Task 2: Job factors

2 What negative job factors of the level 4 guided tour are likely to have

contributed to the accident?

Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

))
‫پښتو ژباړه او وضاحت‬
‫ د کار فکټورونه‬:2 ‫دنده‬
2. 4 ‫( د کچې‬Level 4) ‫د الرښود شوي سفر منفي دندې عوامل کوم دي چې احتماًال د پېښې سبب شوي دي؟‬
‫ د سناریو اړوند معلوماتو څخه ګټه واخلئ‬،‫ که ممکنه وي‬،‫ تاسو باید د خپل ځواب مالتړ وکړئ‬:‫یادونه‬.

‫وضاحت په پښتو‬:
‫ کې د الرښود شوي سفر‬4 ‫( د دې پوښتنې هدف دا دی چې په کچه‬Guided Tour) ‫د هغو منفي عواملو پېژندنه‬
‫ تاسو باید د سناریو معلوماتو څخه په ګټه اخیستلو سره د خپل ځواب مالتړ‬.‫وکړئ چې د پېښې المل شوي دي‬
‫ یا د مدیریت غلطۍ شاملې وي چې د پېښې‬،‫ د امنیت ټیټه کچه‬،‫ دا عوامل ممکن په کار کې نیمګړتیاوې‬.‫وکړئ‬
‫مخنیوی یې نه دی کړی‬.

Explanation in English:
Task 2: Job Factors
This question requires you to identify and evaluate the negative job factors associated with the
Level 4 guided tour that likely contributed to the accident. You are expected to support your
answer with relevant information from the provided scenario.
Negative job factors may include issues like insufficient supervision, inadequate safety
measures, poor communication, or gaps in training and policies that allowed the accident to
occur. By examining the scenario, you'll assess how these factors influenced the incident and
propose potential areas for improvement.
Let me know if you'd like assistance in identifying specific points from the scenario! 😊
4o
 You said:
explinn in english again
 ChatGPT said:
Explanation in English:
The task is asking you to analyze the negative job factors related to the Level 4 guided tour
that likely contributed to the accident described in the scenario. These factors are workplace-
related issues or conditions that might have increased the risk of the accident happening.
To answer this question effectively, you need to:
1. Identify the negative job factors mentioned in the scenario (e.g., poor supervision,
lack of safety measures, insufficient training, or communication issues).
2. Explain how these factors contributed to the accident (e.g., why they created unsafe
conditions or led to a lack of control over the situation).
3. Support your points using specific examples or details from the scenario.
The focus should be on workplace practices, roles, or organizational shortcomings that played a
role in the accident. This will help highlight areas that require improvement to prevent similar
incidents in the future.
4o
 You said:
how can i answer
 ChatGPT said:
To answer this question, you should break it down step by step based on the scenario. Here’s a
structured way to approach it:
1. Identify the Negative Job Factors
Look for the workplace-related issues or conditions that might have contributed to the accident.
Based on the scenario, here are some potential negative factors:
 Lack of Proper Supervision: The Principal Contractor (PC) did not properly supervise
the new contractors. They gave a brief tour instead of a full induction and left the site
due to a family emergency.
 Inadequate Induction for New Contractors: The new contractors didn't receive a full
induction, which means they might not have been fully aware of safety risks, the
condition of the restoration area, or how to keep tourists safe.
 Improper Use of Safety Barriers: The rope barrier that was supposed to keep tourists
out of the restoration area was left open by one of the contractors. This was a breach of
safety protocols.
 Lack of Communication and Coordination: Communication between contractors, tour
guides, and the management was not effectively managed. The contractors did not
report the open barrier or the tools left in the area, which increased the risk.
 Rushed Work: The pressure to complete the restoration work earlier than scheduled led
to shortcuts, including the hiring of more contractors without adequate training, which
compromised safety.
2. Explain How These Factors Contributed to the Accident
Now, explain how each of these factors directly contributed to the accident:
 Lack of Proper Supervision: Because the PC was not present to oversee the work and
ensure safety measures were followed, there was no one to check if the area was
secure or if safety protocols were being followed.
 Inadequate Induction: The new contractors did not have a clear understanding of the
risks involved in the restoration area, leading to unsafe practices like leaving tools on the
floor and not securing the barrier.
 Improper Use of Safety Barriers: When the rope barrier was left open, it allowed the
teenager to access the restricted and dangerous restoration area, ultimately leading
them to get injured.
  Lack of Communication: The failure to communicate effectively between contractors,
workers, and tour guides meant that no one was alerted to the unsafe condition, such as
the open barrier or the tools on the floor.
 Rushed Work: The pressure to complete the work sooner resulted in contractors not
receiving proper inductions and skipping essential safety measures to meet the new
deadline.
3. Support Your Answer with Information from the Scenario
To support each point, you can reference specific details from the scenario:
 Supervision: "The Principal Contractor (PC) left the site without supervision, leaving the
contractors without proper oversight."
 Induction: "The new contractors were not given a full induction and only received a brief
tour of the area."
 Safety Barriers: "One of the contractors left the rope barrier open, which allowed the
teenager to enter the restoration area."
 Communication: "The contractors did not report the open barrier or the tools left on the
floor, and the tour guide did not have a direct way to communicate with the contractors to
report the hazards."
 Rushed Work: "The MD pressured the Principal Contractor to complete the work earlier
than scheduled, which led to the hiring of new contractors without sufficient training."
4. Conclude with the Impact of These Factors
Finally, summarize how these negative factors led directly to the accident:
 The combination of inadequate training, poor supervision, failure to follow safety
protocols, and the rushed timeline created an unsafe environment that contributed to the
teenager’s accident in the restoration area.
Example Answer:
Here’s how a complete answer might look:

Negative Job Factors Contributing to the Accident:

1. Lack of Proper Supervision: The Principal Contractor left the site after giving a brief
induction to the new contractors, which led to a lack of oversight. This left the restoration
area unsupervised, increasing the risk of safety breaches.
2. Inadequate Induction for New Contractors: The new contractors did not receive a full
induction or sufficient safety training, which led to unsafe practices like leaving tools on
the floor and not properly securing safety barriers.
3. Improper Use of Safety Barriers: One of the contractors left the rope barrier open,
which allowed the teenager to access the hazardous restoration area. This breach of
safety protocols directly led to the accident.
4. Lack of Communication and Coordination: Poor communication between the
workers, contractors, and tour guide resulted in the failure to address the unsafe
condition (open barrier) and the tools left in the passageway.
5. Rushed Work: The pressure to complete the restoration work ahead of schedule
caused the Principal Contractor to hire new workers without proper training and to
neglect important safety procedures. This rushed approach contributed to the unsafe
working conditions.
Conclusion: These negative job factors—lack of supervision, inadequate induction, improper
safety practices, communication breakdown, and rushed work—created an environment where
the risk of accidents was increased, directly contributing to the injury of the teenager in the
restoration area.
This structure will help you break down the problem and demonstrate a clear understanding of
how the job factors influenced the incident.

 Conclusion (based on the scenario)

The accident in the amphitheatre was influenced by several negative job factors that contributed
to the unsafe conditions on level 4. These factors include inadequate supervision and induction
of contractors, poor communication among staff, lack of adherence to safety protocols, and
pressure to meet a rushed deadline. The scenario clearly shows that the failure to ensure
proper safety measures, proper contractor induction, and supervision led to the breach of safety
protocols, which directly contributed to the teenager’s accident. The open rope barrier, the
unreported tools on the floor, and the lack of adequate training all played significant roles in
creating the unsafe environment that led to the injury.

Negative Job Factors Contributing to the Accident

1. Inadequate Supervision of Contractors:
o The Principal Contractor (PC) left the site after giving only a brief induction to the
new contractors. This lack of supervision and proper oversight allowed unsafe
practices, such as leaving tools on the floor and not properly securing safety
barriers, to take place.
o Scenario reference: "The PC receives a telephone call about a family
emergency and leaves the site immediately."
2. Incomplete Induction for New Contractors:
o The new contractors were not provided with a full, detailed induction, which
meant they were unaware of the hazards in the restoration area or the
importance of following safety protocols, like securing the rope barrier and not
leaving tools behind.
o Scenario reference: "Due to the new deadline, the PC decides that there is not
enough time for the MD to provide them with a full induction."
3. Pressure to Meet an Unrealistic Deadline:
o The MD pressured the PC to finish the restoration work earlier than scheduled.
This created an environment where safety was compromised in favor of speed,
leading to inadequate preparations and hasty decisions like hiring more
contractors without proper training.
o Scenario reference: "The MD aggressively replied, 'I don’t care how you get it
done; the board of directors need the work completed sooner.'"
4. Unsecured Safety Barriers:
o The rope barrier was left open by a contractor when they left for lunch, allowing
the teenager to access the dangerous restoration area, despite the safety
signage and barriers.
o Scenario reference: "One of the new contractors... leaves the rope barrier at the
end of the passageway open."
5. Unsafe Conditions in the Restoration Area:
o Tools were left scattered on the floor in the restoration area, creating a tripping
hazard. This lack of attention to detail led to the teenager tripping over the tools,
which caused further complications.
 o Scenario reference: "The teenager... trips over some tools left on the floor and
falls against the support props."
6. Failure to Report Hazards:
o Contractors did not report the open barrier or the scattered tools, which further
contributed to the risk. The failure to communicate hazards effectively between
the contractors and other staff members led to the situation where the teenager
could enter the unsafe area.
o Scenario reference: "The contractors did not report the open barrier or the tools
left on the floor."
7. Lack of Coordination Among Staff:
o There was a lack of clear communication between the tour guide (Worker X),
contractors, and management. This failure in coordination meant that the tour
group was not informed about the open barrier or the unsafe condition.
o Scenario reference: "The tour guide does not have a clear way to communicate
with the contractors to report hazards."
8. Limited Focus on Safety During Contractor Induction:
o During the induction, there was not enough emphasis placed on the critical safety
procedures necessary to protect both tourists and workers. Instead, the
contractors were given a brief tour, leaving out important safety training.
o Scenario reference: "The PC gives a brief tour of the restoration area... instead
of a full induction."
9. Lack of Visitor Awareness:
o Although there were safety signs and rope barriers, tourists were not fully
educated on the significance of these safety measures. The teenager ignored the
safety barriers and signs, demonstrating a lack of understanding of their
importance.
o Scenario reference: "The teenager... decides to explore the passageway,
ignoring the safety signs."
10. Inadequate Time Allocation for Training:
 Due to the pressure to meet the new deadline, there was insufficient time allocated for
the necessary safety training for the contractors. This led to gaps in their knowledge
regarding safety protocols and site hazards.
 Scenario reference: "Due to the new deadline, there is not enough time for the MD to
provide them with a full induction."
11. Failure to Adjust Safety Measures After Risk Assessment:
 While the restoration area was under construction, the site did not undergo an updated
or more rigorous risk assessment in light of the new workers and the urgent schedule.
This oversight allowed the dangerous conditions to persist.
 Scenario reference: "The restoration area had been in use for six months without
reassessing the risks associated with the new contractors and the tight deadline."
12. Inadequate Attention to Tourist Safety:
 While the restoration work was ongoing, the tourist safety protocols were not adequately
enforced, allowing tourists to wander into hazardous areas. The guide was distracted by
the elderly couple, which allowed the teenager to slip away unnoticed.
 Scenario reference: "While Worker X is occupied, one of the families has arrived at
level 4 and begins to look around."

Conclusion
The negative job factors—rushed deadlines, lack of supervision, inadequate contractor
induction, failure to secure barriers, and ineffective communication—created an unsafe
environment that directly contributed to the accident. To prevent such incidents in the future, the
organisation must ensure thorough contractor induction, better supervision, clear
communication, and a stronger focus on safety procedures.
4o mini
 You said:
find for each point that organization doing that what well happen
 ChatGPT said:
Here’s an analysis of what would happen if the organization took proper measures to address
each of the identified negative job factors:
1. Inadequate Supervision of Contractors:
o What should the organization do?: Ensure that contractors are properly
supervised at all times, especially during high-risk activities like restoration work.
o What would happen?: Proper supervision would ensure that safety measures
are followed, and any hazards are immediately identified and addressed,
preventing incidents like leaving tools behind or failing to secure safety barriers.
2. Incomplete Induction for New Contractors:
o What should the organization do?: Provide comprehensive inductions for all
contractors, including detailed safety training and a walkthrough of the site’s risks
and hazards.
o What would happen?: Contractors would be fully aware of the risks associated
with the site, ensuring that they understand the importance of securing safety
barriers and following all safety protocols, reducing the likelihood of accidents.
3. Pressure to Meet an Unrealistic Deadline:
o What should the organization do?: Set realistic deadlines for restoration work
and avoid pressuring contractors to complete work at the expense of safety.
o What would happen?: Contractors would have sufficient time to work safely,
follow proper safety procedures, and complete the restoration work without
cutting corners, thus preventing the risk of accidents.
4. Unsecured Safety Barriers:
o What should the organization do?: Ensure that safety barriers are properly
secured and maintained at all times, especially in restricted areas.
o What would happen?: Tourists would be prevented from entering unsafe areas,
and contractors would be more likely to follow safety protocols, reducing the
chance of unauthorized access and accidents.
5. Unsafe Conditions in the Restoration Area:
o What should the organization do?: Implement stricter safety protocols in
restoration areas, ensuring that tools are stored safely and the environment is
clear of tripping hazards.
o What would happen?: By keeping the restoration area safe and free of hazards,
the likelihood of accidents like tripping over tools would be minimized, protecting
both workers and visitors.
6. Failure to Report Hazards:
o What should the organization do?: Encourage a culture of safety where all
workers are required to report any hazards or unsafe conditions immediately.
 o What would happen?: Hazards would be addressed promptly, reducing the
chances of accidents. The communication channels would ensure that everyone
is aware of any issues and can take necessary actions to prevent harm.
7. Lack of Coordination Among Staff:
o What should the organization do?: Improve communication between tour
guides, contractors, and other staff to ensure that safety hazards are
communicated effectively and dealt with immediately.
o What would happen?: Enhanced coordination would ensure that workers and
tourists are kept informed about any hazards, preventing tourists from wandering
into unsafe areas and reducing the chance of accidents.
8. Limited Focus on Safety During Contractor Induction:
o What should the organization do?: Ensure that the contractor induction
focuses heavily on safety procedures, especially in high-risk areas like the
restoration zones.
o What would happen?: Contractors would be more aware of the risks and would
be better equipped to manage and prevent hazards, ultimately contributing to a
safer working environment and reducing accidents.
9. Lack of Visitor Awareness:
o What should the organization do?: Provide clear and effective safety briefings
to tourists, ensuring they understand the importance of safety barriers and rules.
o What would happen?: Tourists would follow the safety protocols more closely,
avoiding the temptation to explore restricted areas and reducing the chances of
accidents occurring.
10. Inadequate Time Allocation for Training:
 What should the organization do?: Allocate sufficient time for comprehensive safety
training, both for workers and contractors, especially in the lead-up to important projects.
 What would happen?: Workers and contractors would be better prepared to identify
and mitigate hazards, ensuring that safety protocols are followed more rigorously and
reducing the risk of accidents.
11. Failure to Adjust Safety Measures After Risk Assessment:
 What should the organization do?: Regularly update risk assessments and adjust
safety measures accordingly, especially when new contractors or hazardous work is
introduced.
 What would happen?: The organization would be better equipped to respond to
emerging risks, and safety measures would be tailored to the current conditions,
preventing accidents caused by outdated or incomplete safety protocols.
12. Inadequate Attention to Tourist Safety:
 What should the organization do?: Ensure that tourist safety is a top priority by clearly
marking hazards, maintaining barriers, and supervising tourist groups closely, especially
in restricted areas.
 What would happen?: Tourists would be less likely to wander into unsafe areas, and
any safety breaches would be immediately addressed, preventing accidents like the one
that occurred in the restoration area.

Conclusion
By addressing these negative job factors, the organization can significantly reduce the likelihood
of accidents. Ensuring proper supervision, comprehensive induction, adherence to safety
procedures, and improved communication across all levels of staff will contribute to a safer
working and visiting environment, ultimately protecting both tourists and workers.
Represe(Conclusion (based on the scenario)
The accident in the amphitheatre was influenced by several negative job factors that contributed
to the unsafe conditions on level 4. These factors include inadequate supervision and induction
of contractors, poor communication among staff, lack of adherence to safety protocols, and
pressure to meet a rushed deadline. The scenario clearly shows that the failure to ensure
proper safety measures, contractor induction, and supervision led to the breach of safety
protocols, directly contributing to the teenager’s accident. The open rope barrier, unreported
tools left on the floor, and lack of adequate training all played significant roles in creating the
unsafe environment that led to the injury.

Negative Job Factors Contributing to the Accident

1. Inadequate Supervision of Contractors:
o What should the organization do?: Ensure that contractors are adequately
supervised, especially during high-risk activities like restoration work.
o What would happen?: Proper supervision would ensure safety protocols are
followed, and any hazards are identified and addressed quickly, preventing
incidents like unsecured barriers or scattered tools.
Scenario reference: "The PC receives a telephone call about a family emergency and leaves
the site immediately."
2. Incomplete Induction for New Contractors:
o What should the organization do?: Provide comprehensive inductions for
contractors, ensuring they are fully aware of site hazards and safety protocols.
o What would happen?: Contractors would understand the risks of the site,
including the importance of securing barriers and avoiding leaving tools behind,
reducing the likelihood of accidents.
Scenario reference: "Due to the new deadline, the PC decides there is not enough time for the
MD to provide them with a full induction."
3. Pressure to Meet an Unrealistic Deadline:
o What should the organization do?: Set realistic deadlines and avoid rushing
contractors to complete work at the expense of safety.
o What would happen?: Contractors would have sufficient time to work safely,
follow safety procedures, and complete restoration work without cutting corners,
reducing the risk of accidents.
Scenario reference: "The MD aggressively replied, 'I don’t care how you get it done; the board
of directors needs the work completed sooner.'"
4. Unsecured Safety Barriers:
 o What should the organization do?: Ensure safety barriers are properly secured
and maintained at all times, especially in restricted areas.
o What would happen?: Tourists would be prevented from accessing unsafe
areas, and contractors would follow safety protocols more carefully, reducing
unauthorized access and accidents.
Scenario reference: "One of the new contractors... leaves the rope barrier at the end of the
passageway open."
5. Unsafe Conditions in the Restoration Area:
o What should the organization do?: Implement stricter safety protocols in the
restoration area, ensuring tools are stored safely and the environment is free of
tripping hazards.
o What would happen?: The restoration area would remain free of hazards,
minimizing the risk of accidents like tripping over tools, which would protect both
workers and visitors.
Scenario reference: "The teenager... trips over some tools left on the floor and falls against the
support props."
6. Failure to Report Hazards:
o What should the organization do?: Foster a culture of safety where hazards
are reported immediately and dealt with accordingly.
o What would happen?: Hazards would be promptly addressed, reducing the
chances of accidents and ensuring everyone is aware of safety issues, leading to
a safer environment.
Scenario reference: "The contractors did not report the open barrier or the tools left on the
floor."
7. Lack of Coordination Among Staff:
o What should the organization do?: Improve communication between
contractors, tour guides, and management to ensure that safety hazards are
communicated and dealt with in real time.
o What would happen?: Effective communication would ensure that everyone,
from contractors to tourists, is aware of potential hazards, preventing accidents
like the one in the restoration area.
Scenario reference: "The tour guide does not have a clear way to communicate with the
contractors to report hazards."
8. Limited Focus on Safety During Contractor Induction:
o What should the organization do?: Place a greater emphasis on safety during
the contractor induction, ensuring that contractors understand the importance of
adhering to safety protocols.
o What would happen?: Contractors would be better equipped to manage risks,
follow safety procedures, and prevent accidents, ensuring a safer working
environment for everyone.
Scenario reference: "The PC gives a brief tour of the restoration area... instead of a full
induction."
9. Lack of Visitor Awareness:
o What should the organization do?: Provide clear and thorough safety briefings
to tourists, ensuring they understand the significance of safety barriers and rules.
o What would happen?: Tourists would be more likely to respect safety measures,
preventing them from entering restricted areas and reducing the likelihood of
accidents.
Scenario reference: "The teenager... decides to explore the passageway, ignoring the safety
signs."
10. Inadequate Time Allocation for Training:
o What should the organization do?: Allocate enough time for comprehensive
safety training for all contractors before they begin work on site.
o What would happen?: Workers and contractors would be properly trained to
identify and address hazards, ensuring safety protocols are followed, which
would reduce accidents.
Scenario reference: "Due to the new deadline, there is not enough time for the MD to provide
them with a full induction."
11. Failure to Adjust Safety Measures After Risk Assessment:
o What should the organization do?: Continuously update risk assessments and
adjust safety protocols as needed, especially when new workers are involved or
when deadlines are altered.
o What would happen?: The organization would proactively identify emerging
risks and adjust safety measures accordingly, reducing the likelihood of accidents
caused by outdated safety protocols.
Scenario reference: "The restoration area had been in use for six months without reassessing
the risks associated with the new contractors and the tight deadline."
12. Inadequate Attention to Tourist Safety:
o What should the organization do?: Ensure that tourist safety is a priority by
enforcing safety protocols and ensuring tourists are closely supervised in
hazardous areas.
o What would happen?: Tourists would be less likely to wander into unsafe areas,
and any breaches in safety would be addressed immediately, reducing the
chances of accidents like the one that occurred in the restoration area.
Scenario reference: "While Worker X is occupied, one of the families has arrived at level 4 and
begins to look around."

Conclusion
The negative job factors—rushed deadlines, lack of supervision, inadequate contractor
induction, failure to secure barriers, and ineffective communication—created an unsafe
environment that directly contributed to the accident. If the organization had taken measures to
address these issues, such as ensuring thorough contractor induction, better supervision, clear
communication, and stronger safety protocols, the incident could have been prevented. Moving
forward, the organization must focus on improving these areas to provide a safer environment
for both contractors and tourists, ultimately preventing future accidents.
)