Those in the safety field have been exposed to tons of data over the years. It has typically been used to measure safety performance. We typically referred to that data as “accident statistics/rates” when leadership asks for proof that these programs make organizations safe. 

There have even been times when these numbers were used as incentives to secure a raise or bonus for ourselves, crews or those we report to. Unfortunately, that can lead to what I refer to as “pencil whipping” the numbers. 

Have you ever seen an organization with more than 15,000 employees have an accident rate of 0.09%? I have, at which time I casually asked, “How many erasers did you need to get that number?”

But have no fear, the world is changing. We have slowly been transitioning from those typical lagging indicators to a more leading indicator approach. Using the leading indicator approach is a tool for safety leaders to predict future outcomes.

I have always said that the best numbers don’t necessarily equal the best programs. You can have one catastrophic incident that throws your numbers way out of whack! The key is in how you use the data. 

Digging into the data enables you to make conclusions. You can see trends and make decisions that will enhance performance, increase efficiency and protect employees from future incidents.

Data and PPE

Data is significant but not easily obtained. There are many software programs that analyze data so users can see trends and predict outcomes. It’s not cheap and doesn’t come with its own data entry staff. The old saying, “you need to spend money to make money” clearly fits here. But in this case it would be, “you need to spend money to save money.” 

Years ago, the age of FR clothing and PPE was born when the federal rules governing the electrical utility industry came out, and OSHA stated that the clothing exposed electrical workers wore could not “contribute to a burn” when exposed to an electric arc. Many companies balked at the price tag associated with the cost of these programs, since the designation of PPE meant that the employer was responsible for providing (paying for) these items. 

Educational outreach

The industry embarked on a nationwide educational outreach using expertise from OSHA, labor, manufacturers and industry end-users to assist in demonstrating that PPE was necessary. Video and analysis showed what happens to clothing and the worker when exposed to an electric arc. 

Why have I digressed to discussing something beyond data? When this program was presented, the example of the outcome of a electrical arc burn and cost of the PPE was used. In this example, the total hard cost of one electrical burn equated to well over $250,000. This was without taking into account the psychological impact on the employee, crew members and leadership. 

Those costs are long-term and not easily quantifiable. But we demonstrated with the burn data cost figures that PPE was necessary. This is a perfect example of how data can be used to enhance future outcomes. 

Employee engagement

So, do you need to hire a data entry person, buy some software or do research in the effective use of data outcomes? Yes.

The good news is that there is a wealth of information out there to assist you in developing programs tailored to your needs. As any safety leader knows, good ideas benefit all and it doesn’t hurt to “steal” them once in a while from fellow colleagues to promote a more effective program that provides greater safety.

While it may not be an easy task or an easy sell to upper management, it is one that can have positive effects on safety programs and organizations as a whole.

tadamichi/stock.adobe.com