028_033_F2Manuele_1209:Layout 1 11/6/2009 12:00 PM Page 28

Safety
Safety Metrics
Metrics

Leading & Lagging

Indicators
Do they add value to the practice of safety?
By Fred A. Manuele

C CAN A SOUND CONCEPTUAL BASE be estab-

lished that supports the use of leading and lagging
indicators in the practice of safety? Does use of the
terms add substance and value to the work of SH&E
professionals? A literature review was conducted in
Definitions From the Economics Field
Leading Indicators
As defined by Answers.com, a leading indicator
is a measurable economic factor that changes before
the economy starts to follow a particular pattern
an effort to answer these important questions. The or trend. Leading indicators are used to predict
process led to an article reporting that Massachusetts changes in the economy, but are not always accurate.
Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers had devel- As defined by About.com, a leading indicator is
oped measures to predict performance of complex an economic measure that changes before the econ-
systems (Gaseau, 2007). That article became influen- omy does. Changes in leading indicators may pre-
tial in the author’s thinking about leading indicators. dict the course the economy is to take in the future,
Taking a cue from the financial world, MIT although not with great accuracy.
researchers along with experts in industry and Examples of leading indicators include trending
government have developed a list of 13 meas- (e.g., increases, decreases, stasis—state of no change)
ures that engineers can use to predict how well with respect to the production work week, building
a system or a project will perform before it is permits, unemployment insurance claims, the
even finished. Known as leading indicators, money supply, inventory changes and stock prices.
analogous measures are regularly used by Lagging Indicator
economists, investors and businesses to help As defined by About.com, a lagging indicator is a
predict the economy’s performance. measure that only changes after the economy has
The procedure requires that statistical perform- changed. It is of little use in looking ahead. However,
ance measures be applied to the elements in the sys- lagging indicators are helpful in confirming a trend.
tem and that predictions be made of As defined by InvestorWords.com, a lagging
Fred A. Manuele, P.E., CSP, is “how well a system or a project will per- indicator is an economic indicator that changes after
president of Hazards, Limited, which he form.” In other uses of the term leading the overall economy has changed.
formed after retiring from Marsh & indicators, it was also found that numer- Examples include the unemployment rate, labor
McLennan where he was a managing ical measures are established to assess costs, business spending, the prime rate, outstand-
director and manager of M&M whether the goals to be achieved by ing bank loans and inventory book value.
Protection Consultants. A well-known applying the leading indicators are met.
author and ASSE Fellow, his publica- Significantly, the MIT researchers Observations to This Point
tions include Advanced Safety Manage- acknowledged that the measurement Based on this information, several observations
ment: Focusing on Z10 and Serious system they created was based on tech- are made with respect to leading indicators:
Injury Prevention, On the Practice of niques used in the financial world. The •Pertinent measurable activities are selected for
Safety and Heinrich Revisited: Truisms MIT document prompted a journey of observation.
or Myths. Manuele is a professional inquiry into the financial field. Eco- •Statistical trends are recorded and analyzed.
member of ASSE’s Northeastern Illinois nomics-related literature on leading •Predictions are made of future performance
Chapter. He is a former board member and lagging indicators is abundant, as before the performance changes occur.
of ASSE, BCSP and NSC. the following definitions reflect. •Forecasts may not be accurate.
28 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY DECEMBER 2009 www.asse.org
028_033_F2Manuele_1209:Layout 1 11/6/2009 12:00 PM Page 29

It is doubtful that safety management processes The Balanced Scorecard

can be selected as leading indicators for which In March 2007, ASSE held a symposium on meas-
directly related incident trends can be developed uring safety performance. Speakers discussed score-
and statistical predictions made of the incident expe- cards, dashboards and other reporting systems. All
rience in the future. Note also that the system devel- of these systems contain data advising management
oped and used by economists does not result in on whether performance goals with respect to safety
accurate predictions for the future. Are SH&E pro- management processes are being met. Abstract: The terms
fessionals that much more sophisticated that they Gerald Turner, P.E., CMC, senior associate at The leading indicators and
can choose and trend leading indicators and make Balanced Scorecard Institute, was a keynote speaker lagging indicators are
more accurate predictions with respect to reductions at that symposium. His speech about using the bal- common in safety liter-
or increases in incident frequency and severity? anced scorecard to achieve safety and health per- ature, but information
formance excellence was based largely on books on their origins, defini-
written by Robert Kaplan and David Norton. tions and use is rare.
Questions About Accuracy in Selection This raises the question
In a conference slide presentation, Marlowe and One of those books, The Balanced Scorecard:
Translating Strategy Into Action, published in 1996, of whether they are
Skrabak (2007) suggest that SH&E professionals applicable in the prac-
have not yet arrived at the level of sophistication was an early treatise on how applying both leading
and lagging indicators could be significant in achiev- tice of safety. A review
suggested. They pose two questions: of the literature
1) How do you know that a leading indicator ing management goals. Many companies have
adopted a version of the balanced scorecard or a prompts additional
means anything? questions: Can a sound
•Inference comparable system, and that has brought some
SH&E professionals into the process. conceptual base be
•Faith established that sup-
2) How can I find out? The name of the process itself reflects, among
other things, the need for a balance between the use ports the use of leading
•Patience (On the slide, Marlowe and Skrabak and lagging indicators
show an image of hands clasped in prayer.) of lagging and leading indicators. In the balanced
scorecard approach, a business unit’s mission and in the practice of safe-
Marlowe and Skrabak (2007) imply that the selec- ty? Does use of the
strategy are translated into tangible, measureable
tion of leading indicators is largely judgmental and terms add substance
objectives. A balance is to be maintained between the
only time will tell whether the indicators selected are and value to the work
outcome measures, the results from past efforts (the
the right ones. It seems logical to suggest that the of SH&E professionals?
lagging indicators) and the measures that drive
leading indicators selected should relate directly to
future performance (the leading indicators.)
opportunities to reduce risk by improving those safe-
Operational processes are selected for emphasis
ty management processes that analysis indicates need
“that are most critical for achieving breakthrough
improvement, on a prioritized basis. As Berra (1998)
performance” (Kaplan & Norton, 1996).
appropriately notes, “Making predictions is hard,
For the practice of safety, this implies that the crit-
especially when they are about the future.”
ical processes can be, and have been, identified and
Toellner (2001) similarly implies that the state of
that statistical indicators for breakthrough perform-
the art for selecting leading indicators in safety may
ance can be developed. This idea, focusing on the
not be at a high level. Toellner discusses a major con-
processes most critical with respect to hazards and
struction project in which the management team
the risks that derive from them, would enhance the
used leading indicators, and for which the progres-
effectiveness of a safety management system.
sion for incident experience was commendable.
Safety practitioners who write about leading and
Indicators selected were toolbox safety meetings
lagging indicators seldom indicate that they have
held at the beginning of each shift; housekeeping;
identified and focused on critical operational
barricade performance for elevated areas; and man-
processes. Nor do they incorporate statistical
agement walking around to show leadership and
progress measures in their systems. It would be
commitment. Injury reduction was notable.
good safety management if the so-called leading
However, Toellner says, “one can debate how
indicators selected monitor the effectiveness of con-
much of this improvement is directly linked to use of
trol systems that are “most critical for achieving
leading indicators. The management team and
breakthrough performance.”
workers had a desire to improve and likely would
have shown improvement without the process.”
In safety-related literature, the most commonly On Incident Data
identified lagging indicators are accidents and cost In his speech, Turner recognized the “common
trends, and sometimes near misses. Definitions of challenges” encountered in applying leading indica-
lagging indicators in the economics field say they are tors in the practice of safety. He spoke of the concep-
measures of changes that occur “only after the econ- tual problems since measuring the effects of the
omy has changed.” That is an important premise. It selected tactics may be difficult. Turner observed
implies that lagging indicators trail and are moved that since there are multiple causal factors for most
by earlier economic changes. Statistically predicting accidents, choosing the relative leading indicators,
upward or downward movement in accident trends the issues for which improvements are to be made in
and costs and relating them specifically to revisions safety management processes, becomes complex.
that occur in safety management processes would be As noted, the most commonly identified lagging
difficult. indicators are accidents and cost trends, and some-
www.asse.org DECEMBER 2009 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 29
028_033_F2Manuele_1209:Layout 1 11/6/2009 12:00 PM Page 30

times near misses. It is commonly stated in the litera- could be measured by incidence of defects, say
ture that lagging indicators provide rearview mirror parts-per-million defect rates [among others],
data, have a low level of confidence in predicting per- as measured by customers.
formance, and are inadequate as measures of the If accidents are lagging indicators, are quality
effectiveness of safety management processes. defects per units produced not also lagging indica-
Having low-incidence and lost-workday case tors? Hopkins (2007) examines process safety indica-
rates does not give assurance that a superior safety tors and he questions what lagging indicators lag
management system is in place, particularly with behind. In the relative safety literature, accidents are
respect to preventing low probability/serious conse- often referred to as “after-the-fact” events that lag
quence events. But, a significant opportunity is behind the management decisions that impact the
missed if incidents are not analyzed to determine safety management system. Is it not also true that
their causal factors and, thus, identify some signifi- implementation of chosen leading indicators lags
cant shortcomings in safety management processes. behind those same decisions?
Analyses of incident investigation reports that In his important work on understanding the use
identify causal factors can provide meaningful infor- of the terms leading and lagging indicators, Hopkins
mation on inadequacies in safety management (2007) comments on two reports in which these indi-
processes and in selecting and prioritizing the cators are discussed:
processes, the leading indicators, for which im- •The Baker Report (Report of the BP U.S.
provement should be made. If interventions chosen Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel), which
do not relate to those inadequacies, the selection was developed after a 2005 catastrophe at a BP loca-
methods are questionable and the interventions may tion in Texas City, TX;
be misdirected. •Developing Process Safety Indicators, a report
During a speech at a safety conference hosted by of the U.K. Health and Safety Executive.
the Association for Iron and Steel Technology in Hopkins observes that the distinction between
October 2008, Don Daily, president of Gallatin Steel, leading and lagging indicators in those documents is
discussed the use of incident analysis data. difficult to establish and that whether the subjects
Why is it important to conduct thorough acci- selected are called leading or lagging indicators is
dent/incident investigations? You can learn essentially irrelevant. Hopkins makes the case con-
from accidents and incidents. Injuries are “lag- vincingly that “there are circumstances in which so-
ging” indicators, in that they already hap- called lag indicators are perfectly good indicators of
pened. However, if we consider them in terms how well safety is being managed, and circum-
of the probability of similar future incidents stances in which they are not.” He concludes:
and use what we learn from them to change I have examined the meaning of the terms
our processes, then we are treating them as “leading” and “lagging” in two recent influen-
“leading indicators.” tial publications and found that they are not
These are astute observations. Injuries are so- used with any consistency. Nor do I think
called lagging indicators, and changes in processes there is much point in trying to pin down a
deriving from knowledge of their occurrence are so- precise meaning since in different contexts
called leading indicators. SH&E professionals should these terms are used to draw attention to dif-
give Daily’s comments serious thought. But does the ferent things. Whether they be described as a
use of the terms leading and lagging significantly lead or a lag is ultimately of little consequence.
affect the decision making to eliminate or reduce In an e-mail exchange, Hopkins indicates that his
risks? Or are the terms unnecessary embellishments? “paper has prompted a vigorous debate.” That is not
surprising. It can be expected that SH&E profession-
Lack of Clarity in Term Usage als who are deep into leading and lagging indicators
In the literature, the selections for leading and will resist criticism of their systems and will also be
lagging indicators can be baffling. For example, in resistant to change. As an indication of the possible
the definitions cited earlier, the trending for “unem- impact of its message, Selders wrote after a review of
ployment insurance claims” is a leading indicator Hopkins’ paper, “It is a great discussion and gets one
while trending in the “unemployment rate” is a lag- to think about leading/lagging indicators. What is
ging indicator. That is a bit confusing. one person’s lagging indicator may be another’s
Kaplan and Norton (1996) provide another indi- leading indicator.”
cation of the lack of clarity in term usage. Eckhardt (2002) also expresses concerns about the
For certain industries, regions or market seg- practicality of using leading indicators as predictors
ments, excellent quality may still offer op- and the difficulty in determining what is or is not a
portunities for companies to distinguish leading indicator.
themselves from their competitors. In this As in any attempt to determine an accurate
case, customer-perceived quality measures method of measurement for a complex subject,
would be highly appropriate to include in the the science of measuring safety is to a signifi-
Balanced Scorecard’s customer perspective. cant extent an art due to the considerable
Quality measures for manufactured goods guesswork involved. Because so many vari-
30 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY DECEMBER 2009 www.asse.org
028_033_F2Manuele_1209:Layout 1 11/6/2009 12:00 PM Page 31

ables in the workplace affect the accident rate, (Hypothesis: theory, premise, proposition, assump-
the main problem in using leading indicators tion. Strategy: plan of action, tactic, method.)
is that an accurate forecast is not easily deter- In that context, the expected outcome of the
mined. For example, changes in management application of a leading indicator would be identi-
commitment, financial pressures, overtime fied and declared, and in an appropriate time, it
hours, quality and levels of training, layoffs would be subjected to a cause-and-effect test. For
and/or the number of new hires, equipment example, assume that $1 million is to be spent on
changes, variations in levels of maintenance, defined sales promotion initiatives and the goal is to
However, it
ad infinitum affect the accident experience. increase sales by $20 million. At a later date, the
With the behavioral movement, many compa- hypothesis test would determine whether the
must be
nies began measuring safety by recording the numerical goal for increased sales was reached. If
number of observations of unsafe behavior not, the premises on which the expenditure propos-
recognized
noted during behavioral reviews. Proponents al was based could be called into question due to a that it is
of this system argued that because the indica- lack of a cause-and-effect relationship.
tor was not based on actual injuries, it was a In the practice of safety, the leading indicators difficult for
more effective means of measurement. The chosen would be the safety management processes
fact remains: recordings and documentation to be improved so that risks and incident frequency SH&E
within the system occur following observation and severity are reduced by a specified amount.
of the relevant behavior. Behavioral observa- However, it must be recognized that it is difficult for professionals
tions, therefore, are also trailing indicators. SH&E professionals to establish numerical cause-
Questions about definitions and applicability of and-effect relationships directly related to the lead- to establish
leading and lagging indicators in the practice of safe- ing indicators chosen. Those relationships are
ty are valid. Has the profession created definitions that seldom found in the literature. Haight and Thomas numerical
are not soundly based, definitions that will not with- (2003) comment on their absence:
stand inquiry as to origin, substance and application? Most of the literature [referring to leading cause-and-
indicators] does not contain mathematically or
Adding to the Confusion scientifically supported evidence that shows a effect rela-
Assume that an analysis of incidents which have quantitative relationship between the “indica-
resulted in harm or damage, and of near misses, tors” and prevention of accidents. tionships
shows a continuing deterioration in an operation’s Safety professionals delude themselves if they
mechanical integrity. The substance of the analysis presume that they can be close to accurate in making directly
becomes a leading indicator in that it is predictive numerical predictions of the outcomes that are to
since it informs management that the risk has result from management giving particular direction related to
increased, meaning that the probability of a hazard- to the selected leading indicators.
related incident or exposure occurring that could the leading
result in serious harm or damage has increased. An Informative Publication
Therefore, although an analysis of the lagging indi- on Leading & Lagging Indicators indicators
cators—trending of incidents and near misses—can Particular attention is given here to a publication
be a leading indicator, the incidents and near misses that gives specifically related guidance on determin- chosen.
are called lagging indicators. At some point, is it not ing and applying leading and lagging indicators in
appropriate to suggest that this differentiation the practice of safety: Process Safety Leading and
becomes gibberish? Lagging Metrics, published by the Center for Chemi-
In the practice of safety, are some leading indicators cal Process Safety (2007).
derivatives of other actions and, therefore, trailing Three types of process safety performance metrics
indicators? Assume that the preventive maintenance are described and the text on their selection and appli-
system to maintain the mechanical integrity of a pro- cation is extensive. The metrics are lagging metrics,
cess deteriorates. The deterioration more than likely is leading metrics, and near miss and other internal lag-
an effect from some causal factor, such as a budget cut ging metrics. The metrics pertain only to chemical
that reduced the maintenance staff. The deterioration process incidents and near misses, to the exclusion of
is a lagging indicator, an outcome that lags behind the types of incidents that are not process related.
decision to reduce staff. But, the deterioration is also a The leading process safety metrics to be given
leading indicator in that it may be predictive of an particular attention “were selected based upon the
increase in risk. experience of the organizations represented in the
workgroup.” They are:
Cause & Effect Relationships •maintenance of mechanical integrity;
Kaplan and Norton (1996) make much of estab- •action items follow-up;
lishing cause-and-effect relationships and testing the •management of change;
hypothesis on which the leading indicators are •process safety training and competency (and
based. They say that “the scorecard should be based training competency assessment).
on a series of cause-and-effect relationships derived In the history of the chemical and petroleum
from the strategy. Periodic reviews and performance industries, causal factors for major events have often
monitoring can take the form of hypothesis testing.” related to inadequacies in these four management
www.asse.org DECEMBER 2009 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 31
028_033_F2Manuele_1209:Layout 1 11/6/2009 12:00 PM Page 32

processes and it is understandable that the study the terms lagging and leading indicators appear in
group that produced the document chose them as the introduction, in two figures and in the conclu-
focus points. But, the text also says: sion; they do not appear elsewhere in the text. Use of
Companies should identify which of these the terms would not have added value to the sub-
components are most important for ensuring stance of the paper.
the safety of their facilities, and should select Russell appropriately says that “it is important to
Since the the most meaningful leading metrics from the assess, diagnose, research and study the evidence in
examples [above], and where significant per- order to predict and prescribe effective safety inter-
SH&E formance improvement potentially exists. ventions.” He stresses deciding on interventions that
Other leading metrics may be defined as well will reduce risks, choosing the right interventions,
professional’s if applicable. the need to have a risk assessment process in place,
and testing the hypothesis on which interventions
Thus, the point is that interventions selected are based through subsequent analysis.
function is to should be most meaningful and have potential to Parameshwaran, Haight, Del Castillo, et al. (2004)
improve performance. The text implies that an audit examine intervention effectiveness research, focus-
give counsel be performed to measure trends with respect to the ing on understanding and optimizing industrial
four management systems and other leading indica- safety programs using leading indicators. This work
to achieve tors which may be chosen. It is also implied that per- gives substance to the validity of questioning
formance standards are in place against which whether the terms leading and lagging indicators
acceptable auditors can make evaluations. No reference is made are needed and whether they add value to or detract
to numerical predictions of future performance. from the legitimacy of the practice of safety. The
risk levels, it The publication contains a separate section on term leading indicators appears in the title and
near-miss reporting and other lagging metrics: abstract of this research article, but nowhere else.
is not advan- Since a near miss is an actual event or discov- The terms were not needed in the discussion of how
tageous to ery of a potentially unsafe situation, this met- intervention effectiveness was analyzed.
ric could be defined as a “lagging” metric. A
An Appropriate Course of Action
confound large number or increasing trend in such
events could be viewed as an indicator of a Fundamentally, the language of safety practitioners
should focus on hazard identification and analyzing
discussions higher potential for a more significant event;
therefore, many companies use near miss met- the risks associated with those hazards, followed by
giving prioritized counsel on improving safety-related
of risk with rics as a surrogate for a “leading” metric.
management issues to achieve acceptable risk levels.
A near miss is described as “an undesired event
To better understand the management issues to
vague, inter- that under slightly different circumstances could
be addressed, ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005, Occupational
have resulted in harm to people, damage to property,
Health and Safety Management Systems, gives
mediary equipment or environment or loss of process.” Trend
sound guidance.
data showing increases in near misses (lagging indi-
terms. cators) “could be viewed as an indicator of a higher The planning process goal is to identify and
potential for a more significant event” and, thus, be prioritize occupational health and safety man-
considered a surrogate for a leading indicator. agement issues (defined as hazards, risks,
A surrogate is a substitute, replacement, proxy, management system deficiencies, and oppor-
stand-in or deputy. Companies that use near-miss tunities for improvement) and to establish
metrics as a surrogate for a leading metric are aware objectives that offer the greatest opportunities
that tracking near-miss trends can produce “a for- for occupational health and safety manage-
ward looking set of metrics which indicate the per- ment system improvements and risk reduc-
formance of the key work processes, operating tion consistent with the organization’s
discipline, or layers of protection that prevent inci- occupational health and safety policy.
dents.” That quote is the definition of a leading indi- Some of those management issues become appar-
cator in Process Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics. ent in the incident investigation and analysis
Thus, metrics on lagging indicators, near misses in processes. On a broader base, note that the focus
this instance, also can be leading indicators. commences with identifying and analyzing hazards
If metrics that track near misses can be classified and assessing the associated risks, then moves into a
as leading indicators, it is not feasible to conclude determination of the management system deficien-
that metrics tracking accidents also can be classed as cies that allow them to exist. Improvement actions
leading indicators? decided on would be those that offer the greatest
opportunity for risk reduction. That cannot be done
Are the Terms Leading if an organization’s risks have not been analyzed
& Lagging Indicators Needed? and prioritized. In that process, analyses of incident
Whether the terms leading and lagging indicators experience can provide valuable information.
add value in the practice of safety is questionable.
Consider these two examples from the literature. The Primary Goal
Russell (2007) discusses the use of metrics, focus- This author presents a premise as applicable to the
ing on a “loss cost” sequence. In his 18-page paper, work of all personnel who give advice to avoid
32 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY DECEMBER 2009 www.asse.org
028_033_F2Manuele_1209:Layout 1 11/6/2009 12:00 PM Page 33

injuries and illnesses and property and environmen-

tal damage. “The entirety of purpose of those respon- Table
Table 1 1
sible for safety, regardless of their titles, is to identify,
evaluate, and eliminate or control hazards so that the Risk Assessment Matrix
risks deriving from those hazards are acceptable.”
Thus, a definition of acceptable risk is needed. A
sound, workable definition must encompass haz-
ards, risks, probability, severity and economic con-
siderations. The following definition also makes
clear that a risk level as low as reasonably practica-
ble must be tolerable.
Acceptable risk is that risk for which the prob-
ability of a hazard-related incident or exposure
occurring and the severity of harm or damage
that may result are as low as reasonably prac- Note. It should be noted that the numbers presented are arrived at judgmentally and
ticable, and tolerable in the situation being are qualitative. They are not quantitative. The numbers are significant only in rela-
considered. tion to each other.

This definition incorporates the concept of ALARP,

or as low as reasonably practicable. ALARP is that level of
ers of ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005 did a good job in out- In communicating
risk which can be further lowered only by an incre- lining sound problem-solving and resolution meth- with decision makers
ment in resource expenditure that is disproportionate ods for improvement in occupational safety on risk levels and pro-
in relation to the resulting decrement of risk. management processes. Why subordinate a sound posed interventions in
strategy with unnecessary and hollow terminology safety management
Communicating on Risk Levels Effectively that diverts attention from good occupational risk systems, a risk assess-
In communicating with decision makers on risk management? 䡲 ment matrix should be
levels and proposed interventions in safety manage- used. A matrix pro-
ment systems, a risk assessment matrix should be References vides methods to cate-
used. A matrix provides methods to categorize com- ANSI/AIHA. (2005). Occupational health and safety manage- gorize combinations of
binations of probability of occurrence and severity of ment systems [ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005]. Fairfax, VA: Author. probability of occur-
Berra, L. (1998). The Yogi book. New York: Waterman Publishing.
harm, thus establishing risk levels. It provides a base Center for Chemical Process Safety. (2007). Process Safety rence and severity of
from which to determine the extent of the risk reduc- Leading and Lagging Metrics. New York: Author. Retrieved Oct. harm, thus establish-
tion to be achieved from the actions taken on the haz- 22, 2009, from http://www.aiche.org/ccps/knowledgebase/ ing risk levels.
ard/risk recommendations being considered. measurement.aspx.
Eckhardt, B. (2002). Changes in safety measurement. Concrete
Also, a risk matrix can be used to compare and Products. Retrieved Oct. 22, 2009, from http://concreteproducts
prioritize risks, and to effectively allocate mitigation .com/mag/concrete_changes_safety_measurement.
resources. Literature on risk assessment matrices, of Gaseau, M (2007). MIT develops measures to predict perform-
which there are many models, is abundant. The ance of complex systems. MIT News. Retrieved Oct. 22, 2009, from
example given here was developed by the author http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/indicators.html.
Haight, J.M. & Thomas, R.E. (2003, Mar./Apr.). Intervention
(Table 1). It should be noted that the numbers pre- effectiveness research: A review of the literature on leading indica-
sented are arrived at judgmentally and are qualita- tors. Chemical Health & Safety, 10(2), 21-25.
tive. They are not quantitative. The numbers are Hopkins, A. (2007, Nov.). Thinking about process safety indica-
significant only in relation to each other. tors [Working Paper 53 for the Oil and Gas Industry Conference,
Manchester]. Canberra, Australia: National Research Centre for
OHS Regulation. Retrieved Oct. 22, 2009, from http://ohs.anu.edu
Conclusion .au/publications/pdf/wp%2053%20-%20Hopkins.pdf.
This author’s premise is that using the terms Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1996). The balanced scorecard:
leading and lagging indicators does not add value to Translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
the practice of safety. Definitions and use of the Marlowe, C. and Skrabak, J. (1997). Scoring accidents on pre-
terms, as in safety-related literature, are not compat- ventability. Proceedings of AIHCE Conference, Philadelphia, USA.
ible with the definitions in their place of origin, the Retrieved Oct. 22, 2009, from http://www.aiha.org/aihce07/
field of economics, from which they have been handouts/po116marlowe.pdf.
adopted, without also adopting the discipline of Parameshwaran, S.I., Haight, J.M., Del Castillo, E., et al.
(2004, Mar./Apr.). Intervention effectiveness research: Under-
their use in that field. It is doubtful that safety man- standing and optimizing industrial safety programs using leading
agement processes can be selected as leading indica- indicators. Chemical Health & Safety, 11(2), 9-19.
tors for which trends can be measured and statistical Russell, J. (2007, Mar.). Using metrics to achieve world-class
predictions made about the future accident experi- performance: A “loss cost” sequence. Proceedings of ASSE’s
Symposium on Measuring Performance for Safety Success, Costa Mesa,
ence. It seems that a leading indicator is significant CA, USA.
only as it relates to increasing or decreasing risk. Toellner, J. (2001, Sept.). Improving safety and health per-
Since the SH&E professional’s function is to give formance: Identifying and measuring leading indicators.
counsel to achieve acceptable risk levels, it is not Professional Safety, 46(9), 42-47.
Turner, G.A. (2007, Mar.). Using the balanced scorecard to
advantageous to confound discussions of risk with achieve health and safety performance excellence. Proceedings of
vague, intermediary terms. SH&E professionals ASSE’s Symposium on Measuring Performance for Safety Success,
should understand that it is all about risk. The writ- Costa Mesa, CA, USA.
www.asse.org DECEMBER 2009 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 33