Rank: Forum user 
|
Dear All, What is your opinion about classifying Nearmiss, Unsafe Acts and Conditions as Leading Indicators while measure HSE performance. The argument put forward is that these did not convert into losses, and gave an opportunity to fix before it gets converted. Appreciate your feedback Regards PN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
100% they are leading indicators and you might need to explain to someone the definition of a Near Miss
|
 1 user thanked MrBrightside for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I don't think it's that clear-cut.
A near miss is a failure of health and safety that has occurred, and as such I could class it as a lagging indicator. I would class a count of near misses as an output - the safety systems should be eliminating injury accidents and near misses both.
Very often, it's only luck that meant it was a near miss rather than a serious injury, and having luck as the determinator between whether it's a leading or a lagging indicator feels wrong to me.
Leading indicators should be inputs - things you do (or try and do, or try and influence) to achieve a good performance. You don't decide to have fewer (or more) near misses in order to have fewer accidents. Treating near misses as a leading indicator seems to me liek a harking back to an over-naive interpretation of Heinrichs pyramid. I don't think it follows that if you have fewer near misses you'll have fewer accidents, and that's probably why I wouldn't class a count of near misses as a leading indicator.
(If you could find a way to measure percentage-of-near-misses-that-actually-get-reported, I'd take that as a leading indicator.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
You are correct in that it would normally be a lagging indicator, however I view a Near Miss Report (if thats indeed where this has come from) as a leading indicator simply because someone reporting a Near Miss is a bonus.
So it's a negative event which is Lagging, but someone following the process and reporting I would view as Leading. I would never put a number on the amount being reported, simply that people are reporting, which means the message is getting accross and people are being pro-active.
But then you can get into the realm of 'what happens if you get no reports' does that mean your not having Near Misses or does it mean people aren't reporting them.
|
2 users thanked MrBrightside for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would agree, it's not the near-miss that is the leading indicator, but the reporting of it.
|
1 user thanked Dave5705 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would have the same opinion in terms of defining leading and lagging. Leadings are the 'inputs' the positive things that we are doing to prevent a undesirable 'event'. Here the focus is to prevent an 'event'. Near-miss is also an 'event', there are some failures or causes for that even to materialise, hence shouldnt it be seen as a lagging indicator. Now I know there are grey areas here. By definition, we must continously try to increase our leading indicators and reduce the lagging ones. Should we be happy to see more 'near-misses' - while it is positive that its getting reported. But, it is also telling us that we are failing in our 'inputs' or controls are not effective. Now why should we consider unsafe acts and unsafe conditions as LEADING? They are also an evidence of failures in our inputs??? Hope to get more clarity.
Originally Posted by: achrn 
I don't think it's that clear-cut.
A near miss is a failure of health and safety that has occurred, and as such I could class it as a lagging indicator. I would class a count of near misses as an output - the safety systems should be eliminating injury accidents and near misses both.
Very often, it's only luck that meant it was a near miss rather than a serious injury, and having luck as the determinator between whether it's a leading or a lagging indicator feels wrong to me.
Leading indicators should be inputs - things you do (or try and do, or try and influence) to achieve a good performance. You don't decide to have fewer (or more) near misses in order to have fewer accidents. Treating near misses as a leading indicator seems to me liek a harking back to an over-naive interpretation of Heinrichs pyramid. I don't think it follows that if you have fewer near misses you'll have fewer accidents, and that's probably why I wouldn't class a count of near misses as a leading indicator.
(If you could find a way to measure percentage-of-near-misses-that-actually-get-reported, I'd take that as a leading indicator.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am not a fan of Heinrich’s Triangle. I don’t see the link between minor accidents and major ones as a straightforward one. I especially don’t believe that you prevent major accidents by preventing minor ones. I see the REPORTING of near misses as a leading indicator, as it confirms that people believe that reporting is important and that people are engaged in Health and Safety and that they have an expectation that corrective actions will be taken. Organisations that have a low level of reporting apart from serious accidents generally have low expectations of management actions in relation to Health and Safety.
|
2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Just a thought! It doesn't really matter if you put a target on it. Once you put a target in a metric it becomes a lagging indicator
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.