WorkSafe.qld.gov.au redesign: We’re delighted to announce that our redesigned website has launched! Read more
Skip to content
Menu

Measuring for success – performance indicators and executive reporting

Musculoskeletal Disorders Symposium 2017

Measuring for success – performance indicators and executive reporting
Presented by: Karen Wolfe, Executive Officer Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
Date: 19 July 2018

This webinar will challenge and enhance your thinking on the existing measures and KPIs you have in place to drive safely at work. The processes for gathering and communicating WHS performance information has significant impacts on the resources allocated and decisions made about safety that determines business outcomes.

Download a copy of this film (ZIP/MP4, 104MB)

Measuring for success – performance indicators and executive reporting

Presented by: Karen Wolfe, Executive Officer, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation

Presented on: 19 July 2018

Susan Johnson:
My name's Susan Johnson. I'm the manager of the ergonomics unit here, at workplace health and safety Queensland, and today's facilitator. The Workplace Health and Safety Queensland have been running this encore series following on from a really successful event last year, MSD Symposium. We created this series based on some of that popular presentations, and workshops from the day, so we could reach a broader audience. So to make sure you are in the right place today, this webinar is about measuring for success performance indicators and executive reporting. I will get an early budget explaining that this is not about technical managing MSDs. Stay tuned for that next week.

Susan Johnson:
Today is really covering off on what we see as some of the critical enablers, and barriers, to preventing MSDs in the workplace. Some of the presentations we've had, have been on that much broader element around the critical for the stages in safety management systems. You would have seen in the previous sessions on leadership on engaging and communicating. So you'd all appreciate that to have a robust system you need some, not only excellent resources and tools, but also measuring the right KPIs. We may not be driving the right safety outcomes without that. So hence the today.

Susan Johnson:
After today, we do have one more webinar next week. And its about MSD prevention, and risk management. So you can also register on the website. Please go ahead and do that, on to the events page. I would encourage you to share that broadly to your colleagues and your supply chain. Today, is going to be about 45 minutes, and we are recording it, so don't be alarmed if you do have to step away, or for some reason can't listen to the whole event. We will have that up on the website.

Susan Johnson:
Karen is going to talk for about 30 minutes, present to us, and then we'll be following up with a short Q & A session. And on that, if you do have any questions, you'll see on the computer, on the screen there, you've got a little chat box. And there's a section that says, "Tend to". Please click on "All panelists", and you can type in all your questions there, and I'll see that and be able to ask Karen that question as well. We'll try and get through as many questions as we can at the end of the presentation, but if we don't, we will ask Karen for some feedback and put some commentary on the website, when we have the webinars uploaded.

Susan Johnson:
So, with no further ado, I'm pleased to invite Karen to start talking to us, just to let you know, that we're very fortunate to have a number of presenters that have kindly made themselves available to present to us. We're very thankful. Karen has quite a credential bio here, but I have amended it quite briefly, so we can allow as much time for her to present. Karen's an executive officer to the COO of the Australia Nuclear Science Organization, otherwise known as ANSO. She has many years of experience, over 25, in work, health and safety, to ensure compliance and to identify and establish best practice safety. I'm going to hand over to Karen now, and welcome Karen.

Karen:
Thanks very much Susan. I hope everybody can hear me, and thank you everybody for taking time out of your very busy day to share your lunch with me, and hopefully you are sharing your lunch. I want to start off by saying I'm actually not here to tell you how to do your job. I always find it very annoying when people talk and make out like you don't know what you're doing. What I really want to share with you is my journey of discovery, that started back from my very early days when I used to [inaudible 00:04:13] when the executive said to me, "Make it smaller. Make it smaller." And I gave a call to HR and said, "Surely, we've had some staff lease, where we could have a smaller LTI bar." To where I've come to now, and the thinking that's gone on, to drive where I'm located.

Karen:
We have not picked an easy job to do. We must have an eye to the future of work, and potential impact on work health and safety. We've got to look at technology. We've got to look at our work place. We've got to look down the supply chain. If we take William Teller as an example, he was a master of the long bow. He knew exactly what he was doing. His target was shoot apples of heads, don't kill person. He trained all the people and figured all the rest of the organization out with one bow. They were all experts on what they had to do. And then the future of work happened. And the crossbow was invented, and it was new technology. It was the changing world.

Karen:
So from a work heath safety perspective, they had to look across the organization to the impacts of the change. If the kind of work as well as the old long bow, how long before everybody can be accommodated, either with the new technology, or the training, and the expertise needed to drive the new technology? And what new training is actually required? Can you apply your old skills or do you need to go right back to basic principals? And what about the psychosocial effects on people who were experts on what they did, to have to go right back to being a novice and learn those skills all over again?

Karen:
The next thing to make sure happens with this is, the business integration of work health and safety in to all aspects of the business process, as well as considering the total work health, with the integration of safety, and health, into the DNA of the job design. So is it going to create angst for the fingers? Are we going to have muscular skeletal disease, because it's going to be sitting on shoulders and it's going to be recoil? What's all the issues that have to be considered when introducing a crossbow, instead of a long bow?

Karen:
And success for us, is measured in people's lives and wellbeing. So how do we tell decision makers how things are going? On the other hand, how do we know when we are doing well? Its very easy for us to identify when something has gone horribly wrong. But how can we identify what actions are actually making a difference for us. This is what actually exercise my brain, for over the past 16 years. Some of you might want to leave right now, because the key message that I want to deliver today, is that you actually can't get your measures out of a text book.

Karen:
And what works for one organization is actually not guaranteed to work for you. The secret to how you measure for success is actually in the questions you ask. So what is your objective? What do you actually want to improve? Who we're going to be giving the information or because the measure that you provide them needs to meet their needs for the decisions they need to make. What are you actually assessing? And what change do you want to see? What activities are going to influence this, so you can actually see if you're making a difference. So you're just going to be shooting in the breeze? Then you've got to actually measure and evaluate against all these things, and then, you start all over again, because hopefully, its been a change that you're going to put in place, and improvement.

Karen:
So actually, are we a science? The scientific knowledge that can be used to prevent work related fatality, injury, disease, and ill health, is often well known, long before it is seriously applied. We all know the impact of gravity on the body, and we all know the injury over time, of continuous and repeated movement. The time has passed, when prevention of work related injury, and ill health, can be considered a matter of common sense. When we ignore or don't clearly understand the scientific basis of work health and safety, work health and safety practice defaults to a superficial common sense, or flavor of the month, year, approach.

Karen:
So inspecting the sites, then we, people working in safety are scientist. Doctor Google, says that a scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge, that describes and predicts the natural world, or one who uses the scientific method. And by scientific method, it is that you make observations, you think of interesting questions, you formalize hypotheses, you develop testable predictions, you gather data, to test those predictions, and you maybe, refine, alter, expend, or reject your hypothesis, and then you develop a general theory, and move forward. Well, I say, we are scientists. We just haven't learnt into this aspect of our work enough. Our way of measuring performance and testing activities has actually been developed outside of our discipline, and mainly by the accounting and insurance, world, where the goal has been subtly different to ours. And I think we need to rectify this.

Karen:
The quote that you are seeing on the board there, is from Ann Rowe. And Ann Rowe was an American clinical psychologist and a researcher, who studied creativity and occupational psychology. So its certainly appropriate that she sets the tone for the discussion today. And she said, "A good part of the trick to being a first grade scientist, is in asking the right questions, or asking them in ways that make it possible to find answers. It is in the asking of these questions, that we can discover what we should be measuring in our work places."

Karen:
The importance of identifying how best to measure performance and safety was driven home to me at a conference I attended in 2008. At that conference, there were AMP, Alpha investors, who spoke about how they looked at a company's safety performance in making decision on whether to invest. They found the companies that performed well on safety out rode the global financial crisis in 2007, and from that point onwards, I became really interested in looking at how to use measurement and reporting, to reflect success in safety. My initial conviction that safety could be used to indicate the overall health of a company, was a concern in an article in the Harvard Business Review by Michael Mel Bottom. He referenced a study by accounting professors Christopher Ittner and David Larcker, who found that companies that bothered to measure a non financial sector, like safety, and to their finding, it had some real effect on returns on equities, that were about one fifth to 0.5 times greater than those of companies that didn't take those steps.

Karen:
My need to understand how to apply measures that would indicate any difference my efforts were making in safety, as well as integrating into the organization's business model, led me into an unholy alliance with odd people, and accountant. Dr. Sharon O'Neil and I embarked on a voyage of discovery to bring the discipline of accounting measures to the world of safety. And this voyage of discovery is the foundation for this presentation.

Karen:
Performance KPIs for safety are a form of business intelligence, that provide information to inform decisions. Financial and organizational objectives and processes can actually influence work health and safety. So it's important that safety is integrated into the business model and thinking. However, it is important to realize that there is a difference in the role that executives and boards play, and the roles that management play. Boards are there to set the strategic direction, and manage business risk. They need work health and safety information that will provide assurance that risks are being managed, and appropriate resources are available.

Karen:
Managers on the other hand, manage the day to day business operations. They need work health and safety information that indicates how they are performing at the local level. The reports are not the same, and nor should they be, as the decisions that are required to be made, are actually different. So the phrase that's up on the screen at the moment is a phrase that I think most people are familiar with. This is the earliest instance that I could find of the phrase, that was printed in 1891, in a letter to the editor of the British newspaper, the National Observer, commenting on national pensions. Then Mark Twain had also used this to great effect. So it has been recently remarked, that there are three kinds of falsehood. The first to deceive, the second is a downright lie, and the third, and most aggravated, is statistics.

Karen:
So to take your reporting from just being a statistic, to a meaningful measure, you have to be very clear on what your objective is, in doing the measure, and what you want to change. Once you get your measure, you need to understand what the data is telling you, otherwise, the wrong actions can be taken. I've taken advice along the way, from the very best, and I would like to share with you, a statement by Professor Den Adel. He said, "The whole performance measurement area, is about trying to get people to think in terms of moving it from just data, to useful information. From information, up to knowledge, and then up to wisdom." That is, how do you get individual data items, and data sets, to the point where they can actually inform wise decisions?

Karen:
Also, there's the other comradery, to that which is, "We don't really want to go collecting data unless there's some decision point at the end of it." What's the point of burdening our businesses with more and more things to measure, unless you can actually show how that information can be used to decide something. Our role, is to identify what to report, who to report it to, and why.

Karen:
I think our first challenge is to actually understand where our organizations are at. There is no point in suggesting anything like a qualitive measure if your organization is just focusing on the absence of injury, and the cost of them. If all they think of is in terms of lost time, injury to come out and say, "Hey, let's do a safety culture survey to check if everyone thinks we have a dust culture embedded." I'm thinking that that won't work. A useful way to approach this challenge, you think of the way your organization actually sits on the maturity model. Patrick Hudson had suggested a five level maturity model, but there's been many suggestions over the time, of using a three level model. Personally, I like three. I think five is greater than academic model, with stuff and nuances, but I'm a practical person. I work with practical people, so I like to think of it in terms of, I'm no good. I'm getting better. I'm great with a continuous improvement agenda.

Karen:
Five or three, I think this will help you to understand where your organization's thinking is at. And remember that this is not a reflection of you, but it does provide and understanding of the challenge that you will face. Then our challenge as safety professionals is to identify where we want the organization to head, and then come up with performance indicators that will help them move in the direction that we want.

Karen:
When setting up your KPIs, you need to think through who needs the data, and what decisions they will be making, based on the data. This will frame what you will report. The KPIs shall help you understand what is happening, and should be able to be measured. What is important to measure, you need to make easy to measure, otherwise your KPIs will be the ones you can get, not the ones you want. And what a waste of time that is.

Karen:
Lost time injury rates have an undeserved reputation of being a useful measure to compare with other organizations. The reality is, that they do not give any indication of the fatality, as shown in the study by Stella Naomi, and [inaudible 00:17:11] in 1998. Lost time injury reflect high frequency, low consequence events, that provide little insight into disabling injury, or illness. Angela Hopkins maybe, we all with if you could see it, I said about lost time injuries. They are at best a measure of how well a company is managing minor hazards. They tell us nothing about how well major hazards are being managed. Moreover both normally attend to what is being measured at the expense of what is not.

Karen:
Now to focus on lost time injury can lead companies to become complacent about their management of major hazards. As a consequence of of focusing on relatively minor managed, the need for vigilance in relation to catastrophic events, has been overlooked. Clearly, the lost time injury rate is the wrong measure of safety in any industry, which faces major hazards. We would all be aware of the prior lost time injury measures, that preceded some of the catastrophic events that have occurred in the past. A point and case is Deep Water Horizon. I would also suggest that it can lead companies to also overlook the catastrophic nature of muscular skeletal diseases, as I have found in the past, in my own experience, and I will expand on later in my presentation.

Karen:
However, it may be prudent to keep reporting what is expected. It is a good idea to lean into what is already being measured, and then add in the performance indicators that would drive improvement. If lost time injuries are expected, then it may be easier to keep them, and introduce others to replace them over time. Without saying, saying a little bit different, different. A point and case that I'd like to share with you is, my daughter, when she was younger, hated broccoli. But she happily ate green carrots for a number of years, before she actually realized the truth. KPIs should be informing across different levels of the organization. How effective the controls are in place, to manage the risk to health and safety.

Karen:
There are broadly three types of controls. There's the technical controls, the cultural controls, and governance. And these come together to underpin effective management of work health and safety, but ensuring hazard identification and risk management is in place, at the operational level, for workers and supervisors. Leadership with a robust safety culture for the organization and effective oversight and control, at the executive and board level.

Karen:
Identifying potential hazards and risks can come from many sources, and these may identify some areas that should be measured. Hazards can be measured proactively, or reactively. Ideally, you use a combination of both. To go about identifying hazards proactively, you can look through risks that your organization already knows about, and has identified in the risk register. You may have identified them through audits, and inspections, or you may look at what has occurred in other organizations and apply that knowledge in your own organization. Sometimes hazards are identified the hard way, after an illness, or injury. Identifying hazards reactively maybe through injuries and illness, through a review, or investigation reports, to gain information on uncontrolled risks, or lessons learnt from regulatory activity, whether that be investigations, prosecutions, or fines.

Karen:
What you're seeing on the screen at the moment is a bank of hot sales in our boutique radio pharmaceutical production area. Now, we had years ago, long term manual handling, applying motor skill injury, coming from this work. You can see that the operator was required to look through a tiny thick glass window. They have to do remote handling through the manipulator, which is a long arm, that the people are holding. Now, these cells were constructed probably, 50-60 years ago, back in the days when nobody thought of ergonomics, and it pretty much was the top standard size work force.

Karen:
So what we had, with this manufacturing area, was an area where, to see in the window, you had to stretch up your shoulders to use the manipulators, or to hold the manipulators properly, you couldn't actually see in the window. And we had historical set of injuries around shoulder and wrist injury. And it was virtually invisible when I commenced with victimization, because they didn't go up on the worker's compensation. We brought them up into other jobs, but we had this rotation, where we get new workers in, and after three to five years, they would be at the point where they could no longer work in that role. And they'd be given another job.

Karen:
This was invisible, just using LTI reports. Our executive was ignorant of what was going on, and nobody could get visibility on the catastrophic nature of what we were doing to staff members. So my team and I introduced a new report, and we focused on restricted duty, because that was something that was not commented on. The number of people that were on restricted duty, or had actually been moved permanently to different roles. And all of a sudden, the executive was seeing a totally different view of the workforce, and view of what was going on in the area. And that led a whole lot of questions about what was going on, why was it happening.

Karen:
What came out of that was an improved maintenance on equipment. There were new bigger, [inaudible 00:23:02] windows put in so there was greater visibility, and people didn't need to scrunch to see through the window. There was a huge capital spend to get new equipment, and to get some mechanizing of the processes in there, so it didn't actually require the same number of manipulations to do it. And it preventive health program was introduced, that provided exercises through an exercise physiologist, and gymn exercises and Nadali program at gym to build up resilience, and strengthening. And we also introduced a process of immediate reporting of any integral that people got, so that there could be immediate action on what was happening. And what we found with these, is it pretty much made the whole issue that we were experiencing around manual handling issues disappear from this area.

Karen:
Using the traditional approach to classification of injury, has a number of limitations as well. Lost time injury slump, high frequency and low consequence events, and with low frequency, and with high consequence events, and that restricts your knowledge of how you are progressing with injury prevention. Using the approach, you can be surprised the focus is on the frequency of the occurring studies, how many are happening rather than the consequence of the occurrence. How bad it is. And it doesn't recognize impairments, that may not involve lost time, but result in long term damage. Things like hearing loss. This was certainly my experience in our production area.

Karen:
An alternative approach to classifying injury and illness is by severity. This provides a five graded validity and reliability in the measurement of both the financial and human injury and illness cost. What we get from these, is improved information to inform your organizational workforce and safety strategy. The severity classifications focus on the consequence of the illness and injury, from the perspective of the injured person, rather than the employer organization. Impairment is therefore a reflection of the time until a full recovery is achieved, and whether a full recovery is achieved, rather than simply time taken to return to work. The severity category draws attention to a high consequence class one, rather than the low consequence class two, or three events.

Karen:
This work has been a real high moment for me, and I am really indebted to the thinking that's been provided by Jess McDonald, and the work he did on this. For those who are located in Queensland, you might be interested to know that Jess was actually a Queensland boy, and he was the first recipient of the Safety Institute of Australia's lifetime achievement award. As I stated, due to real danger in focusing on highly aggregated loss time injury, or recordable injury rates, when monitoring injury and illness performance, because the low consequence injuries, "Oh, got another paper cut." Tend to far exceed the number of high consequence injuries, "Oh, I've actually chopped off my hand." Changes in fatal and permanently disabling outcomes, are relatively insignificant components of lost time injury and are therefore rendered statistically invisible.

Karen:
An analysis that was done by doctor O'Neil of state based workers compensation data, for the ten year period 1992-2001, was undertaken. It looked at approximately 408,500 workplace injury, and it showed that downward improving trend in total lost time injury rate, which is, absolutely great. And you can see that on the left hand side graph. However, when an impairment analysis was done one the same data, it showed that rising incidents of permanently disabling injury. Now this speaks both in some way to explaining why with lost time injury rate, tend to becoming down, workers compensation costs are still increasing, because we've got hidden data, that people aren't seeing. And this is actually an important message when you are looking at muscular skeletal disease, where the potential for ongoing disability is very high.

Karen:
Using the approach of classifying injury and illness by severity, you can start to relocate your investigation resources in a more strategic way, that is aligned with the impact or the potential impact of the incident. Non of us unfortunately, have unlimited resource, and its important that we know where to focus our efforts to actually make the most impact. A change of approach can also lead to an improved focus on control, to prevent any further injury, or illness where it is most needed.

Karen:
So, how do you improve the quality of the reporting based on everything we have discussed? You need to ask yourself, is your method of reporting making the impact you hoped for? So, on the screen you can see a table. And it's got a lot of really good information on it, but if you look at it like this, 11 fingers, five shoulders, leg three, head three, chest two, hand two, psychological two, knee two. Hello, is anybody still awake? Did you actually notice how I slipped in the psychological injury into that table as well? How do you actually make this to become real, for the people who need to make the decisions to allocate resources in the right way?

Karen:
So if you want to get attention from decision makers, you need to make it real for them. You need to make it pop from the page. And this way of putting it on the screen, that you can see, aligns to reporting with a severity based classification, and put forth as a picture. Suddenly the injuries pop, and a dialogue commenced. I have to acknowledge the work of Kirk Warren, for the little person. He was the one who first introduced me to the concept of putting all the injuries on a person. They focus on it right away. The executives concentrate right away. "Why are we having head injury. I didn't realize we're having head injury. What on earth does it mean to have an injury on the head? What are we talking about there?" And the work of the classification by severity is a lot of work being done by Maria prior. And so executives can see straight away. Why am I reading class one? What on earth is going on? What conversations do I need to have with you about what's going on there?

Karen:
The next thing to think about, is, are your KPIs lead or lag? Now Dr. O'Neil said that it's all in the timing. It can be lead or lag, depending on when you're measuring. For example, if we're measuring training, training conducted, is a lead indicator, and the effectiveness is a lag indicator. However, if there's been an incident, training effectiveness would then become a lead indicator and then injury is a lag indicator. Now, this way of thinking has really done my head in. It's accountant speak. However, its important for us to start thinking in the terms of the business, if we want to be understood, and have impact with the decision makers and stake holders in the organization. We need to understand how they're taking our message, and we need to put our message in a way that they're actually going to understand and have an impact with them.

Karen:
A useful way to think of these is to consider lead indicators as the useful aspects of the implementation of the control process. Lag indicators reflect the output or the outcomes of the process, and provide information on the effectiveness of the control. An example of this would be consultation. The number of staff, consulted, is a lead indicator, as it gives this information about the implementation of the consultation. The number of staff suggestions we adopt, is a lag indicator, as it gives information about how effective the consultation was.

Karen:
Identifying KPIs in this way can also be useful for integrating and indicating organizational responsibilities, for work health and safety and the consequence of decisions made across the organization. You can highlight the impact of human resourcing decisions by looking at rosters that identify say, staffing levels, as the number of shifts operating below this level. The impact of procurement decisions can be highlighted by looking at the percentage of the contracts stating work health and safety criteria and the percentage of contracts leading to costs. This is work health safety criteria.

Karen:
It is important for us to state to professionals that we talk the language of the business. Most business risks are managed using one of four strategies. Avoid, reduce, transfer, or accept. Work health and safety risk is different. There are legal requirements that mean two considerations distinguish our risk management from the practices used to manage other forms of business risk. First the choice of strategy available for controlling work health and safety, is limited by law. Second, the role that cost benefit analysis plays in decision making processes is significantly reduced in our world. So, if we look at the four strategies used by business to manage risk, and apply it to the world we know, avoid, we actually like that, because that equates to level one of the hierarchy of controls. Reduce, we like that one too. That equates to level two and level three of the hierarchy of controls. Transfer, for us, it is actually not possible, to transfer work health and safety risk, and accept, that is so not possible, particularly pertaining on the consequences of that risk.

Karen:
How far do we take it? This would depend on where the organization is at, on the maturity scale. Or, your risk profile may be telling you, that you need to expand the scope of your reporting. For example, psychosocial might be a big thing for you, but supply chain, particularly, if you're working in across the country, and across businesses, might be something you need to think about. Organizational decisions might be the area that's having the biggest impact on the work health safety.

Karen:
The fact that you need to consider depends on your organization, and where it operates. Do you have national or international considerations that brings with it variations in legislation and standards. What industry factors do you need to consider? What's your expected profile, what's the nature of the work, and what's the risk that it brings? Then we arrive at the organization factors. The maturity level of your people and your management. The organizational infrastructure, your resources, and I said it before, there never really are enough of them, and your structure. The number of KPIs you require will change as you move through your organization too. There'll be more KPIs at the operational level. Remember, differently caught wealth, requires different information.

Karen:
To be useful, a KPI needs to have certain attributes. It needs to be robust, and well chosen to inform the effective design and management of space and healthy work. You need the right tool. Don't rely on generic work health and safety indicators. I am afraid to say that you can't be like the lady in the café, in 'When Harry met Sally' "I'll have what they're having." Another organization's maturity level may not be yours. Their industry may be different. I would say, weigh the desire for benchmarking, against your need to have KPIs that are useful for informing sound work health and safety strategy and practices in your organization. Consultation is essential. And not just because consultation tells us to do it. If you understand the use and likely impact of the KPIs, you will ensure that the KPIs you adopt are both relevant, and valid.

Karen:
Finally, you need to provide scope for continuous improvement of the quality of evidence, relating to both work health and safety conditions, and performance. It is our role to take our organization on a journey, whether they want it or not. So, I would suggest, it all starts with the right question. What knowledge do I need? What controls need to be in place? What would drive performance? How do I know that it is actually working? I started my quest many years ago, with a question. "How can I measure my success in making my work place safe?" My talk has taken you through my journey to find the answer. The new questions I have asked myself, and the wonderful brains that have provided me some answers. I let a scientist open my talk, and it seems appropriate to let a scientist have the last word. Albert Einstein said, "If I had an hour to solve a problem, and my life depended on it, I would use the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask." Thank you very much for your time.

Susan Johnson:
Wow, well, Karen I think evident by the people that all stayed, we didn't lose anyone through that grouping information. And who would have thought measuring and KPIs would keep us all transfixed? We've got a bit of time just, a few minutes for questions. Thanks again Karen. I do have a couple of questions. I guess one came through just around the body, pictures, and whether that can be attained. We do have a hotspot data on our website, but it might be an interesting job to get up as a design though. I'm not sure what program you use in delivering that information, but it might be something that our department can do. Is there any -

Karen:
Sure. What I do is, we can talk off line about this. And like I said, Kirk Warren came up with the concept, but Maria Prior who is in my organization has adopted that. And I can talk with Maria and we can have a conversation about making it available to other people.

Susan Johnson:
That would be great. We do, and I would say to anyone, we do have some great figured hotspot data on our website, and harm related data. So it's certainly something that resonates. Another question, I guess was, you mentioned having very meaningful measures, and I'm aware that a lot of large organizations they'll have measures required, or they'll look at measures of their subcontractors, and their supply chain, around awarding contracts. I just wonder if you can comment on a recommendation to those organizations around what would be better generic measures. A lot of them do use LTI, as far as that measure. Is that something -

Karen:
Yeah sure. I'm happy to comment on that. And you know, I've got to say, this is my take on the world, everybody, so just be aware of that. LTI and LTI applied is so firmly ingrained into safety DNA that its really difficult to get out. And I know that there's a lot of contracts that rely really heavily on that. But if I had the world to reach scope, the kind of things that I would be really interested in getting a subcontractor to tell me about is, understanding their whole risk activities. Do they actually have an understanding of their whole risk activities, and what's their incidence by consequence. I'd really like to understand that and I'm also interested in how proactive they are. Are they meaningful about closing up their action?

Karen:
TRIFR is one that I think I better to be looking at, instead of an LTI, but TRIFR focusing on the number of fatal injuries and illnesses and the high consequence, not fatal injury, so that you start to understand what their profile is around that. Also, when we're talking about investigations, how fast they're closing investigations out, rather than let things linger. Are they very proactive? And I spoke about, doing the business risk. So the other thing that I'm playing with, across our organization and I think this is quite telling as well, is looking at your actions and breaking them down according to the hierarchy of control. So where you're actually putting your investigation. So, what kind of activity are they doing around high consequence events that they're having? Is it all coming down to just training, or are they actually making class one changes, and controls being put in place? But this are some of the things that I would like to see. I think would be a more meaningful dialogue, back to companies, to understand who you're inviting in to do your business with.

Susan Johnson:
Absolutely. Music to our ears. I guess another one that's come through is, he's interested to know, what's ANSTO? Do you have any constants that you stick by? You mentioned about driving certain measures. I guess, from your own organization, is there anyone that's just always, should be there?

Karen:
Look, for us, where radiation is probably our biggest high risk activity, we will never go away from reporting on radiation. At our radiation events, we want to know everything that happens in that area. So we're quite meticulous in gathering all that information. We also want to look at those exposures, so we would never go back from not looking at those. The other things that we're looking at is, events, like incidents. When you look at our incidents reports, risk reporting, we like to see, and we break that down across the business divisions, so that we can see what's happening in that area. We like to also look at the classification of those events, that they're reporting. And we're actually starting to classify against consequence, and potential, not just against what actually happened. So something that might not have actually resulted in an injury or even a mechanical breakdown, might actually get reported as a moderate or severe, based on the potential consequence that could have happened.

Karen:
I don't think we'll ever detract from doing those. And the other things that we're very strong on doing about operation events, so that we're understanding our process safety, and what we're reporting against our equipment, and how that works.

Susan Johnson:
Thanks Karen. Someone's actually typed in, just to ask a little bit more. For those not familiar with TRIFR, if you can just explain that a little bit more and expand.

Karen:
Oh, okay. So, TRIFR is the total recordable injury rate. So it's everything. It's sort of like your fatalities, it's your injuries, it's your first aid. So its getting the full picture, of what's going on, not just the lost time. And look, I think I might have mentioned. I'm not actually in tune with lost time injury, during the course of my talk. I don't know if anybody picked up on that, but my disenchantment with lost time injury started years and years ago when I was trying to put out a matrix together, and we had an executive who was very keep to do benchmarking at by the organization. And we've always had a very meticulous reporting culture, where we gather everything in, and we had been very cross on what's going on. As I spoke to you, we had a lot of manual handling injuries appearing. We would report all those. It didn't matter how furious they were, even if they were [inaudible 00:44:17]. We would actually record them as a potential injury for the person.

Karen:
And then I started to try to benchmark against organizations who would define lost time injury as one where they've been off for a week. And then another organization defined them that, "Once we've got an accepted worker's compensation claim, we would call that a lost time injury." And I was going crazy thinking, "Oh my God. I'm benchmarking myself against people who have got a very broad definition of how they're measuring their performance to what I was measuring. So a TRIFR is a much better way to do, because you can actually pull all those together to actually start to get a more cohesive measure, that you can actually compare it, if that's really what you want to do.

Susan Johnson:
Great. Thanks Karen. I'm mindful that we've got some more questions coming in, but we're also out of time. So, what we will do is, I'm sure Karen will be happy to look at those offline, and we'll put those responses for everyone to read. I've noticed people are having to head off to their next activity, but look, Karen, that was fantastic. I've learnt more and a lot. We're really grateful for the time and your busy schedule, and also as you highlighted, thanks for people to joining us. This is really important information that we just need to get out to as many people as possible.

[End of Transcript]