Lagging indicators process safety

CCPS Process Safety Leading Lagging Indicators, December 2007... 

One documented method uses process safety barriers identification for metrics selection. This concept uses a combination of lagging and leading indicators associated with process safety barriers and incident escalation controls to evaluate the process safety system performance. The basis for this method is documented in the U.K. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) publication HSG254 and illustrated by Figures 4.1-4.3. The strength of this technique arises from using the combination of indicators that provides multiple perspectives for judging the surety of a barrier or escalation control. For example, this basic concept was adopted and modified by BP to focus upon three information sources to assess key control barriers as summarized below ... 

Process safety—and the metrics to identify and track it—can be incorporated into a company s overall sustainability program. Adoption of improved process safety leading and lagging indicators that document improving process safety performance will be important in maintaining the organization s license to operate broadly as well as in a specific location. 

It is difficult to identify effective lagging indicators for use with process safety. The most obvious problem is that major PSIs do not occur frequently enough to develop a statistically significant trend such as that shown in Figure 2.3. If many facilities and companies pool their data it may be possible to that some trending results can be developed. However, such results are always open to doubt, not least because different organizations define terms differently. For example, the Baker report (Baker, 2007) provides a list of events that fall under the term fire. That list includes a fault in a motor control center. It is questionable as to how many organizations would call such an event a fire unless it resulted in actual flames. 

Work together to develop two new consensus American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. In the first standard, create performance indicators for process safety in the refinery and petrochemical industries. Ensure that the standard identifies leading and lagging indicators for nationwide public reporting as well as indicators for use at individual facilities. Include methods for the development and use of the performance indicators. 

RP 754 suggests that process safety performance can be measured through the use of four tiers of indicators. These tiers represent a transition from leading to lagging indicators. Tier 1 is the most lagging. Tier 4 is the most leading. They are shown in Figure 3.4. 

Lagging and leading indicators provide little guidance to do with some of the more abstract management elements such as process safety culture and management review. This difficulty is entirely overcome when a management assessment approach is used. 

Near-misses and process safety events (leading and lagging indicators)... 

Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Process Safety Leading and Lagging Indicators, New York, 2007b. 

Clearly, process safety performance is important to both risk avoidance and financial performance. Make process safety a key part of due diligence. The due-diligence team needs a process safety representative to be sure the right information is requested and once the information is received that it is properly evaluated. Oftentimes the evaluation centers around performance and liabilities incidents, inspections, lawsuits, fines, etc. These are important lagging indicators. The leading organizational indicators are also important. Some of these are ... 

Outcome measures reflect the company s key safety objectives and are used to determine whether the company has reached them. These measures, sometimes referred to as lagging indicators, typically demonstrate the final results of the safety process. They are often commonly recognized or standard measures, such as those quoted in benchmarking studies. They are also the measures that tend to be tracked by CEOs, presidents, and vice presidents. Examples of outcome measures for a safety metrics program include lost workday rates, recordable injury rates, and number of miles driven without an accident. These indicators are referred to as lagging because they measure safety performances that are the result of, or occur after, an activity. 

Provide Continuous Monitoring of Performance is the final safety culture feature in the comprehensive CCPS book Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety (KBPS) [9], The focus is leading and lagging indicators of a process safety culture (see Fig. 16.7). 

Three types of process safety performance metrics are described in the document and the text on their selection and application is extensive. Reference is made to lagging metrics leading metrics, and near miss and other internal lagging metrics. Note that near misses are a metric separate from lagging indicators. This is the only publication found that makes that disfinction. As will be seen, there is a purpose for doing so in the CCPS document. The metrics pertain only to chemical process incidents and near misses, to the exclusion of types of incidents that are not process related. 

The immediately preceding quotation is the definition of a leading indicator in the Process Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics paper. 

The sector should agree with the CA on a system of leading and lagging performance indicators for process safety performance. This system should be in line with HSE s recently published guidance on Developing process safety Indicators HSG254. ... 

Dutyholders should develop an integrated set of leading and lagging performance indicators for effective monitoring of process safety performance. 

Monitoring process safety performance based on both leading and lagging indicators is central to ensuring business risks are being effectively managed ... 

---