What distinguishes a maturity model
Safety culture is reflected in shared decisions, priorities and practices. A maturity model proposes criteria for describing its development. A climate survey, by contrast, captures perceptions at a particular point in time. It may contribute evidence to the assessment, but is not equivalent to the complete model on its own.
Frameworks differ in dimensions, scales and methods. Before choosing one, check what it examines, how it is interpreted and the context for which it was developed. Avoid presenting its categories as mandatory stages through which every organisation progresses in the same way.
Selecting a useful framework
Look for understandable criteria linked to observable practices: managers’ responses to problems, participation, change management or learning. Ask which evidence distinguishes categories and how different shifts, sites and contractors are considered.
Also review the instrument’s conditions of use and the preparation needed to apply it. A well-known name or simple visual scale does not guarantee a sound assessment. The chosen framework should help decide what to improve, rather than merely produce a label for a presentation.
Gathering evidence beyond a survey
Combine information from different sources: discussions, task observation, decision reviews and data from the preventive management system. Compare what is stated with what people encounter at work. An average score may conceal groups who feel unheard.
Protect confidentiality and explain how responses will be used. For an introduction to indicators and surveys, see the guide on how to measure safety culture. Maturity analysis adds interpretation of that evidence within an explicit framework.
Interpreting differences and limitations
An organisation may show well-developed practices in one area and weaknesses in another. A favourable cultural assessment also does not demonstrate that all its technical barriers work. Keep cultural assessment, risk assessment and compliance checks separate.
Check who participated and which conditions may have influenced responses. Comparing results between companies or years requires sufficiently equivalent methods and samples. Avoid promising a specific accident reduction from reaching a level: the relationship depends on the work, exposures and measures actually adopted.
Turning assessment into observable change
Select a few priorities and define actions, owners and evidence of improvement. If concerns go unanswered, change the response and feedback process; a values campaign alone will not resolve that difficulty.
Share conclusions with participants and review their experience after intervention. HSE recommends acting on findings and monitoring progress. Leadership must be included in the analysis: assessing only the workforce excludes decisions that determine resources, priorities and working conditions.
Hypothetical example: different results across sites
A company obtains a favourable average, but one site reports difficulty stopping work when resources are missing. Comparing interviews and recent decisions reveals delayed authorisations and a lack of common criteria among those responsible.
Responsibilities, resources and consultation routes are clarified, and subsequent cases reviewed with teams. Improvement is checked through decisions and people’s experience. The goal is not to move up a box on a scale, but to resolve a practice that affects prevention.
