Safety. When you ask someone how safe an organization is, they will almost instinctively mention the number of incidents in the past period. The assumption is that fewer incidents mean more safety. This assumption has a major impact on how we design our safety management systems and how we measure safety. This article explores the consequences of that assumption—and presents an alternative.
The origin: avoiding problems
The focus on incidents is closely linked to the origins of the field. Two hundred years ago, concern centered primarily on production loss—because it cost money. Employee health and the environment were of secondary importance. Everything revolved around achieving results. Any disruption in the process received attention. The fewer disruptions, the better performance seemed to be. To this day, it remains easier to allocate budget to solving a problem than to preventing one.
Management attention
In the late 1990s, the importance of management attention in promoting safety became much more pronounced. This attention was part of what was called a “proactive safety culture.” The idea was—and still is—that if management sets the right example, employees will follow. Here we can recognize the social dimension of safety management.
Old wine in new bottles
However, this new management attention was not accompanied by a new way of thinking about what safety actually is. Management may now conduct walkarounds, but the focus often remains on detecting errors and deviations from rules. Based on the checklist completed afterward, it quickly appears that the purpose of such a walkaround is to inspect compliance rather than to understand the process.
New thinking
The problem-oriented approach to managing safety is so deeply embedded that alternative interpretations are barely considered. Change can be facilitated by adopting a new definition that better captures the essence of safety management. The key is executing processes as they were planned and intended. The more consistently this is achieved, the more control the organization has over its processes. That is the essence of being in control—which should not be confused with exercising control. The more an organization is in control, the safer its processes are.
From weakness to strength
A focus on control shifts attention to the quality of the organization rather than its weaknesses. This opens up more possibilities. Neutralizing weaknesses does not provide guidance on what to do—it only results in fewer mistakes. A focus on control indicates what actions should be taken. Moreover, learning is far easier for the human brain than unlearning. Learning literally involves creating new connections between brain cells—and that can be done intentionally. Unlearning requires dismantling existing connections, which only happens by not using them. Anyone who has tried to break an old habit knows how difficult that is.
How do you become “in control”?
Being in control starts with mapping all critical processes within the organization. Next, for each process, you identify the critical point that determines whether the process remains manageable. For each critical point, a sensor can be installed—an indicator that shows the current state of the process. When all sensor values are green, processes are running as planned. This approach not only creates a safely functioning organization, but also one that delivers quality and, ultimately, profitability.
Example: safe behavior
We know that employee behavior is a key influence on safety. The traditional view is that safe behavior results from following all the rules—a plea for reactive behavior. Today, many believe organizations perform better when employees act proactively. We want them to think about what they are doing. Proactive behavior by employees is therefore a critical process.
Research shows that employees can act autonomously and safely when they are convinced that their direct supervisor sets the right example and never compromises on safety—even when this creates tension with other goals, such as short-term results. The sensor for this critical process is therefore the employee perception of their direct supervisor.
The challenge of our time
Our challenge is to translate this thinking into policy. I advocate defining Critical Safety Indicators (CSIs) that show whether a process is—or is not—in control. Some of these indicators will be universal; others will differ by industry. Once defined, these indicators can form the basis of a Safety Index—a metric for organizational safety. Compared to the current metric (incident counts), a Safety Index offers far more guidance and steering capability. In doing so, we give management a much stronger instrument to lead their organization safely.
Juni Daalmans
January 2020