Leading indicators of system safety – Monitoring and driving the organizational safety potential
Highlights
► Safety indicators are tools for an effective safety management process. ► A theoretical framework for utilizing safety performance indicators is presented. ► The framework incorporates three types of indicators – outcome, monitor and drive. ► Drive indicators are utilized to direct activity in the organization. ► Monitor indicators provide a view on the dynamics of the organization.
Introduction
The contemporary view on safety emphasizes that safety–critical organizations should be able to proactively evaluate and manage the safety of their activities. The challenge is in being able to anticipate vulnerabilities rather than to merely react to them when they occur (Woods and Hollnagel, 2006). This proactivity should be endorsed in organizational safety management. Safety, however, is a phenomenon that is hard to describe, measure, confirm and manage. Management of safety relies on the systematic anticipation, monitoring and development of organizational performance. Various safety indicators play a key role in providing information on current organizational safety performance. The most commonly used safety performance indicators are lagging indicators – measuring outcomes of activities or events that have already happened. Lately, an increasing emphasis has also been placed on the role of indicators in providing information for use in anticipating and developing organizational performance. These indicators are called leading indicators.
Understanding and managing organizational processes and practices has become the primary concern of safety management and science (Reason, 1997, Reiman and Oedewald, 2007). Safety management has been conceptualized as culminating in the problem of system control in complex sociotechnical environments (Rasmussen, 1997, Reiman and Oedewald, 2009). Hollnagel and Woods (2006, p. 348) summarize that “in order to be in control it is necessary to know what has happened (the past), what happens (the present) and what may happen (the future), as well as knowing what to do and having the required resources to do it.” The system should be controlled in such a manner that it remains within the boundaries of its envelope of safe performance. The view on safety has at the same time developed toward a more systems-focused and dynamic conception; safety is more than the negation of risk. If safety is understood as something more than the absence of risk and the negative, the indicators should also be able to focus on the positive side of safety – on the presence of something (Hollnagel, 2008, Rollenhagen, 2010). This requires a model of the system as well as an outline of how the system produces safety (Hollnagel, 2008, Reiman and Oedewald, 2009).
The aim of this article is to describe the role of safety performance indicators in evaluating and improving the safe functioning of organizations. The article also aims at clarifying the different purposes and types of safety performance indicators.
Section snippets
Definitions and categorizations of safety performance indicators
As Carnes et al. (2010) note, there is general consensus that the old process of looking at hardware and simple human error has changed to looking at the role of organizational performance. Carnes et al. also point out that there are challenges in applying this new safety performance approach. They state that “the challenge is in determining what we want to know and why, what use will be made of the information, and what will change as a result”. Indicators are always based on models of reality
Theoretical framework for choosing and using safety performance indicators in organizations
In this section, we propose a theoretical framework for utilizing safety performance indicators in organizations. Our framework is based on a sociotechnical system view on safety. This means that when talking about system safety, the system – the organization – in question is comprised of technology, people and their interaction. Safety is an emergent property of the functioning of the entire system. By saying this, we want to emphasize that safety requires the presence of certain attributes in
Conclusions
The role of the safety performance indicators is to provide information on safety, motivate people to work on safety and contribute to change towards increased safety. Drive indicators are chosen priority areas of organizational safety activity. They are based on the underlying safety model and the potential safety activities and safety policy derived from it. Drive indicators influence control measures that manage the sociotechnical system: change, maintain, reinforce or reduce something. When
References (36)
More thinking about process safety indicators
Safety Science
(2009)The causal relation between lead and lag indicators
Safety Science
(2009)- et al.
Leading indicators of safety in virtual organizations
Safety Science
(2007) Why safety performance indicators?
Safety Science
(2009)The safety measurement problem revisited
Safety Science
(2009)From reactive to proactive – can LPIs deliver?
Safety Science
(2009)Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem
Safety Science
(1997)- et al.
Assessment of complex sociotechnical systems – theoretical issues concerning the use of organizational culture and organizational core task concepts
Safety Science
(2007) Can focus on safety culture become an excuse for not rethinking design of technology?
Safety Science
(2010)Leading? Lagging? Whatever!
Safety Science
(2009)
Prospects and limitations of process safety performance indicators
Safety Science
Ten Questions About Human Error. A New View of Human Factors and System Safety
Cited by (168)
Mining construction accident reports via unsupervised NLP and Accimap for systemic risk analysis
2024, Automation in ConstructionSafety performance measurement in collectivized oil companies in China: Contribution of leading indicators to lagging indicators
2023, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries