Measures of Safety Performance

1
Measures of Safety Performance
2
Number of OSHA Citations Claims
History EMR Lost Workday Case Rate OSHA
Recordable Injury Rate
3
OSHA Recordable Injury Rate

• RIR

4
Recordable Injuries / 200,000 hours

• RIR

5
How Well Can We Determine the Number of Injuries?
6
How Well Can We Determine the Number of Worker
Hours?
7
(No Transcript)
8
Selecting Leading Indicators of Safety
Performance
9
Measurement

• As you move up in an organization the use of
  failure based measurement tools (management by
  exception) must be balanced with those that
  promote best practices (management by objective).

10

• Traditional view of safety is from the
  pessimistic perspective.
  ( The focus is on our failures or
  management by exception)
• Can we or should we change the way we look at
  safety?

11
Lagging versus Leading Indicators of Safety
Performance
12
Measurement is important to evaluate the
efficiency of a process
Input
output
Process
Occurrence of Injuries
Actions the Promote Safe Work Performance
13
Focus of Safety Measurement

• Behavior this can be changed and it can be
  controlled
• Positive Aspects not the negative or the more
  traditional measures (the failures)
• Focus on behavior that will lead to success
  (management by objective)

14
Two Types of Indicators

• Lagging Leading
• Downstream Upstream
• Trailing Predictive
• Reactive Response Proactive Response

15
Trailing or Lagging Indicators of Safety
Performance
1
200
2000
60000
Underlying Causes for Unsafe Behavior and Unsafe
Conditions
16
Aggressive Safety Promotion
Reduces the Probabilities of Incident
Occurrences
Near Miss
Unsafe Behavior Unsafe Conditions
17
Traditional Industry Focus

• Recordable Injury Rate
• Experience Modification Rate

18
Advantage of Using Lagging Indicators of Safety

• Advantages
• They are accurate (hindsight is 20-20)
• RIR and EMR are available for most firms
• They are widely accepted measures
• We think we understand these measures..

19

• Disadvantages
• They are purely historical in nature
• No information is generally available on what
  specific actions might be taken to improve the
  situation
• Data can be manipulated
• Others

20
Why has the industry adopted the lagging
indicators?

• These are used to satisfy regulatory requirements
• Insurance companies use them
• But are our safety needs the same as the
  regulatory and insurance bodies, if we truly want
  to aggressively promote safety?

21
Leading Indicators of Safety Performance
22
Owners
Construction Process
Subcontractors
Designers
General Contractor Policies
Foremen
Workers
Project Practices
Project Managers
Job Superintendent
Safety Performance
23
Should we change to a greater use of leading
indicators?

• This is not a suggestion that lagging indicators
  will disappear
• Leading indicators provide a new approach to
  safety because they have a different purpose..

24
Leading Indicators of Safety Performance

• They are focused on the safety management process
  (not just numbers)
• They provide an indication (prediction) of the
  safety performance to be realized on a project..

25
Making a Case for Leading Indicators

• The leading indicators are really measures of
  different aspects of the safety process to be
  implemented on a project.
• The safe delivery of projects is much better
  assured.
• Takes more time, but this information is valuable
  for making crucial decisions..

26
What is the best leading indicator of safety?

• There probably is no best leading indicator
• The indicators cover different processes so
  different indicators will be needed

27
What can we do to shift to the use of Leading
Indicators

• There must first be an understanding of the
  value of using leading indicators
• There must be a firm commitment to reduce
  injuries, not just to measure them
• Find the leading indicators that work..

28
Advantage of Using Leading Indicators of Safety
Performance

• If performance indicators are poor or
  unacceptable, modifications or changes can be
  made before injuries actually occur
• Focus is on the process, not the end result

29
A Case Study

• Large Projects (over 400,000 hours)
• Very Aggressive in Safety Promotion
• RIR of 0.56
• Monitored 10 Leading Indicators of Safety

30

• Percent of worker observations that were safe (A)
• Number of positive reinforcements provided per
  200,000 hours (B)
• Percent closed audit findings (C)
• Percent of orientation sessions with Client
  management participation (D)

31

• A1 if the percentage is less than 90, 2 if the
  percentage is 90-95, 3 if 95 or greater
• B1 if the number is less than 250, 2 if between
  250-1000, 3 if 1000 or greater
• C1 if the percentage is less than 70, 2 if the
  percentage is 70-95, 3 if 95 or greater
• D1 if the percentage is less than 70, 2 if the
  percentage is 70-90, 3 if 90 or greater

32
Score 3A 3B C D
RIR

33
Score A B
Worker Observations and Positive Reinforcement
avg1.13
avg0.34
RIR
avg0.11
34
Ideal Leading Indicators

• Activities that can be changed or impacted on a
  day-to-day basis
• Focus must be on varying parties in the
  construction process

35
Lets Start Using Leading Indicators of Safety

• Lets not measure our injuries, lets prevent
  them.
• Focus on strengthening areas of weakness in the
  safety process that contribute to injury
  causation..

36
(No Transcript)
37
Coding of Injury Causes
38
1985-1989 OSHA Data
39
Codes Need to Have Meaning
40
Falls

• Fall from elevation -25
• Fall from ground level 0

41
Electrical Shock

• Electrocution (power lines) 17.4
• Electrocution (faulty const. tools/wiring) 1
• Electrocution (faulty existing wiring) 1.6
• Electrocution (building power) 2.2
• Electrocution (other) 1.6

42
Struck By

• Struck by falling material 4.4
• Struck by material being handled 1.2
• Struck by equipment - 15.4

43
Caught In / Between

• Caught in or between equipment - 10.6
• Caught in or between materials 1
• Cave-in (trench) 5.6
• Cave-in (excavation) 0.8

44
Other

• Asphyxiation 2
• Explosion 1
• Fire 1.6
• Natural Causes 4.6
• Drowning - 2.2
• Other 0.8

45
(No Transcript)