The Use of

Leading & Lagging

Indicators

to measure the performance of

Occupational Health & Safety System

James Evert Adolf Liku

Material taken from : Steve Oakley
1
 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. 2
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
3
ndicate

To point out, make known,

show, be a sign of, or
suggest a call for
treatment (Medical)

4
ndicator

Person or thing that

points out or indicates

5
ead

To guide, go in front

6
 eading Indicator
1) A measure of conditions or activities
that are believed to precede, and
consequently affect, injury rates.
(OHSCO)

2) A metric used for its ability to

measure incremental progress, or
quality, or to indicate the direction of
future results (predictive). (Dupont, 2000)
7
8
 Cross Section of an Airfoil

Leading Edge Lagging / Trailing

Edge
9
nputs/Outcomes

Inputs
(leading indicators)

Outcomes
(lagging / trailing indicators)

10
BIRD’S TRIANGLE
• In many cases HSE performance
Fatality
is reviewed by assessing lagging
indicators.
Lost Time • Lagging indicators like First Aid,
Medical recordable, Lost time,
Medical
Fatality are outcomes.
Recordable
• Reactions to outcomes, though
First Aid important, are like reacting to a
stock market change rather than
Near Miss predicting the change to protect
incident occurred investments.
LAGGING AND LEADING
HSE INDICATORS
Fatality

These are the Lost Time

outcomes Lagging
we try to indicators
avoid
Medical Recordable

First Aid

Near Miss – incident occurred

Reading
Leader site visits; Leader Audits the signs of
see emerging
Permit to Work audits; JSA Audits; HSE Training
Leading the risks
indicators Safety Critical Equipment PM; PM backlogs
Closure of actions - investigations; audits; HAZIDS Risk
Safety Observations; Proactive Near-Miss reports
 BEING REACTIVE OR
PROACTIVE
Reactive feedback and control Proactive feedback and control

Input Output Input Output

Process Process

Leading Metrics
Accident & Accident &
Desired Incidents Desired Incidents
+ Controller + Controller
Value Value
Error Error
Detect Detect
Frequency Frequency

Lagging indicators monitor the outputs from
the process. Corrective action is taken if the
outputs deviate from the required standard.
The control is reactive as corrective action
cannot be initiated until the unwanted
outputs have occurred.
Leading indicators monitor inputs to the
process at stages before any adverse
outcomes have occurred. Leading indicators
provide feedback earlier in the process and
enable proactive corrections to be made
before any adverse outputs have resulted.
afety Management Model

14
esults-directed Indicators

Loss time case rate:

Number of lost time cases x
200,000/number of hours
worked

15
esults-directed Indicators

Loss and restricted day rate:

Number of days lost and
restricted x 200,000
hours/number of hours worked

16
 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)
17
 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) 18
 ehaviour-directed Indicators

Frequency and Quality of:

Safety committee meetings

Employee involvement in
program implementation

(Prieskop and Woessner, 1997)

19
ehaviour-directed Indicators

Timeliness of required responses

to employee safety suggestions

Timeliness and quality of

accident/incident investigations

(Prieskop and Woessner, 1997)

20
nputs/Outcomes

Inputs
(leading indicators)

Outcomes
(trailing indicators)

21
 anaging for Outstanding Safety
Line Ownership
of Safety
Safe
Equipment &
Involvement in Physical
Safety Environment
Management Activities,
Vision, Training Outstanding
Commitment Safety
& Drive Performance
Comprehensive
Safety Systems
& Practices Safety Aware,
Trained &
Committed
Safety Workforce
Organization,
Specialists

Begin with the Process Short Term Long Term

end in Mind Implementation Outcomes Outcomes 22
afety

 Concerned with injury

causing situations

 Concerned with hazards to

humans that result from
sudden severe conditions

(Goetsch, 1993) 23
ealth

 Concerned with disease

causing situations

 Deals with adverse reactions

to prolonged exposure to
dangerous, but less intense
hazards.
(Goetsch, 1993) 24
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) 25
The most valid method of achieving
sustainable, long-term results is to
steer a facility’s safety efforts by a
variety of behaviour-based
indicators, in judicious combination
with accident frequency.

(Krause et al, 1991) 26

ive Indicators Worth Measuring
1) Frequency of observation
2) Percentage of actions rated
as safe
3) Safety related maintenance
information
4) Safety climate surveys
5) Accident frequency
(Krause et al, 1991) 27
 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) 28
 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) 29
azards, Defences & Losses
Defences

DANGER
Losses
Hazards

(Reason ,1997) 30
 ynamics of Accident Causation
Latent failures at the
Local triggers managerial levels
Intrinsic defects
Atypical conditions

Psychological
precursors

Unsafe acts

Trajectory of accident Defence-in-depth

(Reason, 1990)
31
opportunity
 atent Conditions are Important
1) They undoubtedly combine with local factors
to breach defences. In many cases, they are
weakened or absent defences.
2) Resident ‘pathogens’ within the workplace
and the organization can be identified and
removed before the event.
3) Local triggers and unsafe acts are hard to
anticipate and some proximal factors are
almost impossible to defend against (for
example, forgetfulness, inattention).
32
(Reason ,1997)
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) 33
Only if the managers of a system had
complete control over all the possible
accident-producing factors could…accident
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) 34
 ountervailing Currents within the Safety Space

Increasing resistance Increasing vulnerability

Currents acting
Very Very
Safe within the Unsafe
safety space

(Reason, 1997) 35
 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) 36
 avigating the Safety Space
Increasing resistance Increasing vulnerability

Driving Forces
Very Target Very
Commitment
Safe Zone Competence Unsafe
Cognisance

Navigational Aids

Reactive Proactive
outcome process
measures measures

(Reason, 1997) 37
 eactive & Proactive Measures

Reactive Proactive
Measures Measures

Analysis of many Identify those

Local &
incidents can conditions most
Organizational reveal recurrent needing correction,
patterns of cause leading to steady
Conditions
and effect. gains in resistance
of fitness.

(Reason, 1997) 38
 eactive & Proactive Measures

Reactive Proactive
Measures Measures

Defences, Each event shows Regular checks

a partial or reveal where holes
Barriers & complete trajectory exist now and
through the where they are
Safeguards defences. most likely to
appear next.

(Reason, 1997) 39
roactive Process Measurement
Proactive
Channels

Unsafe Acts 1
Safety
Information
Local Workplace Factors 2
System

Organizational Factors 3

(Reason, 1997) 40
nvestigation of Organizational Accidents
Defences

DANGER
Losses

Hazards

Latent Unsafe Acts

Condition
Causes
Pathways
Investigation
Local Workplace Factors

Organizational Factors
(Reason, 1997) 41
 Cross Section of an Airfoil

Latent Conditions
Organizational Factors
Local Workplace Factors
Unsafe Acts
Defences

Leading Edge Trailing Edge

42
 rimary Process Subsystems
Safety-specific
factors

Training Training
CULTURAL
FACTORS
Management Procedural
factors Commitment factors
Competence
Training Cognisance Training

Technical
factors
(Reason, 1997) 43
 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) 44
evels for Benchmarking

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) 45
evels for Benchmarking

Leading indicators populate the

management system as a whole
to demonstrate a positive safety
culture exists within the
organization.

(Sefton, 2000) 46
evels for Benchmarking

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) 47
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) 48
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 49
easurement of Safety Performance

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

(Petersen, 1996) 50
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) 51
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) 52
 afety Management Systems

In the book “Safety Management Systems”

the author advocates doing what many
organizations fail to do:

1) Establish and apply a coherent set of

measures of safety performance;
2) Link the set of safety performance
measures coherently to the set of
business performance measures.
(Waring, 1996) 53
 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) 54
 Examples of the Application of Lagging Indicator

Objective Indicator Measure/monitor Report Calculate Method

Measure the fatality Fatality ? Person Die / Fatality Yearly / Monthly
during the operation

Measure Lost Time Lost Time Injury ? Lost Time Injury Case Yearly / Monthly
Injury

Measure Medical Medical Recordable ? Medical Recordable Case Yearly / Monthly

Recordable

Measure First Aid First Aid ? First Aid Case Yearly / Monthly

Measure Nearmiss Near Miss ? Near Miss Case Yearly / Monthly

Measure Property Property Damage ? Property Damage Case Yearly / Monthly

Damage

Measure Frequency Injury Frequency Rate ? IFR Yearly / Monthly IFR & LTIFR Formula
Rate
? LTIFR, ? NMFR, ? FAFR
Measure Severity Rate Severity Rate ? ISR Yearly / Monthly ISR & LTISR

? LTISR
Measure the cost and Cost of Injury ? Incident Cost, ? FA Cost, ? PD Yearly / Monthly
loss of incident event Cost

Measure compliance of Government ? Government Enforcement Notice Yearly / Monthly

regulation action Enforcement Notice 55
 eading Indicators
The most common themes assessed
in safety climate questionnaires are:
Management/supervision
Safety system
Risk
Work pressure
Competence
(Flin et al, 2000) 56
 Examples of the Application of Leading Indicator

Objective Indicator Measure/monitor Results Improve

All activities to be Risk Assessment % Risk assessment complete Track reported % on a Review progress at
subject to hazard monthly basis by monthly senior
% Control measures implemented
analysis and risk area/department management
assessment meetings, target areas
for improvement
Written Work Work procedures % Written procedures complete Track reported % on a Review progress at
Procedures in place for monthly basis by monthly senior
critical activities area/department management
meetings, target areas
for improvement
Provision of safe place Work place inspection % Scheduled inspections complete Track reported % on a Review progress at
of work target for each by name and work area/dept. monthly basis by monthly senior
frontline supervisor area/department management
% Actions arising complete by
across whole site on a meetings, target areas
name and work area/dept
monthly basis each for improvement
with specific area

Workplace visibility % Visibility/Inspection Tours

tour by middle and complete
senior managers in
their work area once
per month
Employees working Behaviour based % Employees working safely Track reported % on a Review progress at
safely observations monthly basis by monthly senior
% PPE compliance
area/department management
meetings, target areas
57
for improvement
 Examples of the Application of Leading Indicator

Objective Indicator Measure/monitor Results Improve

Incident reporting and Timeliness of % Incidents reported within 24 Track reported % on a Review progress at
implementation reporting hours monthly basis by monthly senior
remedial measures area/department management
Incident investigation % Near miss incidents
meetings, target areas
effectiveness Log of
% Incident investigation complete for improvement
corrective actions
on time

% Corrective actions implemented

All by area/dept.
Safe and competent Performance % Performance assessments Track reported % on a Review progress at
employees assessment including complete monthly basis by monthly senior
training needs area/department management
% Scheduled training complete
identification Training meetings, target areas
records All by area/dept. for improvement
Improve safety Toolbox talks on % Tool Box Talks complete by Track reported % on a Review progress at
awareness targeted topics Dept. monthly basis by monthly senior
monthly by all area/department management
% Employees attending
Supervisors meetings, target areas
% Actions arising complete for improvement

All by Area/Dept.

% Safety Representatives Trained

Improve safety culture Annual climate survey Overall findings based on selected Track trends on annual Review progress at
criteria basis and by area/dept annual senior
management
All by Area/Dept.
meetings, target areas
58
for improvement
Lagging indicators are the after-
the-event ones (Reactive)

Leading indicators aim to be

preventative (Proactive)

59
60