SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT “Working with Leading Indicators” A presentation made at the Annual General Meeting of the Ontario Mine Contractors Safety Association in Timmins, Ontario on June 11, 2009 By Glenn Morton, Manager, Health and Safety, Ross-Finlay 2000 Inc. OMCSA LAST 5 YEARS Commitment to be more proactive More proactive - Less reactive Brainstorming and workshops New type of award 3 finalistes : audits, management participation And worker innovation award 5 year « success-story » SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT Question : What two basic things do we measure in Health and Safety ? Answer : Accidents and Industrial illnesses Question : What tools do we use to measure them and talk about them ? Answer : Frequencies and Severity Question : Two popular Ontario Metrics : Answer : TMI and LTI Bottom line : based on accidents, « trails accidents » « trailing indicators ». Need accidents to be able to measure (REACTIVE). We measure AFTER accidents take place. How about measuring BEFORE accidents take place ? WHY WAIT ? PROACTIVE MEASUREMENT WHY BEFORE….. PROACTIVE ! WHY MEASURE ? DEFINITION Leading indicators are what we get when we measure our proactive safety performance’’. Who’s doing this currently ? Dupont, HP Billiton, Newmont Aussies : « Positive Performance Measurement » www.cmewa.com WSIB : All experience rating incentives to have proactive indicators. MASHA : new recognition award program MOL : focus on programs in future inventions. SOME EXAMPLES MASHA BRAINSTORMING Effectiveness of the IRS Incident reporting Use of 5-point safety system Supervisor safety activity JHSC activity OMA Serious incident initiative (newletter Summer 2003) Internal responsability audit process results DUPONT Employee attitudes and perceptions Near miss reporting system Quality of employee safety suggestions BLP BILLETON Number of safety contacts Facetime in field vs planned Implementation of a site safety action plan IRSST researchers Mangement commitment Perception surveys Behaviors observed and measured A STRUCTURED APPROACH TO MEASUREMENT IN HEALTH AND SAFETY Logic as follows : We all have programs (Health and Safety Program) We all have people Key is making sure people deliver the programs Question of choices following internal discussion-consultation Which people should we choose to be our « leading indicators » ? Which of their activities in H & Safety should we measure ? WHO First line supervisor WHAT Leadership commitment LOGIC A properly motivated first line supervisor is critical to the success of any Health and Safety program, and as such is identified here as a leading indicator. PRO SUPERVISOR Measuring Leadership Commitment BLACK LAKE (OCTOBER 2008) Meetings: 100 max. Neil George 5pt cards max 100 CT/Inc/PI-50 100 max “eXtras” Quantity Quality: 3 CT/ Supervisors N 50 D Bonus random Incid/ Points B pts o 50 chosen Planned pts insp. Worker R Max C Supvi.. Max 1=50 25 e S 50 ea. . . # rec u# OK max max60 pts ea. 40 Claude 2 50 0 0 55 55 40 60 Ct:1 50 1=50 0 Rick 2 50 2 50 33 33 40 48 0 0 0 2=50 Yvon 2 50 2 50 25 15 24 50 0 0 0 1=25 Luke 2 50 2 50 25 25 40 40 Insp:1 50 1=50 2=50 Bob 1 25 1 25 33 33 40 60 0 0 0 1=25 BLACK LAKE(contd) MAX.50 Accident investg. MAX 100 0 accident=50 Task MAX 100 TOTAL TOTAL Observations MTH MTH (%) Innovations POINTS ON 600 YTD Supervisors BLACK # of 50 No. 50 LAKE acc pts inc pts % PROJECT max ea. Claude 0 50 1 50 0 0 323 65% 75% Rick 0 50 1 50 1 50 368 74% 75% Yvon 0 50 1 25 0 0 444 89% 77% Luke 0 50 1 25 0 0 345 69% 69% Bob 0 50 1 25 1 50 423 85% 84% Kevin 0 50 0 0 0 0 298 60% 60% TOTAL SUPERVISOR 84% 73% BLACK LAKE (CONTD.) MSS MS TSS CT:50 PI PTOs Total div Total ytd (100 bystanda mth(%) max) rd (340) Superint. Rick 1x50=50 1x75=75 Comments 0 0 0 225/340 66% 75% on card Blake 3 PLANNED INSPECTIONS George TC=1 PTOs=4 1 PLANNED INSP. Total superintendents 66% 75% Project total 81% 73% Supervisors : Standard: 500 pts/mth Superintendents : Standard: 340 pts/mth. Safety meetings with supporting documentation (2 per month min). MS : holds meetings with supervisors = 75 points (max 150 points) Safety system cards : all cards properly filled out, signed by supervisor. MSS : attends a supervisor safety meeting = 50 points (max 100 points) Cards : second visit bonus point : supervisor must include time, signature TSS : tours with supervisors, observes supervisors filling out cards, and comment signs=5pts/card (max 100 pts) Accident and incident investigations : each supervisor does his own TSC : as above, includes written comment on cards = 10 pts/cards (max 100 investigations as required. pts) Critical task : as required PI : planned inspection = 25 pts each Job observations : one per supervisor, per week on the job. PRO : procedure = 25 pts TOP SUPERVISOR PROGRAM BULLETIN # 127 2008 TO : Norm P Jean-Guy D Captains, supervisors, superintendents of all Ross-Finlay 2000 projects From: Glenn Morton, Health and Safety Department Date : November 10, 2008 Subject : Top performers in leadership commitment evaluation: NOVEMBER 2008 NOVEMBER 2008 1.Raymond L Black lake 95% 2.Ronald C Malartic Lake 91% 3.Dan L La 88% 4.Yvon D La 88% 5.Luc G Black Lake 86% OUR VISION IN HEALTH AND SAFETY Ross-Finlay adheres entirely to the following ideals 1. “The most important thing to come out of a mine is the miner‟‟ (Frederick LePlay, 1806-1882, Inspector General of Mines , France) 2.“At the end of their shift, our sincere desire is for all of our employees to return home safely and in good health.‟‟ SUPERVISOR ACTIVITIES IN HEALTH AND SAFETY « BIRD‟S EYE VIEW » 1. OVERALL COMPLIANCE, BY CONTRACT AVERAGE OVER 9 CATEGORIES : (SAFETY MEETINGS, SAFETY SYSTEM CARDS, INCIDENT AND ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS, CT ANALYSES , JOB OBSERVATIONS, Xtras,INNOVATIONS, PIs ( ) = YEAR TO DATE ( ALL THAT IS BETWEEN BRACKETS BELOW) DEVELOPMENT « CONTRACTS« SEPTEMBER 2008 YEAR-TO-DATE 2008 BLACK LAKE 69% 68% CASA BELLA 92% 90% SHOP 94% 92% M EST 84% 84% OVERALL AVERAGE 85% 84% 2. SUPERINTENDENT PARTICIPATION (Points accumulated by the superintendents by virtue of tours with their supervisors, meetings held with their supervisors, assistance at supervisor meetings, preparation of critical task analyses, and so on.) MONTHLY OBJECTIVE = FOR FULL TIME SUPERINTENDENTS : 340 POINTS = 100% MONTHLY OBJECTIVE = PART TIME SUPERINTENDENTS = 170 POINTS = 100% YEAR TO DATE SEPTEMBER 2006 CONTRACT Actual /Potential % compliance Actual/Potential % compliance BL 148(C. Smith) 3080/2550 = 120% (124) 330/340 97% (100) CB R 148 (R. C) 2905/3060 = 95% (94) 350/340 100% (100) CB R 148 (Y. D) 1040/850 = 122% (99) 535/340 100% (100) CB E 148 ( C. N) 1226/1190 = 103% (81) 535/340 100% (85) MEST ( R. L) 2378/1870 = 127% (132) 355/340 100% (100) SHOP (R. C) 2803/3060 = 92% (93) 255/340 75% (100) AVERAGE YEAR-TO-DATE = 109% (99) AVERAGE 95% (97) 6 KEY AREAS 1.SAFETY MEETINGS (100pts) Structured and organized 3 Topics 2 With documentation Procedure review Critical task analysis 2. WORKER-SUPERVISOR SAFETY INNOVATION- (50 pts) Win-win safety input Worker proactive input Immediate recognition Contribution to supervisor „‟team‟‟ Contributes to supervisor monthly total Further recognition potential 3. 5-POINT NEIL GEORGE SAFETY SYSTEM (Workplace conditions) 100 pts Worksite inspections : 14w, 50s Risk identification checklist Three written supervisor comments Risk-precaution at wicket Comment on act of safety 2nd visit (optional : points incl.) One written team comment (act of safety) Superintendent’s written comment (10 per month) 4. INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS (5Opts) Ross-Finlay definition Learn from close calls – sharing 1-10-30-600 pyramid Proactive approach Focus on fundamental causes (ideally) Corrective measures New procedures - standards 5. ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS (50pts) Quality of investigation = points Focus on fundamental causes Corrective measures Learn from errors Share with all contrats Try not to fix the blame No accidents=50 pts 6. CRITICAL OR UNUSUAL TASKS (50 pts) Special focus on high risk jobs or Jobs not performed regularly Identify risks Preventive measures Followup Evaluate existing procedures 7. TASK OBSERVATIONS (Work methods) 50 pts Proactive method to evaluate procedures Evaluate worker abilities Recommend correctives to procedures Men at work… not static 8. LIL‟ eXtra for tailgate meetings with safety dept.(25 pts each) Safety idea input from workers Worker proactive input Immediate recognition Contribution to supervisor „‟team‟‟ Contributes to supervisor monthly total Spices up safety meetings 9. Supervisor site inspections Win-win safety input Worker proactive input Immediate recognition Contribution to supervisor „‟team‟‟ Contributes to supervisor monthly total Further recognition potential SUPERINTENDENT ALSO INCLUDED (340 pts) Tours with supervisor Observes exchange between supervisor-crew Comments (written = 10 pts) each Hold own safety meetings Attends supervisor safety meetings SUMMARY Top Supervisor measures – evaluates level of committment as Leading Indicator (high road) As a control mechanism (low road) « Due diligence » factor « What’s written stays, words fly away » Documentation : meetings – cards – task observations, critical tasks – accident and incident reports. PROACTIVE CONTROL PYRAMID REACTIVE CONTROL PYRAMID total so far Management 1 2 Health and Safety Serious The Superintendent accident Tours with Supervisors, 10 20 workplace inspections, First aids holds meetings with supervisors, signs, 30 comments on Safety Equipment 60 System cards damage The Supervisor 600 1200 Prepares Safety System cards, holds Incidents meetings with crew, visits and inspects workplaces, counter checks Safety System 1200 cards, task observation, critical task preps Short cuts, by- The Workers passes, 2400 tolerance, rules Follow procedures, hazard identification, uses not followed, Safety System cards properly, contributes procedures not through innovation program, JHSC applied, etc. participation SUMMARY RESULTS 1. Montly audit = immediate feedback 2. High compliance levels (95-100%) 3. Positive input into the process 4. Soft value results * Sense of fair play * Safety topics in abundance * Recognition of effort 5. Hard value results • Very low incidence of serious accidents • Lost time rate : Avg 1.5 • No necessary cause-effect relationship : too many other factors !!! • 0 fatalities NOW… IT‟S YOUR TURN QUESTIONS HOW PROACTIVE IS YOUR HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAM ?