EvaluacionDesempeñoPRL

8/12/2019 EvaluacionDesempeoPRL

1/11

Usage of individual performance indicators as occupational accidents

traceability and predictability data

Ph.D.Iorga IonelGeneral Manager of the Romanian National Research Institute onOccupational Safety INCDPM Alexandru Darabont

/[email protected]

Ph.D.Kovacs tefanThe Romanian National Research Institute on Occupational SafetyINCDPM Alexandru Darabont

/[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are used relatively frequently in the assessment and

benchmarking processes, considering their role to express certain situation through

reporting to the business process. Process safety uses a lot of KPI to describe different

safety aspects.

Individual Key Performance Indicators could describe the performance of the employee

together with his/hers wellbeing at the workplace. This kind of KPIs could be collectedby the employees, by their supervisors and line management and also by the HR

specialist inside the enterprise.

In this paper, we describe a research performed by INCDPM, research regarding thedevelopment of a safety management system using KPIs as occupational accidents

traceability and predictability data. The system improves significantly the safety

management inside the enterprise by focusing on the individual employee and itssafety performance expressed through KPIs.A number of 50 KPIs were developed forthis research, KPIs could be then clustered in order to have a global safety image at

the workplace, or aggregated- to have an accurate safety image for the employee.

KeywordsKey Performance Indicators, Work Safety, System integration

INTRODUCTION

An effective set of enterprise key indicators could provide feedback to individuals,

groups, and the enterprise, directing the behaviour of all.

Measures of performance have been used by management for centuries to review

current operational capabilities. Chan (2004) has shown that such measures have beenused to assess both departmental and corporate performance, as well as trend

performance achieved against plan. The problem, as discussed by Mcneeney (2005)

was to choose the right indicators for the right job.

Generally (Eurocontrol, 2006; CCG, 2008; Ngo, 2010) these measurements are relatedto safety (number of incidents), environmental (number of releases), costs

(percentage of departmental budgets used), and production (comparison of actual vs.

targeted production output), being needed in order to determine not only if resources

and costs have been managed for the production achieved, but also whether the assetsor plant remain in good health. In order to define a complete set of performance

measures, companies must ensure that simple, workable measures are in place. The

real challenge is not only to select those indicators that satisfy budgetary goals, but

also to build the activities needed to meet the levels of asset performance required to

meet strategic goals.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/11

Selecting the right measures is vital for effectiveness. Even more importantly, themetrics must be built into a performance measurement system that allows individuals

and groups to understand how their behaviours and activities are fulfilling the overall

corporate goals. Such tools (Ouchi, 2001; Kennedy, 2002, O Neill, 2007, Nguyen,

2010) are in various stages of development.

Key performance indicators (KPIs) could be considered as the simple metrics that canbe used to evaluate individual behavior (and also business data) against business

goals.

KPIs are a central way of presenting business intelligence for an organization. Alsoknown as status indicators or scorecards, KPIs evaluate business data against business

goals and display current status by using easy-to-understand graphical indicators.

KPIs increase the speed and efficiency of evaluating progress against key businessgoals. Without KPIs, employees and business managers would have to painstakinglyextract performance data and evaluate that data against goals, and then spend the

time to present that data in a separate report for business decision makers. It is

difficult to get timely status without a way to quickly and automatically evaluate live

data. With KPIs, users who want to find out current performance can look quickly at areport in their business site, or even see relevant indicators in their personal sites.

Each KPI gets a single value from a data source, either from a single property or by

calculating averages across the selected data, and then compares that value against apreselected value. Because values are calculated across a range of data rather than

displaying data in list form, KPIs tend to be more useful when measuring performance

across groups or projects. However, by calculating a range of data for a specific

person, such as a list of sales for a single employee, a KPI can evaluate individualperformance(RapidBi, 2010).

Individual safety performance could also be evaluated using individual KPIs or

individual performance indicators (IPIs). KPIs could be equalled with IPIs as long as nokey indicators could be defined exactly so we are using the term KPI or IKPI

(Individual Key Performance Indicators) in this paper.

The paper presents a complex system to define IKPIs, cluster and aggregate them inorder to perform occupational accident (occupational risk) trasability and predictibility-

as a step forward in risk management.

An agreeement between employers and employee to reward a safety behaviour and to

correct an unsafety one, could be based entirely on a KPI (IKPI) system that wouldidentify, pursue, assess and analyse individual KPI

To use KPIs, you must first define them and create a KPI list.

BUILDING SAFETY PERFORMANCE METRICS AND KPIs

The metrics being developed must sustain the strategic goals of the company, two of

these main goals being the loss and incident reduction as shown by recent research(Cox, 2003;PI, 2010;Jackson ,2010). Therefore, when building performance metrics,

the process must begin with the end result in mind. We need to focus on what we want

as outcomes of our work processes. One major outcome would be to improve thesafety performance parameters of the individual worker. By being tracked in a number

of KPIs the worker is aware on his/hers responsibilities and would play safe in order to

not be substandard reported to KPIs

From this strategic goal, perspectives have been defined which are specific to three

functions: Operations, Loss Control, and Safety and Environmental. The Operations


3/11

perspective follows the maximization of the results being at the same time ALARP. Loss

control follows the minimization of loss, Safety follows the minimization of incidents

and the desire to stop them to become accidents, Environment is followed in connexion

with the durable development. From each of these perspectives, tactical metrics can be

set to stimulate new outcomes, build new processes, and build skill development and

learningall with clear links to the goals of each individual perspective. Now the value

of performance improvements can be easily seen and used to drive changes in

functional behaviours and functional interactions.

Metrics that build upon individual perspective goals need to be mapped from the lower-

level operational measure to higher-level strategic measures. For example, within the

Operations perspective, a strategic KPI candidate could be Skill upgrade.

Improvements in this metric will result in a better work process and a better quality of

the output.

In order to built an effective unexpected event (materialized in loss and/or

incidents/accidents) traceability and predictability instrument we have selected a

number of 50 primary KPIs that could be estimated by the management, by the

supervisors or by the worker by himself. From these 50 KPIs we have selected for this

paper the most important ones, the worker Satisfaction Index, the Continuous

Improvement (through a continuous learning process) Index and also the Behaviour

Index. The idea is simple; a good satisfaction leads towards the desire of continuous

improvement and also towards a good behaviour. The behaviour could also be

influenced by the immediate physical and psychical state of the worker and also by the

accidentogen and loss trends.

The figure 1 shows all these elements assembled in what we called the Individual KPI

engine. It is the starting point in using KPI to track future safety problems and predict

also undesired outcomes.

There is a strategic perspective built around the three main elements, Operations, Loss

Control and Safety which influences all the metrics definitions (Tanaka, 2004).

There is also a tactical perspective that involves the primary KPIs or PKPIs which could

be directly assessed (for example, the Accidentogen Trend through the number of

incidents which were started by the worker or in which the worker was involved or the

Loss Trend through the value of loss/worker) or which could be assessed through the

worker input (for example the Satisfaction Index which could be introduced by the

worker at the end of every workday) or through the direct supervisor input (the

Behaviour) or through the Continuous Improvement (Continuous Learning).The

Satisfaction Index is influencing directly the Continuous Improvement and also the

Behaviour.


4/11

Figure 1 The Individual Key Performance Engine

As with many management issues, it is often best to build an individual KPI solution in

stages. Suggested stages for performance indicators are:

1. Define the links between corporate goals and major operational perspectives.

2. Map these strategic links to required processes in each perspective area.

3. Define a set of near-term and medium-term metrics which drive the new outcomes

in each perspective.

4. Define the gaps and dependencies across the organization which will need to be

bridged to result in corporate success.

5. Identify the people which could decisively influence this bridge.

6. Obtain the cooperation of these people in order to be KPI-zed.

7. Develop an integrated track system

8. Implement the metrics, follow the feedback and monitor to secure the strategic

results.

In order to evaluate the KPIs there must be a very simple and understandable system

which should allow the (auto)assessment also by the worker (for satisfaction),superviser (for behavior) or specialized HR services.This system was built using as

reference scale the Likert scale, with a range of values between 0(worst) to 5


5/11

(excellent).Using this scale we could put together different types of values in the ideea

of performing trasability and predictibility.

THE KPI FRAMEWORK

Using an Artificial Intelligence methodology, the individual KPI could be seen as a

knowledge island, stating specific knowledge regarding a certain human attribute. This

knowledge island could be actually built as a knowledge structure, with figure 2presenting the basic KPI framework.

There are 2 main interfaces (beyond the Administrator interface).

-The input interface collects the instant value of the KPI (for example satisfaction index

on 12.03.2010 is 4), indicates if the worker agreed with the KPI and also indicates theKPI state. It could be:

-Closed: The KPI is set up at a specific value (for example, over 25 years for a KPI that

expresses the age at the workplace)

-Upgraded;-In pursuit: for a KPI that is continuously estimated, like the behaviour of the worker;

-Non-applicable;

Figure 2 Basic KPI frameworks


6/11

KPI PROCESSMENT

KPI could be processed in two ways.

-1.Through clustering. A KPI cluster is done for a workplace or for a small enterprise,

including the analysis of KPIs from more than one worker.

For example, we could use a Behaviour cluster which could indicate the globalbehaviour of the work team at the workplace. If this behaviour is below 3 it is possibleto predict the apparition of unexpected events very soon.

Another interesting cluster could be the Satisfaction index cluster. If the Satisfaction

index at the workplace is below 2.5 then it could be stressed that the workers at that

workplace have not the necessary incentives in order to perform correspondingly and

sooner or later could appear work problems (not necessary accidents).Figure 3 showsthe general clustering concepts.

Figure 3 Clustering concepts

Clustering could be performed:

-over time: on regular time intervals yearly for example;

-over specific situations- for example, on overload;

Clustering gives:


7/11


8/11

Figure 5 KPI aggregation

OBTAINED RESULTS

A structure of more than 50 individual KPIs, based on specific risk ontology was

developed accordingly with the presented aspects. We are testing this system in two

SMEs, each with 200 employees, in Bucharest.

The processing of these KPIs is very simple. Some KPIs, like the Satisfaction Index

(for the day being worked) are introduced by the employees at the end of the day ofwork. Some other KPI like the Behaviour are introduced by the supervisors at the end

of the work week together with data regarding weeks loss or produced incidents.

At the end of the trimester, the system is generating a safety topic map, indicating theglobal KPI image for each working place and also indicating the safety trend- computedas an ponder ate average of individual KPIs for every worker.

Such a safety topic map for the first trimester of a furniture making SME, Assembly

workplace is presented in figure 6.


9/11

Figure 6. Safety topic map


10/11

CONCLUSIONS

This paper shows the most interesting aspects regarding a safety tracking and

predictability system based on individual key performance indicators. This research is

under development at the Romanian National Research Institute on OccupationalSafety, being tested at this moment in two different enterprises. This system could beimplemented and used in the enterprises regardless of their activity and of their

number of employees in order to control loss at workplace and to manage efficientlyrisks. Also, by implementing this system and by making the employees to understand

the importance of KPI collection and analysis at the workplace a powerful and optimalsafety culture could be built in the enterprise.

Some of the KPi are introduced directly by the employee (like the Satisfaction Index).

Other KPI are defined by the workplace supervisor, by the HR manager and also by the

line and top management. Some primary KPI like loss or incidents are data resultingfrom the day to day activity collected by the management and connected to a specific

employee who is responsible for the loss or for the incident occurrence. The main

problem- and blessing- of the Individual Key Performance Indicators (IKPI) is that theymust be transparent. The employee should be informed at regular intervals how she or

he performed taking safety into account, the eventual problems (identified and showedby the Safety Topic Maps) should be discussed and decisions should be made in order

to improve the situation. Through the improvement of IKPI there are solved not just

the safety problems but a lot of other things, the most important being- in our opinion,

the satisfaction of the employee at the workplace (which leads to the continuousimprovement of the quality of the work results and outputs) and also the behaviorproblem. An unpredictable behavior leads to a loose gun at workplace which could

lead to a lot of troubles.

In dealing with KPI based safety management the just culture concept must beconsidered at every moment. The non-intentional wrong behavior must not be

punished necessarily but the employee with this behavior must be trainedcorrespondingly in order to change its behavior, the training must be tested and re-

tested before the worker is allowed back to work.

The social responsible management is not exactly a new concept but is a very powerful

one, the cooperation between the management and the employees being the key tosuccess. Individual safety and work satisfaction monitoring and management

(traceability and prediction being included in this management) through KPI could be

an efficient way in order to assure a desired level of stability and efficiency at theworkplace.


11/11

REFERENCES

1.Albert P.C. Chan, Ada P.L. Chan(2004),Key performance indicators for measuringconstruction success, in Benchmarking: An International Journal, Volume: 11Issue: 2 ,Page: 203 221,ISSN: 1463-5771,Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing

Limited

2.Anthony McNeeney, Meridium, (2005), Selecting the Right Key PerformanceIndicators, in Maintenance Technology, http://www.mt-online.com/component/content/article/103-april2005/639-selecting-the-right-key-

performance-indicators.html?directory=90

3.Construction Clients Group (2008), HEALTH AND SAFETY KEY PERFORMANCEINDICATORS CCG1 Key Performance Indicators2 for the UK Construction (Industry)2008-

2012.http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/sectorforums/constructionclientsgro

up/downloads/CCG%20KPI's%20for%20Industry.pdf

4.Davi Ngo, hrvinet.com (2010), Health and safety KPI, in HR Management,http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/health-and-safety-kpi/

5.Eurocontrol (2006), A framework of indicators for the potential influence of ANS onair traffic safety in Europe, Report Commissioned by the Performance ReviewCommission, NLR-CR-2006-111

6.Kennedy, Michael B. (2002), Method, process and apparatus to identify, define andqualify applied technologies for business and government operations rules for the

purpose of modeling and conducting project feasibilities and risk assessments,

United States Patent Application 20030130859

7.Nguyen, Kiet Q. ,Reddy, Annapureddy S.,Tangirala, Shubha S.(2010),MANAGEMENT OF BUSINESS PROCESS KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, United

States Patent Application 20100023362

8.O'Neill, Michael J., (2007) Employee performance returns on investment, UnitedStates Patent Application 20090106062

9.Ouchi N. (2001), Object based workflow route, United States Patent Application20030078820

10.Profiles International (2010), Profiles Performance Indicator Management Reports,

http://www.profilesinternational.com/sol_keyperf.aspx

11.RapidBi (2010), Sample Key Performance Indicators,http://rapidbi.com/created/SampleKeyPerformanceIndicatorsKPI.html

12.Cox, Raja, Dar Ahrens, (2003), Managements Perception of Key Performance

Indicators for Construction, J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt. Volume 129, Issue 2, pp.

142-151 (March/April 2003)

13.S. Jackson H (2010) How Measuring Key Performance Indicators Can Improve E-

Commerce Strategy., in Business know-howhttp://www.businessknowhow.com/internet/kpi3.htm

14.Tanaka, Motoo (2004), Multi-perspective enterprise management tool, UnitedStates Patent Application 20040054562
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htmhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771/11http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771/11/2http://www.mt-online.com/component/content/article/103-april2005/639-selecting-the-right-key-performance-indicators.html?directory=90http://www.mt-online.com/component/content/article/103-april2005/639-selecting-the-right-key-performance-indicators.html?directory=90http://www.mt-online.com/component/content/article/103-april2005/639-selecting-the-right-key-performance-indicators.html?directory=90http://www.mt-online.com/component/content/article/103-april2005/639-selecting-the-right-key-performance-indicators.html?directory=90http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/health-and-safety-kpi/http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/health-and-safety-kpi/http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/health-and-safety-kpi/http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/health-and-safety-kpi/http://www.profilesinternational.com/sol_keyperf.aspxhttp://www.profilesinternational.com/sol_keyperf.aspxhttp://rapidbi.com/created/SampleKeyPerformanceIndicatorsKPI.htmlhttp://rapidbi.com/created/SampleKeyPerformanceIndicatorsKPI.htmlhttp://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=ASCERL&possible1=Ahrens%2C+Dar&possible1zone=author&maxdisp=25&smode=strresults&aqs=truehttp://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=ASCERL&possible1=Ahrens%2C+Dar&possible1zone=author&maxdisp=25&smode=strresults&aqs=truehttp://www.businessknowhow.com/internet/kpi3.htmhttp://www.businessknowhow.com/internet/kpi3.htmhttp://www.businessknowhow.com/internet/kpi3.htmhttp://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=ASCERL&possible1=Ahrens%2C+Dar&possible1zone=author&maxdisp=25&smode=strresults&aqs=truehttp://rapidbi.com/created/SampleKeyPerformanceIndicatorsKPI.htmlhttp://www.profilesinternational.com/sol_keyperf.aspxhttp://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/health-and-safety-kpi/http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/health-and-safety-kpi/http://www.mt-online.com/component/content/article/103-april2005/639-selecting-the-right-key-performance-indicators.html?directory=90http://www.mt-online.com/component/content/article/103-april2005/639-selecting-the-right-key-performance-indicators.html?directory=90http://www.mt-online.com/component/content/article/103-april2005/639-selecting-the-right-key-performance-indicators.html?directory=90http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771/11/2http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771/11http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

EvaluacionDesempeñoPRL

Documents

Transcript of EvaluacionDesempeñoPRL