While safety metrics in the process industries are crucial for assessing and improving workplace safety, it is essential to approach them with caution to ensure their effectiveness and avoid unintended consequences.
Leading indicators are proactive measures that help identify potential safety issues before accidents occur. Examples include near misses, safety training completion rates, and safety inspections. Relying solely on lagging indicators, such as injury rates, may not provide enough insight into preventing future incidents. The Deepwater Horizon investigation clarifies in the starkest terms the consequences of focusing on personal safety metrics, including ‘days away from work’ (DAFW) and ‘total recordable injury rates’ (TRIR), while neglecting the measurement of the performance of safety management systems to control major accident hazards.
The wealth of evidence gathered and published all point to palpable failings on the part of both BP and Transocean senior management and the two organisations’ concentration on personal safety metrics at the expense of process safety. BP’s goals concerning DAFW and TRIR, the US Chemical Safety Board concluded, enabled it to “typically capture high frequency, low consequence events” which were reflected in the focus of the company’s leadership and indeed in reward structures for senior management.
Following the BP Texas City disaster, the company put in place an offshore management system (OMS) replacing the previous system that focused on personal safety. But the OMS had only been partially implemented by the time of the Macondo disaster. Like BP, Transocean had reward arrangements in place with financial bonuses calculated via metrics that included TRIR.
Metrics should not be used as a tool for assigning blame. If workers fear punishment for reporting safety concerns or incidents, they may underreport or conceal issues, leading to an inaccurate representation of the safety situation. Human factors play a significant role in safety. Metrics should account for factors such as fatigue, stress, and workload. Overemphasis on metrics without considering these human elements may lead to unrealistic expectations and increased risk.
Leaders should ensure that safety metrics go beyond mere compliance and focus on the effectiveness of safety measures. A low injury rate does not necessarily mean a safe workplace if it is achieved through luck rather than effective safety practices. The reality is that performance indicators whether leading or lagging, however sophisticated and well-targeted will not, on their own, deliver improved safety standards nor effective control of major hazard risks in the offshore industry. The key to delivering improved control of major hazard risks is how industry leaders at board and senior management levels utilise performance indicators, and how the data derived from their use informs decision-making at all levels.”
Safety metrics should not be static. They should be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect changes in the work environment, technology, and processes. Continuous improvement is key to maintaining and enhancing safety standards. While benchmarking against industry standards can be informative, blindly adopting metrics from other organizations may not consider the unique aspects of your work environment. Tailor metrics to your specific processes, workforce, and risk factors. Don’t rely solely on quantitative data. Qualitative information, such as feedback from workers and observations of safety culture, can provide valuable insights that quantitative metrics may miss.
Be vigilant for unintended consequences of safety metrics. For example, if a metric focuses on reducing the number of reported incidents, there may be a tendency to underreport or downplay incidents, leading to an inaccurate picture of the safety situation. Workers who are directly involved in manufacturing processes often have valuable insights into potential safety hazards. Involving them in the development of safety metrics can lead to more relevant and effective measures.