Communication In The Science Industry
Communication is an essential process by which two people or a group convey information which can enable them to effectively address issues and understand. In the Science industry, clear communication plays a significant role as it enables staffs to understand their role and events occuring in the lab thus the outcome within the organisation drastically improves as there are reduced possibility of danger and each member contributes correctly to their role (team work). There is a specific hierarchy in majority of the workplaces where clear and effective communication is crucial.
For instance, in the science department assistants require instructions from technicians to work within the lab as a result this form of multidisciplinary teamwork which can enhance the knowledge and skills of the other staff members which can lead to increased workforce competency, safety and lowers risk of danger. To an extent, the manager is responsible for the situation as he did not use his authority to include ‘routine briefings' (interpersonal communication) in the schedule of his workers. This meant staffs did not know the procedure was taking place and they were not kept up to date on the changes introduced by the technicians such as the change in "chemical".
If there had been a direct group communication each member would have known their roles and the health and safety precaution could have been established leading to a safer lab environment as every one would carry out correct procedure such as reading data sheets before handling chemicals. This would have made the lab team more efficient. The manager and technicians did not follow ‘The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999’ as they failed to inform all staffs on main risks in the lab and how to manage them.
The technicians are mainly responsible as they withheld information from their co workers which meant staff were not aware of the procedure detail leading to an increased likelihood of hazardous events resulting in the assistant fainting (poor supervision practice). This could have been prevented by sending “email’ to the assistant about the change in chemical, ‘information leaflet’ which would inform the work place on the procedures taking place and ‘verbal communication using scientific terminology’ to ensure understanding and prevent error in the future.
Additionally forms of communication such as email minimize possibility of danger as staffs are aware of procedures taking place by making the recipient aware on crucial information such as change in chemical (Health and Safety at Work etc. Act (1974). The assistant was also partly responsible as she was ‘handling poisons and solvents’ without instructions. She was not under the supervision of a technician when she decided to clear out the sample without an order therefore did not take precautions such as ensuring no inhalation and reading the material data sheet.
However the technician could have prevented the injury to the assistant by putting up ‘posters’ next to the procedure to communicate the hazardous nature of the chemical in use. This form of clear communication greatly reduces misunderstanding therefore hazardous events occurring within the lab providing a safer lab for the staffs. The technician are responsible as they did not ‘carry out the procedure’ properly by leaving it unobserved and the notebook on the bench. The technicians did not communicate the result to specific members of the hierarchy leaving the notebook on a bench because they had to leave work. This incompetence resulted in increased likelihood of a breach of the data and industrial espionage which can economically deplete the company. Also the unobserved procedure led to the mixing of chemicals during disposal which could have been prevented by the technicians sending emails providing instruction and advice to those in charge of clearing on handling the chemical which would have eliminated the likelihood of the accident.
Additionally the technicians did not keep the data on the Laboratory management information system which could have kept the data safer and out of hackers reach by means of password. The Manager did not have staffs who could attend work on short notice to take over roles of staff who may have to leave for management courses or had to leave for emergencies to prevent shortage of staff. By have staffing problem procedures will be left without an observer which may cause hazardous events in the lab as no one will be informed on the hazards possible.
There was no communication between shifts which meant the procedure was not observed and verbal handovers using scientific terminology to co workers who may have cleared out the experiment that the procedure was ongoing were not done. Additionally if there was communication between shifts, results will be recorded and clearly reported to specific members of the hierarchy to ensure no breach of data increasing productivity within the lab. This form of effective verbal communication would keep the laboratory smooth running and increase employee satisfaction as they have more flexibility for working hours.
Overall the technicians there to support and supervise the assistant were responsible because they failed to verbally communicate to the staff who were responsible for clearing out the experiment the risks of the chemicals in use. The technicians did not take simple measures such as posters, information leaflet to inform the staff before they left work. They did not handover to another staff member leaving it unobserved despite knowing they would be on holiday and day release. Their incompetence to carefully assess the hazard of using the chemical ,clearly inform and alert their co workers this played the greatest factor for the accident.
