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

Popular posts from this blog

@safetitude: 6-Steps Total Safety Culture Model