Indicators leading

Better measurement of performance. A common frustration in PSM and ESH is that end-of-pipe measurement is all that is available and it is too late to correct a problem once the incident has occurred. Quality Management requires that we seek out in-process measures and leading indicators of performance that will warn of potential problems before they exhibit themselves as incidents. 

The integration program was most likely supported by senior management because they saw opportunities to improve performance that is, better end-of-pipe performance and more efficient management. In most cases, improvements in end-of-pipe performance will take a considerable time to become evident. Measuring efficiency improvements and leading indicators of improved end-of-pipe performance must start as early as possible. 

End-of-pipe measures continue to be vitally important. The largest PSM and ESH management costs are accident and incident related. If you reduce the costs of managing PSM and ESH, yet accident and incident rates rise beyond any normal statistical variation, the new system is costing the company more. Near misses are a leading indicator for accidents and incidents and should not be neglected. 

Wiedmeyer (1998). One method of testing for interference is to examine the survey data. In this type of analysis a large number of points are recorded across the mass range, rather than a single measurement taken at a particular mass number for each element. Figure 9.5 shows survey data (dashed line) for masses 203 to 210 on a sample believed to contain lead. The natural lead isotopic abundance is superimposed, shown by filled columns. The proximity of the survey data to the actual abundance of lead indicates that lead is present, and that no interfering elements are present. In this case, a single measurement at mass 208 (which is used for most analyses of lead) is sufficient to quantify lead in the sample. 

Ittner, C. Larcker, D. F. 1998. Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance. An analysis of customer satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research, 36 (Supplement) 1-35. 

The Secret to Measuring Process Safety Performance Combine Process Incident Data with Leading Indicators, Steve Arendt... 

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is an RNA virus that is a common cause of parenterally acquired viral hepatitis chronic infection follows acute infection in 80% to 85% of cases. Although liver disease resulting from chronic HCV infection is only slowly progressive, HCV is the most common cause of chronic liver disease in the United States, the most common etiology for hepatocellular carcinoma, and the leading indication for liver transplantation [34-36]. 

BP Chemicals can be quoted as a good example in the chemical industry for having implemented a set of cascading scorecards with leading indicators and lagging measures, taking both performance and health as well as different stakeholder interests into consideration. 

F. Henselwood, Use of Pareto Shape Parameter as a Leading Indicator of Process Safety Performance, Process Safety Progress, February 26. 2009 (reprinted with permission of John Wiley Sons, Inc.)... 

K. Harrington, H. Thomas, S. Kadri, Using Measured Performance as a Process Safety Leading Indicator (Presented at the Global Congress on Process Safety, April 2008)... 

But they should not worry The important point is not to develop a crisp definition to delineate the differences among the terms, but to capture and document that a failure of some sort occurred (Hopkins, 2009). Regardless of whether a particular metric is classified as a lagging indicator, a near miss, or a leading indicator, the purpose of the metric is to establish good indicators of conditions that could ultimately lead to a severe event. 

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 ... 

Use hazard analysis findings to identify potential high-impact events and the process safety barriers intended to prevent such incidents. Select metrics that indicate the health of these barriers. This is a direct recommendation in HSG254, and the BP plant in Hull, England, is piloting this approach (see Appendix II). This perspective is seen as a leading indicator. 

Figure 4.1 Hazard Analysis to Identify Leading Indicators (BP, 2008)...

Frequent loss of containment incidents are usually an indication that a plant has been poorly maintained and are a leading indicator of major incidents. 

---