Rank: Forum user 
|
According to my boss (Operational excellence director) although he accepts that reactive metrics are necessary (accident stats etc..) he is more interested in reactive metrics, which I agree with
We are trying to put an EHS scorecard together for multiple sites and want to focus on reactive metrics. for example Hazard and Near Miss reporting / Safety Audits / Education and Training / Planned function checks on machinery etc.. I guess what I am asking is in your experiences what are the best proactive metrics you've seen work at your facility and in your experience? Many thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
One proactive metric I would recommend is health surveillance, particularly in working environments where there is actual or potential exposure to chemicals, noise, etc. (Note - all chemicals, not just those with hazard statements). One of the differences between health and safety issues is that whilst accidents are acute, health problems are frequently chronic, i.e. develop, often unseen, over time until the result, i.e. the ill health, becomes apparent. This is where proactice health surveillance can detect the unseen damage and initiate action before the health problem appears with all that that involves. Health surveillance can involve appropriate tests, i.e. for inhalation spirometry, for noise audiometry, for skin skin condition measurement. If you would like more on this PM me with contact details
|
 1 user thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree that leading indicators are better as they measure the organisation’s commitment to improving Health and Safety. There is a word of caution; I have come across situations where people create data just to show engagement eg how many people can you get through courses irrespective of whether the courses are of any relevance to that organisation or those people. Another organisation recorded how many risk assessments where being completed, which I suspect lead to a lot of pointless repetition and duplication.
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I agree with A Kurdziel. In my experience so called proactive systems tend to resemble 'happy sheets', tick box exercises to high-light those areas in which we already know we are doing well. Much better to measure how we are improving against the findings of your reactive data, looking to avoid the "same accidents every month" syndrome.
|
2 users thanked O'Donnell54548 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
...in essence I agree with everyone else however I have some slides I can send over based on the SCMM (link below)...as your culture improves your metrics will become less reactive and more proactive...although good leading indicator performance can mask poor lagging performance...I added these to the leadership performance contracts which affected bonus award...funnily enough it improved... https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/2000/oto00049.pdf
pm me and I will send over the presentation..which shows a suggested picklist of metric...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.