Salary incentivised safety ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hucking Fell
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salary incentivised safety ?
One for peeps currently employed in safety depts. In a new initiative to retain staff and incentivise them, my organisation recently asked me to come up with some safety milestones/KPIs etc so that achievement (or otherwise) can be rewarded (or otherwise) in the next financial year - which is a first for me.
Anyone else in a similar workplace scheme ? Views and thoughts anyone.
Mni tks
BS
Anyone else in a similar workplace scheme ? Views and thoughts anyone.
Mni tks
BS
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are positives andnegatives to this proposal; the negative is simply that incentivising safety may be a conflict of interest with some of the fundamental concepts of safety management, there are however positives.
Many aviation business’s incentivise their senior management with safety metrics, the argument for incentivising safety professionals is that without incentivising them the independence of the safety professional means that they have little or no vested interest inthe safety performance of the organisation, thus by incentivising them there isa reason for them to actively participate just that little bit more.
I have heard of some ratherodd metrics for safety and some goodones, common metrics are audit close out speed, overdue audit findings,findings open more than a certain period, the number of aircraft accidents byseverity level, the number of safety meetings / toolbox talks attended, sitevisits etc…
The rights and wrongs ofthe system are entirely down to the individual organisation and both approaches have merit.
If you can find someone from the oil & gas end of the industry they will be able to give you far more information on this, PM me and I'll point you in the direction of somone who may be able to give you more information.
Miles
Many aviation business’s incentivise their senior management with safety metrics, the argument for incentivising safety professionals is that without incentivising them the independence of the safety professional means that they have little or no vested interest inthe safety performance of the organisation, thus by incentivising them there isa reason for them to actively participate just that little bit more.
I have heard of some ratherodd metrics for safety and some goodones, common metrics are audit close out speed, overdue audit findings,findings open more than a certain period, the number of aircraft accidents byseverity level, the number of safety meetings / toolbox talks attended, sitevisits etc…
The rights and wrongs ofthe system are entirely down to the individual organisation and both approaches have merit.
If you can find someone from the oil & gas end of the industry they will be able to give you far more information on this, PM me and I'll point you in the direction of somone who may be able to give you more information.
Miles
Guest
Posts: n/a
An interesting challenge for you Burr, and easy for a boss to ask for but less so to make happen. Miles has mentioned some metrics - as he says, some good, others not so. Several of the ones he mentions are a bit reactive - things only get counted after they've gone wrong, and meetings etc. are only of value if they achieve something positive. But he's quite right, they get used, probably because they're easy to count!
Maybe more pro-active measures might be numbers of recommendations from surveys (we do 'safety surveys' in the the ATC world although there's little common agreement on what they are). Often more interesting - if you've got enough data - are the trends.
I've seen good - and easily visible - results from analysis of occurrence reports where severity of events could be seen to move from serious to less serious classification and a quick survey pretty much confirmed that increased awareness and better adherence to procedures (promoted by safety the people) contributed to the improvement.
Unfortunately the only good indicators that I've come across need analysis and often are compound indicators which draw conclusions from several sources of raw data - just counting chickens/events only tells you how many chickens or events you have. Show an improving trend and there is often doubt whether it's real or under-reporting or people have found a way to fool the system.
One thing that I have seen is that financial incentives don't motivate people for long - and the amounts involved where I have seen it used were not great. Recognition seems to be a greater motivator if used in the right way - 'Employee of the month' sort of thing. Got any tame psychologists who can advise?
HTH, a bit anyways.
Maybe more pro-active measures might be numbers of recommendations from surveys (we do 'safety surveys' in the the ATC world although there's little common agreement on what they are). Often more interesting - if you've got enough data - are the trends.
I've seen good - and easily visible - results from analysis of occurrence reports where severity of events could be seen to move from serious to less serious classification and a quick survey pretty much confirmed that increased awareness and better adherence to procedures (promoted by safety the people) contributed to the improvement.
Unfortunately the only good indicators that I've come across need analysis and often are compound indicators which draw conclusions from several sources of raw data - just counting chickens/events only tells you how many chickens or events you have. Show an improving trend and there is often doubt whether it's real or under-reporting or people have found a way to fool the system.
One thing that I have seen is that financial incentives don't motivate people for long - and the amounts involved where I have seen it used were not great. Recognition seems to be a greater motivator if used in the right way - 'Employee of the month' sort of thing. Got any tame psychologists who can advise?
HTH, a bit anyways.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OOooo... There's the big one. How do you reward safety? If you pay a bonus for 'safety,' you'll probably kill incident reporting overnight and end up like a third world airline. An airline that is so safe they have no incidents (reported) whatsoever. Taking the opposite approach may pay dividends, if you can control the paperwork, that is. If you publish each and every report, score them and say what you have done to fix the reported problems you can then have a 'no-strings-attached' party to calibrate the open culture you have created, sponsored by the Safety Dept. Cash is not a motivator.
PM
PM
BTDT
Come up with a measurement system either monentary or process related..
A process metric might be an agreed (peer review) safety memonics at a measuarble level ... say incidents per month, etc. Then demonstrate process controls that react to this that are within a reasonable budget.
A second system is monetary controlled, only the measurement much furthur up the line than a process driven budget.
My example used was the relative cost of liability insurrance on a year to year basis between similar safety related businesses. You need financial data for this one between business divisions.
I was able to show a relationship between product unit exposure and the cost of insurance based on the insurrance carriers risk assesment. If you are able to show that you are typically lower or trending lower than your processes are working within your unit.
Come up with a measurement system either monentary or process related..
A process metric might be an agreed (peer review) safety memonics at a measuarble level ... say incidents per month, etc. Then demonstrate process controls that react to this that are within a reasonable budget.
A second system is monetary controlled, only the measurement much furthur up the line than a process driven budget.
My example used was the relative cost of liability insurrance on a year to year basis between similar safety related businesses. You need financial data for this one between business divisions.
I was able to show a relationship between product unit exposure and the cost of insurance based on the insurrance carriers risk assesment. If you are able to show that you are typically lower or trending lower than your processes are working within your unit.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hucking Fell
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps one and all,
many thanks for your responses and sharing your thoughts - interesting one eh. I (and I suspect pretty much anyone in a similar post) don't require further incentivisation, you do the job, probably for a whole range of ultruistic reasons. Some of your responses mirrored my thoughts, and some brought in new ideas. My view is to stick to tangible and achievable targets. Trend reduction (of a something) I think is good, achievement of an annual audit plan would be another, emergency response plan exercised would be in there, something from the FDM/FOQA/FDAP programme might be worth doing (reduction in unstable approaches ?) reduction in the amount of findings against us by the local CAA (already low) might be a candidate.
The whole area of safety reporting (which for all of us is really still an "Honesty" reporting system) would be very easy to inadvertently switch off, by having a campaign to drive down the number of reports, this could be disasterous. The converse being a campaign to improve reporting, already quite good in my company.
Every company is different, and I think the creative answer for where I am regarding the question posed, is now starting to get some clarity and substance.
I also think the subject could be a whole thesis for somebody, but I'm currently too busy with the day job to enjoy that indulgence. Has it ever been done/researched, any Pruners done a paper on this ?
Anyway, once again, thanks all - appreciated
BS
many thanks for your responses and sharing your thoughts - interesting one eh. I (and I suspect pretty much anyone in a similar post) don't require further incentivisation, you do the job, probably for a whole range of ultruistic reasons. Some of your responses mirrored my thoughts, and some brought in new ideas. My view is to stick to tangible and achievable targets. Trend reduction (of a something) I think is good, achievement of an annual audit plan would be another, emergency response plan exercised would be in there, something from the FDM/FOQA/FDAP programme might be worth doing (reduction in unstable approaches ?) reduction in the amount of findings against us by the local CAA (already low) might be a candidate.
The whole area of safety reporting (which for all of us is really still an "Honesty" reporting system) would be very easy to inadvertently switch off, by having a campaign to drive down the number of reports, this could be disasterous. The converse being a campaign to improve reporting, already quite good in my company.
Every company is different, and I think the creative answer for where I am regarding the question posed, is now starting to get some clarity and substance.
I also think the subject could be a whole thesis for somebody, but I'm currently too busy with the day job to enjoy that indulgence. Has it ever been done/researched, any Pruners done a paper on this ?
Anyway, once again, thanks all - appreciated
BS
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be very hard to pick specific KPIs but you can make sure that you don't incentivise behaviour that results in a negative impact on safety. Try inverting the question. 'What behaviour are we currently incentivising that will result in unsafe behaviour?'. For example if you tie your staff's pay directly to something like on time performance you will inevitably get people cutting corners to get the aircraft away on time.
Safety is an outcome of decisions. Using metric such as incidents reported is always fraught with danger as other posters have already said. My experience is that the best way to encourage safe behaviour is public support for staff who make a decision in the name of safety that will obviously cost the company some money. This is particularly he case if the person has personally made a mistake which leads to the situation in the first place (eg service a gearbox with the wrong type of oil) but their decision to put their hand up prevents a greater risk.
Safety is an outcome of decisions. Using metric such as incidents reported is always fraught with danger as other posters have already said. My experience is that the best way to encourage safe behaviour is public support for staff who make a decision in the name of safety that will obviously cost the company some money. This is particularly he case if the person has personally made a mistake which leads to the situation in the first place (eg service a gearbox with the wrong type of oil) but their decision to put their hand up prevents a greater risk.
