label for the company name the assignee is from, and can then filter that way later?

I agree with John on this!

I am currently using AssessNet System for Risk Assessments and I can categorically say that their basic template is far superior to the one created on Safety Culture.  They just seem to work fluidically and beneficial.

All you need to do is fill in the fields, select the hazard categories, fill in the details, set risk levels and then assign to someone… and the system adds a review date of 365 days from the date you create it.

You can create lists of hazard categories (Physical, Chemical, etc.) and then assign each with a sub-list of actual hazards (like slips, trips, falls, manual handling, etc.) then once done you go through the risk assessment and select each

Although not ethical i would really like the chance to show someone from SC the AN system so they can get their developers to create a similar one as this is severely lacking in SC at the moment.

Although the SC platform is far superior the lack of risk assessment templates on a user-friendly basis are lacking - even from the public files.

Thanks

@Dangerous Dave 

Like many on here I keep repeating this and it is the foundation of what safety culture is…

We legally require suitable and sufficient risk assessments.

What I / we do not want to do is come out of SC to do this.

It should. E within and then linked to all the other parts of SC as this is fundamental to many observations.

It links with SC training.

It links with assets and their use and finally when rolled out by SC it links with contractors.

The community is crying out for this feature.

@jonnyg 

The formatting of the risk assessment on SC where you just check the repeat box and this allows you to add in a hazard is great as it allows you to add in any hazard - but it feels limiting.

An all-singing-all-dancing template that is more user-friendly is the best option.  The hazard categories and hazard items are held in a list in the background and are editable as required (although if you wish to remove something from the list that has been used by someone then you can’t remove it as this would leave the person’s risk assessment with a blank entry).

I see the benefits and deficits of both ways, but really a better user-friendly platform for creating and writing up risk assessments on SC is clearly needed.

Please add a subscription option for inspector who can do unlimited inspections, create actions and view the inspection reports but don’t need the other features.

It’s great you’re developing all these new features, but it’s making the platform way too expensive for users who only need it for inspections.

Thanks

It’s the pricing model that is really holding back our full deployment of Safety Culture.

We have a report that needs to be completed after every Fire Drill/Actual Fire, we can’t use Safety Culture because of the restrictive pricing. With the current way Safety Culture considers things, we’d have to make this into an inspection, and everyone using it would have to be a Full Seat, this isn’t practical for our company size.

The report is very straightforward, if there were other methods of polling for simple amounts of data that would be helpful.

We run a lot of our checklists outside of SC because it doesn’t make sense to add a full seat just for that feature.
We don’t use other features like training, heads up, assets, lone worker, sensors, analytics, etc.
Even actions are not a critical must have.
If its just unlimited inspections we’d definitely add seats for that.

I know it is most probably impossible to do… but going to ask anyhow:

Regarding Assets…

We have multiple sites and i am in process of listing / logging / assets in each site.  Now I am based in one location within the UK and our centres across the country.  This is rather limiting as I am being asked to check on assets in each centre based on the logging on SC.

Problem is I would need to travel to all centres in order to label said assets and then re-travel again 6 months time or annually to re-check the assets.

The SC use of Smartphone to scan QR Code on asset is fine if one has a full license seat… but if i ask anyone in the centre they can only do a set number of ‘inspections’ (as one phone scan QR Code is one inspection)… and each centre has 100+ assets… so not great for us.

My ask is this:

Can’t SC arrange a generation report for each centre/site that lists all assets located within that can link into each coded asset at that centre/site and so a Guest or Lite Seat user can scan each asset code via their smartphone and it lists continually (in effect “ticking off” within that report) each asset until all assets have been accounted for?

This would be classed as 1 inspection of a group of assets at each centre/site, etc.  Like a checklist of all assets at one location.

Example:

Site 1 has 120 assets.  A guest user can log into the app on their smartphone and initiate an Asset Report for all listed assets at the site.  They scan each code and it lists each asset as checked until all assets have been scanned in.  If only 118 of 120, then a final tally is done and identifies those missing assets.

Then once all assets at a site have been accounted for the SC system would update all assets at that site as ‘inspected’.  Any ones not checked in would be subject to a check to find out where they are.

Thoughts?

Would still like to have ability to create folders for previous inspections.  Only thing available currently is to archive.

I would like to have folders for each site and store in each inspections done so there is a trail.

Yes I know we can download and store them which i do - but an online storage would be great.

It is there for templates so why not actual inspections?

We use it for Inspections and Actions. It’s handy to have inspections and work ticket generation in the one spot.

For Actions it works well, but because of limitations we have to put a ton of rules in place before we deployed it… IE frontline can’t Action outside contractors directly, if there was a way to limit that, it would be great.

• Risk assessments
• Contractors and their employee interaction
• As above related to SC training
• Asset module improvements