Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 12 May 2006 15:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Michael Hosking We have ongoing management momentum relating to using monthly KPI reporting to management as a means of measuring performance. In the past I have used the favourites of no prosecutions, no claims, no RIDDORS,plus a few accident stats for good measure!! I am trying to move away from/add to these old favourites with a view to merging with current management styles/jargons. Whilst HS is global,industry jargon does change across the varying sectors and our busines is large office based finance administration. Look forward to some networking with you all. Mike
Admin  
#2 Posted : 12 May 2006 15:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Philip McAleenan Michael, in responding to a colleague on the the issue of KPIs I searched through my files and came across the following which I had posted on this forum some years back. It has relevance I believe baecuase it turns the process on its head and asked managers to measure positive outcomes rather than negative ones. I have used the example of confined spaces training to illustrate, but any area of operational managemnt can be monitored and performances measures in the same way,
BS8800, a Guide to occupational health & safety management systems, simplifies the process. It talks about setting targets which “are the detailed performance requirements that should be achieved by designated persons or teams in order to implement the [OH&S] plan. The plan should specify who is to do what, by when and with what result”. Thus a key objective may be that all confined space entry workers are trained, assessed and certified fit and competent to use RPE within 6 months. The results or outcomes expected will be documentation of who has been trained, when it took and the assessment results, including certificates. A plan will be drawn up to achieve this objective and within that plan will be targets such as: 1. prepare a list of all those to be trained, 2. obtain evidence of medical and physical fitness to use RPE, 3. schedule training dates, 4. appoint trainer/assessor, 5. notify all listed employees of training dates, 6. provide training venue, equipment etc. 7. carry out training and assessment, 8. obtain assessment documentation & certificates, 9. review the outcomes and prepare any necessary remedial actions (e.g. where one or more failed any element of the fitness or assessment procedures). Thus we can see that by setting a clear objective or standard, namely that all confined space workers are fit and competent to use RPE, the performance requirements to achieve that objective follow. And by monitoring each performance requirement in turn we can effectively measure progress towards achieving the key objective. And of course once the objectives has been achieved, a new objective can be agreed, for example, maintain the level of competence and fitness to use RPE amongst all confined space workers, and corresponding targets to achieve this drawn up. Regards, Philip
Admin  
#3 Posted : 12 May 2006 15:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jerry Lucey Hi Mike, With regard to key performance indicators you should look at items that you have control over. Examples might be hours of safety training delivered, if you have an annual safety programme you might look at percentage completed i.e. are you on target, you might look at performance on actioning measures outlined in risk assessments. The important thing is to choose items where you are confident will reflect the amount of effort you put into and will also reflect the success of your labours Riddors, Prosecutions and claims are not controllable and one unfortunate accident which may not have been foreseeable may lead to a RIDDOR and substantial claim which may not reflect the overall performance of your company in safety.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 12 May 2006 16:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chas Try getting hold of the following; A guide to measuring safety performance (pub by HSE in Dec 2001) HSE Research Report 217, Development of a safety management index. OECD Guidance on safety performance indicators (pub by OECD 2003). Hope this helps.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 15 May 2006 09:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Alexander Falconer Chas I am currently looking at Performance indicators as part of my Diploma 2 assignment, can you advise where I can get a copy of OECD Guidance on safety performance indicators (pub by OECD 2003). Seem to be drawing a blank on the internet. Regards Alex
Admin  
#6 Posted : 15 May 2006 11:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Admin  
#7 Posted : 15 May 2006 11:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By garyh I try to use a balance of "inputs" and "outputs". Organisations often tend to focus on "outputs" such as Injury Rates, Riddor reports, Prosecutions, Improvement notices, Near Misses (and so on). Often missed are the positive "inputs" eg how many safety audits, spot checks, Safety observations, housekeeping tours, safety actions completed (etc). If you have a tangible Safety improvement plan you can give the % age completion of the plan (also with training plans). I would go for tangible measurable items which can be easily understood and which will show if you are getting better / worse etc. The devil is in the detail and balance. Hope this helps.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.