Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Have recently come across a new "pyramid" and would like info/feedback/comments
Called the "rule of four". This statistic proposes that for every LTI, there are 20 (wait for if) people sent off site for hospital treatment/diagnosis. Of these 20, four require treatment, 16 are examined and require no treatment other than first aid which could have been provided on site.
Following down the pyramid, 1, 4, 16 : 64 people require only immediate on-site first aid treatment.
The final step is that for each LTI there are 256 "incidents". So we get, with the "rule of four" a pyramid of 1, 4, 16, 64, 256.
Has anyone else heard of this, what do you think, is there any substance to it ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Edward Partington
I recall that Bird looked at 1 million + accidents reported in America and from this he developed his triangle. This is a valid tool within America and does not deserve your scorn.
His triangle is based on 1 million plus reported incidents in the USA and it has validity. Though I suspect that due to the fall in death rates in the western world in the last 30 years that this triangle would look differant in this century.
Regards
David Partington.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
Scorn David? What scorn.
As I read it Merv has asked about a similar triangle which is new to him ie which is on the lines of Heinrich, Bird, Tye et al but is new. As far as I can see he made absolutely no comment on Bird's work and indeed what he said about the new triangle was simply asking a question - not pouring scorn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kelvin George
Hi Merv
You might want to look at the following books. They may help give further insight into this subject.
Management Guide to Loss Control - by Frank E Bird
Handbook of Risk Management - by R.L. Carter
hope they help
Cheers Kelvin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Allan St.John Holt
Merv,
In my view the numbers themselves aren't important, merely illustrative. Bird says people should calculate their own, after all, and the HSe limited study gave widely different results according to the industry and doubtless the employer within the industry.
I've always felt that the significance lies in the widening triangle shape rather than the strict proportions of it, with the implication that there are lower levels that we don't know anything about (as per Donald Rumsfeld!) that include the class of incidents where no injury and no damage occur. And they're (for Bird) only ratios anyway, which is often overlooked by those who want to do some iffy calculations using the numbers.
Allan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Gentlemen,
thankyou for your comments, I know the weaknesses and the arguments for and against heinriche, bird, tye at al. The "rule of 4" has been proposed by DNV, an off shoot of veritas who are developing a presence in technical inspections a bit like British Engines and MOTs.
I have always found that the heinrich pyramid has been acceptable to manangement. Tye and Bird are a bit more difficult to explain. The DMV rule of 4 is fascinating. I would simply like to know if anyone has any experience or advice which would confirm or refute this "statistique"
(anyone with a direct connection to DMV will be listened to with, as they say, "grande attention"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Merv,
I am not aware of the Heinrich, Bird, Tye et al theory but have seen similar theories. I think it is a HSE example where the top of a pyramid represents the 'tip of the iceberg' for near misses.
Without tangible emipirical evidence to support this evidence, I have to agree with the previous comment; the 4-1 rule is a statistical example. Hence, it should not be taken too literally. After all, the ratio of near misses etc would depend on a number of different factors e.g. industry, period, probability etc.
A similar analogy could be drawn from the HSE's web site on reported accidents and incidents. However, because near misses are often not reported, only a subjective assessment would be available.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frederick George Robotham
Many of the more forward-thinking safety professionals in Australia strongly discount the work of those who promote the view that there are fixed ratios between different types of incidents.Heinrich, Bird et al also make the mistake of using descriptive statistics as inferential statistics.The common cold can never develop into cancer and neither can many minor incidents with low energy levels develop into a fatality.Certainly we must learn from near-misses and minor incidents but to use them as the main predictor of more serious personal damage is inappropriate.I refer you to the work of Professor Andrew Hopkins on the Moura and Longford disasters in Australia also the work of Geoff McDonald of Geoff McDonald &Associates, Crestmead, Brisbane
Heinrich, Bird et al deserve their place in history but the world has moved on If I upset a few traditionalists with my views so be it.
George Robotham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Allan St.John Holt
'Many of the more forward-thinking safety professionals' - er, that would be both of them, right? I could cite a few others in Australia who would support the principle of looking at the near-miss. Prof. Dennis Else for one, formerly of Aston University, then Barrarat, then Chair of one of the Aussie Regulatory bodies (can't recall the name right now).
The simple fact is that what Heinrich et al were saying (on this subject) makes sense to non-experts, which is that less serious outcomes happen more frequently than more serious ones, for most events - but of course not all. Incidents at power presses, for example, tend to be of the amputation kind rather than the sprained wrist by the nature of the equipment involved. In fact, if that were not true the world would be a strange place, surely? So all they did was to try and quantify their hunch, using rather large data sets in the process.
I ought to say that what Heinrich said about almost everything else was a product of its time and has now been discarded by most Western writers (although maybe not Antipodean ones!).
If you've got an Internet link for the workers you quote, I'd be interested to see what they say, though.
Allan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch
Frederick
From what I can find quickly on the Internet it seems to me that Professor Hopkins is not discrediting the overall principles behind the Heinrich triangle.
Quote from HSE Research Report RR044 "The role of managerial leadership in determining workplace safety outcomes"....
"The evidence from accidents such as the Esso Gas Plant explosion at the Longford plant outside of Melbourne, highlights some of the conflicts which organisations face.
Management at the plant were conflicted between the need to recognise and control major hazard and the need to reduce the costs of lost time injuries. It seems they focused much of their attention on the latter, to the exclusion of major hazards (Hopkins, 2000)."
Other internet links specifically comment on the failure of management to take notice of the warning bells prior to the Longford and Moura incidents, ie respond to information at a lower level of the triangle than the top.
As you say a common cold is unlikely to develop into cancer, but this does not mean that monitoring general health might not point to early warning signs of potentially at greater risk patients.
Similarly identifying a general malaise in terms of many hazardous situations can help indicate to management that action is needed to improve. What is then needed is a balance with priority given to those issues which may predicate a major incident, fatal accident etc.
As Allan indicates the Heinrich concept is easy to explain to decision makers at various levels. That the ratios will vary according to circumstances appears to me to be immaterial. What is important is to get across the principle that to reduce the risk of an event at the top of the pyramid, managers must look to learn from incidents and information further down.
When I run risk assessment training courses, one of my first slides is the Heinrich triangle. Don't think Andrew Hopkins is saying anything to make me change this practice!!
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frederick George Robotham
Peter,
I knew I would stir up a hornests nest with this one.I like seeing how people respond to the non-traditional.I started in safety 30 years ago, was bought up on Heinrich, Bird etc. and it has taken me a lot of soul-searching to reach the position on this issue that I have.First of all you have to read Hopkins on Longford and Moura in total to get a good feel of his ideas.I worked for the company that caused the Moura disaster,they were guided by the Heinrich Bird et al belief that reducing lost time injuries would automatically prevent major personal damage and agressively attacked lost time injuries at the expense of a loss of focus on the serious type of incidents.I know there are lessons to be learnt from near-misses, minor incidents etc,but my analysis says the serious incidents of personal damage are usually different from other less serious incidents if only from the different levels of energy.
Let the debate continue.Is Johnny Wilkinson a "Sir" yet?
Regards,
George Robotham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
2 swallows do not make a hornets nest!
I think though Frederick that this is not an either/or situation. To recognise than Heinrich et al do not paint the whole picture does not mean 'the triangle' is not a tool that can be useful, especially as has been said in illustrating a point in a way the board can understand. It's criticism seems to have lead you to dismiss it completely; it's rare that anything is that black and white.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.