內容摘要：我們人類喜歡測量任何事物。某些類型的測量數值具有積極意義，比方汽車內剩餘的汽油量。這樣的指標可以讓你確保車內有足夠的汽油可以帶你抵達目的地。
反之，部分類型的測量數據則沒那麼美好，比方傳統的安全指數測量。為什麼呢？傳統的安全指標只著重於一個面向：傷亡，並藉由這個指標來回答「安不安全？」這個問題。遺憾的是，這僅僅只是單一元素的量測。我們可以說這麼說：傷亡人數多就代表存有安全疑慮，若企業內因工受傷的勞工很多，就不會是一個成功的組織。
然而，沒有勞工傷亡就代表環境很安全嗎？或許是，也或許不是。零傷亡的結果可以是來自於確實執行的工安計畫，也可以只是一時好運。我們需要一個恰當的評估方式，不論傷亡數字是否為零，都是相當重要的基準。
「安全指標」可以用來確保勞工每天都能平安回家，也能用來了解實際工作過程是否安全無虞。你要如何認定自己是真的做得很好、或是只是好運降臨？近年，我們有兩種術語，分別稱為主動安全指標(Leading indicators) 及滯後安全指標 (Lagging indicator)。
詳閱全文翻譯請至：威煦軟體部落格
原文對照：The Campbell Institute: What are safety leading indicators?
We humans love to measure everything. Some measurements, like the gas gauge in our car showing how much fuel is remaining, are fantastic. There is a direct correlation with the level of fuel in the tank with having enough fuel to get to where you are going.
Some measurements are not so great, such as with traditional safety measures. Why? Safety traditionally looks at one metric – injuries – to answer the question, “Is it safe?” Unfortunately, this is only a one-dimensional measurement. It can be said that many injuries denotes an issue with a safety program. On that we can agree that success cannot exist if many workers are getting hurt. However, if no workers are getting hurt, does this then imply that all is safe? Perhaps yes and perhaps no. Zero injuries could be the result of a well-executed plan with an equally rigorous process of implementation where the work occurs. However, zero could also be due to sheer luck.
In effect, a balanced approach is necessary. Injuries – or the lack thereof – are a very important measurement. Safety exists to ensure workers go home safely each day. However, it is also important to understand if work is being done safely. Can you determine if you are truly good or simply lucky? In terms of recent vernacular, these two opposing metrics used to create a balanced scorecard are called leading and lagging safety indicators.… <READ MORE>