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

[Geoff Withnell]

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 )

Emphasis added in red. This is the problem. There is an assumption that zero accidents cannot be met. Taking accident to mean a lost time accident, not a minor scrape, yes it is possible. I know of a 95 year old iron foundry that had, when I was last working with them, several MILLION work hours without a lost time accident. That worked out to years of safe operation, in an old plant, with steel pouring, heavy hot castings being machined, etc. They did it because the plant manager had ZERO tolerance for violation of safety rules. I saw a supervisor escorted off the property immediately because he didn't use his own lockout while working with a tool maker on a machine. If it really is critical, then act like it's critical, and put resources to it like it's critical.

Geoff Withnell

 

[Bev D]

so true.
at one employer we tracked the number of days between accidents and we typically went more than 1-2 years without a lost time accident and months without any recordable accidents at all. this companies record is even better now.

and perhaps that's the way out of the # of accidents = zero dilemma. make your goal the tiem between accidents. and then work on (SERIOUSLY) lengthening that time interval.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Emphasis added in red. This is the problem. There is an assumption that zero accidents cannot be met. Taking accident to mean a lost time accident, not a minor scrape, yes it is possible. I know of a 95 year old iron foundry that had, when I was last working with them, several MILLION work hours without a lost time accident. That worked out to years of safe operation, in an old plant, with steel pouring, heavy hot castings being machined, etc. They did it because the plant manager had ZERO tolerance for violation of safety rules. I saw a supervisor escorted off the property immediately because he didn't use his own lockout while working with a tool maker on a machine. If it really is critical, then act like it's critical, and put resources to it like it's critical.

Geoff Withnell

Right! This goes back to the concept of analyzing accidents (root cause!) to determine WHY and then implement measures to eliminate opportunities. Think of Deming's Red Beads - if the management insists workers continue in the same manner as always when working, it seems pretty clear "accidents" will continue.

Depending on the venue, this could mean retirement money for a sharp personal injury lawyer to represent injured workers against a NEGLIGENT company that created the processes where "accidents" to the tune of 150/year continue to happen with zero change in processes or rate of accidents.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

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 think you are asking the wrong question. If you are currently experiencing 150 real accidents per year, setting a goal for 0 or 50 is not the correct question. I would focus on why you have 150 in the first place. That is where I would begin.

 

[Steve Prevette]

One thing I've been effective with over the years is the use of SPC in conjunction with such KPI's. Then one can tell if the system is stable, and if you want to decrease accidents you must change the system. Then you can tell if you are effective with the change if you generate a significant decrease in the control chart.

Using the trend rules on a control chart as the "goal" gets us away from having to specify some non-zero value as the goal.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

One thing I've been effective with over the years is the use of SPC in conjunction with such KPI's. Then one can tell if the system is stable, and if you want to decrease accidents you must change the system. Then you can tell if you are effective with the change if you generate a significant decrease in the control chart.

Using the trend rules on a control chart as the "goal" gets us away from having to specify some non-zero value as the goal.

Good comment, Stev. Though, I would expect, if they have 150 accidents per year, the system is not likely stable in the first. There are probably numerous special causes that could be stopped, once identified.

 

[batman1056]

Regarding accidents - yes ideally target is for Zero and that is what all companies should aspire to achive but in reality, accidents do happen.

Do you have a KPI that is related to Accident Reduction Targets or Accident Frequency Rates?

I am trying to find out what methodology other companies use to create a target for these elements. ideally - if you have a ART of 9% for 2012-13 - what is the driver for this or is it just a finger in the air approach to performance:mg:

 

[Geoff Withnell]

Good comment, Stev. Though, I would expect, if they have 150 accidents per year, the system is not likely stable in the first. There are probably numerous special causes that could be stopped, once identified.

Actually, I expect the system is stable, and the causes are not "special", they are a part of the system, they are the way things are normally done. That is Steve's point, that the causes are likely embedded in the system, and the system itself needs to changed.

 

[samsung]

Regarding accidents - yes ideally target is for Zero and that is what all companies should aspire to achive but in reality, accidents do happen.

Do you have a KPI that is related to Accident Reduction Targets or Accident Frequency Rates?

I am trying to find out what methodology other companies use to create a target for these elements. ideally - if you have a ART of 9% for 2012-13 - what is the driver for this or is it just a finger in the air approach to performance:mg:

In my opinion, a better approach towards safety is not to concentrate on 'accidents' so much. Why not to think of developing a safe workplace by identifying the hazards and working to reduce their likelihood and/or severity or atleast minimising people's exposure to those hazards. You will find a lot of 'proactive' KPIs instead if you focus on the sources, unsafe conditions and unsafe practices that create workplace hazards.

.........and that is what all companies should aspire to achieve

Commitment is rather important. Would your company also aspire for 'zero emissions/ zero pollution' or such things. If not, why?

 

[Texasrussian]

Interesting thread, I started reading for the KPI aspect.

For federal departments, hospitals and insurance company bean counters, they place a $ value on a human's life. In the manufacturing plant, the accident goal is always zero.

Don't be that guy..... That guy that makes his powerpoint presentation that shows five deaths last year, so the goal this year is to reduce deaths to two. He plans on only having two deaths this year. I laugh with sadness at the idea, who will be the two operators we pick to die this year?

The thoughts of targeting time between accidents and root causes to make it safer work place is the right path.