KPI (Key Performance Indicators) vs. Objectives

[JaneB]

• Define person who will run the project
• If they do not have the relevant knowledge or experience, get the necessary training from XYZ.
• Perform an in-depth hazard analysis outlining possible safety issues or potential issues.
• based on the hazard analysis, devise procedures / engineering solutions to minimize the risks.
• Provide training and assessment of relevant staff.

Each of the KPI's should be managed as a small sub project of which the goal is to achieve zero accidents.

I would not describe any of these as KPIs. Good example of what I said in post #3 - different organisations may use these terms to mean different things.

You're identifying some actions associated with achieving the objective, but they are not KPIs.

By the way, if the 'project' you are identifying (first point) is to 'not have any accidents' it'll never be finished.

 

[somashekar]

Zero accidents .. great. This zero and infinity are limits of things.
One accident .. and bang >> your objective is lost.
Still ZERO is desirable and achievable as far as accident numbers go.
Let my KPI then be an annual measure say for 2010 starting Jan 01.
So for my KPI statement ' Number of days since an accident ' on Jan 01 will be 0/001
and likewise if all my efforts and control measures and activities are safe and indeed no accidents, then on Dec 31, the KPI will 0/365. DONE Objective achieved for 2010.
But my objective continues to be the same as its ultimate objective.
So in 2011, start with 0/366 and thank everyone if you end up with 0/730 in end of 2011 ...... and continue to maintain same
If an accident occures ( I hope it does not) then from the next day reset the denominator to 001.

 

[samsung]

One of our company objective is to aim for zero accidents at site. What KPI would you define in this situation.

The target of 'zero' accident, in my opinion, is not worth pursuing unless there are exceptionally compelling reasons for doing so. This is a kind of target over which practically one has no control. I don't mean to say it's impossible but still hard to achieve and yet harder to maintain the achieved level especially if you are a large manufacturing unit employing a lot of un/semi-skilled workforce.

Safety is a full fledged process, it's not about counting on number of accidents or incidents. These are the unintended products of this process. Why would someone like to set a target for something which no one ever intends and even likes to talk about. Then why not to concentrate on some positively reinforcing goals over which you can exercise necessary controls.

Still if you opt to pursue this goal, you need to set not one or two but a series of measurables (reactive as well as proactive measures of performance). Safety, in short, is the absence of just two of the factors - unsafe conditions and unsafe behaviors. Further, it's the unsafe behaviour of people that lets the unsafe conditions develop and prevail. So until and unless you control these two factors, it's hard to achieve the desired level of OHS performance. Hence most of your efforts need to be primarily aimed at improving/ eliminating these two conditions. How does one do it and measure it, depends much on variables such as availability of resources, organizational priorities, people's competence, equipments & methods etc among others. I would advise you to have a good look at OHSAS 18002 for a great deal of guidance on this matter.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The target of 'zero' accident, in my opinion, is not worth pursuing unless there are exceptionally compelling reasons for doing so. This is a kind of target over which practically one has no control. I don't mean to say it's impossible but still hard to achieve and yet harder to maintain the achieved level especially if you are a large manufacturing unit employing a lot of un/semi-skilled workforce.

Certainly the goal of zero accidents in the workplace is worth pursuing, even though it might not be easily reached. Anything less would be the admittance that accidents are acceptable.

The important thing is to back up the goal with actions, resources and seriousness. Certainly an organization has "control" over hazards and risks. Otherwise we would not have occupational health & safety management systems.

 

[samsung]

Anything less would be the admittance that accidents are acceptable.

No, I don't mean to say that. What I want to convey is why to set such a goal after all. If one sets a goal e.g. for eliminating all the work place hazards, doesn't it convey a positive message that accidents / injuries are not acceptable to us. If I set a goal for 95% error free products, it doesn't mean that 5% is acceptable. I won't accept even 1% but it's the system's limitations that can allow for this much errors.

Certainly an organization has "control" over hazards and risks. Otherwise we would not have occupational health & safety management systems.

I would say 'an organization can control hazards & minimize the risks (as far as is reasonably practicable) with the application of OHSMS but cannot completely eliminate them which leaves chances for incidents. All systems, in one way or other, are dependent on people and wherever people involve, errors are bound to (or atleast likely to) occur. That's why we have Incident investigation and reporting procedures in our OHSMS.

 

[PotentCompoundSafety]

Having a site objective of "zero" is an admirable goal. You will need to define what kind of accident. First-aid, property damage only, OSHA recordable, etc. Many years ago, Dupont established an initiative called "the Goal is Zero". The thought process behind this goal is that the company should always be striving for zero accidents, zero environmental incidents, zero wastes, zero emissions. They had signs made up that resembled street sign that stated "The Goal is Zero" and had them in every language that the company operated. Check out their sustainability reporting data online.

When establishing goals such as these, it is important to have multiple leading and lagging indicators. Leading indicators could be the number of safety observations conducts, the number of self-inspections, number of corrective actions submitted, the number of supervisors that have completed a supervisors safety course, etc. Lagging indicators could be the number of first-aid cases, OSHA recordable injuries, etc.

A great publication on this topic was produced in 1997 by the Global Environmental Management Imitative. This publication is called Measuring Environmental Performance: A Primer and Survey of Metrics in Use Check out the GEMI web site for other great and free publications. When establishing objectives such a zero accidents, it is imperative that you have solid leading indicators, otherwise accidents won't get reported which can create a much bigger problem than that accident itself.

 

[foiley]

I am pretty much in agreement with the other posters: Objectives are overall Goals; KPIs are the markers in line with the Goals. I definitely would have KPIs which promotes a positive safety culture to reduce the risk of injuries.

For example, requesting staff to think before doing high risk work... e.g. a mini hazard report before using a high risk chemical, should be a minimum number per shift e.g. 1 per person per day is an example of KPI.

Turning up to toolbox meetings and any other positive safety interactions are always a good KPI. Often I can see analysing the number and severity of incident reports against the number of safety meetings and risk assessments performed on site, usually the higher the number of meetings, the less sever and number of injuries.

 

[foiley]

The target of 'zero' accident, in my opinion, is not worth pursuing

I completely disagree with your statement... Firstly the question was posted regarding zero injuries, not accidents. There will always be incidents, but hopefully with the tools you give your employees, they should be able to avoid any harm.

Zero Injuries should be the minimum any business should aim for. I think that any business which hurts or kills their employees is unacceptable, regardless of the social norms of the country in which they operate.

 

[JaneB]

Zero Injuries should be the minimum any business should aim for.

Yes, I agree. Any reasonable organisation wants all its people to go home whole and uninjured. It's the only acceptable goal.

 

[samsung]

I completely disagree with your statement... Firstly the question was posted regarding zero injuries, not accidents. There will always be incidents, but hopefully with the tools you give your employees, they should be able to avoid any harm.

You better go through the original post first which states:

One of our company objective is to aim for zero accidents at site
What KPI would you define in this situation.