RR909 - Safety performance indicators in the explosives sector - HSE

V
Taking Step 3.3 and 3.4­
Site A
Set a lagging indicator and
follow up deviations
3.3 Set a lagging indicator
Following further discussions, the manager and the operator considered some lagging
indicators (Figure 3) that may be suitable. These included:
n Number of ignitions during loading;
n Number of incidents/near misses where poor housekeeping was a contributing factor;
It was decided that the most useful lagging indicator would be “Percentage of incidents/near
misses attributed to poor housekeeping” as this could apply across the site (e.g. cleanliness
and orderliness of the manufacturing, storage and burning ground areas). They also thought
that it would be more useful to monitor ‘incidents/near misses’ and not ‘ignitions’ because of
the rare occurrence of ignitions.
3.4 Follow up deviations from the outcome
The manager and operator discussed how this indicator would be monitored (e.g. how the
information would be collected, held, and used (including ‘who’ would be responsible). They
decided that the information would be collected on a monthly basis, by the operator using a
‘Workplace Inspection Checklist’ and results published on main noticeboards. They also agreed
that every second month the manager would accompany the operator on workplace tours.
Site B
3.3 Set a lagging indicator
The SPI team tried to identify what measure would be precise enough “to highlight trends
in safety over time or deviations from safety expectations that require action”. Suitable
lagging indicators may be:
n Percentage of incidents/near misses which occurred where the cause was
identified as being due to changes in processes, personnel and equipment;
n Number of escalated/retarded events at the burning ground;
It was decided that “percentage of incidents/near misses which occurred where the cause
was identified as being due to changes of processes, personnel and equipment” was more
appropriate because such changes were more of a common occurrence than the
number of escalated/retarded events and therefore more suitable for monitoring.
3.4 Follow up deviations from the outcome
TThe SPI team proposed to install a system on their intranet whereby the Project Manager for
each change implemented has an action to investigate if all four stages of a change control
procedure are not followed.
11 Quick Guide Developing Safety Performance Indicators in the Explosives Industry