Why I called LTIFR- a DECEPTIVE
Thank you for your
overwhelming valuable comments/suggestion etc. on "Beware of LTIFR-It's
DECEPTIVE". I would like to state here that, through this write up, I
only affirmed views of many safety practitioners. I would also like to say
here, there is no harm in computing and publishing LTIFR. The only request I
wanted to make here that LTIFR is unable to provide you
any inference. A zero or near zero value may not reflect the
underlying safety weaknesses of the organisation rather it renders the
organisation complacence and in turn many good efforts in the direction of
reducing injury are lessened or given up. Contrary to this, big number
discourages the organisation and makes it feel low on this account. As such
your LTIFR should not drive your safety programs and action strategy. The gist
of the point is, we should keep our efforts directed towards reducing the
ARBs-at-risk behaviours of the workers and increase SBs-safe behaviours on
strong foundation of need based training/awareness, job safety knowledge, safe
physicochemical condition of workplace, adherence to safe procedures and
reward/recognition programs. A management based on such programs will result
into lesser no. of injury and your LTIFR automatically will be marginal. If
safety programs are ineffective, you will witness wavy LTIFR (irregular
high crest-deep trough through zero).
That is why I said
LTIFR a DECEPTIVE
Pl keeps on giving
feedback as usual for the benefits of the safety community.
Comments
Post a Comment