EEI Leading Indicator Study: Preliminary Results

Transcription

1 EEI Leading Indicator Study: Preliminary Results Edison Electric Institute Occupational Safety & Health Committee Conference Indianapolis, Indiana April 23, 2013 Larry Pena & Blakely Smith Southern California Edison

2 Overview Industry safety metrics SCE Leading Indicator study EEI Leading Indicator Study Preliminary results Q&A

3 Types of Indicators Leading Indicators Detects Trends Measures effort Predictive Experience Lagging Indicators Measures achievement OSHA DART Subjective Objective Qualitative How well was it done Quantifiable What was done Investigation

4 Background SM Measurement of safety Historically has been focused on lagging metrics (e.g., OSHA, DART) Proactive metrics have been elusive Shifting industry focus Proactive measures of the steps taken to reduce injuries Inclusion of leading indicators as a component of performance indication Building the case for change Determine the relationship to traditional indicators ( e.g. OSHA, DART, LT, Severity) Determine best practices through EEI Leading Indicator Study

5 Adapting Heinrich: Leading Indicators as valuable clues Fatalities Lost Workdays Lagging Indicators Recordable Injuries Leading Indicators

6 SCE 2012 Preliminary Leading Indicator Study

7 Southern California Edison Safety Culture Journey Safety Culture Assessment Awareness Injury-Free Goal Safety Culture Survey Focus Groups and Interviews EIX Safety Culture Report & Feedback Days Safety Culture Initiatives Assess Safety Culture Safety Culture Initiatives Assess Safety Culture deaths, serious injuries, PBR, etc % Response 160 Groups or 1,179 Employees October 2007 June % Response; 161 Groups or 1,208 Employees Measure and Compare Improve Repeat 7

8 External Benchmarking Methodology Electronic survey Forums EEI companies National Safety Council (NSC) Nuclear Industrial Health and Safety Association (NISHA) Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable Companies with safety culture efforts, e.g. Coors-Miller, John Deer, General Mills, Shaw 10 questions (5 demographic, 4 leading indicator, 1 lessons learned) 57 respondents In-depth benchmarking with high-performing companies (OSHA < 1.5; Approximately 10 companies) 8

9 Leading Indicator Frequency of Use by Leading Indicator Company (in rank order) % of companies use SM 1) Safety observations 80 2) Close calls 73 3) Corrective action plans completed on time 55 4) Safety awards and recognition 55 5) Safety training completed 53 6) Safety team effectiveness and attendance 46 7) Hazard resolutions 44 8) Number of tailboards 24 9) Preventative health account 13 9

10 Leading Indicators that were Reported as Leading Indicator Most Effective (in rank order) % of companies who chose as most effective 1) Safety observations 100 SM 2) Close calls 50 3) Corrective action plans completed on time 25 4) Hazard resolutions 25 5) Safety training completed ) Safety team effectiveness and attendance ) Safety rewards and recognition ) Number of tailboards ) Preventative health account 0 10

11 In-Depth Benchmarking Best Practices SM Behavioral Safety Observations Built into performance management system Tracked in database Utilize observation card Metric used is frequency (count) Close Calls Anonymous No name no blame Used as a tool to share lessons learned Metric used is CAP CAPS Various CAPs (Audit Findings, Observations, Ergo Assessments, OSHA Citations) are entered into databases maintained by corporate 11

12 Leading Indicators by Safety Performance for EEI participants Companies Safety Obs Training Hazard Resolution On Time CAPs Awards Safety Team # of Tailbo ards Near Miss OSHA DART Company A** Company B** Company C** X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Company D ** X X X X X X X X Company E** X X X X X X X X Company F *** X X X X X X Company G *** X X X Company H*** X X X X X X X **EEI 1 st quartile ***EEI 2 nd Quartile 12

13 Does tracking matter? A significant difference in DART was found depending on the total number of leading indicators a company is tracking. Tracking 3-5 leading indicators is associated with lower DART Rates f (1, 31)=13.87, p<.05 (ANOVA) Table 1: Number of Programs Average DART Low (0-2) 2 Moderate (3-5) High (6-9)

14 Which Leading Indicators make a difference? Independent comparisons Each leading indicator Grouping variable -- Tracked vs. Not tracked Average differences OSHA DART

15 Testing the differences: OSHA *= Significant Difference, p<.05 Indicator Tracking Average OSHA *CAPS *Hazard Resolutions *Training *Near Misses Not Tracking *Recognition No Significant Difference, p>.05 Safety Teams Safety Observations Tailboards

16 Testing the differences: DART Indicator Average DART Significant Difference, p< 05 Tracking *CAPS *Hazard Resolutions *Training *Near Misses Not Tracking Safety Teams Not Significant Difference, p> 05 Safety Observations Tailboards Recognition

17 1 st and 2 nd Quartile EEI Companies (Based on 2011 DART Rate) Safety Observations 100 % of 1 st and 2 nd quartile companies are tracking Close Calls 100 % of 1 st and 2 nd quartile companies are tracking CAPs Completed on Time 100% of 1 st quartile companies are tracking 71% of 2 nd quartile companies are tracking Training 100% of 1 st quartile companies are tracking 67% of 2 nd quartile companies are tracking 17

18 1 st and 2 nd Quartile EEI Companies (Based on 2011 DART Rate) Recognition 80% of 1 st quartile companies are tracking 67% of 2 nd quartile companies are tracking Safety Teams 60% of 1 st quartile companies are tracking 33% of 2 nd quartile companies are tracking Frequency of Tailboards 40% of 1 st quartile companies are tracking 33% of 2 nd quartile companies are tracking

19 EEI 2013 Leading Indicator Study

20 EEI Leading Indicator Study Objectives Benchmark the industry Determine best practices Determine the relationship leading indicators have with safety performance

21 EEI Leading Indicator Project Team Chuck Kelly, EEI Paul Mackintire, Northeast Utilities Bruce Bolger, Northeast Utilities Ray Kelly, DTE Energy Co. Gary Hatcher, AEP Keith Williams, Intec Larry Pena, SCE Blakely Smith, SCE

22 Methodology Survey launch: April 9, 2013 from EEI Platform: Survey Monkey Network: EEI membership 25 questions 12 demographic items including safety performance 5 items on 16 frequently reported leading indicators 7 items on general implementation of leading indicators

23 2013 Timeline Major Milestones Jan Feb Mar April May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 14 Planning and Survey Development Survey Launch and Data Collection Survey Promotion Survey Analysis Report out of results to membership

24 Planned Analysis Descriptive data for each question Averages Rankings Frequencies Additional analyses Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Comparisons of leading indicators to safety performance data Content analysis of comments and text **Please note: Data will be reported in aggregate form.

25 Preliminary Results

26 Preliminary Results as of 4/22/13: Demographics Number of responses : 11 Industry types: T&D: 100% Wind: 44% Gas: 66% Hydro: 44% Coal: 44% Nuclear: 22%

27 Preliminary Results as of 4/22/13: Most frequently tracked leading indicators Safety Observations Near Misses Safety Awards and Recognition Safety Training Work Readiness Safety Culture Perception

28 Preliminary Results as of 4/22/13: Leading indicators reported as most effective Safety Observations Leadership Engagement Near Misses

29 Preliminary Results as of 4/22/13: Who receives communication about leading indicators? Upper management only: 44% All management: 55% All employees: 33%

30 Preliminary Results as of 4/10/13: At what level are you reporting? Corporate Level: 55% Individual Organizational Unit Level: 66% Local Site Level: 66%

31 Accessing the Survey Indicators

32 Questions?