Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Robert A Jones
Hi,
I am setting targets / objectives for this coming year 2008.
I would like to have some feedback for the AFR that could be a guide for the food manufacturing workplace.
That is the number of accidents reported under RIDDOR for every hour worked.
For the last few years we are running at about 1-2 for every 200000 hours worked.
Is this good or bad, I would like to reduce this figure obviously but what is a reasonable objective.
I plan to reduce the accidents in my work place by providing all employees with appropriate and sufficient information, instruction, training and supervision to enable them to, avoid hazards, identify risks, understand how these risks are controlled and contribute in a positive way to their own safety at work;
Thanks in advance.
Rob.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Don't both with AFRs as they lead to a level which allows accidents to happen, work instead on a basis of zero accidents and investigate all incidents as one off occurances and learn lessons from them. Setting targets is a bad way of getting any improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
I agree with Bob, any accident is one too many.
Statistics are all right for reporting to management your failures and for seeking their assistance in prevention, but don't set targets as they just create problems further down the line.
Zero is the best figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert A Jones
Hi, Happy new year.
Thanks for the advice I have changed my targets / objectives.
Rob.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
Happy new year to you all.
I am a bit concerned about the above responses; surely they should have been prefaced with "in my opinion".
It should be notaed that many high performing organisations use injury frequency rates.
In my experience, a balance of inputs and outputs are useful as KPIs; ONE of these MAY be AFR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
The use of frequency rates by high performers is indeed a given but if you look more closely you will find zero is set as an expectation rather than a target. Zero is not after all SMART. The real measures for such organisations will look at management and supervisory activity wrt to H&S. Targets for inspection and monitoring are much easier to set and measure, and monitor.
AFRs are a good check however to benchmark against other organisations in the same sector. The HSE however use AIR making the comparison more difficult especially if your employee numbers, including contractors, varies widely throughout the year and the working hours are not fixed. I would look to improving by a percentage against the best performers in your own sector if you wish to use statisitics as a measure.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I should have added that you need to talk to your fellow manufacturers via the trade associations that you both belong to and support. It thus means setting up a circle and benchmarking against each other. The setting up of the circle is in itself a target.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap
If you set an AFR rate management love it. But, it only gauges an 'after event' stat. After the event its too late. The AFR rate means that management will have a set target by which to work to and get below. If they go above the target questions wil be asked. So they force accidents under ground and pehaps even under report them. So all you have done is created a tool by which an under reporting regime develops, this can be worse than seeing the true picture. If you want the real picture try to keep to what others have said. (of course all stated in my own opinion)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By mark linton
Previously the Company I work for had accident targets as the performance measure and there were a number of issues with this (under reporting, massaging accidents into incidents, too late once the accident has happened, if 10 accidents is the target then 9 is acceptable but 11 isn't etc etc).
This year we have gone for a more positive measure - things we want staff to do anyway. Risk assessment targets for each department, completion of incident forms, timely completion of accident reports and accident rates remaining a corporate target rather than a departmental one. Will have to see if it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Garyh
had a few companies who did this and use Acc Stats as KPI's for managers and related to bonus and pay etc.
Trust me it does not work as it opens up a lot of issues regarding reporting and hiding accidents.
Its far better to use it as a company tool to get a handle on how may you have in relation to benchmarking similar organisations.
If you want to do Safety KPI's then they have to be a positive thing to promote and improve safety eg safety Audits done by management, not negative and reactive to an event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
Dave I disagree - in my considerable experience of this you need a balance of proactive and reactive (monitoring) items for your KPIs. I do agree that too much emphasis is often placed on reactive areas. This is of course the way the NEBOSH Diploma syllabus has it, a mix of active and reactive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Some very interesting comments. The point is by setting a target you run the risk of under reporting and carpet covering. By investigating every accident as a stand alone event, you find the cause much easier to address and when a common theme is identified it enables much more proactive management to prevent any further recurrences. In any case the accident is of much more importance to the injured person that simply a management statistic which is generally (but not always) used by senior management as a plaster to simply say thier accident rate is under control, tell that to the injured person.
Put simply set the level at zero and investigate fully the events when they arise will mean more to the company and the individuals concerned, if you don't you run the risk of under reporting and people going sick and not reporting what could be a serious underlying problem which simply won't go away and could have far more serious results later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.