Good afternoon colleagues,

Whilst tuning in to Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show on Wednesday (other radio stations are available), I caught the end of a discussion where a Crossrail Construction Manager (forgive me - Phil Jones I think his name was?) spoke of his belief that 'target zero' (accidents and incidents) can be achieved at Crossrail.

I appreciate this subject has appeared in previous threads but, what are your opinions of target zero in terms of
1) achievable in any workplace;
2) achievable on the largest construction project in Europe?

Simon

Thank goodness the Target Zero has been found out at last.
I always thought it foolish.
Just like
'All accidents can be prevented'
Of course they can given infinite resources, but that does not mean that you can prevent all accidents.

Led Dawson would have told you he did nail his mother in laws blancmange to the ceiling and target zero was a reference to using a WW2 fighter bomber to sort her out.

Totally agree

Whatever happened to complying with HSWA - wouldn't we all be happier!

Zeros are fine as long as the organisation is mature enough to reset the clock when things go wrong and more importantly learn the real reasons why they have gone wrong. Many organisations investigate thoroughly but unfortunately not realistically; hence the zero tag line will probably disappear over the next couple of years.

Target Zero a piped dream anyone who thinks this is possible is not realistic, it would only lead to under reporting which would be a step backwords as they would be no lessons learned.

If zero is 'pie in the sky' is it then acceptable to say we are going to 'hurt' X number of people this year/month/week?
Zero harm should always be our aim/target/goal - or should it??
Stuart

There's a world of difference between setting achievable targets and aspirational goals. For example, I would like to have a target of no hunger in the world, global peace and Kate Winslet waking me up Christmas morning with my present!

Its clear that this list is nothing more than an aspirational/"wouldn't it be nice?" thought. IMO 'zero harm' targets falls into this category.

I am mainly involved in fire safety. I work blooming hard and have made significant changes to organisation I work for. Is it less likely that we will suffer a fire death or injury? Yes. Is is less likely that a fire will occur? I would hope so. But will we have zero fire injuries or incidents moving forward - absolutely not.

Our targets are 1) Compliance, 2) The use of best practice where ever possible and the belief that by applying 1 + 2 above in a risk based and value for money manner, will will achieve 3) Keeping risks to ALARP and 'harm' to an absolute minimum.

You can write to Santa if you like asking for zero harm if you want to, but I will be writing to Kate as, I reckon I have just a tiny bit more chance of success than you :)

Yes compliance, best practices and SSOW are intended to reduce harm to ALARP, however the behavioural element of people tend not to follow procedures leading to incidents and accidents in the workplace

Yes - This is what we have, 20% though, year on year for incidents and accidents. However, as the business expands we need to watch how we record and publish the figures. Great discussion.

I still go back to my original posting.
How ethical (realistic or not) is it to say and accept that as an organisation we are going to 'hurt' X number of people this year/week/month?
Surely we should all be aiming for 'zero harm' and be saddened when we don't achieve that??
Stuie/Stuart/Stuart Jones

A very interesting 'corporate' discussion. I recall when i worked for a company called shall we say, sounds like a boulder. The then safety manager set a target of AFR 0.4. This was lower than 0.47 the previous year. He left. A new manager came. Appointed from an industry other than construction ( ithink the steel industry). He set the zero target. I questioned it, 'is this really achieveable'. In my opinion it wasn't. 6 months later i was shall we say, worked out of the company. I was very angry because the accident rates went up and up. Eventually the company went bust. Better still the then director of safety did nothing and now has a top job in the Royal Mail. Zero is potentially achievable for a construction related company to have this as a taget is misguided.

Very true. What started to happen in my org was that people found ways to manage the figures. They effectively used every dirty trick to try to hide them.

As others have said this is an extremely interesting discussion. But…

Are we saying that a certain level of accidents is just the cost of doing business?

I’d have to say that the corollary of dismissing the Zero Harm mantra is exactly this. I certainly agree that a continual reduction in injuries is a given and should be the aim of everyone.

But there eventually comes a limit below which you cannot go. Our accident rate is 14% but this is bruised fingers (not cut) bumped knees on desks and the like (17 accidents with a staff of 124). We have had the two RIDDORs in the past 10 years – both over the number of days off one was a slip, sorted out the area, one was an infection after a piece of broken glass penetrated the thumb, stopped that process there and then.
How do I get below that?

So do I accept that this is the number of injuries we get, and as long as there is no pattern of repeats just take each one seriously, investigate and change things if possible?

My answer is I’m afraid yes, that’s the cost of doing business deal with it, challenge it by all means but don’t expect it to go away.

As with the building analogy, you’ll never be in a situation where there are no snags on a project, but make damn sure you look for them and put something in place to correct them.

Same in the service sector like the NHS, mistakes WILL happen, you cannot stop them, but you must be on the lookout for them, and you must have processes in place to deal with them when they happen.

Graham W.

Good morning all,

I thought this may generate a good debate, however, it's more one sided than I expected!
I too believe the concept of target zero deeply flawed. But, goes without saying an aspiration of hopefully all Employers.

I'm interested in the % decreases highlighted by others to set as targets, which make much more sense to me.

I did ask myself the question - In bigpub's shoes, where you work for an employer that wishes to introduce a target zero approach, even though you can't / won't buy in to it, it must be deflating trying to convince others about something you simply don't believe in as an achievable target?

Somewhat like BBC's "The Apprentice" trying to sell a naff product and applying enthusiasm!

Simon

I wholeheartedly agree that Target Zero is not an absolute; it has always been an aspirational statement and was never intended to be anything more. A fundamental error was made when the objective of changing or shaping behaviour was named a ‘target’. Looked good to the marketing bods but lost the real message to simple points scoring.
To many people the word target means something very specific that they need to achieve. If it’s one that they clearly have no chance of achieving then not surprisingly it has a negative impact on them and their performance.
By using zero as the target there is a great risk that really important stuff gets overlooked. To meet a target you have to be seen to do things and so people find things to do that they can achieve! The result is often lots of activity but little improvement or governance. (Check out one or two recent significant industrial accidents in companies with a ‘target zero’ approach)
I have always much preferred the continuous improvement approach to target setting. Improve what you can reasonably expect to achieve within a given time. A much better management approach all round and sits more easily with other business targets where risk is a part of the target setting protocols. It ensures that you are regularly reviewing what is going on and that you can modify your targets to meet changing demands and conditions.
In my opinion this approach does not mean that you are accepting a less than perfect position. It reflects:-
-a realistic assessment of the risks in your business. (By which I mean what risks you are taking.)
-what you have identified as requiring improvement. (By which I mean what you think you can do to reduce which risks when and by how much.) And paradoxically that may indeed be ZERO!!

I think a lot of the discussion that initiatives like Target Zero create is because it can be about "things that happen to us" rather than "things we do".

If it's implemented as a performance indicator (as opposed to an aspirational goal), it's not a direct measure of the work your people do to reduce risk. You might have a terrible site which, by luck more than anything else, has no accidents, and you might have a great one where some numpty turns up and leaves his brain at home one morning.

I'd prefer to spend time finding out exactly what things that your people can actively DO which are likely to reduce risk. Then you try to evaluate them against each other, find out which ones have the greatest effect and set targets based on these. We wouldn't bother training people at all if it didn't improve outcomes (whether financial / quality / safety), so set some training targets. Same for workplace inspections, speed of closing out issues, safety observations, toolbox talks, whatever you like. Don't make millions of targets, but do analyse the data you collect to see which sites need a bit of help in particular areas.

If you encourage people to DO things you'll get far better results than by encouraging them not to let anything happen to them.

And coming back to the OP - a major construction project supported by the public purse with a target of Zero (seems agreed from the posts so far a snowflake in hell having more chance of success) they have already started cutting corners to meet the projected margins from tenders set years ago so there wont be additional funds for any initiatives just a merry go round of tool box talks and supervisor / manager admonishments for failing to deliver.

I've tried to keep my mouth shut on this one, but I shan't anymore.

i worked for DuPont always with a zero objective year after year, for 25 years, last 14 as hes manager for two plants - chemical plant in hemel hempstead, maybe 250 employees. i got named after a serious LTI in 1976. From '76 to '82 when I transferred to France, there were no more LTI's or RWI, maybe 20 first aids each year. In France we were building a new greenfield site and took on 250 new employees in the first 2 years. No accidents. Over the next two years we took on another 250. 1 LTI and three RWI in 1984. Annus horibillus. The LTI happened to André Ligier, march 5th 1984 about 3am on Monday morning. He slipped on a patch of ice and banged his head. I got to the plant about 3.30 to see the blood still running down his head.

I remember all the details, and can still picture it in my mind because, in 13 years as an HSE manager, this was my only significant personal failure

ZERO IS A REAL POSSIBILITY - IF YOU REALLYREALLY WANT IT TO BE.

Go argue


Merv

Merv, nice to hear you back on the boards.
But I think I need to understand what you mean by an accident.

I’m very sorry but I just don’t believe that building on a new greenfield site with 250 new employees and no one hit their finger, scratched themselves or slipped over in the first 2 years.

If it’s true I’d call the Pope.

Cheers

Graham

And similar discussion on this forum at the end of November regarding a large corporation with lofty aspirational goals which the US regulator identified as wanting
http://www.cos-mag.com/s...-mighty-have-fallen.html

I have always believed that target/goals/objectives should be SMART, target zero is not Achievable or Sustainable and therefore incongruous to the SMART principles.

Furthermore, putting pressure on personnel to achieve a unrealistic target undermines the good work that is done to reduce accident/incidents and, it contributes to the under-reporting of accidents/incidents.