Rank: Forum user 
|
I usually use the following: AFR = No. of RIDDOR incidents x 100,000 / No. of hours worked, but have now been asked to use: AFR = No. of RIDDOR incidents x 1,000,000 / No. of hours worked.
Does anyone know the benifit of using 1,000,000 instead of 100,000?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I think the ILO use per 1,000,000 as opposed to 100,000. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp...strument/wcms_087528.pdfWe used per 1,000,000 for many years until we switched to per 100,000 to make it easier for people to benchmark our performance with others in the industry when it came to bidding for work. As for a benefit, I don't think there is one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Scott
Jobe is correct, the 1,000,000 figure is used as an industry consolidated figure by the ILO. Individual organisations tend to use the 100,000 figure as it makes their in house figures more meaningful and also works well as a safety performance indicator against similar industries. Of course which ever you use must be made clear from the outset to avoid confusion.
Regards
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
The ILO million person hours make sense to the bean counters. On the other hand, if one multiplies a 50 year working lifetime by 50 working weeks in each year, each week being 5 days of 8 hour shifts, the result comes to 100,000. If your organisation has an AFR of, say, 3 per 100,00 hours, you can promise, (and put money on it,) that each employee will experience 3 LTAs in his or her working lifetime. This tends to concentrate the mind better than describing a fractional number.
With kind regards,
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Wellgate wrote:The ILO million person hours make sense to the bean counters. On the other hand, if one multiplies a 50 year working lifetime by 50 working weeks in each year, each week being 5 days of 8 hour shifts, the result comes to 100,000. If your organisation has an AFR of, say, 3 per 100,00 hours, you can promise, (and put money on it,) that each employee will experience 3 LTAs in his or her working lifetime. This tends to concentrate the mind better than describing a fractional number.
With kind regards,
Chris I agree with this. Maybe we have allowed the beancounters to hijack a "number" that should be being used to get an important safety message home. Too many, maybe, don't know why the 100,000 was originally used. In the USA they use 200,000 anyone know the logic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
walker wrote:
In the USA they use 200,000 anyone know the logic?
I think it arose from the amount of work a workforce of 100 might do in a year. You can see where it might be an equally valid choice, but once you think about it this choice says a different thing about H&S priorities: 200,000 is about the effect on the manager, whereas 100,000 is about the effect on the worker. Although maybe I'm just being cynical!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ACCIDENT RATES
There are various accident rates used to compare accident statistics.
The most important aspect is to ensure that you use the same MULTIPLICATION FACTOR (MF) as used in the data you are comparing.
There is no fixed multiplication factor (MF).
The choice can be influenced by either the MF used in the data you are comparing or for the purpose trend analysis/projections, the rates have manageable “numbers”, i.e. not having too many zeros or decimal places!
INCIDENT RATE= TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS X 1000/NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED
Definition:- number of accidents per 1000 employees
A factor of 100 000 is used by HSE for the “AIR” i.e. number of accidents per 100 000 employees )
Definition:-number of accidents per 100 000 employees
FREQUENCY RATE = TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS X 1 000 000/TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN HOURS WORKED
Definition:- number of accidents per 1 000 000 hours worked
(Note:- Some tend to use a multiplication factor of 2 000 000 as this figure is the hours worked in a year by 1000 employees assuming they work 40 hours per week for 50 weeks in a year, others use an MF of 200 000)
SEVERITY RATE= TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS LOST X 1000/TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN HOURS WORKED
(i.e. average number of days lost per 1000 hours worked)
Definition:-average number of days lost per 1000 hours worked
MEAN DURATION RATE = TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS LOST/TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
Definition:- average number of days lost per accident
DURATION RATE=NUMBER OF MAN HOURS WORKED/TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
Definition:- average number of man hours between accidents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I've just covered this in my dip course. Apparently the 100,000hrs does come from the average worked hours for someone in their lifetime. 1000,000hrs is takes into account those countries where the working life and/or working hours are generally longer. 200,000hrs in the US reflect potentially longer working hours with fewer holidays.
Of course with the working age increasing it does lead to the question as to how long 100,000hrs will be seen as sufficient?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.