Leading Indicators

1
The Use of
Leading Indicators
to measure the performance
of the
Occupational Health and Safety System
by Steve Oakley
2
bjectives
At the end of this session participants will
understand

• A common definition of leading indicators
• How to use leading indicators to measure
  organizational OHS performance
• How leading indicators can be used to create an
  OHS system or refine an existing system.

3
esearch for Presentation

• T. Krause U.S. Consultant/Author
• J. Reason U.K. University of Manchester
  Psychology Transportation Consultant /Author
• D. Petersen U.S. Consultant/Author
• A. Sefton U.K. HSE - Offshore Safety Division
• R. Flin U.K. University of Aberdeen

4
ndicate
To point out, make known, show, be a sign of, or
suggest a call for treatment (Medical)
5
ndicator
Person or thing that points out or indicates
6
ead
To guide, go in front
7
eading Indicator

• A measure of conditions or activities that are
  believed to precede, and consequently affect,
  injury rates. (OHSCO)

• A metric used for its ability to measure
  incremental progress, or quality, or to indicate
  the direction of future results (predictive).
  (Dupont, 2000)

8
Everyday Indicators
9
Cross Section of an Airfoil
Leading Edge
Trailing Edge
10
(No Transcript)
11
esults-directed Indicators
Loss time case rate Number of lost time cases x
200,000/number of hours worked
12
esults-directed Indicators
Loss and restricted day rate Number of days lost
and restricted x 200,000 hours/number of hours
worked
13
ehaviour-directed Indicators

Frequency and Quality of

• Workplace safety and loss control inspections
• Job safety observations
• Employee safety training
• Safety program audits
• Employee safety meetings

(Prieskop Woessner, 1997)
14

ehaviour-directed Indicators
Frequency and Quality of

• Safety communications to employees
• Safety performance appraisals
• Employee safety suggestions
• Personal protection equipment inspections and
  observations

(Prieskop and Woessner, 1997)
15

ehaviour-directed Indicators
Frequency and Quality of

• Safety committee meetings
• Employee involvement in program implementation

(Prieskop and Woessner, 1997)
16

ehaviour-directed Indicators

• Timeliness of required responses to employee
  safety suggestions

• Timeliness and quality of accident/incident
  investigations

(Prieskop and Woessner, 1997)
17
nputs/Outcomes

Inputs
(leading indicators)
Outcomes
(trailing indicators)
18
anaging for Outstanding Safety
Line Ownership of Safety
Safe Equipment Physical Environment

Involvement in Safety Activities, Training

Management Vision, Commitment Drive
Outstanding Safety Performance
Comprehensive Safety Systems Practices

Safety Aware, Trained Committed Workforce

Safety Organization, Specialists
Short Term Outcomes
Long Term Outcomes
Process Implementation
Begin with the end in Mind
19
afety

• Concerned with injury causing situations

• Concerned with hazards to humans that result from
  sudden severe conditions

(Goetsch, 1993)
20
ealth

• Concerned with disease causing situations

• Deals with adverse reactions to prolonged
  exposure to dangerous, but less intense hazards.

(Goetsch, 1993)
21
There are probably more occupational health
fatalities than safety fatalities, but the
statistics will not reflect this difference
because the health fatalities are delayed and are
often never diagnosed.
(Asfahl, 1999)
22
The most valid method of achieving sustainable,
long-term results is to steer a facilitys safety
efforts by a variety of behaviour-based
indicators, in judicious combination with
accident frequency.
(Krause et al, 1991)
23
ive Indicators Worth Measuring

• Frequency of observation

• Percentage of actions rated as safe
• Safety related maintenance information
• Safety climate surveys
• Accident frequency

(Krause et al, 1991)
24
ix Quality Safety

• Constancy of purpose develop long term
  strategies and stick to them

• Process, not program
• Do it right the first time
• Do not blame the employees
• Specify standards in operational terms

(Krause et al, 1991)
25
ix Quality Safety

• Use measurement of upstream factors to assess
  performance

• Improve the process, not the downstream results
• Use statistical techniques to distinguish
  variation due to common cause from variation due
  to special cause

(Krause et al, 1991)
26
azards, Defences Losses
Defences
DANGER
Losses
Hazards
(Reason ,1997)
27
ynamics of Accident Causation

Latent failures at the managerial levels
Psychological precursors
Unsafe acts
Defence-in-depth
Trajectory of accident opportunity
(Reason, 1990)
28

atent Conditions are Important

• They undoubtedly combine with local factors to
  breach defences. In many cases, they are
  weakened or absent defences.

• Resident pathogens within the workplace and
  the organization can be identified and removed
  before the event.
• Local triggers and unsafe acts are hard to
  anticipate and some proximal factors are almost
  impossible to defend against (for example,
  forgetfulness, inattention).

(Reason ,1997)
29
Thus, despite their inherent problems,
identifying and eliminating latent conditions
proactively still offer the best routes to
improving system Fitness. But it has to be a
continuous process. As one problem is being
addressed, others will spring up in its place.
There are no final victories in the safety war.
(Reason, 1997)
30
Only if the managers of a system had complete
control over all the possible accident-producing
factors couldaccident rates be linked directly
to the quality of safety management. The large
random component in accident causation means the
safe organizations can still have bad
accidents, and unsafe organizations can escape
them for long periods.
(Reason, 1997)
31
ountervailing Currents within the Safety Space
Increasing resistance
Increasing vulnerability
Currents acting within the safety space
Very Safe
Very Unsafe
(Reason, 1997)
32
afety Management
The only attainable goal for safety management is

• To reach that region of the safety space
  associated with maximum resistance.
• To stay in that region by sustaining the
  improvement.

(Reason, 1997)
33
avigating the Safety Space
Increasing resistance
Increasing vulnerability
Very Unsafe
Very Safe
Target Zone
(Reason, 1997)
34
eactive Proactive Measures
Analysis of many incidents can reveal recurrent
patterns of cause and effect.
Identify those conditions most needing
correction, leading to steady gains in resistance
of fitness.
Local Organizational Conditions
(Reason, 1997)
35
eactive Proactive Measures
Defences, Barriers Safeguards
Regular checks reveal where holes exist now and
where they are most likely to appear next.
Each event shows a partial or complete trajectory
through the defences.
(Reason, 1997)
36
roactive Process Measurement
Proactive Channels
1
Safety Information System
2
3
(Reason, 1997)
37
nvestigation of Organizational Accidents
Defences
DANGER
Losses
Hazards
Unsafe Acts
Causes Investigation
Latent Condition Pathways
Local Workplace Factors
Organizational Factors
(Reason, 1997)
38
Cross Section of an Airfoil
Latent Conditions
Organizational Factors
Local Workplace Factors
Unsafe Acts
Defences
Leading Edge
Trailing Edge
39
rimary Process Subsystems
(Reason, 1997)
40

afety Management Systems (SMS)

• Measuring indicators selected from the inputs to
  the safety management system requires a change
  in the way of thinking.

• Companies who put greater effort into developing
  their SMS have better performance and this
  effort rubs off profitably onto other business
  systems.

(Sefton, 2000)
41

evels for Benchmarking
1
st Level
Leading indicators show company managers that an
effective system exists to put the lessons
learned from accidents, incidents and near misses
into practice.
(Sefton, 2000)
42

evels for Benchmarking
2
nd Level
Leading indicators populate the management system
as a whole to demonstrate a positive safety
culture exists within the organization.
(Sefton, 2000)
43

evels for Benchmarking
3
rd Level
A virtuous cycle exists in which teams develop
their own indicators to grow and learn. Accident
and incident statistics are trending to zero.
(Sefton, 2000)
44

easurement of Safety Performance

• Leaders in safety performance use metrics that
  effectively drive their continuous improvement
  efforts.

• Leading indicators (e.g., observations) are used
  to predict changes in safety performance.
• Monitor safety performance versus program
  implementation at all sites.

(Petersen, 1996)
45

easurement of Safety Performance

• Performance targets are defined and communicated.

• Review targets based on feedback from staff,
  metrics and benchmarking.
• Safety performance targets should align with
  business targets.

Petersen, 1996
46

easurement of Safety Performance

• Safety performance (operational) should be tied
  to bonuses and merit pay this is consistent
  among leaders in business.

(Petersen, 1996)
47

easurement of Safety Performance

• Discipline is consistent with well-developed
  guidelines.

• Leading companies ensure in depth root cause
  analysis of accidents in formulating disciplinary
  actions.

(Petersen, 1996)
48
Trailing indicator data generally provide limited
answers about relationships between causes and
effects, so only broad accident preventive
measures can be taken. Checklists and analyses
are more suitable, detailed, and effective for
safety accomplishments.
(Hammer Price, 2001)
49

afety Management Systems
In the book Safety Management Systems the
author advocates doing what many organizations
fail to do

• Establish and apply a coherent set of measures of
  safety performance
• Link the set of safety performance measures
  coherently to the set of business performance
  measures.

(Waring, 1996)
50

agging/Leading Indicators
In recent years there has been a movement away
from safety measures purely based on
retrospective data, or lagging indicators such
as fatalities, lost time accident rates and
incidents, towards so called leading indicators
such as safety audits or measurements of safety
climate.
(Flin et al, 2000)
51

eading Indicators
The most common themes assessed in safety climate
questionnaires are

• Management/supervision
• Safety system
• Risk
• Work pressure
• Competence

(Flin et al, 2000)
52
tress

While organizations have traditionally emphasized
stress management, the emerging focus includes
stress abatement, cutting off negative stress at
the source.
(Pratt, 2001)
53

trategies for Preventing Workplace Stress

• Align workloads with workers capabilities and
  resources

• Design stimulating, meaningful jobs
• Define workers roles and responsibilities
  clearly
• Give workers the opportunity to participate in
  decisions about their jobs

(Pratt, 2001)
54

trategies for Preventing Workplace Stress

• Improve communications

• Provide opportunities for social interaction
  among workers
• Establish work schedules that are compatible with
  demands and responsibilities outside the job

(Pratt, 2001)
55

tress Can Lead to Incidents/Injuries
Certain stressors in the workplace can contribute
to accidents and injuries by making people, to
one degree or another

• Sleep badly
• Over-medicate themselves
• Drink excessively

(Health Canada, 2001)
56

tress Can Lead to Incidents/Injuries

• Feel depressed
• Feel anxious, jittery and nervous
• Feel angry and reckless (often due to a sense of
  unfairness or injustice)

(Health Canada, 2001)
57

tress Can Lead to Incidents/Injuries
When people engage in these behaviours or fall
prey to these emotional states, they are more
likely to

• Become momentarily (but dangerously) distracted
• Make dangerous errors in judgement

(Health Canada, 2001)
58

tress Can Lead to Incidents/Injuries

• Fail in normal activities that require
  hand-to-eye coordination

• Put their bodies under stress, increasing the
  potential for strains and sprains

(Health Canada,2001)
59
onclusion

• OHS risk factors are often complex

• Numerous causal layers provide various
  opportunities for anticipation, detection,
  monitoring and control of the risk factors
• Appropriate identification and action based on
  the use of leading indicators, will address the
  risk factors, improving the performance of the
  OHS system