This podcast episode delves into the limitations of traditional safety metrics, the unrealistic goal of zero harm, the drawbacks of safety walks, challenges with health and safety data, negative consequences of a disciplinary approach to safety incidents, and finding a balance between safety and production in organizations.
Traditional safety metrics like injury frequency rates may not indicate the presence of safety, and zero harm goals can create a false sense of safety while discouraging incident reporting and learning from minor incidents.
Organizations should challenge outdated safety metrics and approaches, and instead focus on meaningful and contextual measures that foster psychological safety, promote learning and adaptation, and continuously improve critical controls.
Deep dives
The Limitations of Traditional Safety Metrics
Traditional safety metrics like injury frequency rates (IFR) and zero harm goals are often criticized for their limitations in truly reflecting the effectiveness of safety programs. Injury frequency rates may not indicate the presence of safety, and zero harm goals can create a false sense of safety while discouraging incident reporting and learning from minor incidents.
The Importance of Context and Systemic Understanding
Many organizations focus on metrics without considering the context and complexity of work. It is important to understand the underlying conditions, work design, and system factors that influence safety performance. Simply relying on metrics without considering the context can be misleading and ineffective in improving safety.
The Need for Qualitative and Human-centered Measures
Instead of solely relying on quantitative metrics, organizations should incorporate qualitative measures to evaluate safety performance. This includes factors like psychological safety, engagement, perception of trust, and the effectiveness of controls. Qualitative insights, along with conversations and relationships, offer valuable information for improving safety.
Challenging Sacred Cows and Seeking Improvement
Organizations should challenge outdated safety metrics and approaches. Relying solely on lagging indicators or rigid safety platitudes can be counterproductive. Instead, there's a need for more meaningful and contextual measures that focus on continuously improving critical controls, fostering psychological safety, and promoting learning and adaptation in the workplace.
In this episode, we’re conducting a thorough investigation of Safety metrics to help HSE practitioners measure (and manage) the factors that most accurately reflect Safety performance.
We’ve compiled a collection of thoughts, opinions and ideas about safety data, analysis and reporting from 19 of our previous guests discussing various aspects of this diverse and divisive subject.
Many question the existing reliance on lagging indicators and proxy KPIs, while the value of Zero Harm initiatives is particularly challenged.
But what are the alternatives? Are they easily quantifiable, will they satisfy senior leaders, and where does psychological safety fit into this discussion?
This Safety Measurement special features multiple perspectives on these crucial questions from experienced HSE professionals, consultants, authors and academics. We can’t promise definitive answers, but it will help you come to your own conclusions about Safety metrics - and how they can best keep your co-workers safe.