From: "Frazier, Alicia S" <Alicia.S.Frazier**At_Symbol_Here**TSOCORP.COM>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Simple benchmarking scale for safety
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:41:20 +0000
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: A0025A77856AD04B9890FF6917BE3C057E6FBF43**At_Symbol_Here**sacorxm01

An example of the difference between leading and lagging indicators:


Lagging indicators include data on incidents/events ( injuries, fires, explosions, near miss, near hit, etc.)


Leading indicators could include how many safety checklist audits did the lab complete or how many employees completed safety training on topics such as safe handling of compressed gases.


Lagging are what happened (in the past distant or recent)  and Leading are those things routinely done that are known to prevent or reduce severity of incidents.


Both are useful, especially when one wants to see if their culture is changing.



Adapting, as I understand on the list below, simply would mean taking safety into consideration becomes part of how ones does things.   Some people use the term  "safety DNA" it is just part of the task to evaluate where the hazards are in the task, if the equipment is the right equipment, make sure that the appropriate controls are in place.


From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**]On Behalf Of Laurie Yoder
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Simple benchmarking scale for safety


I can understand 0 through 3. Would someone be willing to offer a brief explanation what is meant by "leading and lagging" and "adapting"? (I'm fairly new to the official safety world).


Laurie M. Yoder

Assistant Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Hygiene Officer

Eastern Mennonite University

1200 Park Road

Harrisonburg, VA 22802


On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Daniel Crowl <crowl**At_Symbol_Here**> wrote:

?With all these lab incidents there has been a lot of discussion about what to do.  One thing that is missing is a simple benchmarking scale to gauge your safety program.


Last July I was at a process safety workshop in Hong Kong and saw a presentation by Hugh Sullivan of ERM - a consulting firm.  He presented a scale that works for all safety programs, including lab safety and process safety.  I took the liberty of adding a 0 on the scale because, sadly, I have encountered this many times.


The benchmarking scale is:


0 - no safety program, maybe even disdain for safety.

1 - reacts to accidents only

2 - follows rules and regulations

3 - management systems exist such as hazard analysis, pre-startup reviews, etc.

4 - performance indicators - including leading and lagging

5 - adapting - safety is a core value


Several comments:


a. you need to work your way up thru the scale - you can't jump from 2 to 5

b. many folks think that following all rules and regulations is adequate.  Sorry, but that only gets you to a 2.


Dan Crowl

Adjunct Professor, University of Utah

Professor Emeritus, Michigan Tech University




Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.