Comments

  • Incident category ratios
    Hmmm, interesting Keith. We have a reasonably mature critical risk programme so are aware these are high impact low frequency, and that near misses and unsafe acts are largely viewed as lag indicators. However my view is that it depends how you use the information. If it's just for reporting then yes, they are a lag. However if you use the information from near misses and unsafe acts to identify weaknesses in the safety system or safety procedures so they can prevent future incidents, they are leading. This is how we see them, hence identifying that some of the best learnings are coming from these near misses. I certainly don't agree that near misses and unsafe acts don't have a serious influence on the cause of critical risk incidents.
  • Incident category ratios
    51% of our incidents over last 12 months have been near misses or unsafe acts. We'd love more.

    As you know it's more about what you should aim for. Heinrich's pyramid (some 90 years old now!), and the modified Bird pyramid is a good start. Even though there is a lot of debate around these and in particular the numbers they use, the principles in my view are sound. The more reported near misses the merrier - they are free lessons after all. If your organisation can get around the negative view that reporting incidents is a failure rather than an opportunity, and people truly see the benefits of near miss reporting, then it will improve. We found a significant increase in near miss / unsafe act reporting once we campaigned on the benefits. Every couple of months we share incident learnings across the organisation, and the last report showed that all of our learnings were from near miss / no injury incidents as these were the high risk potential incidents over that period, something we would not have found a few years ago.
  • Use of Mini-SDSs
    Yes we use mini SDSs for our 20 or so most used substances. These are easier for staff to read and understand.
  • "Bow Tie" analysis
    Hi Rebecca, yes we have used bowtie now for several years. Bowties are centric to our Critical Risk Standard to identifying and them implementing critical risk controls. We use Bowtie XP available through https://bowtierisksolutions.com.au/
  • Display boards with "Number of days since last LTI"
    Oh gawd, I thought these were an artefact from a bygone era!
  • Bowtie Tool(s)
    Tony, yes there is a charge of course, depending what level of the software you want (basic through to advanced). The information you ask for is on their website.
  • Bowtie Tool(s)
    We use the same tool that Stuart advises - bowtiexp, through RPS https://bowtierisksolutions.com.au/ . They provide pretty good support and I think have established a small office in NZ. I like the tool and has been of considerable value to us as a central part of our critical risk programme, although we only scratch the surface of what it can be used for.
  • Time to abandon the risk matrix?
    Not many people are skilled at undertaking risk assessments - it's a specialist area. Risk assessments are open to manipulation to get the result that one wants. Often like minded people do the assessment, and therefore know the outcome they are after, and of course will arrive at that. Good risk assessments need social process so you get multiple views in the room.
    So in my view it doesn't really matter if and what sort of matrix they use, as long as what they use is in the organisational context.
  • Fire extinguishers in work vehicles
    The original question is around fire extinguishers in vehicles. Generally we have removed them but allow Managers to install in special circumstances only (e.g. if flammables are being carried). Most of the advice you will see is not to attempt to extinguish a fire in a vehicle - first response is to remove yourself from the scene. You should never attempt to extinguish a fire inside an EV.
  • What is "good" when it comes to GPS tracking of speed?
    We have GPS monitoring for vehicles including thresholds for speeding and fatigue. It also includes thresholds for individual performance and the consequences for that. Happy to share if you want to contact me separately Michael.
  • Traffic Management Plan
    WSP NZ or GHD NZ can do this, they have representation in SI
  • Safety Reset
    We ran a successful Safe to Start programme after the lockdown last year. No-one could start work until they had been through the programme, including this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCr3I5ErXfw . We also ran a similar Stop for Safety campaign at the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2VT787mDw
    Incidentally a reduction in lost time injuries and ACC costs, while certainly positive, isn't a measure of h&s performance or risk, hence the silly near misses that could lead to much more serious incidents.
  • Wellness Representatives
    I think you are probably looking more at a peer support network. Try this from Canada https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/sites/default/files/peer_support_guidelines.pdf.pdf
    .
  • LTI severity rating
    Actually Peter we have started this process through our CR verification programme, just in the process of designing governance reporting at the moment once we begin the verifications. Maybe we can chat later about it?
  • LTI severity rating
    Hi Jan, personally I think Safeguard should ban conversations that promote the use of LTIs, TRIFR etc :-)
    Seriously though, I don't think your approach is the right thing to do. Rather than focusing on the little and often injuries you should focus on the potentially major but infrequent events. Little and often is mostly within an organization's risk tolerance level, while major and infrequent isn't. The approach you suggest held us back for years until we finally convinced the higher-ups otherwise. Yes we did reduce many of our lesser injuries which is of course a good thing - you don't ignore these - but it did noting for our serious incidents which seriously hurt or were fatal.
    A focus on critical risks, as Alex says, is essential.
  • Having an accident Investigation scale dependent on the event

    Very little. The organisation I work for covers 30% of NZ land area and we get lots of minor injuries such as twisted ankles, abrasions, small cuts, knocks and bruises etc etc. They are 80% of our incidents - and we report quite well. We just can't spend all that time investigating these. A broken bone would almost certainly always get investigated, but possibly at the learning team level, not a full ICAM investigation unless the incident had potential for something greater. .

    While our view is that getting hurt working for us is not acceptable, reality is that many can't be avoided and for most there is little to learn from. We have a very good reporting system based around risk classifications, part of body, age, gender, work task, actual safety outcome and risk potential etc etc so we can generate very good and useful reports. For those low consequence incidents we do report back to those districts with recommendations on injury reduction. Despite our increasing staff numbers we have reduced these injuries reasonably significantly, but our focus is on the big stuff, and this has really hurt us in the past.
  • Contractor Management - The Thin Paper Wall
    While you need to have a system to measure the competence etc.of your contractors, I don't think these large formal and expensive prequalification systems have saved anybody's lives.
  • Using "days since last accident" signs
    Get rid of them quickly. One of the worst things you could have to measure safety performance.
  • Having an accident Investigation scale dependent on the event
    We triage our incidents through the incident system we have (there are a set of system rules in behind that determine the level of investigation through the safety outcome, potential outcome and the risk classification of the incident.) This means that many (over 50%) require no investigation, with most of the remainder being learning team processes and a smaller amount of formal ICAM investigations.

    The introduction of the learning teams process has been highly successful with us because it involves the teams that had the incidents to be involved. The teams enjoy this and the opportunity for learning is far greater.
  • Accredited Employers Programme (AEP) - ACC
    Nothing wrong with the AEP - you can choose options and levels within it. Make sure you go in for the right reason - looking after your staff. It's the financial gains that organisations tend to use to get it across the senior leadership line though. The audit side of the AEP is terrible, ACC have been reviewing this but have been very slow - in fact we just don't hear anything anymore.