KPI = 0 - Accidents (Actual accident is 150 case/year)

B

berseak

#1
My company will be change this KPI. because passed 6 years they never success for KPI.

They will change for 0 accident to not over 50 case/year. (Actual accident is 150 case/year)

How do you think about it?
I disagree with them. (I mean management team)

It's not ok. When you told the worker for 50 case/year is a ours target.

Thanks
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Admin
#2
I agree with you

The target for Accidents in my mind MUST always be 0.

If you do not reach the target then you must improve. Raising the target shows acceptance with the current situation
 
P

phloQS

#4
Maybe a reduction Rate would be a better KPI, as we all know there are always small accidents. The reduction rate would show, that the company is trying to reduce the number of accidents,the final goal must be 0 accidents

Regards

phloQS
 
B

Bonhomme

#5
While I agree that X>0 accidents/year could be seen as quite cynical, what sense does it make to set an objective that can't be met ?
I'm still in school, so that is surely naive, but we've been taught that objectives must be realistic (Achievable, cf. SMART ?)
While I'm sure a near-zero accident target can be attained over time, I doubt it's feasible "like that" in a single year, starting from 150 events.

Having an unattainable objective means you already got excuses ready when you fail to meet your own requirements, I'd think. "Hey no biggie, we weren't really expecting success" (so did we really provide time money and efforts adequate to success ? Probably not. So what's the whole point ?)

While temporarily raising your target (I'd rather call it setting a realistic objective for the first time) may not mean that you fully accept the 150 accidents/year, but that you aknowledge the weaknesses and plan steps of improvement that you *really* want/can achieve in order to reach 100, then 50, then 0 accidents/year.

Of course I set the hypothesis that the 50 accidents/year is a temporary objective that will be met then lowered until it's 0 (or we can figure a way to have negative accidents, where workers leave the company in better form they came in :))
 
S

samsung

#6
I agree with you

The target for Accidents in my mind MUST always be 0.

If you do not reach the target then you must improve. Raising the target shows acceptance with the current situation
If the target must be 'Zero', then the very first thing that the management MUST do is to define what they really mean by an 'Accident' or what they consider something as an 'accident'.

And if the management is really serious about their 'target', they must evaluate what it would take to achieve that and then allocate the budget accordingly.
 
P

pldey42

#7
Does it not depend upon what the company does?

Some ISO 9001-certified organizations do inherently dangerous work - cutting down trees, treating sewage, demolition, security services and so forth. They will sadly have a few fatalities each year. While they do not want any, of course, how would a target of zero accidents help?

If an organization is suffering 150 accidents each year, and if the target of zero has not worked in previous years, it's not SMART as someone said.
Indeed, Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

If it were me I would, as someone remarked, define "accident" probably with some kind of scale based on severity. I would hope to define targets for things like

- fatal accident
- accident that results in permanent incapacitation
- accident that results in inability to work for 6 months or more
- accident that requires major surgery
- accident that requires minor surgery
- accident that can be remedied with tea and sympathy

Or some such.

Then for each category I'd define the target for the coming year as 50% of the previous year's accident rate.

To answer Randy's question, I would turn it on its head. (And it's not all management's fault. Sometimes people are victims of their own stupidity.) Instead of identifying this year's 5 victims of fatal accidents, I'd say:

Last year 10 people died in the course of their work felling trees. This year the target is 5. To avoid being one of those five, here's what you do:

Do not drink or use drugs for a period of 24 hours before going up a tree with a chain saw

Use the correct personal protection gear, inspecting it for damage as you put it on or attach it to the tree

Do not stand on the branch you're cutting through

Do not compete with others to be the quickest, highest, most stupid risk taker

Etc
 
P

phloQS

#8
Last year 10 people died in the course of their work felling trees. This year the target is 5. To avoid being one of those five, here's what you do:

Do not drink or use drugs for a period of 24 hours before going up a tree with a chain saw

Use the correct personal protection gear, inspecting it for damage as you put it on or attach it to the tree

Do not stand on the branch you're cutting through

Do not compete with others to be the quickest, highest, most stupid risk taker

Etc
This is a very nice approach. The last one is the best " Do not compete with others to be the most stupid one :bonk: :lmao:
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
#9
My company will be change this KPI. because passed 6 years they never success for KPI.

They will change for 0 accident to not over 50 case/year. (Actual accident is 150 case/year)

How do you think about it?
I disagree with them. (I mean management team)

It's not ok. When you told the worker for 50 case/year is a ours target.

Thanks
I agree with others that zero should be the goal, BUT let's define accidents and give some sense of ranking. For example:

  • spilled coffee on the floor is lower rank than hot coffee in someone's lap
  • fatality (death) is higher rank than paper cut in the file room
Most risk assessment folk approach this problem from a FMEA (Failure Mode & Effects Analysis) standpoint by determining what COULD happen and the frequency and "rank" of the event, THEN devising "mistake proofing" to reduce or eliminate each event, starting with events which have highest rank and frequency. If this procedure/process is followed, the idea of reducing 150 to 50 events doesn't seem so preposterous if we eliminate ALL fatalities and exchange them for paper cuts.


While I agree that X>0 accidents/year could be seen as quite cynical, what sense does it make to set an objective that can't be met ?
I'm still in school, so that is surely naive, but we've been taught that objectives must be realistic (Achievable, cf. SMART ?)
While I'm sure a near-zero accident target can be attained over time, I doubt it's feasible "like that" in a single year, starting from 150 events.

Having an unattainable objective means you already got excuses ready when you fail to meet your own requirements, I'd think. "Hey no biggie, we weren't really expecting success" (so did we really provide time money and efforts adequate to success ? Probably not. So what's the whole point ?)

While temporarily raising your target (I'd rather call it setting a realistic objective for the first time) may not mean that you fully accept the 150 accidents/year, but that you aknowledge the weaknesses and plan steps of improvement that you *really* want/can achieve in order to reach 100, then 50, then 0 accidents/year.

Of course I set the hypothesis that the 50 accidents/year is a temporary objective that will be met then lowered until it's 0 (or we can figure a way to have negative accidents, where workers leave the company in better form they came in :))
You may be on the right track, but I think you will be better served to consider severity of accident [effect] in terms of human injury and cost as primary factors.

If the target must be 'Zero', then the very first thing that the management MUST do is to define what they really mean by an 'Accident' or what they consider something as an 'accident'.

And if the management is really serious about their 'target', they must evaluate what it would take to achieve that and then allocate the budget accordingly.
Yep!

Does it not depend upon what the company does?

Some ISO 9001-certified organizations do inherently dangerous work - cutting down trees, treating sewage, demolition, security services and so forth. They will sadly have a few fatalities each year. While they do not want any, of course, how would a target of zero accidents help?

If an organization is suffering 150 accidents each year, and if the target of zero has not worked in previous years, it's not SMART as someone said.
Indeed, Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

If it were me I would, as someone remarked, define "accident" probably with some kind of scale based on severity. I would hope to define targets for things like

- fatal accident
- accident that results in permanent incapacitation
- accident that results in inability to work for 6 months or more
- accident that requires major surgery
- accident that requires minor surgery
- accident that can be remedied with tea and sympathy

Or some such.

Then for each category I'd define the target for the coming year as 50% of the previous year's accident rate.
I was right there with you until you started setting targets - this is "management by objective" - a particular sore spot with Demingites like me.
To answer Randy's question, I would turn it on its head. (And it's not all management's fault. Sometimes people are victims of their own stupidity.) Instead of identifying this year's 5 victims of fatal accidents, I'd say:

Last year 10 people died in the course of their work felling trees. This year the target is 5. To avoid being one of those five, here's what you do:

Do not drink or use drugs for a period of 24 hours before going up a tree with a chain saw

Use the correct personal protection gear, inspecting it for damage as you put it on or attach it to the tree

Do not stand on the branch you're cutting through

Do not compete with others to be the quickest, highest, most stupid risk taker

Etc
Yep, the items you list would be part of the "mistake proofing" IF analysis confirms these are leading causes of accidents, not just blue sky guess. If you have a bunch of devout Mormons or Seventh Day Adventists working, drugs and alcohol could probably be eliminated as probable causes of accidents.

Let me emphasize the Deming precept:
It is management's responsibility to assure workers have proper gear and not only know how to, but DO use it correctly.
Similarly, the Red Bead project clearly demonstrates that some "unenlightened" managements may have dictated processes which are NOT efficient and thus those processes themselves may be contributing factors to accidents.
 
Last edited:
M

Morgan_1982

#10
I agree with most of the comments in here, in that the target has to always be ZERO accidents otherwise it implies you are setting out to injure 50 people.

Your organisation could consider setting up a system to report situations where an accident NEARLY occurred, but did not. (a "near miss" situation)

If you are getting this many accidents a year, there must be a LOT of near misses going on, many of which may be unreported.
It's important though that when these near misses are identified, that action is seen to be taken on addressing the root cause, so it reduces the risk in future.

If people can see that these reports are making the workplace safer, they will be more inclined to raise them.

You could consider setting a target for the amount of near misses being reported, (you actually want a large number of near misses being flagged up - so action can be taken before they turn into an accident)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Q KPI risk assessment - Criteria for the given score IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
D Key Performance Indicators / KPI Review IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
Jim Wynne Most Important Manufacturing KPI, per Oracle Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 3
E Supply chain main policies ,scope, risk assessments & relavant KPI Supply Chain Security Management Systems 2
K FAA Repair Station KPI's AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
V Internal Auditor Competency KPI IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 15
G Need to change KPI we called NC parts (maximum 3%.) to FTQ (first time quality) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
V Informational SMMT IATF Oversight - OEM KPI Process IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
GreatNate Where to get a KPI dashboard for QMS processes Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 5
qualprod Monitoring of lead time - Good KPI identification? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 14
qualprod On Time Delivery KPI for sales? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
J Level 3 KPI Excel Template Manufacturing and Related Processes 1
K A way to monitor our Internal Audits as a KPI AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 7
O Identifying KPI for AS9100 8.1.4 - Prevention of Counterfeit Parts - PCB assembly contract manufacturer AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 16
qualprod Criteria to raise a Nonconformance based on KPI values ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 39
Ashok sunder What are the criteria for setting a target KPI value against a quality objective? Benchmarking 7
M QMS Efficiency KPI as a Manager. IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
J KPI Software - Our weakness is in KPI's Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
D KPI's Data for Customer Service AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 4
S AS9100 Customer KPI Log AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
R ISO 9001:2015 - KPI (Key Performance Indicators) vs. Objectives ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
J KPI's for AS9100 Cl. 8.2/8.5 - Bids/Contract Review/Order Entry AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 10
K Further Analysis of Departmental KPI (Key Performance Indicator) Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
A KPI for Quality Assurance Team in a Service Oriented Industry Service Industry Specific Topics 8
Q Additional KPI to Top Management beside Quality Objectives ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
1 KPI Dashboard Template in Excel Format wanted Excel .xls Spreadsheet Templates and Tools 9
Q Is KPI in Process Valid if not supported by Procedures? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
V AS9100 8.2.1 (C) or 9.1.2 (D) Customer Satisfaction - KPI's AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
A What KPI's do you use at Shop Floor Level and Team Boards? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 4
W NCR Performance KPI Monitoring in an Industry like Construction Nonconformance and Corrective Action 1
armani Does KPI for Processes need to be correlated with the specific Risks for Processes? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
R Excel Dashboard for Health Safety and Environmental KPI's for Multiple Sites Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 4
Q Who can Change goals and kpi of top management? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
Q KPI (Key Performance Indicators) for the Audit Process ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 24
L KPI Project help - Business and Management Degree Benchmarking 4
Q KPI's (key performance indicators) for a Print shop ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
A KPI's for Individuals (Employees) Manufacturing and Related Processes 10
V KPI (Key Performance Indicators) in First Article Inspection Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 4
P Internal Audit Scope - Company's KPI (Key Performance Indicators) Internal Auditing 7
S KPI for Q&EHS Management System example wanted ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
J KPI for time to close NCs (Nonconformances) Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 17
S Understanding Quality Objectives, Metrics and KPI ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 15
B Should CAR be issued when the KPI is not achieved ? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
Q Determining Processes, Objectives and KPI's ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
R KPI Review Meetings never discusses previous meeting action plan status Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 5
G Differences between Quality Objectives and Business KPI's ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
K Safety Lead and Lag KPI's Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 5
B Shall issue CAR when KPI fail? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
M KPI (Key Performance Indicators) for a Service Company Benchmarking 1
T KPI, Dashboards and Pre-Assessment Questionnaires question ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10

Similar threads

Top Bottom