Safety ‘truths’ Predict And Prevent Workplace Injuries
W. Edwards Deming, a pioneer
in the quality movement that occurred
decades ago, succinctly described how a
process works: inputs lead to outputs. In
other words, companies are no better than
how they perform a process, and they are
fooling themselves if they believe the firm
is doing well simply because of an absence
of poor outputs.
Businesses now scrutinize the inputs of
a process and adjust accordingly through
data-driven decisions to achieve continual
improvement. While this has worked
wonders for quality, many safety departments
have yet to get the memo. A company
can only measure how well it’s doing
by focusing on leading indicators (inputs
that can be observed and adjusted prior
to an incident), as opposed to relying on
lagging indicators that may not reflect
what truly is happening. Many companies
routinely collect leading indicators in the
form of worksite inspections, observations
of conditions and behaviors, and the mea
surement of activities. The next step is to
conduct trend analyses instead of simply
filing this information in a drawer, never
to be seen again.
Technology can help track and analyze
this data, especially if it involves multiple
projects across a large geographical area.
Besides identifying the top hazards and
the severity of risk posed by those hazards,
several strong correlating metrics, called
“safety truths,” also can be used to drive
continuous safety improvement.
MORE INSPECTIONS
The first safety truth relates to volume,
with studies showing injuries decrease as
observations increase. But keep in mind,
companies can’t inspect process defects.
With accident prevention as the goal,
consider creating a health and safety plan
that outlines what rules, policies, procedures
and activities will be implemented.
For example, before conducting hot work,
a contractor must complete a hot work
permit. The permit details what must be
done before the hazardous activity begins,
such as removing or covering flammable
materials, setting a fire watch and obtaining
fire extinguishing equipment.
Inspections simply show the gaps
in what is expected and what actually
occurs. How the data is acted on—from
short-term fixes to long-term strategies—
determines how much a process improves,
which ultimately will reduce risks and prevent
injuries.
MORE INSPECTORS The second safety truth involves the number
and diversity of observers. Undoubtedly,
more observers increases the chance
of getting a more complete picture of risk.
In addition, involving observers with different
skill sets (i.e., the worker who performs
the tasks daily versus the front-line
supervisor with a wealth of experience)
allows risk to be better identified and
managed.
An observation is simply a snapshot
in time. Depending on when employees
observe something, their perception of risk
can vary tremendously based on what they
did or didn’t see. Often, companies with
dozens of projects rely on one or only a few
safety inspectors as the sole source of insight
into risk, despite the fact that it could be
weeks between each inspection. A recent
study found that projects in which safety
professionals were the only inspectors experienced
the greatest number of incidents.
The reason lies in just one word: ownership.
If safety personnel perform the inspections,
then managers and workers will view the
safety department as owning the process,
instead of safety being a group effort.
TOO MANY ‘ALL-SAFE’ INSPECTIONS
The third safety truth involves the frequency
of “100 percent” safe inspections. Research
shows projects with a high frequency of allsafe
inspections are generally at a very high
risk for injuries.
The reasons observers may falsely indicate
nothing is wrong vary from not knowing
how to determine what is unsafe to fear
of reprisal from management or fear that
unsafe observations are perceived as poor
job performance. If error, including human
error, is viewed as a criminal act with penalty,
no one would volunteer this information.
Instead, companies should encourage a culture
of discovery in which workers routinely
are engaged and empowered to find and
fix unsafe activities, as well as address the
causal factors that allowed them to occur in
the first place. This approach must be supported
by leadership to remain effective and
sustainable.
TOO MANY UNSAFE OBSERVATIONS
The fourth safety truth relates to reporting a
high number of unsafe observations. Inaction
can be quite frustrating for all parties, especially
the employees who routinely spot the
same hazards that fail to be resolved properly.
Imagine if a worker observes a drywall
contractor with terrible housekeeping,
including scraps, screws and other debris
strewn throughout the work area. Feedback
is given to the foreman and eventually the
mess is cleaned up. A day or two goes by
and someone observes the same worker
with poor housekeeping in another area of
the project. The same feedback exchange
occurs with minimal results. This can go on
unless a strategic intervention occurs, which
ensures accountability. Simply documenting
the unsafe observation without addressing
why it is happening won’t reduce injuries.
Safety is a process—not simply a collection
of mismatched programs and policy
statements—that should be managed similarly
to every other business function. When
this is done, the evidence gained from observations
should serve to predict and prevent
injuries.
in the quality movement that occurred
decades ago, succinctly described how a
process works: inputs lead to outputs. In
other words, companies are no better than
how they perform a process, and they are
fooling themselves if they believe the firm
is doing well simply because of an absence
of poor outputs.
Businesses now scrutinize the inputs of
a process and adjust accordingly through
data-driven decisions to achieve continual
improvement. While this has worked
wonders for quality, many safety departments
have yet to get the memo. A company
can only measure how well it’s doing
by focusing on leading indicators (inputs
that can be observed and adjusted prior
to an incident), as opposed to relying on
lagging indicators that may not reflect
what truly is happening. Many companies
routinely collect leading indicators in the
form of worksite inspections, observations
of conditions and behaviors, and the mea
surement of activities. The next step is to
conduct trend analyses instead of simply
filing this information in a drawer, never
to be seen again.
Technology can help track and analyze
this data, especially if it involves multiple
projects across a large geographical area.
Besides identifying the top hazards and
the severity of risk posed by those hazards,
several strong correlating metrics, called
“safety truths,” also can be used to drive
continuous safety improvement.
MORE INSPECTIONS
The first safety truth relates to volume,
with studies showing injuries decrease as
observations increase. But keep in mind,
companies can’t inspect process defects.
With accident prevention as the goal,
consider creating a health and safety plan
that outlines what rules, policies, procedures
and activities will be implemented.
For example, before conducting hot work,
a contractor must complete a hot work
permit. The permit details what must be
done before the hazardous activity begins,
such as removing or covering flammable
materials, setting a fire watch and obtaining
fire extinguishing equipment.
Inspections simply show the gaps
in what is expected and what actually
occurs. How the data is acted on—from
short-term fixes to long-term strategies—
determines how much a process improves,
which ultimately will reduce risks and prevent
injuries.
MORE INSPECTORS The second safety truth involves the number
and diversity of observers. Undoubtedly,
more observers increases the chance
of getting a more complete picture of risk.
In addition, involving observers with different
skill sets (i.e., the worker who performs
the tasks daily versus the front-line
supervisor with a wealth of experience)
allows risk to be better identified and
managed.
An observation is simply a snapshot
in time. Depending on when employees
observe something, their perception of risk
can vary tremendously based on what they
did or didn’t see. Often, companies with
dozens of projects rely on one or only a few
safety inspectors as the sole source of insight
into risk, despite the fact that it could be
weeks between each inspection. A recent
study found that projects in which safety
professionals were the only inspectors experienced
the greatest number of incidents.
The reason lies in just one word: ownership.
If safety personnel perform the inspections,
then managers and workers will view the
safety department as owning the process,
instead of safety being a group effort.
TOO MANY ‘ALL-SAFE’ INSPECTIONS
The third safety truth involves the frequency
of “100 percent” safe inspections. Research
shows projects with a high frequency of allsafe
inspections are generally at a very high
risk for injuries.
The reasons observers may falsely indicate
nothing is wrong vary from not knowing
how to determine what is unsafe to fear
of reprisal from management or fear that
unsafe observations are perceived as poor
job performance. If error, including human
error, is viewed as a criminal act with penalty,
no one would volunteer this information.
Instead, companies should encourage a culture
of discovery in which workers routinely
are engaged and empowered to find and
fix unsafe activities, as well as address the
causal factors that allowed them to occur in
the first place. This approach must be supported
by leadership to remain effective and
sustainable.
TOO MANY UNSAFE OBSERVATIONS
The fourth safety truth relates to reporting a
high number of unsafe observations. Inaction
can be quite frustrating for all parties, especially
the employees who routinely spot the
same hazards that fail to be resolved properly.
Imagine if a worker observes a drywall
contractor with terrible housekeeping,
including scraps, screws and other debris
strewn throughout the work area. Feedback
is given to the foreman and eventually the
mess is cleaned up. A day or two goes by
and someone observes the same worker
with poor housekeeping in another area of
the project. The same feedback exchange
occurs with minimal results. This can go on
unless a strategic intervention occurs, which
ensures accountability. Simply documenting
the unsafe observation without addressing
why it is happening won’t reduce injuries.
Safety is a process—not simply a collection
of mismatched programs and policy
statements—that should be managed similarly
to every other business function. When
this is done, the evidence gained from observations
should serve to predict and prevent
injuries.
- 10bd5d1a3c80be305b76f6bb175f2b74e2.jpg